Traveller-digest    Tuesday, September 30 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1900



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller Campaign List Available
Re: Traveller in the Hall of Fame
Re: Traveller software
Re: Traveller Campaign List Available
Re: Animal Encounters; Errata for T4
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Very Sharp Knives
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: The Piracy Thread
RE: Constant Laser Fire
101 Religons
Re: Jump Projectors
Vogon Constructor Fleets
Magical Moments
Re: Traveller software
Emperor's Vehicles comments
Re: European members for BITS/BITS Product Availability
Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived
Re: Extended System Generation Question

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller Campaign List Available

>I have compiled almost all of the responses from my question
>about active Traveller campaigns.  Is there a Traveller website 
>out there that wants to host it (I transcribed the data into 
>..html format)?
>
>Also, who would NOT like their campaign on this list?
>
>Rob

Argh, my campaign just started last night!!!  I didn't make the deadline! :)

Semo

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:19:22 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Traveller in the Hall of Fame

Congrats!
 
John

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:44:14 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller software

I would like to see CT character generators, Planet Generators, Ship
Building programs and an Alien Creation program.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:12:38 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Campaign List Available

Go ahead and send your HTML document to me.  I run a Gamma World site
but had always planned to support Traveller too.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:00:14 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Animal Encounters; Errata for T4

Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:


Out of curiosity, what are you "Animal Encounters" people using for a
target number for your animals to attack somebody?

Since this was left out of T4, I was curious what you came up with, or
if you are using a conversion from CT, TNE, or MT.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:16:19 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

If a series of "core taps" were used on a planet, what kind of
destructive capabilities would the planetary defenses have if they
utilized every erg of power?

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:38:15 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Bruce Johnson wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Jory M. Earl wrote:
>
> > Couldn't you refine hydrogen from the oceans of the world in order to
> > "jump" it?
>
> Not enough, not by a long shot, and then you end up jumping a wrecked
> planet 1 parsec...once.
>
> Bruce Johnson
> University of Arizona
> College of Pharmacy
> Information Technology Group
>
> Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

 Then what is obviously needed is a new form of Jump Technology.  Any
ideas?

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:30:15 +0000
From: Guy Wilson <ccguy@showme.missouri.edu>
Subject: Re: Very Sharp Knives

Also, the Conquistadors in the American SW found that obsidian
arrow points would go through chainmail very easily. So how about
some type of glass-pointed crossbow bolt as a weapon against
cloth-type armors.

Guy Wilson

Bruce Johnson wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David 'Washu' Moodie wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for that, I'll put the glass blades & or lubricant at TL-8 and have
> > a steady progression in nano-technology that should peak around or before
> > the 3I probably. I'll put some kind of shape-manipulating field at higher
> > levels I guess.
>
> One minor point...those 'glass blades' are literally stone age technology,
> TL0, being knapped pieces of obsidian. The TL-1-2 Mayans used obsidian
> blades like that for surgery, and fairly similar blades were in use in
> delicate things like eye surgery until lasers came into widespread use in
> the last few decades.
>
> Bruce Johnson
> University of Arizona
> College of Pharmacy
> Information Technology Group
>
> Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:24:43 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Doug Berry writes:
>At 12:50 PM 9/29/97 -0700, J-Man wrote:
>>My next question is, what tech level can planets be made "Jump capable"?
>
>You are part of an evil plot involving the Coca-Cola bottling company to
>increase their profits by making spit their products all over my computer.
>I imagine that Dell is involved also.
>
>As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but let's
>have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
>
>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
>
>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
>
>Jump Drive Volume:  2.1736x10^19 m^3
>Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
>Jump Drive Cost:    6.5208x10^18 MCr
>Jump Grid Area:     7.65099x10^9 m^2
>Jump Fuel (1 jump): 1.0868x10^20 m^3

The fuel is the real killer problem, of course... you need planetfuls
of fuel to jump planets around.  Pity, that.

The rest of it, if you think about it, isn't so bad.  6.5 ExaCredits
isn't too unreasonable, the whole 1100 3rd Imperium has 11k worlds,
of which 1/36th have pop A (10s of billions) and 2/36th have pop 9
(1s of billions); assuming a median multiplier of 3.3, that's a
total population of slightly larger than 1.2E13, with an annual naval
budget of Cr500 times that or Cr6E15.  We're within a couple of orders
of magnitude of being able to pay the annual maintenance on a whole-planet
sized drive...

If you scale it down some, making the assumption that warships cost
MCr1/ton new and maintenance is 10% of hull cost, the Imperium could
build large jump-capable battle stations of say 1.5% of total available
funds that was in the 1E15 ton range, which works out to 186 kilometer
radius (about 370 kilometer diameter)...  and if a hundred-kton warship
gets a hundred megajoule spinal mount, then this guy could mount say a
trillion-megajoule spinal mount particle accellerator, which is the
same energy as a 250 gigaton nuclear bomb.  Heck, that would do a number
on a whole planet...

Thermal management would be a real mess, though... you'd have to have
very complex and vulnerable cooling systems to dissipate all the waste
heat from the power plants ;-)

[The Final THUDD proposal: detail design of the Death Star, film at 11!]

- -george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:
> 
> >On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
> > 
> >>>>And the average answer is roughly 5 trillion credit squadrons per billion 
> >>>>people living in the sector. That's what I've been trying to get across. 

I must have missed something - is the military budget 500 cr per person
per year, or per month?  (hmmm...do I have a copy of TCS around
somewhere?)

SpinWard Marches Sector - data taken from "Supplement 3 The Spinward  
Marches" (more data coming)

[snip]

> >Any single starport can only build so many ships at a time.  And,
> >commercially, you are only going to build the capacity that will be used,
> >not the maximum the planet can support.
> 
> The shipyard sizes defined by TCS (roughly 1T/year capacity per 1000
> citizens  --  there are also government modifiers, but it averages out
> at 1) are for military ships only. All commercial traffic is ignored
> (except that the civilian shipyards must be the reason why shipyard capacity 
> can increase dramatically from one week to the next when a world goes on a 
> war footing).  
> 
> >So, back to the question that spawned this data deluge - how many ships
> >will a starport be able to build?
> 
> Sample world with 50 billion inhabitants:

A population of 50 Billion indicates a Pop A world (defined as
tens of billions). Your "sample" slants the scale to the extreme top end
of the charts, and has a single world population greater than the Cronor,
Querion, Darrian, Five Sisters, Jewell, Vilis, Sword Worlds, District 268,
Lanth, Lunion or Glisten _Sub Sectors_.  For that matter, your single
sample has a population greater than Cronor, Querion, Darrian,  Five
Sisters, Vilis, District 268, Lanth, and Glisten combined (49 Billion).
The entire Spinward Marches sector has a population of 872.123 Billion
and 11 Pop A planets.

> 
> Military shipyard capacity: 50,000,000 T/year
> Naval budget: MCr 25,000,000/year
> Fleet size: 500,000,000 T*
> 
> Shipyard utilization:
> 	New construction: 10,000,000 T/year**
> 	Maintenance:      10,000,000 T/year***

Population distribution for Class A and B starports in the Spinward
Marches - circa 1100
	
     Starport Starport	
Pop	A	 B
===  =======  ========
1	2	2
2	4	1
3	1	6
4	5	18
5	10	19
6	5	25
7	3	23
8	4	17
9	11	5
A	5	2

While Pop A worlds are associated with starship building starports, the
bulk of the class A starports are either Pop 9 (Billions) or Pop 5
(Hundreds of Thousands).  The bulk of the Type B (spaceship) starports
range from Pop 4 (Tens of Thousands) to Pop 8 (Hundreds of Millions).  Of
the 3 TL - F Class A starports I mentioned in an earlier post, Glisten has
a Pop 9, Rhylanor has a Pop 9, and Mora is a Pop A.

Based on these numbers, I'd be looking at much, much lower figures for a
military budget.

> 
> *Assuming average warship costs MCr0.5 per T; this is propably not far wrong
>  for jump-6 ships; for a system defense boat it would be more like 0.85, but
>  let's be conservative here).


Considering that we have some fairly active ship-designers on the list, we
should be able to get pretty accurate numbers.  Anyone care to comment?

> 
> **Assuming useful life of a warship is 50 years.

Useful perhaps.  Effective lifespan I would argue... (useful relating to
the lifespan of the components, effective relating to the military value)
But then, that's what the Reserve fleets are for, right?

[snip - I am not going to argue the points in this section.  Based on the
numbers you are presenting, you present a compelling case. However, I
still feel that the numbers are biased too high...]

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:27:49 +0000
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: RE: Constant Laser Fire

At 01:50 PM 9/30/97 +1000, you wrote:
>
>>> Ok, in FF&S it says Direct Electrical Input lasers have a homopolar
>>> generator strapped to them to provide power (in other words a battery).
>>> What would be the damage effects of strapping a power plant to the
>>> laser (most likely fusion) and firing a continuous beam? Obviously
>>> there'd be some cooling problems, but my best guess is eventually the
>>> laser would penetrate most armour and cause nasty amounts of damage in
>>> a short space of time...
>
>> One way to handle it is to consider the weapon to have a high ROF.
>> If the normal laser pulse is 0.01 seconds long, you have 100 'pulses'
>> per second, and a ROF of 500 (5x100).  The penetration will only
>> increase if the target obliges by standing still long enough.
>> A couple of problems, however. 
>
>My theory is you can hold a steady beam for a few seconds then you have
>to let the whole thing cool down, but if the pulse rate is 100 per second
>even a moving target should be easy to cut through...hmmm..
>
>> In order to get that high a ROF, the focal array has to be beefed up
>> substantially (an FA multiplier of 2000).  Also, your 0.01 MJ laser
>
>FA of 2000? Hmm, must have overlooked that somewhere...I'm not that clued
>up on Laser physics so I thought leaving a laser on constantly for a few
>seconds couldn't hurt... They do in laser light shows etc...
>

	You cannot vaporize Mom's minivan with the lasers in a laser light show.

>> (typical for a laser pistol) now requires a 1 MW power input.
>
>Hehe Fusion power at Tl-17 can get pretty compact!
>
>
>>Nitpick: the homopolar generator is not a battery (in the sense of
>>long-term power storage) - it's acting as a capacitor since the
>>battery does not have the power output needed to power the laser pulse
>>directly.
>Yeah I know... but I meant it in the scale of a device that is rated in Mj
>storage rather than Mw output (where Mw's are Mj's over time yes?)
>
>
>David Moodie
>_______________________________________________________
>THE MANY FACES OF WASHU/NENE ROMANOVA GALLERIES       
>http://www.st.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dmoodie/index.html  
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Worshipper of Washu, Nene & Traveller : TNE ^-^ 
>


Tim Connors

You can't fall off of the floor --
	Most human beings take two years to learn this.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:07:42 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: 101 Religons

Timothy Collinson Wrote;
>Having said all this, I confess that I don't exactly create hundreds of
>religions (!) so it's not really a problem anyway.  Perhaps it could be a
>new BITS book, 101 Religions.  Anyone interested if I started putting some
>together?

Oooo Sounds good!

It would have to be in the same format; just a couple of paragraphs with
the URP and a bit of detail to fill out the edges.

I'll volunteer for 20 or so!

Pete


Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:04:49 -0500
From: "Linda Baxter" <Baxter@midusa.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

> From: Michael D. Peters <Letterworks@Comten.com>
> We COULD tell..... but then we would have to destroy you!!!!
> 
> Fear the Forerunners, Grandfather was only a kid!

Ah! Another Andre Norton reader. :-)

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:43:10 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Vogon Constructor Fleets

Hey, Look! J-man wants to be the advocate for the Vogon Constructor Fleets.

Sorry, Jory, you can't. The Vogons use beam weapons to destroy planets, not
sodding handguns!

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:57:47 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Magical Moments

Okay, here's lunacy of a high order.

Playing TNE (yes, really), the characters finally catch up with the
merchant ship full of baddies they've been after. It's carried a salvage
crew to a ruined city on - oh, some world or other. I can't remember now.
The characters approach on foot. The ship comes in to pick up the salvage
team - quite a lot of them, well armed, and led by a superhuman
combat-clone killing machine whose brethren the characters were hunting
down. 

All hell breaks loose. A firefight shapes up across the cleared area within
which the merchant lies - many of the salvagers can't reach it, but the
characters, who want to capture the ship, can't either. Combat Clone rushes
across the battlefield, shooting with absurd accuracy on the run. I'm
confident that he's invulnerable in his battlesuit and internal
modifications - and he's the first one with the 'once I die, I get four
minutes of frenzy' super-oxy-heamoglobin-charger built into his blood
system. Hey, this'll be fun, I think.

But no. One character siezes the shoulder-fired missile launcher, takes
aim. 
Ref; "Truly impossible staggeringly difficult roll to hit, please."
Player: "Okay. Yeah, made it." (he did. I watched)
Ref: "You're within minimum arming distance. The antitank warhead won't
detonate. Impact damage only."
Player: "Yeah, OK. But you said I could see his face. Facelplate's open,
then?"
Ref: "Uh-oh. Yeah, I suppose...."
PLayer; "Location roll.... Ha! head."
Ref: "How much damage would that do... let's see.... Bollocks!"
(Combat Clone flips backwards, killed instantly by a missile in the
forehead. You can't frenzy if you've gort no head.)

The same player then ran a hundred yards across open ground, armed only
with a sabre (by the way, he'd never fired a missile launcher before. It
was a 'Skill-0' attempt!), reached the ship unscathed as the others shot
down the door gunners. He then entered the ship, sabred the pilots and
landed it more or less intact. 

This guy's luck was just awesome. One of the pilots managed to miss him
four times with a handgun before being cloven to the teeth. It was one of
those nights where he just couldn't miss!



 

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:26:43 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller software

>A friend and I are considering putting together some Traveller software
>for the PC (Windows). What kind of stuff would people be more likely to
>use?

I would suggest looking at the existing software and either (1) imitating
it and opening it to a new platform (i.e. Metator by Rob Prior is only for
the Mac) or (2) Going in a totally new direction.

There is a program out there called Library by Jo Grant (aka Jo Jaquinta)
which is exactly what I would want; a cross between Metator and Jim
Vassilikos' Galactic.  You start at the Full map of known space, zoom in on
a particular sector (which is "dotmapped" the a specific subsector.  From
here you can hold the pointer over a particular world and see the "quick"
details, or double click on the world to get the full picture.

If it is the first time this world was clicked on it will prompt you to
generate the full system details including trade tables, world map, animal
encounters, satellites and other planets, weather and temperature,
sociological, religous, and economic data.  In addition there would be a
"GMs Notes" associated with section which could hold vast amounts of
information about whatever category the GM wanted to elaborate on.  All
stats would be fully editable, random tables could be easily added to, etc.
etc.

If it is not the first time through, the information shown was what was
originally generated and entered.

Trade information would produce two tables, one for the players with what
is available (fully detailed down to exact lot size and qty, not what to
roll!) and one for the Gm with recommended sale price included for the
specifid destination world.

Well, you wanted to know right?

Oh, did I mention that it should use the "standard" DGP .sec files as
input?  or that it should be cross platform?

Be aware that you stand in the shadows of giants in this endevour.  Perhaps
you should try standing on their shoulders instead?

Programs mentioned above are available as follows;

Metator, Library (including 'C' source for sysgen) are at;
http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/software

Galactic by Jim Vassilikos is at;
ftp://chara.gsu.edu/lewis/gal23.zip

Have Fun!

Pete


Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:24:05 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: Emperor's Vehicles comments

I just received my copy of Emperor's Vehicles.  I'm not sure I'd
put this up with the best of the IG products I've seen, but it
certainly rates a passing grade.

In keeping with past IG issues, the cover is a piece of Foss
artwork which (a) does not strike me as "Travelleresque" and (b)
has no apparent connection with the subject matter.  'nuff said
on that.

The book is divided by general classification (personal,
passenger, etc.) and then by motive agent (wheels, tracks, etc.).
In general, lower tech vehicles appear before higher tech
vehicles; personal vehicles appear before passenger, commercial,
or industrial.

Each vehicle described has a card that describes the vehicle's
most basic stats, such as name and model, cost, number of
occupants, fuel type or power source, size and mass, required
environment, speed, skills needed, et cetera.

Some of the entries on the card which should be purely numeric
are in a descriptive code; others that should be descriptive
codes are numeric.  Explanations are, as usual, at the back of
the book.

Each classification has a drawing of a representative member of
the classification (left page) and cards for four vehicles (right
page).  The draft animals page has pictures of four animals, but
there is no clear identification of which animal goes with which
card - or even if they do.

As usual, there are some clear typos; some of the aircraft are
listed as requiring atmosphere 0-9 - I fail to see how you can
achieve lift at all in a vacuum, and I don't believe that
significant lift can be generated in a trace (1) or very thin
(2,3) atmosphere.  Some of the watercraft also have problems in
my estimation; I have some trouble believing top speeds of
150km/h or more in kilotonne-mass boats.  I suspect that many of
these are off by a factor of two, at least, and more likely ten.

I would have liked to see an example FF&S sequence for designing
some of these vehicles; I'm not sure that there's enough
information to reverse-engineer them without a lot of trial and
error.

One other error is that there is no blank vehicle card to copy
for your own vehicles; the unfilled one in the back of the book
is defaced by the grey stripes pointing from the explanations of
the captions.

Overall, I can give it a passing grade; the information provided
will probably be enough for most campaigns; the errors and lack
of design sequences and more complete information, plus the
missing blank card, prevent it from going any higher.

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:44:28 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: European members for BITS/BITS Product Availability

>P.S. Current BITS products:
><start of blatant advertising>

But you missed the most important fact, especially from a commerce point of
view;

How do we in the U.S. give you great gobs of cash in exchange for these
fabulous traveller products!?!?!?

Pete



Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:40:54 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived

>  Feedback from other owners?

A neat supplement.  One problem, there are no tech levels listed with the
vehicles.  Now don't panic!  They are not 'broken' because of this since
most of them are clearly at about Imperial M:0 TL12 and none are clearly
well above this point (some are quite below - but how far!?!).

The information on the vehicle cards is presented in a useful, compact
fashion, and is complete from a users point of view.  Each vehicle 'type'
(such as "personnel, tracked" or "AFV, Wheeled" or "personal transport,
Rotary Wing") has (I think) 4 examples (maybe its three) which are suitable
for photocopying and folding in half to make one, two sided vehicle card
about 3X5 inches (8cm X 12cm for you metrifans).  I suppose you could cut
them right out of the book though :)

This was a quick look (came Monday the 29th in Boston MA) and I'll make
comments later as playtesting commences (which will hopefully occur
Thursday).

Pete


Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:51:59 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Extended System Generation Question

Ken Bearden Wrote;
>SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Okay, I wanted to clear something up from my MegaTraveller/TNE books on
>> Extended System Generation.  In _Step 35: Satellite Size_  "For Worlds: Roll
>> 1D-World-Size."  This makes no sense, as smaller worlds would have bigger
>> moons.  The mistake in uncorrected in both books and is listed exactly the
>> same.  I'm reading it for now as "World Size-1D" but it still kind of needs
>> work maybe...
>>
>
>You are reading it correctly.  It was a mistake in both editions.
>
>From the MT errata, it's "World Size-1D"
>
>
>Kenneth.

Wait a sec, are you saying that a world the size of Earth is most likely to
have a smaller moon than a world the size of, say, Mercury?  That smaller
planets tend to attract larger moons?  This seems counterintuitive, but I
have no facts to go on.

If the above is true (smaller planets attract larger satellites) then it
seems to me that the original designers probably simply did not take this
into account, so the "errata" that you refer to which would produce a
satellite 1-6 size categories smaller than its mainworld (if I am reading
it correctly) is simply "the way they did it" rather than "errata".  [as in
"what do we fill in for the satellite formula?", "Well, we want it to be
smaller than the mainworld...how about a UWP of 1-6 sizes less than the
planet its orbiting?", "Sounds good."]

Pete



Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1900
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Tuesday, September 30 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1901



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: World Moving (was: Jump Projectors)
Re: GURPS: Traveller
Vargr N/PC
Re: population
To Ken Bearden
Re: Marc's award - About bloody time!
Re: Traveller in the Hall of Fame
No Point In Sustained Laser Fire
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1896
The March Harrier--Hull
Black Duke outline...

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:08:23 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

>Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:51:17 +0200 (METDST)
>From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>

0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567891234
OK, first I will address more general issues (that, in some ways,
are more important that just "are there pirates").  Also, it need
to be remembered that you are trying to claim that piracy can't
exist, not that you can come up with number to justify a setting
in which piracy doesn't exist.

Much of this is the classic mistake that is often being made
looking at big organizations.  You look at an impressive sets of
resources and do simple calculations about all the great things
they can do, but those simple calculations ignore that large
organizations have complex webs of needs and you have to start
getting into them all before you can even hope to be able to say
what they can afford or would be wiling to commit to.  After all,
these sorts of calculations could also be conducted to prove that
street muggings would never exist because the US could easily
afford have a cop walking on every street in every major city.

A lot of this is based on the 500 Cr per person figure.  It is
doubtful that this was created with enough thought that it can
be used to calculate the entire budget for the Empirium (and
this is the flip side of the warning I am always giving of
throwing in new elements and the consequences thereof, see
below *).  Other people have pointed out that this number is
very high when you compare it to the stated cost of living.  It
is true that you have run through your own set of numbers on
how this _might_ be reasonable, but that is not a definitive
analysis that can support the view that piracy _can't_ exist.

Finally, even if you could show that the Imperium can afford
to, in principal, patrol every bit of settled space (and I
don't think you have, see below), you still have a problem,
that is that the decision would have be justified at all levels
of decisions making.   The cost of suppressing piracy has to be
justified at each world and it is very possible that the Imperium
may look at a low traffic system, look at the cost of keeping
dozens of patrol vessels on station continuously, and decide
that it would be cheaper to let the pirates take a cargo once
in a while (it probably would be).  You also have the problem
of complacency.  It is human nature that if piracy is driven away,
then the lack of actually losses means that people are going to
begrudge the resources being expended on it and they will be
reduced (until it reappears).

But above and beyond the above, once you correct for the mistake
(some of which have already been pointed out by others) I don't
think you have shown what you feel you have.  Getting to the
specifics....

>Of course a scout will not be able to prevent anything. It will even have
>instructions to remain quiscent no matter what. A scout is supposed to get
>information. Scouts do mean that pirates will have to base themselves in
>deep space rather than in empty systems, which will increase their overhead.

Again, you are looking at pirates operating out of fixed bases
with prior intelligence as the only model of piracy.  In fact,
the movies not withstanding, this military adherence to specialized
roles is the least common mode.  One of the more common is that you
simply have armed ships that engage in legitimate trade (or some
other activity like smuggling) until they spot a  target of
opportunity.

>>>when an expense applies equally to everybody, as this one
>>>will, no one can undercut their business rivals by avoiding the expense, so
>>>no one will have an interest in getting rid of it.

>>But the same thing applies to piracy.

>Sure. But the thing that applies to piracy and doesn't apply to traffic
>control is that everybody agrees that piracy is a bad thing while not
>everybody agrees that traffic control is a bad thing.

Well, they actually do.  If you look at any case of traffic control
and ask those involved "would you do this is if it weren't for
the safety needs?" the answer is no.  (This is why there are
unregulated intersections).  So the result is that traffic
control is like anything else.  The cost of it will be weighed
against the benefit.  In this case the cost of wasting fuel
and time on every single chance will be weighed against the
rare chance of loosing a cargo to piracy.  It is not at all
clear the choice will come down in favor a wasting fuel
and time.

>I never went away from it. The major point of my argument is not that it
>doesn't take considerable assets to suppress pirac

It actually does.  It's the classic passive situation such
as the US faced in Vietnam.  To do what you want you have to
be able to respond to anything reasonable that might happen,
including alliances (temporary or otherwise) and the enemy
having initiative and surprise.  This is why the US, even
with the resources that it committed (to which many experts
went though analyses that were a lot more sophisticated than
yours and felts would be sufficient to do the job) was unable
to stamp it out.  The enemy was able to take advantage of
the passive nature of the US position and simply chose
tactics that gave them a local advantage and melt away
(often mixing with legitimate traffic like a pirate would)
when the advantage was no longer there.

>>Or he simply can jump in and take targets of opportunity.
>
>Fallacy. See below.

Again, this is based on looking only at pirate in fixed bases.

>>Low level piracy has been tolerated by governments in numerous historical
>>situation.

>But never when those governments had sufficient patrol ships to do something
>about it.

Actually not true.  Piracy is tolerated in Asia when there are
a number of countries (including the US, Japan, and India) that
do suffer some from it and could, if they really wanted to, do
something about it.  It just costs to much.  Similarly piracy has
existed around the other major empires in history (Roman,
Chinese, English) and it is in fact somewhat true that
rather then being wiped out by these empires, the pirates
depended on them to generate traffic.

OK addressing points in your analysis that I haven't seen addressed
by others...

>At Cr500 per person in naval taxes you get a naval budget of 270,000,000 MCr.
>Let's err on the side of caution and cut that by a third = 180,000,000 MCr.

Actually, you are being optimistic.  Even in our high tech armed
forces salaries are a bigger cost than equipment and it is not
uncommon for things that need a lot of support to have worse
that a 3:1 ratio for support vs front line.  Finally, you also
have to pull ground troops out of this budget.  I would say
that even 1/10 of this figure is optimistic.

>200 T patrol cruisers are used for piracy suppression, so
>presumably they are a match for the average pirate;

Well, no.  A pirate can easily have a 200-400 T ship and you have
to be able to handle them even if they cooperate and also
catch you buy surprise.  This is totally inadequate and the
Kinuir equivalent you mentioned is much more reasonable.

>You can
>get about 1,800 Kinunirs for 1,800,000 MCr. (All figures are CT).

And if you correct for math errors and the points I raised,
you are down to 54 Kinuirs.

>System defense budgets for your average population 7 world is 70% of
>7,500 MCr, which gives such a world a system defense force equivalent to
>roughly 50 Kinunirs (or 200 patrol ships). I think the average pop 7
>world can take care of itself,

Well, I have doubts about this.  Your entire defense budget is
7,500 MCr.  You are lucky if you can keep more than 10% of this
devoted to fighting units and you have to pay for salaries as
well as equipment.  You also have give some to the army
and then the larger percentage of this is going to be
grouped to form fleets of decent size, some of which will
be sent to the front lines.  If you take your assumption
that you can easily spare 1 out of a 1/1000 for piracy
suppression and that 10% of your money goes to fighting
units, and that 1/3 of this goes to ships rather than
salaries (which is optimistic) then your pop 7 world isn't
even close to taking care of itself.

>Except that very few systems will have traffic in and out of Gas Giants

Sorry, Gas Giants, either directly or indirectly, are a main
source of fuel in traveller.  They are going to have a lot
of traffic.   Now you might want to change the background
to make this different, but if want to talk about piracy
in the background as it is given, then this such traffic
is a given.

>But there will be a correlation between the population
>of the system and the number of places with activity, won't there?

Well, no.  There will be a correlation between population
and the _density_ of traffic (As you have growth, higher
population densities result from the filing in and building
up of already settled areas rather than expansion into
new areas, which happens early) so that lower population
systems have near as many places to protect, but less
traffic in each place (which makes the decision to
commit resources to stopping piracy in those areas
even harder).  Additionally, you also have traffic passing
through the system on their way to somewhere else.

A system with 30,000 people might easily have 20,000
people on the main world and 3 mining areas with
3,000 people on them (and generating traffic due
to ore shipments that is disproportionately high)
and also have traffic (both from/to the system and
passing through) in one or two gas giants.

>That's 6 (or let's call it 5) of our 30 systems that
>only require one spot guarded. Put 5 Kinunirs in each of those

Well, in addition to the points above, I also still
disagree (as I point out above) that your scheme for
forcing all traffic through one point in every system
for every jump is a given.

>>Either the pirates jump in blind near a spot where they have a chance to
>surprise prey, in which case they arrive within range of any armed ships
>stationed there, or they arrive out of range of the patrols, in which
>case they will be too far from their prey to surprise it. You're trying
>to have it both ways, and it can't be done

Again.  You are assuming both your scheme to have required jump
points and pirates operating out of bases.

>Same mistake. Either the pirates jump into a system cautiously, in which
>case the patrol ships _and all the merchants they are guarding_ can get
>away by jumping, or they take a chance on surprising the patrol ships.

Again, you are assuming your required jump point area and that
pirates are immediately recognizable as such.

>Same mistake again. The pirates labor under the same two-week information
>delay that everybody else does. There's no way they can know if a rowing
>patrol will be there when they jump in.

Again, you are assuming pirates operating out of bases.

*[Ok, this is a sort of footnote because it is off topic.
I don't think the 5000 Cr tax shows the kind of resources
that Hans thinks it does.  However, what if it did?  I have
no doubt that when the author first consdered this, it never
occured to him to check to see if this is consitent with the
level of piracy in the Imperium.  It also is not likely
to heve been something that is suggested by people he brings
it up with.  But then things get writting into backgrounds
and people start exploring them.  This is why I am allways warning
people that want to play around with more fundamental things
like how communications work in the Imperium (like the jump
torps in Leviathan).  Another example of this is thread on
jump torps that proceed along for a while based on the assumption
that they aren't used because of Imperial policy without
realizing then that you have done nothing to explain why
they aren't used by those outside (or from outside) of
the Imperium.  One needs to be _very_ careful with changing
a background after it has been set up.  Especially so
if one is dealing with one of the fundamental building blocks.]

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:06:46 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: World Moving (was: Jump Projectors)

OK, OK, a little sanity please! Let's back this down a step. Can anyone
figure the drive size and power requirements to MOVE a planet? What I have
in mind (inspired by this frighteningly insane thread) is the Kempler
Rosset (sic?) of the Puppeteer's worlds in Ringworld. Not moving the system
but building the system by moving say, Mars, Venus, Earth, (or similar
worlds) into a single orbit? How about the stability of such a system?

I think I saw something on the web concerning this but I don't remember
where.

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:06:09 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: GURPS: Traveller

Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:32:24 GMT, aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
>>As someone who has been involved in GURPS Traveller before all this
>>and who intends to use GURPS for all his Traveller gaming in the
>>future, I think all this talk of IG's demise are "way" premature.
>>Even if GURPS Traveller does sell better, that means it will
>>represent a steady stream in liscencing fees to keep IG's going.

>Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but IG doesn't get licensing fees from SJG
>- -- the *parent* Company, Sweatpea, does. Now, it may be that they will use the
>fees from SJG to cross subsidise IG -- but this doesn't necessarily make good
>business sense!

Well, it really doesn't matter if the fees go to IG or not.
If they did, the owners (is Mark the sole owner?  Or did he get
investors?  Do we know?  [After all, I don't think he has to
tell anyone about such things])  could just take the fees as
profit.  For a privately held company  the difference in
the companies money and the owner's money is mostly one
of liability (you can't necessarily sue and owener for a
companies liabilities) and wether personal taxes have
yet been paid (unless the owner is another company).

But what the fee also mean, in all cases, is that
IG games is somewhat protected from one very common route of
failure, those who own the company just run out of money
to continue (in world of small gaming companies, this happens
a lot).  Thus IG had the resources to recover from mistakes
it might not otherwise recover from.

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:13:02 -0600
From: Sanders <kalin@swlink.net>
Subject: Vargr N/PC

                            Vargr Character Profile
                                    - of -
                               Arorrbar-Harroga
                                      by
                                 Paul Sanders


               Arorrbar-Harroga  is  a  member  of  a  minority  Vargr
         subspecies,  the Kokasha  (Vilani &  Vargr, page  63). He  is
         typical of  his subspecies in most  regards; physically weak,
         but possessing enhanced mental  abilities. Arorrbar is witty,
         bright, and well educated. He was born towards the end of the
         Long Night  on an average  world near the  edge of the  Vargr
         Extents  on the  frontier with  the Vilani.  His parents were
         killed during a Corsairs raid  against his world conducted by
         Vilani  Slavers.   He  managed  to   escape  the  death   and
         destruction of this raid, and vowed revenge.

               Arorrbars' physical statistics are abysmal; a fall down
         a short flight  of stairs even  in his youth  would have been
         enough to send him to the  hospital. From an early age he has
         lived on the  wrong side of the law,  usually Vilani law. His
         career has  been that of  a pilot, crewing  on several pirate
         cruisers  that   have  preyed  upon   merchant  and  military
         starships  of  the  surviving  worlds  of  the old Ziru Sirka
         (First Imperium).  He has retired  far into Vargr  middle age
         with only a  shotgun, body armor, a vacc.  suit, a handful of
         cash,  and  a  desperate  need  to  run.  Old enemies, bounty
         hunters, law-enforcement officers, and the military forces of
         more than  one Pocket Empire  have hunted him  across a dozen
         worlds.  At the  end of   many years,  he finds  himself deep
         within unfriendly human space,  wasting away from the effects
         of disease and old age.

               His years with the space raiders have given Arorrbar an
         incredible  level of  starship-piloting skills  (Pilot-7). He
         can fly almost any spacecraft  in existence, and knows stunts
         that would  make average pilots  turn white with  terror. His
         missions  as a  pilot aboard  numerous pirate  starships were
         always aimed  against the Vilani forces  and their interests.
         He now rests easy knowing that his parents have been avenged.

               Arorrbar has  style. He knows  how to drive  the humans
         around him crazy, and he also  knows how to make those humans
         laugh. Children of  any race find him to be  a warm ally full
         of stories, and female Vargr find him irresistible. He enjoys
         excitement too much to care about death.

               At present,  we find Arorrbar older  and much weaker; a
         bad fall  would now be likely  to kill him, and  he is racked
         with chills.  His job, money,  and all his  friends have just
         vanished in  the holocaust of  an alien revolt.  Arorrbar was
         fortunate enough to have made  it to the spaceport, and after
         hijacking a small vessel, escape off-planet. Arorrbar managed
         to escape with nothing but  a filthy spacesuit, an assortment
         of  battered  and  mismatched  body-armor,  a  dagger,  and a
         shotgun   and  ammunition.   After  marooning   the  hijacked
         starships small  crew on a  suitable planet in  a neighboring
         system, and  purchasing supplies with credits  taken from the
         ships safe, he has decided to  head for an uncharted area far
         from Vilani space. As his pirated ship shifts into jumpspace,
         Arorrbar coughs  frantically, itching his  greying muzzle. He
         ponders the  future and wonders what  dangers await him ahead
         in the emerging  manrealm whispered to be known  as the Third
         Imperium.


         Arorrbar-Harroga's UPP is:
         Corsair Pilot
         2B3C99  Age 54  9 terms  Cr 7,000>         Skills:
         Pilot-7, Navigation-3, Ship Tactics-1,
         Grav Vehicle-2, Vacc Suit-0, Shotgun-2,
         Sensor Op-1, Instruction-1, Persuasion-1.
         Possessions:
         Pocket Scout (Hijacked), Shotgun & Ammo.,
         Battered Body-Armor, Vacc. Suit, Dagger.
         Homeworld:
         Starport A, Medium, Standard, Wet World,
         Mod. Pop., Mod. Law, Avg. Stellar.

         (Stats are in Classic Traveller format.)

         Note: This  character was inspired by  and draws heavily from
         an article entitled "Flawed Gems Shine The Brightest" written
         by Roger E. Moore in Polyhedron #63.

                                     * * *

         Feedback welcome! :)

         Paul
         ( kalin@swlink.net )

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:03:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Woden2014@aol.com
Subject: Re: population

Hans, 

I got the number range of 12bil -123bil by using your system outline ( one
type0, two type1, three type2, four 3, five 4, six 5, five 6, four 7, three
8, two 1, and one A) and the planetary population table from the basic
rules(CT & T4, i don't know about the other rules systems stats) which states
pop in units of ten. 0-no inhabitants, 1- Tens of inhabitants,2- Hundreds of
inhabitants,...ect...,A-Tens of billions.  Then at the bottom it says; 'The
population digit is an exponent of 10. The actual population of a world may
range from the exact equivalent of the population to just below the next
higher population digit.'  Which means at pop. 2 you have between 100 and 999
inhabitants.  I got the Regina range from looking up the pop. code on the
UPP's and adding. The accual Regina pop. is in the library data of The
Traveller Book.  (unfortunately the only CT book I own)

By the way, at 10,000 worlds, with 36 worlds per subsector, there should be
281 subsectors in the Imperium. (280.55 actualy)  Is that right, canonicaly
speaking ?  I have no idea myself.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:55:08 -0400
From: Jeff & Michelle Norton <103010.212@compuserve.com>
Subject: To Ken Bearden

        In regards to you recient message of you mom's passing, please
accept my heartfelt condolences....

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:55:11 -0400
From: Jeff & Michelle Norton <103010.212@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Marc's award - About bloody time!

        Congradulations! It's well deserved. Hats off and here's to another
20 years....

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:15:49 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller in the Hall of Fame

At 11:48 PM 9/29/97 EST, you wrote:
>I just received in the mail today a plaque inscribed=85
>
>The Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design
>Inducts into the
>Adventure Gaming Hall of Fame
>
>Traveller...

Congratulations!



Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:29:11 +1000 (EST)
From: "David 'Washu' Moodie" <dmoodie@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Subject: No Point In Sustained Laser Fire

Well, after much prodding of FF&S I've figured that it'd be better to just
produce weapons with more powerful pulses than one with rapid amounts of
fire. I'm assuming that if more than one shot can hit the same spot in a
short amount of time then their Mj outputs will combine, penetrating
further. Problem is you still need insane ROF's to do this. Eg counting 2
or more hits in the same spot within a second as cumulative it would take
a ROF of 300 to increase the power of hits against a perfectly still
object (FA diameter & target speed make things even worse).

	So my question was a bit stupid wasn't it? Oh well....

NB: Yes I do know what a homopolar generator is everyone!!! I just
    describe it as a battery in *game terms* - it stores rather than
    produces.

David Moodie
_______________________________________________________
THE MANY FACES OF WASHU/NENE ROMANOVA GALLERIES       
http://www.st.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dmoodie/index.html  
- -------------------------------------------------------
Worshipper of Washu, Nene & Traveller : TNE ^-^ 

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:56:17 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1896

At 01:32 pm 09/30/97 GMT, you wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:35:44 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:05:11 -0700
>>From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Rumor or fact??
>>
>>As someone who has been involved in GURPS Traveller before all this
>>and who intends to use GURPS for all his Traveller gaming in the
>>future, I think all this talk of IG's demise are "way" premature.
>>Even if GURPS Traveller does sell better, that means it will
>>represent a steady stream in liscencing fees to keep IG's going.
>
>Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but IG doesn't get licensing fees from SJG
>-- the *parent* Company, Sweatpea, does. Now, it may be that they will use the
>fees from SJG to cross subsidise IG -- but this doesn't necessarily make good
>business sense!

	I thought the person owning the copyright got the licensing fees ... i.e.
Marc Miller. Unless Sweetpea has an exclusive contract with him, that also
allows them to "sublicense."

- -- 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: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:07:53 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Hull

I've constructed a series of informational posts for my players.  We're
playing the Traveller Adventure, and these posts are designed to
familiarize them with the March Harrier, a Type R Subsidized Merchant.

I re-engineered the Harrier according to QSDS v1.5, and I am drawing my
information from this, the Starship Operator's Manual, The Traveller
Adventure, backstories to my own campaign, the Seeker deck plans we are
using, and other sources.

After completing these for my own group, I thought that the information
may be useful to other GMs running their own version of the Traveller
Adventure.  

I am posting the series of posts I've written about our ship for those
people.  You may be interested in making similar posts for your players,
or just take mine, eliminate the references to my game, and replace the
blanks with the names of the characters in your game.

I'm not sure if anybody will find this useful, but if you are running
the same adventure, you might.  So, here it is.

This first post focuses on the hull.  You'll notice that I've written
the posts in plain, layman's terms because only one of my players has
ever played Traveller before (and that was years and years ago in the CT
days).  Given their lack of knowledge of Traveller as a whole, I find it
is better for them to spell everything out.

For clarity with the dates below, my campaign started in 1105, in the
Aramis subsector of the Spinward Marches.  If you are running a M0
campaign and wish to use this information, you'll need to change some
things.

Kenneth.
=====================================================================================

(the following is the posted information from my game)

This is going to be a short series of posts designed to educate you on
The March Harrier.

These will be short, so take a few minutes to look over the information
contained herein.

If you have any questions, ask.

========================================================================
HULL

The Harrier was laid down on 363-1083 (22 years ago) at Naasirka
Shipyards in Leedor (Aramis/Aramis/Spinward Marches) as a part of the
March Subsidy Program.  This program is directed at serving
freight/passenger/mail needs for citizens of the Imperium whose home
planets lie off the main trade jump routes.

The Harrier was built to serve the 8 systems in the Aramis Trace, all
connected by Jump-1:  L' oeul d' Dieu, Aramis, Natoko, and Reacher in
the Aramis subsector;  Vinorian, Nutema, and Margesi in the Rhylanor
subsector;  Saarinen in the Sabine subsector of the Deneb sector.

The Harrier is subsidized, indirectly, by the Imperial government.  The
subsidy is administered by Oberlines Lines, a trade and freight company
based out of the nearby Regina subsector.  

She took a year and two months to build, having her first flight on
060-1085 (20 years ago).  The ship originally had a Vargr captain, and
this original Vargr crew ran the ship for 12 years until they were
killed (allegedly) by Shawn Grey (then, the communications officer
aboard the Harrier).

Grey fled prosection, and the ship lay in drydock at the Naasirka Yards
on Aramis, her home port, for 8 years.  Late in 1104, Grey pulled the
ship out of drydock for a refit and overhaul.  Just before the new year,
the ship's third captain, Luke Drake, took over and finished the
overhaul.  On 202-1105 (5 weeks ago), a message was sent to the
Oberlines subsector headquarters on Paya detailing ownership for the
Harrier's fourth owner, Captain Lance La Graus.

The ship was built from pre-fab, standardized, modular components, and a
standard set of architectural plans.  The standard design is that of the
Type R Subsidized Merchant, sometimes called the "Fat Trader", known
throughout the entire Imperium and beyond.

THIS INFORMATION FOCUSSES ON THE MARCH HARRIER'S HULL:

The Harrier's hull is a TL 12 cylinder configuration.  It has been
modified as an airframe, allowing entry into any type of atmosphere.

The hull is 400 tons displacement (meaning you can fill it with 400
tons, or 5,600 cubic meters, of liquid hydrogen).

The internal structure of the hull is braced for 1G accelleration, and
if a faster M-Drive is ever installed, the hull will need to be braced
for the increased accelleration.

The hull costs Cr17,300,000, and as a standard hull, it comes complete
with life support systems, airlocks installed, control systems
installed, cargo hatches installed, artificial gravity systems
installed, inertial compensation systems installed, and contra-grav
lifters for landing and taking off.

All hull systems are TL 12.  The total power requirement for the hull
and it's systems is 109.4 Mw.

The hull is streamlined for atmospheric use, and fuel scoops have been
installed for skimming fuel at gas giants.

The hull is made out superdense material.  Referring to the Starship
Operator's Manual, superdense "begins by selecting the hull material
(usually crystaliron).  When the hull is formed, it is subjected to
massive gravitational fields.  The internal nuclear forces are
manipulated, and the atomic structure undergoes partial collapse.  As a
result, the density ofthe hull (and thus its durability) is greatly
enhanced while its thickness is minimized."

After all of the hull's systems are accounted for, there is 381.3 tons
of usable interior volume in which to place other ship's components
(which will be in other posts).  The usable surface area of the hull is
1684 square meters.  

The hull (and thus the ship) is 44 meters long.  The ship is 10 meters
high and 15 meters wide.  The wing span is 32 meters.

Finally, we look at the hull's Traveller combat statistics.

Armor:  0
Structure:  9

The hull is not armored.  The superdense material gives the hull a
structure of 9 (The ship has 9 hit points for space combat, so to
speak).

Next up?  A quick post on the Jump Drive.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:39:20 -0600
From: Sanders <kalin@swlink.net>
Subject: Black Duke outline...

Whilst digging through my old files of Traveller stuff downloaded from GEnie
years ago I came across this outline of the "Black Duke" campaign sourcebook
that DGP was nearly finished with when they folded. Seeing as how there have
been questions about this particular item in the past, I thought others= might=20
be interested in reading it. Looks like it would have been a nice addition
to the Traveller Canon - who knows, maybe Roger Sanger will get off his duff==20
next century and release it (yeah, right).

Paul
( kalin@swlink.net )

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number:  1900  Name:  BLACK DUKE OUTLINE
Address:  J.FUGATE  Date: 02/24/90
Description:
This is a detailed working outline for would-be writers to peruse. If
anyone sees a section they would like to help write (perferably one
of the adventure scenarios), then E-mail j.Fugate and let him know
you would like to talk further.
 ---------------------------------


BLACK DUKE WORKING OUTLINE (96-PAGE BOOK)
I. Introduction
  A. What's in this book?
    1. Background data & maps on Dulinor's factionary turf
    2. Campaign adventure material for extended play with interlinked
        small adventures
    3. New minor race information
    4. New starship information
  B. How do you use the material herein?
    1. PC type useable for this campaign
    2. Improved Cinematic nugget version of adventure material
       a. Scene & Action
    3. Use of the background material for further campaigning
II. The Campaign  A. Fiction/Introduction to the Campaign
    1. What the initial situation is and where it will lead
       a. Itinerary of the campaign (map of the route)
         i. variations possible in itinerary
    2. Description of the Lady Jo
       a. The Lady Jo will be an Alexandria class free trader
    3. Description of the Tukera Lines freighter
       a. The Tukera freighter is a type AT freighter
       b. Deckplans of the Tukera Lines freighter
       c. Description of freighter's layout/compartments
  B. Crew NPC's of the Tukera freighter
    1. NPC illos, stats, and descriptive blurb on each detailing
        background & status
    2. Another NPC (or 2 crew NPC's) might be an Ael Yael for alien fun
    3. Putting two Suerrat (mates?) on the ship might be good, too
  C. Scenario #1 - A Prequel: 'We love our ship' (5 pages)
    1. This is designed to get the PC's attached to their ship so that
        when they have to leave it, they'll still want to get it
        back (therefore they'll go off to make money for repairs)
  D. Scenario #2 - 'Into the Drink on a Planet'
    1. Players' set-up info:
      a. Setting out on board their ship, the Lady Jo, the characters
          get hit by commerce raiders and must head for the nearest world
          in order to make repairs.  The ship doesn't quite make it to
          the spaceport, and instead lands in the shallows off-shore
          from the spaceport.  Ship needs to be pulled out and have
          major repairs done on it - all of which will cost major bucks
          that the PC's don't have.
    2. Referee's notes on this scenario:
      a. World description with spaceport map
      b. Need to provide notes on getting the PC's successfully into
          this pickle
         i. Notes on running the raider combat
        ii. Where the Lady Jo should/shouldn't get damage
       iii. Coming in for the landing
            (1). Power plant/thruster plates failure?
            (2). Navigation/attitude thrusters out of control?
            (3). Somehow, they should end up in the drink
  E. Scenario #3 - Gaining the Suspicions of Dulinor's or Lucan's
      intelligence branch (3 pages)
    1. Players' set-up info:
      a. Somehow the PC's will get the attention of an intelligence
          officer of Dulinor's or Lucan's (not sure which to use;
          maybe both?).  Being on a Tukera ship in Ilelish will be
          bad enough (in the Dulinor's case), but something else
          should happen here to make them seem all the more suspicious.
    3. Referee's notes on this scenario:=20
      a. Some sort of location map for this scenario
      b. Background information on Tukera/Dulinor relationship at
          present
  F. Scenario #4 - Fun with Aliens (8 pages)
    1. This scenario should involve at least one of the new minor
        races of this sourcebook.  Perhaps a visit to the race's
        homeworld would be in order.  Ref's info should include alien
        NPC info, a map of the homeworld region visited (maybe a map of
        the whole world, too), and maybe some info/stats on some sort
        of alien vehicle/equipment used by the PC's.  The aliens
        should play a fairly major role here, and overall, the tone
        should be one of discovery (perhaps enigma) rather than peril.
    2. Having a planet where you must procure and wear a specific
        type of business garb in order to be taken seriously in
        trading could be fun
        a. These outfits would be ridiculous, uncomfortable and hard
            to move in - but if you don't wear them, no one takes
            you seriously as a business-sophont
    4. Something Suerratian might also be good here, perhaps with some
        other aliens also being prominent
  G. Scenario #5 - Something with a Mercenary Company (5 pages)
    1. What might happen here is some meeting-up with a mercenary
        company (maybe hired/commandeered to transport supplies/troops
        somewhere).  This is mainly to tie in with the Mercenary
        interview; it may also add some Rebellion shoot-out type
        excitement.  Perhaps the Unification Day raid (Unification
        Day=3DSoviet May Day) could be fit in here with the major attack
        force being mercenaries hired by an anti-Dulinor/pro-Lucan
        underground resistance on this world in the heart of Dulinor's
        Domain.  PC's would be caught in the crossfire action,
        maybe some captured by the mercenaries and held as prisoners
        for ransom of some sort (mistaken identity type thing?).
        Perhaps a passenger from the Tukera ship could be used as
        the catalyst here.
  H. Scenario #6 - Fun with Gas Giants (5 pages)
    1. The PC's come into a system known to have a fuel depot only
        to find when they arrive that the depot has been hit by
        commerce raiders and the fuel taken/destroyed
    2. An x-boat has been dispatched but it will be another week
        and a half for new supplies to reach the depot
    3. The depot is located on an airless world and was just a drop-off
        depot with no on-world fuel supplies
    4. PC's can wait around (no fun?) or can try fuel-skimming an
        in-system gas giant with their shuttle for fuel
    5. If they opt to skim:
      a. There are lifeforms in the atmosphere of the Jovian in-system
      b. These lifeforms are intelligent and know about humankind,
          but haven't been able to figure out any way to contact us
      c. They have finally found a method to communicate with humans
          and are dying to try it out
      d. Our PC's are the first ones to come along and end up being
          the 'guinea pigs' for these aliens (it will happen during
          the fuel-skimming)
      e. PC's get to deal with the aliens and their 'method of
          communication'
  I. Scenario #7 - 'Space-diving' (8 pages)
    1. One of the NPC's aboard the Tukera ship is a member of the
        ISRA (Inter-Sector Re-entry Association), a club similar to
        today's parachuting clubs except these guys jump from space
        using atmospheric re-entry kits
     2. The PC's will be talked into participating in a jump by this NPC
      a. If they seem reluctant to try this, another NPC who just
          recently tried this for the first time (and who seems like
          a very rational sort of individual) can help in coaxing them
         i. Empasize the safety of the technique and equipment
            (1). Do up an equipment sheet on the re-entry kit
    3. Equipment can be rented at the ISRA club-house located near
        the spaceport
      a. The PC's equipment is designed and set-up for
          first-time/beginning space-jumpers and is equipped with
          numerous fail-safes/extra margins of safety
         i. These re-entry kits would be top-of-the-line, very
             expensive units if purchased, but the ISRA club makes
             good money off rentals with these so that the cost is
             made back easily
    4. This should be a fairly safe activity - potential problems
        might include:
       a. Equipment failure - should not be catatrophic
          i. minor burn-through in the heat shield
             (1). There is an extra thickness of foam on the PC's kits,
                   so chance of burn-through should be minimal
         ii. problem with initial de-orbit burn
            (1). burn of incorrect duration or magnitude: end up
                  back in orbit - can either try again (fuel permitting)
                  or get picked up by OTV from orbit
            (2). burn starts at wrong point in orbit: end up going
                  down in the wrong area on the planet
        iii. parachute troubles
            (1). tear in one of the chutes (pilot, drogue, or main)
            (2). shroud line gives way
            (3). pilot/drogue/main chute fails to deploy on first try
                 (a). have to use a manual release (indicator light
                       will inform you of the chute's failure to deploy
         iv. computer trouble
            (1). kit's controlling computer malfunctions and ends up
                  sending you down to the wrong landing spot
       b. motion sickness
          i. offer the PC's motion sickness prevention drugs before
              the trip down - if they refuse, get them to roll tasks
              on whether they get queasy or not
         ii. have an emergency vomit-vac suction tube within the
              vacc suit's helmet to prevent suffocation (standard
              equipment with rental re-entry kits)
       c. Weather/atmospheric conditions become unfavorable
          i. need to abort to a secondary site
         ii. need to make it through the weather conditions
             (1). will probably end up off-course and landing in an
                   un-planned location
                  (a). getting back to where they can be picked up
                        could pose some challenges (meet some new aliens
                        or alien critters?)
  J. Scenario #8 - The Major Confrontaion (12 pages)
    1. This should be the climactic scenario of the Campaign,
        with everything coming to a head....
    .**************************************************************
       ...well, now, we don't want to give away everything, now
           do we? If anyone wants to work on this project as a
          writer, we are interested in talking to you. You must,
          however, have practical experience as a Traveller referee
          and be able to address the problems the referee will have
          in administering a scenario with practical, helpful advice.
    .***************************************************************
  K. Conclusions/continuances
    1. Put some notes in here on what can happen after this point
      a. Getting the Lady Jo back
      a. Continuing a little further with the Tukera Liner
      c. Further fun in Ilelish sector
III. Campaign Background
      A. The Domain of Dulinor
           1. History of the region
                a. Ilelish Domain in the historical context
             i. The traditional Domain
            ii. The Domain in terms of the Rebellion & Dulinor's
                 loyal turf
                a. Timeline of Ilelish=D5s history in a sidebar
           2. Description of Dulinor's Territory
                a. Highlights/major worlds of the region
                a. Status of trade routes/xboat routes in the region
                c. Minor races of the region - who's where & why
           3. Sector data for Ilelish and maps of Dulinor's Territory
IV. Miscellaneous Items
     A. Interviews
        1. Dulinor - Whys of what he has done; what is he doing now,
            what will he do next
        2. Mercenary - why Dulinor as Emperor is bad for business
    B. Essays/reports (pseudo-historicals)
        1. Tukera Lines info as a PC handout
        2. Propaganda flyers of the Rebellion (more handouts)
            a. Dulinor
            a. Isis Underground
            c. Lucan
            d. Mercenary company

The End.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1901
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 1 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1902



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

The March Harrier--Jump Drive
Re: Startown Chandlery
Re: Destroying terrestrial worlds for fun an
Re: (Vargr) Constructor Fleets
Re: Very Sharp Knives
Re: How high are skill levels, really.
Re: Coke projectors
Re: 101 Religons
Archon Gaming Convention
Re: Vogon Constructor Fleets

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:20:17 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Jump Drive

For those interested, here's post number two, focussing on the Harrier's
jump drive.

Kenneth.

===================================================================================

(the following is re-posted game handouts)

This is post #2 on getting to know the March Harrier better.
In this post, we focus on the ship's Jump Drive.

As usual, ask me any questions you might have.

Special Note to Steve:  Being the ship's engineer, you should have a
working knowledge of the information contained in this post.  I've
written it as short as possible and made it as plain as I can.  Please
read it through once or twice.  If you give it an honest go, you'll have
a working knowledge of the most important piece of equipment on the
ship, the jump drive.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------

JUMP DRIVE

The Harrier's jump drive is located in two sections, port and starboard,
where the airwing attaches to the hull on the cargo deck.  Fore of each
drive section is the fuel scoop and purification plant machinery.  Aft
of each section is the maneuver drive.  Engineering personnel can access
this area, on each side of the ship, via maintenance hatches on the
cargo deck.

Although the Harrier is, overall, a TL 12 spacecraft, the jump drive is
of TL 9 manufacture.  This was done for many reasons, the biggest being
(at the time of the Harrier's manufacture) cost.  The base price, new,
for a TL 9 jump drive, like the one in the Harrier, is Cr33,600,000.

An added benefit, since the ship has jumped out of the Aramis Trace, is
that TL 9 drives can be worked on and maintained at many more starports
around the subsector.  Originally, this wasn't a problem, because the
ship was designed to be locked into the 8 solar systems making up the
Trace (Aramis has a TL 12 shipyard).  Now that the ship has used it's
dismountable fuel tank to allow for jumping out of the Trace, TL 12
facilities are more rare, especially in this fringe area of the
Imperium.

The jump drive is finiky, like all drives of this type, and it requires
constant maintenance and upkeep.  The Engineer's job is never done, and
he is always busy tinkering with this or fixing that.

Brand new, the drive requires 30% of the Engineer's time.  As the drive
gets older, more and more maintenance is required as parts wear out.
The Harrier's drive was just overhauled on Aramis about 8 months ago,
and many of the old, replaceable parts were indeed replaced.

Jump drives in general are insistent beasts, and they require this type
of maintenance and overhaul each year.  Without this overhaul, the drive
has a higher chance of misjumping (meaning it can send you where you
don't want to go, keep you in jump space longer than normal, or even
blow up).

The Harrier's annual maintenance is due again in about 4 months.  The
base price for this service, at an appropriate starport, is Cr101,030.

There is a fund set up to put money aside for this purpose, called the
Maintenance Fund, and the ship's steward is in charge of managing this
money (Gyr).  Unfortunately, all the money in this fund has been used
for other purposes, and the saving installments are 8 months behind.

This is no problem, for the fund is set up to lessen the blow of the
overhaul cost when it comes due.  It is strictly an internal fund, and
it can be maintained or not, depending on the Captain's instructions.

The drive itself, both sections, masses 8 tons.  The jump grid on the
hull covers an area of 37.3 square meters.

Remember from the Starship Operator's Manual that the jump drive works
like this:  "In order for a starship to be able to travel through
jumpspace, the ship's jump drive must first open a portal into the
desired jumpspace (plane, or level of jumpspace).  To accomplish this
feat, the drive energizes a lanthanum grid which has been incorporated
into the starship's hull.  The vast energy flow across this hull grid
net causes an 'unraveling' to begin in the region of space the ship
occupies.  As the discharge of the drive energies to the hull grid
increases, the unraveling becomes great enough to open up a 'rift' in
the weave of jumpspace.

"Once this rift has been made, the starship is able to make the
'transition' from normal space into jumpspace.  Transition is almost
instantaneous and must be carefully controlled, for the entire fate of
the voyage is determined at the critical transition instant.  Accidents
that occur before transition make the ship unable to enter jumpspace and
simply abort the jump.  After transition, nothing the crew can do (short
of destroying the ship) will prevent it from emerging at the point in
space specified by the precomputed jump vector.

"More specifically, controlling transition involves controlling the
'tumble' of the vessel during transition.  This 'figurative' tumble is
what sets the exact course and duration of the jump.  Tumble is
controlled by careful manipulation of the lanthanum grid energizing
sequence.  This instant is the most critical in the entire split-second
jump transition-many jump mishaps are the result of a faulty tumble.

"As the rift closes, the protective jump field 'bubble' around the ship
is also sealed.  This bubble keeps out the strange physics of jumpspace
(and you say "Event Horizon"?), and serves to provide a safe region for
the ship, where the normal physics of our universe operate.  The bubble
follows the contour of the jump grid exactly, and appears as a dull,
gray, undulating 'wall' about a meter from the surface of the ship's
hull.

"After about 150-185 hours, the ship finally emerges from jumpspace back
into our own universe.  Regardless of the distance travelled, the
average duration of a jump is about 168 hours, plus or minus 10%.  This
normal deviation is caused primarily by minor errors in the jump vector.
In extreme cases, this error can be far greater and has proven fatal to
more than one group of Travellers."
In the quote above, there is reference to the "jumpspace weave" or

"jumpspace level".  These refer to the various jumps known to exist.  If
you are jumping with a Jump-1 drive, you go through one level or weave.
If you are jumping with a Jump-3 drive, you go through an entirely
different, and higher, level or weave.
Here's a quote from the Starship Operator's Manual that discusses this: 

"In understanding jump drive, one must first understand 'jumpspace'.
Following the Big Bang (some 15 billion years ago) a multitude of
dimensions existed-far more than the four which we normally perceive.
Within seconds, however, most of these dimensions collapsed into
nothingness and were lost.  From that point on, we have the familiar
three dimensions of space (length, height, width) and one of time.

"However, the era of modern physics dawned with the realization that
more dimensions than the four we know survived the Big Bang.  Modern
cosmology places the number of existing dimensions at no fewer than 62.
The vast majority of these alternate dimensions do not effect our
everyday life in any way.  Beyond the first four dimensions, many of the
others are in force only at the subatomic level, while the remaining
three dozen are accessible only via jump drive.

"The various jumpspace dimensions are described by modern physicists as
'levels'.  Each jumpspace level has its own character, defined by the
physical laws which operate there:  these laws are known as the level's
'weave'.  A level's weave ranges from very 'loose' (easily entered) to
very 'tight' (difficult to enter).

"Currently, there are six jumpspace levels which the major races
routinely make use of.  Each jumpspace level is associated with an
approximate distance travelled in parsecs (a parsec is the average
distance between stars), and is normally identified by a number.

"A ship making a three-parsec jump, for example, is traveling through
'level three jumpspace' or more simply 'jump 3' space. Since the weave
of each higher jumpspace level gets tighter, it is more difficult to
enter level six jumpspace than to enter level one.  To date, only
misjumps have entered jumpspace level seven or higher."



2 STEPS TO MAKING A JUMP:

Here is the basic two step process the March Harrier's engineer goes
through to make a jump.

1.      First, there is a special, high yield fusion power plant
(seperate from the ship's regular power plant) in each of the two jump
drive sections (port and starboard).  This is used to charge the energy
sinks (the Harrier uses zuchai crystals for it's energy sinks) with high
grade energy in preparation for the jump transition.

Basically, energy is generated, very quickly, by the fusion
power plant, and this energy is stored in the energy sinks for use in
the jump grid.  This operation requires a lot of fuel, used very fast.  

The Harrier's jump drive uses 40 tons of fuel to do this (40
tons: picture 280,000 two liter bottles of coke). 

An unavoidable by-product of the sudden conversion of so much
fuel to energy is waste low-grade heat energy.  This heat is vented via
a series of thermal transfer techinques:  superconducting hull radiators
built into the hull, and convection techniques using some of the liquid
hydrogen fuel as coolant and expelling it with the fusion by-products
out the rear of the ship.  (During the pre-jump power build up, the ship
presents a significant IR signature, particularly from the rear, in case
of other ships picking you up with their passive IR sensors, in space
combat.)

STEP ONE:  So, the fusion plant part of the jump drive burns
this fuel in a very efficient manner, and the energy produced is
immediately sent to the energy sinks (the zuchai crystals) for storage.


2.      The Energy Sinks.  Most ships found in the Imperium use a
network of zuchai crystals as the energy sink array.  No other known
sink construct can retain such high levels of energy without decomposing
as can zuchai crystals.  However, the crystals will begin to decompose
and breakdown after two or three hours if not discharged.  In extreme
cases, the crystals can explosively decompose and do significant damage
to the ship.

Zuchai crystals are also exceptionally efficient at storing a
near perfect "impression" of the energy generated, which has both an
advantage and a disadvantage.  The advantage is very little stored
energy is lost from leakage.  The disadvantage is the power input
charging the crystals must be consistent:  any fluctuations in the input
are mirrored in the output when the crystals are drained.  Thus both the
quantity and the quality of the charge are important.

STEP TWO: Step two in the jump process is this:  Once the energy
sinks are fully charged (which was accomplished in step one above), two
surges of this energy is released to the hull grid.  The first (also the
smaller) "warms up" the jump grid by establishing a base charge in the
hull net.  The second charge tears open a hole through normal space into
jumpspace, establishes the tumble, and sets up the protective jump field
around the ship.



Two other systems should be noted, the jump govenor and the hull grid.

When the command is given to jump, energy from the energy sinks is
directed into the jump govenor.  This device, which incorporates its own
highly accurate computer system, is linked to the ship's main computer
system for guidance and backup.  With utmost precision, the governor
applies initial bursts of energy (about 20% of the full capacity of the
energy sinks) in the proper sequence to the lanthanum net, thereby
"warming up" the grid as discussed above.  At this point, if anything
out of the ordinary is detected, it is possible to abort the jump.

The next step, the transition phase, begins when the jump governor feeds
the remaining protion of the energy stored in the energy sink (80% of
the total charge) to the hull grid, opening the weave of the desired
jumpspace level.  Once this opening is made, the craft tumbles into the
breach and leaves normal space.



The second item to talk about is the lanthanum hull grid.  The grid is
built into the hull (which is one of the reasons armor is not possible
without completely rebuilding the ship), and it is spaced out in about
one meter grid lines.

During transition, the power fed to the hull grid is routed to specific
sections of the grid by the jump governor.  By exactly controlling (to
within microseconds) the routing of he surges, the vessel's tumbe is
controlled, which properly directs the path of the ship through
jumpspace.

SIMPLE REVIEW OF THE JUMP PROCESS:      

OK, here's a quick review of the details just presented.

1.      The jump drive power plants generate a huge amount of energy by
consuming 40 tons of liquid hydrogen fuel in a very short amount of time
(seconds).

2.      This energy is immediately, as soon as it is generate, sent to a
storing location in the ship's energy sinks (zuchai crystals).

3.      The jump governor is then used to manage the energy in the
energy sinks.  Two pulses of energy from the energy sinks to the hull
grid are made.  The first pulse uses about 20% of the energy used in the
energy sinks to warm the grid.  This first pulse is also used as a
checking procedure to ensure the jump grid is properly maintained for
the jump.

The second pulse uses the rest of the charge in the energy
sinks.  The jump govenor sends energy to specific parts of the grid,
making a energy pattern that will open a rift into jumpspace.  This
specific pattern also determines the ship's tumble and weave (course and
jump level) through jumpspace.

The jump govenor also uses the jump grid to produce the
protective jump field bubble so that the ship will be protected by the
strange physics of the other dimension of jumpspace.

4.      The ship stays in jump space for about a week as the jump grid
cools down.  When the jump grid gets to a certain point in it's cooling
process, the ship will naturally tumble back into normal space, at the
coordinates specified before the jump.  This is why exiting jumpspace is
not exact.  The ship's crew goes on "jump alert" when it comes time, but
they wait for the ship to get to the point where it falls back into
normal space.  The jump trip takes anywhere from 150 to 185 hours.  At
about 140 hours into the trip, the Captain will put the crew on "jump
exit alert".  People cannot be involved with any long term projects that
would keep them away from their station.  At some point (and only nature
governs this), the ship falls back into normal space. The crew members
make it to their stations when this happens in case of emergency, but
they basically sit there as the ship emerges into normal space.



Next up?  The Maneuver Drive.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:01:47 -0600
From: Sanders <kalin@swlink.net>
Subject: Re: Startown Chandlery

Below is something else I stumbled across in my archives today. If you 
find it useful, good, if not, hit your delete key :)

Paul
( kalin@swlink.net )

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

The following list is from a campaign I was involved with several years 
ago. The world where the campaign started was TL9, and below are the items 
that the PC's found available to purchase at the local Startown Chandlery 
prior to departure. 

           
         Item for Sale       Tech Level Weight    Mass/Volume  Credits

         Airlock, Portable       TL9    6.0 kg    2000.0 ltr      4000
         Air Tanks               TL9    2.5 kg     5.0 ltr        2000
         Air Tanks, Underwater   TL9    2.5 kg     5.0 ltr        3200
         Atmosphere Tester       TL9    1.0 kg     1.5 ltr         600
         Attache Case / Lock     TL9    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr         400
         Axe, Ice                TL3    1.5 kg     3.0 ltr         100
         Backpack                TL3    3.0 kg     40.0 ltr        180
         Rescue Ball             TL7    5.0 kg     1.0 ltr         600
         Base, Advance           TL8-9  6000.0 kg  72.0 klt     200000
         Battle Computer         TL9    15.0 kg    28.0 ltr      40000
         Beacon, Emergency       TL9    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr        3000
         Binoculars              TL3    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr         300
         Binoculars, Electric    TL9    1.5 kg     2.0 ltr        3000
         Boots, Climbing         TL3    1.5 kg     3.0 ltr         200
         Bullhorn                TL6    0.5 kg     2.5 ltr         500
         Cabin, Prefabricated    TL6    4000.0 kg  72.0 kltr     40000
         Cable, 50 meter coil    TL9    3.0 kg     1.0 ltr         400
         Cable, Electric 50 m    TL9    4.0 kg     1.0 ltr         100
         Calculator, Hand        TL7    0.1 kg     0.25 ltr         40
         Calculator, Hand Solar  TL9    0.1 kg     0.2 ltr          50
         Canopener               TL6    -          -                10
         Carpentry Tool Set      TL3    25.0 kg    30.0 ltr       1200
         Carpentry Tool, Power   TL9    25.0 kg    30.0 ltr       1200
         Charges, Breaching      TL9    2.0 kg     20.0 ltr        400
         Clothing, Cold Weather  TL9    2.0 kg     9.0 ltr        2500
         Clothing, Desert        TL3    -          -               400
         Communication Reg.500km TL9    1.2 kg     2.4 ltr        2000
         Communicator 500km      TL9    1.5 lg     3.0 ltr       20000
         Compass, Magnetic       TL3    -          -                40
         Counter, Radiation      TL6    1.0 kg     1.5 ltr        1000
         Crampons                TL4    -          -                80
         Desert Survival Kit     TL6    1.0 kg     4.0 ltr        1800
         Detector, Metal         TL6    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr        1200
         Disguise Kit            TL7    5.0 kg     8.0 ltr        4000
         Dye, Water              TL9    0.1 kg     0.1 ltr         200
         Echo Sounder (Sonar)    TL9    0.4 kg     0.6 ltr         800
         Electronic Tool Kit     TL9    4.0 kg     12.0 ltr       8200
         Electronic Tool Kit     TL7    5.0 kg     10.0 ltr       8000
         Filter/Respirator Comb  TL5    0.5 kg     1.0 ltr         600
         Flare, Smoke            TL6    0.25 kg    0.5 ltr          50
         Flare, Gun              TL5    1.0 kg     1.5 ltr         300
         Flare, Signal           TL5    0.25 kg    0.1 ltr          40
         Flare, Illum.           TL5    0.25 kg    0.1 ltr         100
         Guage, Depth            TL9    -          -              1000
         Guage, Tank Pressure    TL6    -          -               100
         Gill, Artificial        TL9    4.0 kg     5.0 ltr       16000
         Goggles                 TL5    -          -                60
         Goggles (IR/LI)         TL9    0.2 kg     0.3 ltr        5000
         Goggles (IR)            TL6    0.25 kg    0.5 ltr        2000
         Goggles (LI)            TL7    -          0.5 ltr        1600
         Grapnel (no rope)       TL2    2.0 kg     4.0 ltr          60
         Grapnel Gun             TL7    10.0 kg    6.0 ltr         400
         Hammer, Rock            TL2    1.0 kg     1.0 ltr          40
         Heatsuit                TL8    -          -              1200
         Heatsuit Battery, Disp. TL8    0.5kg      -               160
         Helmut, Transparent     TL8    0.75 kg    6.0 ltr         120
         Hoist, Climbing         TL8    1.5 kg     0.5 ltr         500
         Hoist, (Type ??)        TL6    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr         200
         Hoist, Mechanical       TL1    12.0 kg    24.0 ltr        250
         Hoist, Powered          TL9    20.0 kg    40.0 ltr        450
         Lamp, Gas or Oil        TL2    0.5 kg     1.0 ltr          40
         Lamp Fuel Refill        TL2-6  0.2 kg     0.6 ltr          10
         Lantern, Cold Light     TL6    0.25 kg    0.5 lt           80
         Locater, Inertial       TL9    1.5 kg     0.5 ltr        5000
         Lockpick Set            TL5-9  0.25 kg    0.5 ltr      40-400
         Lock, Keypad            TL7    0.05 kg    0.05 ltr        160
         Lock, Combination       TL5    0.25 kg    0.05 ltr        120
         Lock, Magnetic or
              Fingerprint        TL8    0.25 kg    0.05 ltr        200
         Lock, Voiceprint        TL8    0.25 kg    0.05 ltr        300
         Lock, Retinal Scan      TL9    0.25 kg    0.05 ltr        300
         Lock, Metabolic Scan    TL9    0.25 kg    0.05 ltr        800
         Lock, Tumbler           TL4-9  0.25 kg    0.1 ltr         100
         Machete                 TL4    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr         500
         Map, Electronic         TL9    1.0 kg     1.0 ltr       10000
         Mask, Face, Underwater  TL9    0.5 kg     0.7 ltr         300
         Mask, Filter            TL3    6.5 kg     1.0 ltr          40
         Mask, Protective        TL6    0.5 kg     1.0 ltr         100
         Mechanical Tool Kit     TL5    20.0 kg    30.0 ltr       4000
         Medical Kit             TL9    10.0 kg    20.0 ltr       4000
         Metalwork Kit           TL4    50.0 kg    50.0 ltr       6000
         Metalwork Kit, Power    TL9    50.0 kg    50.0 ltr       6000
         Mirror, Return          TL9    20.0 kg    15.0 ltr       2000
         Mirror, Signal          TL2    0.25 kg    0.2 ltr          40
         Mountaineers Kit        TL4    2.0 kg     4.o ltr         400
         Navigator, Inertal      TL8    0.15 kg    0.2 ltr        6000
         Oxygen Rebreather       TL8    4.0 kg     8.0 ltr        8000
         Oxygen Breather
              Recharge           TL8    3.0 kg     6.0 ltr         400
         Parachute               TL4    15.0 kg    20.0 ltr       1000
         Parawing                TL7    5.0 kg     5.0 ltr        1600
         Pitons, Steel           TL7    0.2 kg     0.1 ltr          25
         Pitons, Superglue       TL8    0.2 kg     0.1 ltr          25
         Piton Glue Solvent      TL8    0.5 kg     0.5 ltr          80
         Respirator              TL5    0.5 kg     1.0 ltr         400
         Rope, 10 meter          TL5    3.0 kg     6.0 ltr          80
         Navigational Satelite   TL9    100.0 kg   300.0 ltr    140000
         Shoes, Rock             TL4    0.5 kg     -                40
         Snorkel                 TL5    0.1 kg     0.5 ltr          20
         Snowshoes               TL1    1.0 kg     4.0 ltr         240
         Suit Air Conditioner    TL8    3.0 kg     6.0 ltr         800
         Suit, Desert Survival   TL9    5.0 kg     20.0 ltr      28000
         Suit, Dry               TL7    3.0 kg     3.0 ltr        1200
         Suit, Heated Dry        TL8    -          3.0 ltr        2600
         Suit Heater             TL8    3.0 kg     6.0 ltr        1000
         Suit, Protective        TL6    7.0 kg     8.0 ltr        4000
         Suit, Heavy Protective  TL7    7.0 kg     10.0 ltr       5600
         Suit, Wet, Advanced     TL9    -          -               400
         Survival Bubble         TL9    3.0 kg     3.0 kltr       2400
         Swim Fins               TL3    0.5 kg     1.0 ltr          60
         Swim Equipment          TL3    1.0 kg     3.0 ltr         800
         Tarpaulin               TL1    2.0 kg     4.0 ltr          40
         Tarpaulin, Reflector    TL7    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr        1600
         Tent                    TL2    3.0 kg     6.0 ltr         800
         Text, Pressure          TL7    25.0 kg    30.0 ltr       3000
         Torches                 TL1    0.25 kg    1.0 ltr           4
         Torches, Electric       TL5    0.5 kg     1.0 ltr          40
         Well Patch,Experimental TL9    5.0 kg     1.5 ltr         800
         Water Filter/Distill    TL7    1.0 kg     4.0 ltr         300
         Water Purification Kit  TL5    -          -                20
         Weight Belt             TL5    -          -               100
         Vaccines, Single        TL9    -          -                60
         Vaccines, Multi, Exp.   TL9    -          -               100
         Antitoxin,
           Single Poison/Disease TL9    -          -               100
         Antibiotics             TL9    -          -               200
         Metabolics              TL9    -          -              4000
         Vacc Suit               TL9    8.0 kg     3.6 kltr 28000 -3Dx
         Hostile Environment
           Vacc Suit             TL9    40.0 kg    3.8 kltr 64000 -3Dx
         PLSS 9A                 TL9    7.0 kg     11.0 ltr      12000
         PLAA 9B                 TL9    14.5 kg    20.0 ltr      20000
         PLSS 9C                 TL9    29.0 kg    55.0 ltr      32000
         Hard Bubble Helmet      TL9    2.0 kg     14.0 ltr       3200
         Magnetic Grip Vacc Suit TL9    -          0.5 ltr          80
         Suit Patches (5)        TL9    -          0.2 ltr          10
         Thermal/Meteroid G???   TL9    -          1.0 ltr        1600
         Small Live Animals      -      0.2 kg     2.0 ltr          10
         Small Birds             -      0.1 kg     2.0 ltr          20
         Animal & Bird Feed      TL2    0.5        0.5 ltr          20
         Pets (Invent your own)  -      ?          ?          50-500 +
         Garden Hose/10 meter    TL9    25.0 kg    20.0 ltr        100
         Portable Pump Gas Power TL9    50.0 kg    40.0 ltr        400
         Winemaking Kit          TL3    15.0 kg    25.0 ltr        150
         Alcohol Still           TL6    30.0 kg    50.0 ltr        500
         Chainsaw, Gas Powered   TL7    15.0 kg    20.0 ltr        800
         Gasoline                TL7    6.0 kg     5.0 ltr          20
         Extension Drop Cord     TL8    1.0 kg     1.0 ltr          30
         Multichronometer        TL9    0.1 kg     0.2 ltr        2000
         Gyrocompass             TL9    3.0 kg     8.0 ltr        4400
         Language Translater     TL9    2.0 kg     3.0 ltr        8000
         Translater Blank Memchp TL9    -          -                40
         Remote Earpiece         TL8    0.1 kg     0.2 ltr         300
         Utility Vest            TL8    -          6.0 ltr        1000
         Antigrav Units          TL9    27.0 kton  13.5 kl     2000000
         Jump Drive Units        TL9    27.0 kton  13.5 kl    12000000
         Fusion 2 MW Power Plant TL9    4.0 kton   1.0 ltr     2000000
         Nuclear Fission
           1.0 MW Plant          TL6    8.0 kton   1.0 kl      2000000
         Gas Turbine
           0.6 MW Plant          TL7    1.0 kton   1.0 kltr    2000000
         TL9 Solar Cells Meter   TL9    0.014 kg   0.01 kltr   2000000
         Battery @ 6 Kilowatt    TL9    1.0 kg     1.0 ltr        1500
         10 Kilowatt Fuel Cell   TL9    20.0 kg    20.0 ltr       2400
         Copper Tubing 150 Meter TL9    3.0 kg     5.0 ltr         500
         Leartherworking Kit     TL9    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr         100
         Jack Armor              TL1    1.0 kg     4.0 ltr         200
         Mesh Armor              TL7    2.0 kg     4.0 ltr         600
         Cloth Armor             TL6    2.0 kg     4.5 kl         1000
         Flak Jacket             TL7    1.0 kg     2.0 kltr        400
         Ablat Armor             TL9    2.0 kg     4.5 kltr        300
         Dagger                  TL1    0.2 kg     0.2 ltr          40
         Sword                   TL2    1.0 kg     1.0 ltr         600
         Cutlass                 TL3    1.2 kg     1.0 ltr         400
         Broadsword              TL2    2.5 kg     1.5 ltr        1200
         Foil                    TL3    0.5 kg     0.6 ltr         400
         Hand Axe                TL1    0.5 kg     2.0 ltr         200
         Battle Axe              TL2    3.0 kg     2.0 ltr         800
         Bayonette               TL6    0.2 kg     0.2 ltr          40
         Spear                   TL0    2.0 kg     2.0 ltr          40
         Halbard                 TL2    2.5 kg     2.5 ltr         300
         Pike                    TL1    3.0 kg     2.5 ltr         160
         9mm Magnum Revolver     TL5    1.2 kg     1.2 ltr        1200
         Mag 9mm Ammunition      TL5    0.12 kg    -                32
         9mm Revolver            TL4    0.9 kg     0.9 ltr         600
         9mm Ammunition          TL4    0.1 kg     0.1 ltr          20
         10 mm Snub Pistol       TL8    0.2 kg     0..2 ltr         600
         10mm SP Ammunition      TL8    0.03 kg    0.03 ltr         40
         10mm Auto Snub Pistol   TL8    4.0 kg     4.0 ltr        2400
         Auto SP Ammunition      TL8    0.5 kg     0.5 ltr          80
         7mm Auto Pistol         TL6    0.5 kg     0.5 ltr         600
         7mm Ammunition          TL6    0.2 kg     0.2 ltr          32
         9mm Auto Pistol         TL5    0.7 kg     0.7 ltr         800
         9mm Auto Pistol Ammo.   TL5    0.25 kg    0.25 ltr         40
         7mm Carbine             TL5    3.0 kg     3.0 ltr         800
         7mm Carbine Ammunition  TL5    0.12 kg    0.12 ltr         40
         9mm Rifle               TL7    5.0 kg     4.0 ltr        4000
         9mm Rifle Ammunition    TL7    0.8 kg     0.8 ltr         160
         13mm Hunting Rifle      TL5    6.0 kg     4.5 ltr        8000
         13mm Ammunition         TL5    1.5 kg     1.0 ltr         240
         7mm Auto Rifle          TL6    5.0 kg     5.0 ltr        4000
         18mm Auto Shotgun       TL7    4.0 kg     4.0 ltr        2000
         18mm Shotgun Shells     TL7    0.75 kg    0.75 ltr         40
         9mm SMG                 TL5    2.5 kg     2.5 ltr        2000
         SMG Ammunition          TL5    0.5 kg     0.5 ltr          80
         5mm Assault Rifle       TL7    3.0 kg     3.0 ltr        1200
         5mm Ammunition          TL7    0.33 kg    0.3 ltr          80
         7mm Assault Rifle       TL7    4.0 kg     4.0 ltr        1600
         7mm Ammunition          TL7    0.6 kg     0.6 ltr         120
         6mm Accelerator Rifle   TL9    2.5 kg     2.5 ltr        3600
         6mm Ammunition          TL9    0.5 kg     0.5 ltr         100
         LAG                     TL8    4.0 kg     4.0 ltr        2400
         LAG Ammunition          TL8    0.5 kg     0.5 ltr          80
         Laser Pistol            TL9    0.7 kg     0.7 ltr        8000
         Laser Pistol Powerpack  TL9    2.0 kg     2.0 ltr        6000
         Laser Rifle             TL9    6.0 kg     5.0 ltr       14000
         Laser Rifle Powerpack   TL9    4.0 kg     4.0 ltr        6000
         Tangle Net              TL1    0.5 kg     0.5 ltr          80
         Tranq. Spray            TL5    0.1 kg     0.1 ltr         400
         Plastic Knife           TL9    0.35 kg    0.3 ltr        1200
         Ammunition Belt         TL6    0.5 kg     2.0 ltr         500
         Bola                    TL0    -          -                40
         Insta-glue              TL7    0.2 kg     0.2 ltr          80
         Typewriter              TL8    20.0 kg    20 ltr         1000
         Paper/?                 TL8    1.0 kg     2.0 ltr          50
         Hand Grenade            TL6    1.0 kg     1.0 ltr         100
         Gunpowder, Barrel       TL6    50.0 kg    40.0 ltr       1000
         6 Unknown Artifacts     ?      ?          ?           2000000
         Bottle of Wine, Good    TL3    1.2 kg     1.0 ltr         100
         Bottle of Beer, Good    TL3    0.6 kg     0.5 ltr          20
         Bottle of Beer, Poor    TL3    0.5 kg     0.4 ltr          10
         Hallucinogenic Drugs    TL0-9  Varies     Varies          100
         Narcotic Drugs          TL0-9  -          -               100
         Deck of Cards           TL5    0.1 kg     0.1 ltr          12
         Roulette Wheel          TL6    2.0 kg     4.0 ltr         500
         Bolt of Cloth           TL3    12.0 kg    12.0 ltr       4000
         Costume Jewelry         TL9    1.0 kg     1.0 ltr        1000
         1 Liter Bottle of ??    TL7    0.5 kg     1.0 ltr          10

The End.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:00:01 -0700
From: "Brian A. Howard" <bruadh@southwest.net>
Subject: Re: Destroying terrestrial worlds for fun an

At 02:15 PM 9/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
>O.K...who is going to be the advocate for the Vogon Constructor Fleet?

O.K. who missed reading my signature?


Brian A. Howard

If you hear the sound of a Babel fish, run. 
For a Vogon constuctor fleet cannot be far behind.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:59:28 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: (Vargr) Constructor Fleets

> From: MJ Dougherty <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
> To: traveller-digest@lists.MPGN.COM
> Subject: Vogon Constructor Fleets
> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 10:43 AM
> 
> Hey, Look! J-man wants to be the advocate for the Vogon Constructor
Fleets.
> 
> Sorry, Jory, you can't. The Vogons use beam weapons to destroy planets,
not
> sodding handguns!

Another misspelling!  Shouldn't it be "Vargr Constructor Fleets?" :)

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: 30 Sep 1997 22:29:39 -0400
From: edgar@beckett.rmaonline.net (Mr. Whipple)
Subject: Re: Very Sharp Knives

Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> writes:

> One minor point...those 'glass blades' are literally stone age technology,
> TL0, being knapped pieces of obsidian. The TL-1-2 Mayans used obsidian
> blades like that for surgery, and fairly similar blades were in use in
> delicate things like eye surgery until lasers came into widespread use in
> the last few decades.

You're right, of course. Still, I thought I read in a recent (<5yrs)
National Geographic or Scientific American that while the use of glass
blades is old, there had been relatively recent developments in the
technology of shaping the blades. Have you ever heard of any such
thing?

- -- 
Edgar Whipple            This is my signature.
ewhipple@rma.edu         It's not much, but it's all I have.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:25:41 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: How high are skill levels, really.

Nice work, Scott, I just wish this had been posted during the task wars
thread. I let my players choose which table to roll from, can you make an
estimate of what effect that will have on the distribution of skill levels?
They tend to make all their rolls from only two or three tables.

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:25:11 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Coke projectors

>A jump interdictor would be easier to make than a jump
>projector, as all you have to do is crank up a gravity
>well big enough to make people think twice about jumping...
>of course, creating such a gravity well would make it
>pretty easy for missles to hit you (to say the least).
>Maybe there's other ways to do it though.

In my campaign a device called a "jump boot" can prevent a ship from
jumping. They can be fastened on a ship by the authorities or be delivered
by missiles, though missiles require a contact hit and are only effective
on ships without point defence systems.

A jump boot is a large cannister containing chemicals which expand into a
hard foamed mass when mixed. The cannister fastens onto (or hits) the
ship's hull and triggeres on contact or by remote control. A single
cannister produces about 10 displacement tons of hard, low density,
lanthanum-laced, foam spread over the ship's hull. The foam makes contact
with the jump grid on the ship and increases the volume contained in the
jump grid above what the jump engines are capable of handling. Large ships
may require several boots to exceed the jump engine's safety margin.
Removing the boot requires repair at a class C starport or better, or in an
emergency a few blasts from a plasma cannon.

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:45:30 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: 101 Religons

At 05:07 PM 9/30/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Timothy Collinson Wrote;
>>Having said all this, I confess that I don't exactly create hundreds of
>>religions (!) so it's not really a problem anyway.  Perhaps it could be a
>>new BITS book, 101 Religions.  Anyone interested if I started putting some
>>together?
>
>Oooo Sounds good!
>
>It would have to be in the same format; just a couple of paragraphs with
>the URP and a bit of detail to fill out the edges.
>
>I'll volunteer for 20 or so!

I'm good for about ten.
- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:26:36 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Archon Gaming Convention

Sentients:

This weekend will be the 21th Archon SF Convention Collinsville, IL (about
15 miles from St Louis).  Guests include Lois McMaster Bujold, Mary Hansen
Roberts, Barbara Stewart, Tim Hays, Toni Weisskopf, George R. R. Martin. 

Price is $25 at the door. More information can be found at their website
at http://www.ecc.cc.mo.us/~archon/

Why am I bothering this list about it?  I will be running a game of
_Traveller_ Friday night as well as one _Space:1889_ role-playing session
Saturday morning.  This is topped off by a roaring _Sky Galleons of Mars_
battle Saturday night.

Please come over and play!  It's even close enough to Normal that Marc
Miller could drive down here and go (hint, hint). :*)

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:51:03 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Vogon Constructor Fleets

MJ Dougherty wrote:

> Hey, Look! J-man wants to be the advocate for the Vogon Constructor Fleets.
>
> Sorry, Jory, you can't. The Vogons use beam weapons to destroy planets, not
> sodding handguns!

I use my bad poetry to destroy planets, not a sodding beam weapon!


- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1902
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 1 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1903



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Population
Re: Jump Projectors
Jumping Planets
Re: Traveller Software
Re: The Piracy Thread
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: (Vargr) Constructor Fleets
Re: Very Sharp Knives
Re: Constant Laser Fire
Re: TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations &
Re: Very Sharp Knives
Re: Paladin (fwd)
Re: The Piracy Thread 
Re: Population
Re: Piracy by the numbers
Re: Extended System Generation Question
Re: Vargr N/PC
Re: The Piracy Thread
Re: (Vargr) Constructor Fleets
Re : Jump Projectors

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:44:10 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Linda Baxter wrote:

> > From: Michael D. Peters <Letterworks@Comten.com>
> > We COULD tell..... but then we would have to destroy you!!!!
> >
> > Fear the Forerunners, Grandfather was only a kid!
>
> Ah! Another Andre Norton reader. :-)

Make that "three" norton readers..:)  I grew up on her stuff.


- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:49:01 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Population

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> wrote:

>Woden2014@aol.com writes:

>>but according to The Traveller Book(CT) 'The Imperium is a far flung
>>interstellar community encompassing over 1100 worlds ...' and the CT
>>setting is 1105.
>
>Really? Well, that was changed subsequently. I'll dig out the reference
>for you. Again, I'm _almost_ 100% sure of the 10,000 systems, but my
>memory is not always reliable, so I have to hedge.

The Marches alone contain 400+ systems. 11,000 systems is right. (NB V&V
mentions the First Imperium having 15,000 systems IIRC!)

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:45:03 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> wrote:

>As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but let's
>have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
>Jump Drive Volume:  2.1736x10^19 m^3
>Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
>Jump Drive Cost:    6.5208x10^18 MCr
>Jump Grid Area:     7.65099x10^9 m^2
>Jump Fuel (1 jump): 1.0868x10^20 m^3


How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
talking misjumps here? ;-)

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:35:40 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Jumping Planets

At 03:27 PM 29/09/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Couldn't you refine hydrogen from the oceans of the world in order to
>"jump" it?

I thought of that as well, but you need a volume of fuel equal to a
percentage of the volume of the volume you are jumping. I am not sure
whether the oceans would be enough.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think its 10% per jump 1?

Even on a waterworld I don't think the thin layer of water on the surface
would be enough!


Jumping a gas giant however...... :)


Harry

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 06:43:48 +0000
From: dorfman@ksu.edu
Subject: Re: Traveller Software

Iain,

I am still very (and only) interested in Classic Traveller.  Anything 
on software would be of great help.  I agree starting point is with 
what you have listed.  Eventually,it would be nice to see and 
interactive CD-Rom game much like the AD&D stuff

Best...Steve Dorfman



> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 97 16:04 BST-1
> From: ilaskey@cix.compulink.co.uk (Iain Laskey)
> Subject: Traveller software
> 
> A friend and I are considering putting together some Traveller software 
> for the PC (Windows). What kind of stuff would people be more likely to 
> use?
> 
> Right now we only know Classic Traveller, having just revisited it after 
> 10 years. Do many people still use this or should we work with the 4.1 
> ruleset? Is 4.1 available in the UK at all?
> 
> An initial stab suggests character, planet, subsector generators plus 
> animals, encounters and so on. Any suggestions or feedback gratefully 
> received.
> 
> Iain

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:02:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread

I have just loosly followed the piracy thread, and have a question.
Woulden't a large portion of the Imperiums Naval Budget go to admin?
I see large sums of money being thrown around but it dosn't look like
any of the figures take into account what resources is needed to admin 
a hole fleet of this size. 

I beleave that given the cost of admin of the Imperial fleet the amount 
of ships available would be limited quite severly, making piracy possible.
Another element is the almost ridicilous amount of habited systems in the 
Imperium. All M size stars will probably not contain sentient life and
would quite well serve as pirat bases.


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: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:40:27 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

At 03:03 PM 29/09/97 -0700, you wrote:

>As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but let's
>have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
>
>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
>
>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
>
>Jump Drive Volume:  2.1736x10^19 m^3
>Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
>Jump Drive Cost:    6.5208x10^18 MCr
>Jump Grid Area:     7.65099x10^9 m^2
>Jump Fuel (1 jump): 1.0868x10^20 m^3
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Refined or unrefined? Nah.. Lets avoid the starport and do some gas giant
refuelling. Planets are spheres (sort of) so they count as being streamlined!

It's a bugger trying to get to the 100 diameter limit....


Harry

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:56:40 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: (Vargr) Constructor Fleets

vanya wrote:

> > From: MJ Dougherty <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
> > To: traveller-digest@lists.MPGN.COM
> > Subject: Vogon Constructor Fleets
> > Date: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 10:43 AM
> >
> > Hey, Look! J-man wants to be the advocate for the Vogon Constructor
> Fleets.
> >
> > Sorry, Jory, you can't. The Vogons use beam weapons to destroy planets,
> not
> > sodding handguns!
>
> Another misspelling!  Shouldn't it be "Vargr Constructor Fleets?" :)
>
> -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
> Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
> Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
> "...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

 If so, the "Vargr" construction fleets could be placated by someone throwing
them a "milkbone."  :)

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:24:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Very Sharp Knives

In mail you write:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David 'Washu' Moodie wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for that, I'll put the glass blades & or lubricant at TL-8 and have
>> a steady progression in nano-technology that should peak around or before
>> the 3I probably. I'll put some kind of shape-manipulating field at higher
>> levels I guess.
>
> One minor point...those 'glass blades' are literally stone age technology,
> TL0, being knapped pieces of obsidian. The TL-1-2 Mayans used obsidian
> blades like that for surgery, and fairly similar blades were in use in
> delicate things like eye surgery until lasers came into widespread use in
> the last few decades.

As far as I know they *still* use glass blades for dissecting *cells*. 

Yes, they use microscopic flakes of glass and micromanipulators to open
up cells and do thing like swap pieces around to see what happens.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:28:05 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Constant Laser Fire

In mail you write:

> FA of 2000? Hmm, must have overlooked that somewhere...I'm not that clued
> up on Laser physics so I thought leaving a laser on constantly for a few
> seconds couldn't hurt... They do in laser light shows etc...

Those lasers are less than kilowatt (much less!). And they need a
moderate amount of cooling. The losses from a megawatt laser are going
to be 1000 times as strong, all else being equal. Now a *gigawatt laser
will be a *million* times as bad.

> Yeah I know... but I meant it in the scale of a device that is rated in Mj
> storage rather than Mw output (where Mw's are Mj's over time yes?)

The trick is, the generator *does* have a power rating. It discharges
over a *very* short time. Divide the MJ by that time to get the power
in MW. So if it's a microsecond (1 millionth of a sec), then the power
rating is one million *times* the MJ rating!

ps. capitalization is *very* important in abbreviations for units!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:50:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations &

>Date: 30 Sep 1997 10:38 EDT
>From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
>Subject: TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List

>Fellow Travellers,

>I am building a list of Imperial Corporations not mentioned
>in the Traveller material; i.e. corporations & institutions
>you have spun and weaved from your own creative energy.

Cool!  Here's X-TEK:

Entity       : X-TEK Industries, LIC
Founder      :Count Commander "X"
Founded In   : Origionaly "Experimental Technological Industries Group" 
Fonded in year 15.  Name Changed to X-TEK in Year 19.
Contact      :CEO or X-TEK Commander X <cmdrx@magicnet.net>
           :Assistant of Customer Relations:  Bill Prankard 
<bprankard@theiia.org>
Main Office  :"Planet X" Previously Deep Space Military Garrison 10.
             Hex2116 Core Sector
Sectors      : Core
Summary      : Military Fighters and Small Craft(under 2000Std)
          Some Civilian Craft, Lower Tech Designs
          Inovative Starship Weapon Designs.

Product Line : XTF Line of Fighters(10-50Std), Assault Scout Line, System 
Defence Craft, The HFB-1 Merc Crusier.  Small Merchants and Survelylance 
Craft.
Weapon Designs: 10Std PAW and Meson Pods.  Plasma Warhead for Missiles.
Gravatic Vehicle Designs.  Surveylance, Countersurveyance equipment, 
personal dueling weapons.



A rather rough description, but that should sum it up :)


Rob
Your Friendly TAS Corrsepondant

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:14:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Very Sharp Knives

In mail you write:

> Thanks for that, I'll put the glass blades & or lubricant at TL-8

>> First, we have The Sharpest Possible Blade (tm), which is made from
>> ordinary, boring glass, volcanic or synthetic, it doesn't matter.
>> These blades taper to the width of a single atom at their edges, which
>> degree of sharpness I trust you will agree cannot be exceeded with
>> normal matter. They aren't the most durable things in the world, but
>> they are as sharp as it gets.  To do better, you would have to switch
>> to clarke-magical force fields or something.

Sorry, but those super sharp blades are TL-0! Chipped obsidian blades
are as sharp as you can get. Which is why surgeons and micro-biologists
had to get together with antropologists back in the late 60s. 

Now they know how to "flake" the glass for blades and it gets passed
on without new students realizing that this "high tech" is actually
*old* tech.

This is probably *why* there were so many survivors of "primitive"
surgery (like trephanation). A freshly chipped glass or flint knife is
*sterile* (all the edges were part of the inside of a very *non*-porous
rock until you chipped away the rock). And since it was known that a
freshly chipped edge was sharper, naturally the person doing the
surgery would use a blade that'd *just* been chipped. 

So there goes most post -op infection. Especially when you add in the
fact that pre-agricultural tribes have *very* few diseases, because
they live under conditions that aren't favorable to most infectious
agents. 

A nasty ref can use the above *two* ways. First, it means that if the
"doctor" scores high enough on a roll about what to do when he needs to
operate with no medical gear, he may realize that getting the
natives to chip him a flint knife would be better for the patient than
trying to "sterilze" somebody's combat knife in the fire. :-)

Second, it means that some players with "cloth" type armor may get some
nasty surprises when attacked by the "stone-age" natives. :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:19:49 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Paladin (fwd)

Moin Jon Goff,

> Make those 35 Mj unless you allow multiple focal arrays tied to a single
> HPG.  They are powered to -1 DM though.
> 
> I was also suprised to find that my set of vessels would cost the most.
> I tried to keep the cost down, but I guess dt per dt the bigger, the
> cheaper?!?!?

	you should also not that TL16 is seldom in the regency,
	did you muliplied the price acording ?

- -- 
  email:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:30:11 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread 

At 11:30 PM 29/09/97 -0800, you wrote:
 
>> IMHO, Any military alliance within the Imperium is going to be soundly
>> slapped down.  That's a direct challenge to the authority of the Imperial
>> nobility (and essentially, resulted in the chaos of the Rebellian).  Any
>> support for the individuals planets is requested from the Imperial Navy.
>
>But lots of planets in the Imperium have captive governments.  These
>planets are owned or ruled by other planets.  This is a lot more control
>over the other planet than in a mere alliance.  Why would the Imperium
>permit ownership of other planets but prohibit the less threatening
>alliance ?

Anything that expands the power of you r local nobility is good. Owning
more than one planet is good.... and it doesn't actually interfere with the
authority of the Imperium. Worlds making alliances between themselves are
acknowledging that the Imperium has no real effective power over them, plus
the nobles get nothing out of it. Remeber that htis is an Empire, an
enlightened empire, but still an empire!

Except in my campaign, where they are not so enlightened <evil grin>


Harry

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:12:55 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Population

Woden2014@aol.com writes:
> By the way, at 10,000 worlds, 

That should have been 11,000 worlds. Sorry.

>with 36 worlds per subsector, 

I didn't use 36 worlds in my example because there are 36 worlds per
subsector, but because that allows the proper proportion of all the
different population levels. However, by coincidence many subsectors
will have 30+ systems. In a sparse area there will be an average of
26 systems (1/3rd of 80) and in a normal area there will be an average
of 40 (1/2 of 80).
 
>there should be 281 subsectors in the Imperium. (280.55 actualy)  Is that 
>right, canonicaly speaking ?  I have no idea myself.

According to _Rebellion_ there are 320 numbered fleets. Most subsectors
have one numbered fleet. 11 fleets are "doubled up" and two fleets appear
to be in areas where there are no Imperial planets (presumably there are
client states). So without having counted them I say there are 307
susectors with one or more Imperial systems (Some of them with _very_ few
Imperial systems, though).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:08:15
From: Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

Semo wrote :

>Now, based on that we have:
>
>Cr500 (which I think is too high to begin with) for a naval tax (this is over
>1/10th of the average persons budget according to the Traveller Book [CT]) x
>54 billion = 2.7 trillion.

Cr500 isnt too bad ... assuming naval spending at 5% of GDP, that puts per
capita income at Cr10 000 a head, which is pretty much within the figures
I've worked thru PE and Striker I.

>
>1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 27 billion.
>
>Now we have 27 billion credits per 36 worlds, that's enough for 122 patrol
>cruisers, or 27 Kinunirs, or 93 close escorts per year.  Now, this is not
>including maintenance costs on these craft (including serious repairs, after
>all they will be *fighting pirates*), salaries per craft (all CT figures), or
>salaries for ship's troops (wouldn't it be embarassing for a Kinunir to be
>boarded and taken over by a small team of pirates?), or salaries for
>coordinating and command peoples, or costs for life support (hefty using our
>CT model here), costs for sensor stations, etc. etc.  All these things add up
>in a big way.  Then of course you have to pay the families of those who are
>killed in combat.

Thats 27 *new* Kinuirs per year ... assuming crew costs etc are 10% of ship
costs per year, and maintainence etc is 20% per year (wayyyyy more than
merchants pay btw), then it means we can maintain about 70 Kinuirs with our
defense budget, and retire them when they get old.

Also, if they are fighting pirates, the pirates are fighting them. And I'll
bet the Navy gets repaired a lot easier and cheaper than pirates do.

>
>And, how about the lawsuits when an anti-piracy craft fires upon the wrong
>ship and kills little Billy Jenkins, the cabin boy.

*shrug* call it a legal slush fund of MCr50 a year, eg stuff all.

>
>Important question:  Is the cost of fighting off Vargr Corsairs in places
>like the Corridor sector subsumed in this 1/1000th of the naval budget?  If
>so, I'm sure more ships and lives get lost out there, and hence more ships
>must be moved to these locations.

My guess is that worlds in Corridor pay a bit more in Naval Taxes, and brash
young noble officers from Sylea request transfer to the Corridor Fleet to
get onto the fast track through a taste of fire.

>
>All this stuff adds up after awhile.  Of course, as I said, I think your
>Cr500 per person figure is awfully high.  Traveller rules say the average
>person has to spend Cr400 a month for food and lodging.  Cr500 is a little
>over 10%.  And that's just for the Imperial Navy!!!  How about the Scout
>service (tons of ships, facilities, and the X-Boats)??  The Imperial
>bureaucracy?  Etc. etc.

Actually, it's the total Naval budget if I read the arguments correctly.
I mean, if there isnt a war on, you might as well do an anti-pirate sweep
as a live-fire excercise.


>
>Okay, I'll bite.  Now, you have salaries, life support, maintenance (again,
>they're fighting pirates so this'll be higher than usual), coordinating and
>command peoples, sensors, sensors, and more sensors.  Plus, they'll probably
>have to try and stop smugglers as well.  They have to pay for all of these
>"hidden" spaceports where the SDBs refuel...  Now, 5,250 MCr can buy you _5_
>Kinunir Class ships or _24_ Patrol Cruisers, not 50 or 200+ respectively.
> Since they are also charged with local defense, they have to have SDBs too,
>they can buy _21_ of them.  This goes down by a factor of 10 each time you go
>down a population level.  A pop 6 world can buy .5 kinunir class ships, or
>2.4 patrol cruisers, or 2 SDBs, a pop 5 world can buy .05 kinunir class
>ships, .24 patrol cruisers, or 2 SDBs.  A pop 4 world could pay for the
>_maintenance_ of 5 Kinunirs, 24 patrol cruisers, or 20 SDBs.  A pop 3 world
>couldn't even maintain a single Kinunir each year!

Small worlds get fighter squadrons ... you only need to damage the pirate
to make them go away. Six twenty ton fighters can do a lot of damage to
a pirate.

And thats buy a new ship each year. How many ships was the USN commissioning
each year when they were trying for a 600 ship navy, anyway ? What was it,
thirty at most ?

Also, check out the small proportion of the cost of a starship - even a 
military starship - that the crew is. Your average military starship costs
a megacredit per displacement ton in rough numbers, and starship crews earn
call it KCr20 000 per annum. A 1000 person crew therefore costs MCr20
per year - chicken feed compared to the cost of the ship, even amortised
over a service life of 30 years.

>
>Now, here's the bombshell:  The average world size is, according to the dice
>throws, 5.  Hardly the unstoppable juggernaut you claim.

Yes, but the hi-pop worlds engage in forward defense on the lo-pop ones ...
look at the network of coaling stations the Royal Navy put in the godforsaken
parts of the world during the heyday of empire. A pop nine world is also
ten times bigger than a size eight world etc etc ... the Imperium is
*dominated* economically by the pop 9 and A worlds.

>
>All in all, I think your taxes are way too high (the average person's cost of
>living is Cr400 a month, for naval forces [imperial and system-wide] alone
>1.5 months goes out the door).  That is to say 12.5 percent of someone's
>total cost of living goes to taxes that build and maintain space/starcraft
>etc.  That's probably about 1/3 of the total taxes an individual pays.  And
>that's assuming the average cost of living is truly the average cost of
>living.  After all, there are alot more poor people on this planet than
>middle class or rich people.
>
>I dunno, your numbers are way too high.  When I get the time, I'll puzzle it
>out further.  For now I am unconvinced by your numbers, especially since you
>seem to be off on your own math...
>
>Semo

Trust me. The numbers work. Where there is the Fleet, the pirates arent,
unless there is a safe haven just across the border, and then we arent
talking about piracy but War.

Ian Whitchurch

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 08:13:19 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Extended System Generation Question

Peter H. Brenton wrote:
> 
> Wait a sec, are you saying that a world the size of Earth is most likely to
> have a smaller moon than a world the size of, say, Mercury?  That smaller
> planets tend to attract larger moons?  This seems counterintuitive, but I
> have no facts to go on.
> 

This makes sense to me. Smaller planets will have relatively larger
moons, if they have them at all. They're more likely to be "binary"
satellites, like Earth-Moon, orbitting each other. It takes a really
large planet to have a true moon (where both points of the semimajor
axis of the moon's orbit lie within the planet).

But then, I'm just drinking my morning coffee now ...

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 08:31:13 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Vargr N/PC

Sanders wrote:
> 
>                             Vargr Character Profile
>                                     - of -
>                                Arorrbar-Harroga
[snip]
> 
>          Feedback welcome! :)

This guy's cool! I think I might use him as an NPC. My PC's are
in need of a good pirate, ever since a certain crime family boss
had their original pilot hung up as a wall trophy (and no telling me
where I stole that from!).

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 08:26:08 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread

Douglas wrote:
> 
> I can't remember where I read this, and I would appreciate it if someone
> would correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that captive governments
> within the Imperium signify a planet under direct Imperial control (ie.
> military government).
> 
> Does anyone else remember this, and where it came from?
> 

A type 6 government CAN mean that the Imperium controls the planet
directly. It can also mean that a nearby world does this. Check out
Garda-Vilis and Vilis in the Spinward Marches.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 10:50:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: (Vargr) Constructor Fleets

At 08:59 PM 9/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> From: MJ Dougherty <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
>> To: traveller-digest@lists.MPGN.COM
>> Subject: Vogon Constructor Fleets
>> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 10:43 AM
>> 
>> Hey, Look! J-man wants to be the advocate for the Vogon Constructor Fleets.
>> 
>> Sorry, Jory, you can't. The Vogons use beam weapons to destroy planets, not
>> sodding handguns!
>
>Another misspelling!  Shouldn't it be "Vargr Constructor Fleets?" :)
>

        I thought that was "Varge?"

>-Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
>Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
>Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
>"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com
>
	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50% -- either a thing will happen or it won't.
		This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:10:00 -0400
From: Andy Brick <exeus@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re : Jump Projectors

Hi All,

At 12:50 PM 9/29/97 -0700, J-Man wrote:

>My next question is, what tech level can planets be made "Jump capable"?=


You can't make planets jump. The reason being that a planet is always
inside 100 diameters of itself, so at best, even if you make it jump, it
will
misjump all over the local stellar neighbourhood. Very messy !

Douglas E. Berry <dberry@hooked.net> wrote -

> As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... =


Whoah ! Where does it say this, precisely ?

> Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons

Ok, I _know_ this was in jest ... But the gearhead
inside me ... can't ... resist ... That's 4.3472x10^23 kg, or about 10%
of the mass of the Earth - it would have it's own gravitational
field. The planet would activate the jump grid, glow nicely for a very =

short time, then play hex roulette to find the destination. No wonder
the Ancients were so widespread ....

Is it just me, or has the list been taken over by mad scientists laughing=

insanely in white lab coats ( planet busters, jumping ringworlds,
nanoshovels ?)
Has someone put something in the water ?

Andy Brick
exeus@compuserve.com
http://www.caco.demon.co.uk/ ___OR___ http://bounce.to/exeus/

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1903
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 1 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1904



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1899
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Very Sharp Knives
Ping!
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Re : Jump Projectors
Re: Piracy by the numbers
Re: The Piracy Thread

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1899

Phil said: 
> If you don't like GURPS, tough. *I* didn't like the stupidity of Virus in TNE,
> nor did I like the stupidity of 1st Printing MTrav. No-one consulted me, then,
> either :-)

If you don't like TNE, tough.  *I* didn't like the stupidity of "spaces" in 
the Rigger Black Book, nor the stupidity of not having any sensor rules.  
No-one consulted me, then, either :-)

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 08:52:40 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

At 09:45 AM 10/1/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> wrote:
>
>>As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but let's
>>have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
>>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
>>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
>>Jump Drive Volume:  2.1736x10^19 m^3
>>Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
>>Jump Drive Cost:    6.5208x10^18 MCr
>>Jump Grid Area:     7.65099x10^9 m^2
>>Jump Fuel (1 jump): 1.0868x10^20 m^3
>
>
>How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
>talking misjumps here? ;-)

Hmmm.. I could build a CG drive big enough to neutralize the Earth's own
gravity....
- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 09:17:47 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Very Sharp Knives

At 04:24 AM 10/1/97 PST, you wrote:

>As far as I know they *still* use glass blades for dissecting *cells*. 
>
>Yes, they use microscopic flakes of glass and micromanipulators to open
>up cells and do thing like swap pieces around to see what happens.

When I had my laparotomy in '95, the surgeon used glass scalples to cut the
tiny blood vessels arounf the spleen, and then sealed them with a laser.  I
think I was the first patient of his to inquire about the discharge energy
of the laser.
- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Ping!

Sorry for this off-topic post, but I'm having a bit of trouble at the
moment.  Has anyone else been seeing growing delays between when you post
a message and when you actually see it?

For the past several weeks I've been seeing delays up to 5 hours from the
time I send in a post, until it comes back to me via the list.  Now, I am
just starting to see my posts from yesterday...today (24 hr delay).

I have, however, found the posts in some of the digests that I recieved
late last night and this morning (before I recieved the individual
message).

Based on some of the messages I have recieved, I may be missing messages
as well...

I am trying to determine if this is a global (ie the entire list is having
problems, so it's not my ISP's fault) problem, or if I need to contact the
tech support center here at teleport.

If you are also having trouble, please mail me direct (or I may not see it
for several days!  :)

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:40:31 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

David P. Summers writes:
>>From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
> 
>OK, first I will address more general issues (that, in some ways,
>are more important that just "are there pirates").  

I actually agree with many of your general issues.

>Also, it need to be remembered that you are trying to claim that piracy 
>can't exist, not that you can come up with number to justify a setting
>in which piracy doesn't exist.

No, I'm claiming that the Imperium of CT is such a setting.

>Much of this is the classic mistake that is often being made looking at 
>big organizations.  You look at an impressive sets of resources and do 
>simple calculations about all the great things they can do, but those 
>simple calculations ignore that large organizations have complex webs 
>of needs and you have to start getting into them all before you can even 
>hope to be able to say what they can afford or would be wiling to commit 
>to.  

I'm perfectly aware of that, and that was why I started out by using a
figure (1/1000th of the available assets) that I felt everybody would
agree was within the scope of this particular big organisation and why
I try to go low on all the estimates that I feel are questionable. Not
quite a 'reduction ad absurdum' argument, but something like that.

>After all,
>these sorts of calculations could also be conducted to prove that
>street muggings would never exist because the US could easily
>afford have a cop walking on every street in every major city.

Bad analogy. The proper analogy is to look at a city who has a full-time
militia of 1000 (or perhaps only 500) times as many heavily armed guards 
than they have street corners. 

>A lot of this is based on the 500 Cr per person figure.  It is doubtful 
>that this was created with enough thought that it can be used to calculate 
>the entire budget for the Imperium

True, but unlike some other aspects of the Traveller Universe, this one
actually makes its plausibility check. And though an analysis of the
Imperial Navy indicates that they may be using somewhat less than that,
it can be made to conform. (Let me clarify that: If I make the assumptions
that I think are the most plausible, then the size of the Imperial Navy
would indicate a naval tax of around Cr125-133, but if I make some
perfectly reasonable assumptions (about the size of the average Imperial
ship and that jump riders are classed as non-ships regardless of their
size) then I can make it come out Cr500.)

>Other people have pointed out that this number is very high when you 
>compare it to the stated cost of living. It is true that you have run 
>through your own set of numbers on how this _might_ be reasonable, but 
>that is not a definitive analysis that can support the view that piracy 
>_can't_ exist.

I feel it is stronger than that. IMO it is unreasonable to assume a much
lower average income than Cr9,600.

>Finally, even if you could show that the Imperium can afford to, in 
>principal, [...] you still have a problem, that is that the decision 
>would have be justified at all levels of decisions making.   

Only on one level, actually. That of the local admiral.

>The cost of suppressing piracy has to be justified at each world and it 
>is very possible that the Imperium may look at a low traffic system, 
>look at the cost of keeping dozens of patrol vessels on station 
>continuously, 

For the 10th or 11th time: _The decision to pay the cost of keeping dozens 
of patrol vessels on station continiously was made when the Imperium or
the planet decided to use a percentage of their income to build a navy_!
You may not think that using 5% of each system's GWP on warships are a
good idea, but that is just as canonical as the pirates. In short, we
have a contradiction. Since I _do_ think that 5% of GWP is a not
unreasonable figure then it follows that IMO the element that makes
least sense is the pirates, not the warships. 

>and decide that it would be cheaper to let the pirates take a cargo once
>in a while (it probably would be).  

Every Free Trader lost can keep five patrol ships running for a year. But
that would only be germane if the decision was whether to pay taxes to
the Imperium or use the money for domestic purposes. But it isn't. The
Imperium gets so-and-so much. Or if the decision lay in whether to buy
one big ship instead of a lot of small ones. That is a valid point, which
is why I only wanted to use a tiny slice of the budget. I don't think it
is reasonable to believe that either the Imperium or any world would buy
exclusively big ships.
  
>You also have the problem of complacency.  It is human nature that if 
>piracy is driven away, then the lack of actually losses means that people 
>are going to begrudge the resources being expended on it and they will be
>reduced (until it reappears).

That I agree with, but, once again: The resources will be used anyway. 
After all, patrol ships are useful for jobs other than piracy suppression.
  
>Again, you are looking at pirates operating out of fixed bases with prior 
>intelligence as the only model of piracy.  

Without prior intelligence, actually. Yes, I do believe that pirates need
both a source of supplies and a market.

>In fact, [...] this military adherence to specialized roles is the least 
>common mode.  One of the more common is that you simply have armed ships 
>that engage in legitimate trade (or some other activity like smuggling) 
>until they spot a  target of opportunity.

OK, so what you are saying is that your normal pirate is an ordinary
merchant who is just trying to make ends meet. He happens to have
invested in weapons for his ship, because you never know who you will
run into out there. This is something that dosen't exited the curiosity
of the authorities, because all other merchants are similarily armed
(Btw. how many armed merchants do you have in the US at the moment?).
He has also invested in a fake transponder, because you never know when
you may run into a target of opportunity. He jumps into a system with
his fake transponder on, because he dosen't want to use his own in case
he finds a t-o-o. Unfortunately, he dosen't see one, so he switches his
transponder over to his true identity... no, wait a minute, that won't
work... OK, so he _keeps_ the fake transponder signal, lands on the
planet and is inspected by the Port Captain... no, wait a minute, that
dosen't work either. OK, so he has his _true_ transponder on when he 
jumps in an if he sees a t-o-o he changes to the fake... OK, so he jumps
into a system with his transponder off, and if he sees a t-o-o then he
dosen't turn it on but begins chasing the victim. The victim immidiately
starts to run away; whatever patrol ships there happen to be in the 
vicinity starts chasing you. Your victim is either on his way down to the
planet with empty tanks or he is on his way out, but still inside the jump 
limit, because otherwise he could just jump away. So you have to chase him 
down inside the jump limit too. Your own engines are no stronger than his, 
because you are just an ordinary merchant taking a golden opportunity to
get rich, but, hey, you have almost an hour to do so before any ship can
get to you from orbit around the planet. In that time you have to chase
down your victim, either disable him or convince him to surrender rather
than risk a jump from inside the 100-diameter limit but outside the 10-
diameter limit, match vectors with him, board him, transfer the cargo
(oh, you have to ditch your own, but that propably isn't going to give
anybody any clues to your identity), and jump away. But wait! You just
arrived so I suppose your tanks are empty? Oh, you keep an extra load of
fuel in collapsible tanks just in case you come across a t-o-o? No wonder
you have to pirate ships to make ends meet; you're certainly not going to
survive as a merchant...

>>I never went away from it. The major point of my argument is not that it
>>doesn't take considerable assets to suppress pirac
> 
>It actually does.  

So I said. I also said that it would take considerably less than what was
available. I still stand by that statement.

>To do what you want you have to be able to respond to anything reasonable 
>that might happen, including alliances (temporary or otherwise) 

Alliances? Oh, you mean a _gang_ of lousy merchants teaming up! 

>and the enemy having initiative and surprise.  

You're arguing in rings here. One moment you want the pirates to look and
behave like ordinary merchants (which involves broadcasting their
identity, mind you) the next you want them to sneak up on patrol ships
and attack them from their non-existent blind side. In space you can't
sneak up on anyone except by jumping in near their position. Blind.

>The enemy was able to take advantage of the passive nature of the US 
>position and simply chose tactics that gave them a local advantage 
>and melt away (often mixing with legitimate traffic like a pirate would)
>when the advantage was no longer there.

I don't think the enemy was obliged to walk into a US army post and have 
his fingerprints taken twice a month, was he?

>>>Or he simply can jump in and take targets of opportunity.
>>
>>Fallacy. See below.
> 
>Again, this is based on looking only at pirate in fixed bases.

No, it is based on the position that even playing at being a pirate is
an incredibly bad idea for a merchant and playing at being a merchant is
an almost impossible thing for a pirate to do. In the Traveller Universe
you can either make a living freighting stuff from port to port or you
can jump around looking for targets of opportunity; you cannot do both.

>>>Low level piracy has been tolerated by governments in numerous historical
>>>situation.
> 
>>But never when those governments had sufficient patrol ships to do something
>>about it.
> 
>Actually not true.  Piracy is tolerated in Asia when there are
>a number of countries (including the US, Japan, and India) that
>do suffer some from it and could, if they really wanted to, do
>something about it.  It just costs to much.  

Are you saying that they have enough ships, but the choose not to use them,
or that they can't afford to build enough ships? Because unless it's the
first, this is not a parralel to the situation in the Imperium.

>Similarly piracy has existed around the other major empires in history 
>(Roman, Chinese, English) and it is in fact somewhat true that rather 
>then being wiped out by these empires, the pirates depended on them to 
>generate traffic.

All those pirates have had one thing in common: they were able to hide
either in a place where the Empire in question couldn't find them or in
a place where the Empire didn't have the assets to dig them out. And all
those empires (well, I don't know about the Chinese) had periods where
they did, in fact, more or less stamp out pirates for decades.

>>At Cr500 per person in naval taxes you get a naval budget of 270,000,000 MCr.
>>Let's err on the side of caution and cut that by a third = 180,000,000 MCr.
> 
>Actually, you are being optimistic.  

No, I'm following the rules. The cost of maintaining a warship is 10% of its
initial purchase price (in my own campaign I add Cr100,000 per crewmember,
but that's not canon).

>Even in our high tech armed forces salaries are a bigger cost than equipment 

But that is not the case with starships in the Traveller Universe. A Kinunir 
costing MCr1,080 has a crew of 45 (not counting 35 marines). TCS maintenance 
runs to MCr108/year. IMO 1/5th of that goes to build a replacement some day,
but that is just an interpretation (TCS campaigns don't usually last long
enough for ships to wear out). Annual maintenance is MCr1,08/year. Normal 
salaries runs to MCr4.5, assuming Cr100,000 per crewmember. There remains 
more than MCr80 to pay for combat pay and supplies. Even paying the 
ridiculous standard costs for life support and jumping 50 time per year only 
comes to MCr4.5 more. Paying full price for refined fuel for 50 jumps comes 
to less than MCr15 (and if you want to talk unrealisitically large figures, 
the last two certainly qualifies). And we still have MCr60 to account for any
overhead. Are you beginning to get the picture? TCS maintenance figures
are so high that they cover everything you can come up with and then
some.

>and it is not uncommon for things that need a lot of support to have worse
>that a 3:1 ratio for support vs front line.  Finally, you also have to pull 
>ground troops out of this budget.  

I do not have to. There are 95% more of the GWP unaccounted for.

>>200 T patrol cruisers are used for piracy suppression, so
>>presumably they are a match for the average pirate;
> 
>Well, no.  A pirate can easily have a 200-400 T ship 

Well, no. A pirate is just a merchant with itchy fingers, remember? Except,
apparently, when you want him to be able to outfight his prey and his
predator. You keep trying to have things two ways.

>and you have to be able to handle them even if they cooperate and also
>catch you buy surprise.  

There's that catching by surprise again. Explain to me exactly how you
would go about ganging up and catching a patrol ship by surprise when
you are pretending to be an ordinary merchant.

>This is totally inadequate and the Kinunir equivalent you mentioned is 
>much more reasonable.

OK, I don't mind using that.
 
>>You can
>>get about 1,800 Kinunirs for 1,800,000 MCr. (All figures are CT).
> 
>And if you correct for math errors and the points I raised,
>you are down to 54 Kinuirs.

And when you correct for the points I refuted we are up to 180 Kinunirs.
 
>>System defense budgets for your average population 7 world is 70% of
>>7,500 MCr, which gives such a world a system defense force equivalent to
>>roughly 50 Kinunirs (or 200 patrol ships). I think the average pop 7
>>world can take care of itself,
> 
>Well, I have doubts about this.  Your entire defense budget is 7,500 MCr.

No, my naval budget is 7,500 MCr if i have 15 million inhabitants. As you
point out the proper average is 50 million, so the actual budget is
17,500 MCr. Which comes to 120 Kinunirs. Or 24 Kinunirs for a system
with 10 million inhabitants.

>You are lucky if you can keep more than 10% of this devoted to fighting 
>units and you have to pay for salaries as well as equipment.  

Not if I follow the rules. Now, if you can demonstrate that the rules are
implausible then I will be happy to use some other, more reasonable,
rules. But as far as I can see, the 10% of price maintenance rule err to
the other side by being quite a bit too high.

>You also have give some to the army and then the larger percentage of 
this is going to be grouped to form fleets of decent size, 

The larger percentage? That sounds like you'll allow me several percent
for my patrol ships. Gee, that will really allow me to cover all the
systems like a coat of paint. How big a percentage would you say was
reasonable?

>some of which will be sent to the front lines.  If you take your assumption
>that you can easily spare 1 out of a 1/1000 for piracy suppression 

Well, i'm not afraid to admit it when I have been too optimistic. I may
have to ask for another 1/1000th.

>and that 10% of your money goes to fighting units, and that 1/3rd 
>goes to ships rather than salaries (which is optimistic) then your pop 7 
>world isn't even close to taking care of itself.

All my money goes to fighting units in the sense that I get a fleet equal
to 10 times my yearly budget. I then pay 10% of purchase price per year
in maintenance. How much of that goes to maintain the ships and how much
to salaries I don't really know. There is plenty to go around, though. 

>>Except that very few systems will have traffic in and out of Gas Giants
> 
>Sorry, Gas Giants, either directly or indirectly, are a main source of 
>fuel in Traveller. They are going to have a lot of traffic.   

No, they are supposed to be a main source of fuel, but unfortunately the
economic system and cold common sense shows that they would not be.

>Now you might want to change the background to make this different, but 
>if want to talk about piracy in the background as it is given, then this 
>such traffic is a given.

It would be a given if it made sense, but what I would have to change 
would be either the rules of economics or basic human nature, so this 
sort of traffic is not a given. 
 
>A system with 30,000 people might easily have 20,000 people on the 
>main world and 3 mining areas with 3,000 people on them (and generating 
>traffic due to ore shipments that is disproportionately high)

Sure, but a system with 3 or 30 or even 300 people are much less likely
to be spread out across it.

>and also have traffic (both from/to the system and
>passing through) in one or two gas giants.

Traffic to and from the system will refuel at the starport if at all
possible. Traffic trough the system likewise (if nothing else less time
is spent flying down to a normal world than to a Gas Giant)..
 
>>That's 6 (or let's call it 5) of our 30 systems that
>>only require one spot guarded. Put 5 Kinunirs in each of those
> 
>Well, in addition to the points above, I also still disagree (as I point 
>out above) that your scheme for forcing all traffic through one point in 
>every system for every jump is a given.

Why? If the traffic is low very little time, if any, is lost and if traffic
is heavy it is also a very worthwhile place to have patrol ships.

>Again.  You are assuming both your scheme to have required jump
>points and pirates operating out of bases.

Not really. As has been pointed out, even if the patrol is in orbit around
a world it can get out to help in less than an hour.
 
>>Same mistake again. The pirates labor under the same two-week information
>>delay that everybody else does. There's no way they can know if a rowing
>>patrol will be there when they jump in.
> 
>Again, you are assuming pirates operating out of bases.

No, I assume that they can't jump in a long way from the patrol ship and
then sneak up on it. How would you sneak up on a ship in space? It can't
be done. 
 
>*[Ok, this is a sort of footnote because it is off topic. I don't think 
>the 500 Cr tax shows the kind of resources that Hans thinks it does.  
>However, what if it did?  I have no doubt that when the author first 
>considered this, it never occured to him to check to see if this is 
>consitent with the level of piracy in the Imperium.  

I agree completely.

>It also is not likely to heve been something that is suggested by people 
>he brings it up with.  But then things get writting into backgrounds
>and people start exploring them.  This is why I am allways warning
>people that want to play around with more fundamental things like how 
>communications work in the Imperium (like the jump torps in Leviathan).  
>Another example of this is thread on jump torps that proceed along for 
>a while based on the assumption that they aren't used because of Imperial 
>policy without realizing then that you have done nothing to explain why
>they aren't used by those outside (or from outside) of the Imperium.  One 
>needs to be _very_ careful with changing a background after it has been 
>set up.  Especially so if one is dealing with one of the fundamental 
>building blocks.]

I agree 100% with you David. I, too, would prefer to have a Traveller
Universe with pirates. Unfortunately, when you reality-check the two
basic elements, the amount of resources a world can generate and the
difficulties of being a pirate in a universe with that amount of armed
warships, it's the pirates who fail the check and the taxes that makes 
it. So what I usually do is ignore the conflict and hope my players
won't object (they are pretty good about that sort of thing (though I
have my problems with them over the flat galaxy)). But the fact that
I ignore the discrepancy (and would, indeed, reccommend that you do too)
has nothing to do with my opinion that there is, in fact, a discrepancy.



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 09:50:53 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Re : Jump Projectors

At 11:10 AM 10/1/97 -0400, you wrote:


>Douglas E. Berry <dberry@hooked.net> wrote -
>
>> As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... 
>
>Whoah ! Where does it say this, precisely ?

MT Referee's Companion, pg 28, has mobile planets via jumpspace and
starship sized portals appearing at TL21.  So I was a little off.

>> Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
>
>Ok, I _know_ this was in jest ... But the gearhead
>inside me ... can't ... resist ... That's 4.3472x10^23 kg, or about 10%
>of the mass of the Earth - it would have it's own gravitational
>field. The planet would activate the jump grid, glow nicely for a very 
>short time, then play hex roulette to find the destination.

That's half the fun!

>Is it just me, or has the list been taken over by mad scientists laughing
>insanely in white lab coats ( planet busters, jumping ringworlds,
>nanoshovels ?)
>Has someone put something in the water ?

I did design the Earth-1 jump drive after washing down my Prednisone with a
friend's home-brew beer.. so blame that.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:04:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Ian or Katts wrote:

> Semo wrote :
> 
> >Now, based on that we have:
> >
> >Cr500 (which I think is too high to begin with) for a naval tax (this is over
> >1/10th of the average persons budget according to the Traveller Book [CT]) x
> >54 billion = 2.7 trillion.
> 
> Cr500 isnt too bad ... assuming naval spending at 5% of GDP, that puts per
> capita income at Cr10 000 a head, which is pretty much within the figures
> I've worked thru PE and Striker I.

Make that military spending and I wil agree, if it only goes to the
Imperial Navy it is horribly large.
> 
> >
> >1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 27 billion.
> >
> Thats 27 *new* Kinuirs per year ... assuming crew costs etc are 10% of ship
> costs per year, and maintainence etc is 20% per year (wayyyyy more than
> merchants pay btw), then it means we can maintain about 70 Kinuirs with our
> defense budget, and retire them when they get old.

But buying 27 new Kinuirs means that the Imperial Navy has not used any of
the Naval Budget for admin. This is just plain silly. About half or more
of budget will go to paying admirals, officers, desk clerks, office
buildings, computer systems, computer experts, naval ports, naval depots
and so on. When I think of it I guess only about 5% to 10% would be
available for new investments into ships, buildings, camps, depots.
Much of this will be supply ships, troop carriers and so on. That leaves 
say 1 to 2% for fighting vessels. Now that isn;t a lot.

> 
> Also, if they are fighting pirates, the pirates are fighting them. And I'll
> bet the Navy gets repaired a lot easier and cheaper than pirates do.
> 
Cheap repairs means that you would need a yard, more money from the budget
to its employees, admin andso on. Less money is available for fighting the 
pirates.

> Small worlds get fighter squadrons ... you only need to damage the pirate
> to make them go away. Six twenty ton fighters can do a lot of damage to
> a pirate.

But having a fighter squadron in a system means that they have to have a
base, base personell, refuel depots, sensor satellites and so on. Large
ships can operate more independently and therefor IMO will totally be the 
cheaper.

> And thats buy a new ship each year. How many ships was the USN commissioning
> each year when they were trying for a 600 ship navy, anyway ? What was it,
> thirty at most ?
> 
> Also, check out the small proportion of the cost of a starship - even a 
> military starship - that the crew is. Your average military starship costs
> a megacredit per displacement ton in rough numbers, and starship crews earn
> call it KCr20 000 per annum. A 1000 person crew therefore costs MCr20
> per year - chicken feed compared to the cost of the ship, even amortised
> over a service life of 30 years.

But the support crew is tremendous. Think of what it takes the US Navy in
admin personell to keep tabs on their fleet, compare this to 11.000
worlds. The personell needed to coordinate this is tremendous when you
take into consideration the one week lag in jump communications.
This is where most of the money is disappering. Admin!

> >All in all, I think your taxes are way too high (the average person's cost of
> >living is Cr400 a month, for naval forces [imperial and system-wide] alone
> >1.5 months goes out the door).  That is to say 12.5 percent of someone's
> >total cost of living goes to taxes that build and maintain space/starcraft
> >etc.  That's probably about 1/3 of the total taxes an individual pays.  And
> >that's assuming the average cost of living is truly the average cost of
> >living.  After all, there are alot more poor people on this planet than
> >middle class or rich people.
> >
> >I dunno, your numbers are way too high.  When I get the time, I'll puzzle it
> >out further.  For now I am unconvinced by your numbers, especially since you
> >seem to be off on your own math...
> >
> >Semo
> 
> Trust me. The numbers work. Where there is the Fleet, the pirates arent,
> unless there is a safe haven just across the border, and then we arent
> talking about piracy but War.

But there is no way in hell that the fleet can be everywhere, because then
they need depots, ports, support lines, support personell, desk clerks and
on and on. This is going to drain the Imperial Navy Budget like a black
hole. I really think that large world will protect themself and the worlds
they consider important to trade and planetary security, the others are
out of luck.

> 
> Ian Whitchurch

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: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:01:56 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread

Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:
>On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
>>And the average answer is roughly 5 trillion credit squadrons per 
>>billion people living in the sector.
> 
>I must have missed something - is the military budget 500 cr per person
>per year, or per month?  (hmmm...do I have a copy of TCS around
>somewhere?)

What you missed is that the Emperor dosen't buy a new set of ship each
year. Initial TCS fleets are equal to 10 times the annual budget, not
to the budget.
 
>>Sample world with 50 billion inhabitants:
> 
>A population of 50 Billion indicates a Pop A world (defined as
>tens of billions). Your "sample" slants the scale to the extreme top end
>of the charts, 

Ehh... since starport capacity is proportional to population size and naval
budgets likewise, the exact figure is immaterial. The point is that the
starports available can handle more than twice the work its own naval budget 
generates.

>...and has a single world population greater than the Cronor,
>Querion, Darrian, Five Sisters, Jewell, Vilis, Sword Worlds, District 268,
>Lanth, Lunion or Glisten _Sub Sectors_.  For that matter, your single
>sample has a population greater than Cronor, Querion, Darrian,  Five
>Sisters, Vilis, District 268, Lanth, and Glisten combined (49 Billion).

And less than Regina alone. What's your point?

>The entire Spinward Marches sector has a population of 872.123 Billion
>and 11 Pop A planets.

OK, and have you calculated the naval budget of the Marches and compared
it to the shipyard capacity of those planets?
 
>While Pop A worlds are associated with starship building starports, the
>bulk of the class A starports are either Pop 9 (Billions) or Pop 5
>(Hundreds of Thousands).  The bulk of the Type B (spaceship) starports
>range from Pop 4 (Tens of Thousands) to Pop 8 (Hundreds of Millions).  Of
>the 3 TL - F Class A starports I mentioned in an earlier post, Glisten has
>a Pop 9, Rhylanor has a Pop 9, and Mora is a Pop A.

>Based on these numbers, I'd be looking at much, much lower figures for a
>military budget.
On the average the three high-population systems in each 36 will account
for about 99% of the whole naval budget. Everything else is pretty much
irrelevant, except that the pop 7 and pop 8 worlds can propably defend
themselves against pirates.
 
>>**Assuming useful life of a warship is 50 years.
> 
>Useful perhaps.  Effective lifespan I would argue... (useful relating to
>the lifespan of the components, effective relating to the military value)
>But then, that's what the Reserve fleets are for, right?

Since there are canonical examples of 100 year old ships still in service,
I'd say that the figure is too high, but even if you insist on replacing
ships every 40 years (that's how long a bank is _certain_ that a ship will
last (barring accidents)) you still don't get much more capacity used up. 
 
>[snip - I am not going to argue the points in this section.  Based on the
>numbers you are presenting, you present a compelling case. However, I
>still feel that the numbers are biased too high...]

Well, in my own campaign I cut down the figures as much as I can (my pop-9
worlds only use 1/2 or less and my pop 10 worlds only 1/4 or less), but 
going by canon these are the proper ones.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1904
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 1 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1905



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: The Piracy Thread
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: WBH religious profile
Re: Income
Re: The Piracy Thread
Re: Subject: Re: Jump Projectors
Traveller: The Insane Era
Re: Re : Jump Projectors
Re: Extended System Generation Question
Re: Traveller Software
Tigress and Plankwell?
Re: The Piracy Thread
Re: Piracy by the numbers
Re: The Piracy Thread 
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1896
Re: Re : Piracy and Economics

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:14:21 +0100 (BST)
From: Ewan Quibell <E.D.Quibell@bton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

>How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
>talking misjumps here? ;-)

>Dom

Install an internal gravity field generator and revers the affects ;-) ?

Ewan

	Ewan Quibell
	Data Communications Technician        The Game's afoot:
	Computer Centre                       Follow your spirit, and apon
	University of Brighton                  this charge
                                              Cry 'God for Harry, England,
	E.D.Quibell@brighton.ac.uk              and Saint George !'
	http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/~edq/
                                                    Henry V 3:1
	#include<stddisclamer.h>                    W. Shakespeare

	My spelling is entierly due to dyslexia, typoes and poetic license

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 10:56:38 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

SD Mooney wrote:
> 
> Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> wrote:
> 
> >As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but let's
> >have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
> >Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
> >This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
> >Jump Drive Volume:  2.1736x10^19 m^3
> >Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
> >Jump Drive Cost:    6.5208x10^18 MCr
> >Jump Grid Area:     7.65099x10^9 m^2
> >Jump Fuel (1 jump): 1.0868x10^20 m^3
> 
> How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
> talking misjumps here? ;-)
> 

We enclose Earth in a sphere made up of antigrav units, thus cancelling
the effects of gravitation!

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:06:45 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread

Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:
>I can't remember where I read this, and I would appreciate it if someone
>would correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that captive governments
>within the Imperium signify a planet under direct Imperial control (ie.
>military government).
> 
>Does anyone else remember this, and where it came from?

_Regency Sourcebook_ contains notes for some of the planets with gov 6
with information of which planet owns them. And there was planet in
Trin's Veil Subsector that used to be run by another planet and 
rebelled and joined the Imperium on its own.



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:06:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 09:45 AM 10/1/97 +0100, you wrote:
> >Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> wrote:
> >
> >>As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but let's
> >>have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
> >>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
> >>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
> >>Jump Drive Volume:  2.1736x10^19 m^3
> >>Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
> >>Jump Drive Cost:    6.5208x10^18 MCr
> >>Jump Grid Area:     7.65099x10^9 m^2
> >>Jump Fuel (1 jump): 1.0868x10^20 m^3
> >
> >
> >How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
> >talking misjumps here? ;-)
> 
> Hmmm.. I could build a CG drive big enough to neutralize the Earth's own
> gravity....

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the planet only have to travel to the 
stars 100 diameter limit. Any self gravitational pull is irrelevant to
jump or large wouldn't large ships have just the same problem.

> --
> |   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |

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: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:18:08 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: WBH religious profile

tc <Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk> wrote,
>>In Government Related Details 8a (God View, p.79), what *are* you
>>supposed to roll for government type E?  2D+3D-5 makes very little
>>sense to me.
>
>I've not had any problem with this.  Basically it makes it *likely*
>that the result will be at the higher end of the table which tends to
>make sense, but it is *possible* for it to be anything.

Hm, OK - the -5 supports that interpretation - but then, why write 2D+3D
rather than just 5D?

>>Also, what do you do if they want a faith that isn't a state religion
>>(i.e., for one of the other government types)?  Do you just decide
>>which of D or E would be most appropriate?
>
>If you want something random you could always roll 3D-3.  Note that
>this does not make all possibilities equally likely though. My *guess*
>is that this was what was intended and may have been left out.  Golly
>gosh, an erratum in a DGP book???  ;-)

Never!  How could you SUGGEST such a thing?  DGP books were always
absolutely, completely, 10% error-free.

>I always assumed that you were simply to pick what you felt was most
>appropriate bearing in mind all the previous details of the world that
>you've generated.

Well, you can always do that - but of course computers aren't very good
at it, and sometimes it's fun to just let chance decide.  Last time I
left it to Lady Luck, I got a religion with more than 100 billion
adherents...

>Then again I also use the URP for personal beliefs of NPCs (you only
>need to revise the 'number of adherents' to something like 'number of
>like-minded people' or whatever).

Neat!

>Having said all this, I confess that I don't exactly create hundreds of
>religions (!) so it's not really a problem anyway.  Perhaps it could be
>a new BITS book, 101 Religions.  Anyone interested if I started putting
>some together?

Could be interesting.  Religions are a bit like Psionic Institutes to my
mind - a minor bit of background that can suddenly take on huge
implications for PC activity.

What additional details would a religion need apart from a name, the URP
and whether or not it was a state religion?  How about number of
variants, like Protestantism/Catholicism or Sunni/Shi'ite)?  Each would
need it's own URP, of course, but could be similar in many places.

Perhaps the author of each religion could pick out a couple of details
to individualise it: a unique tradition or initiation ceremony, the fact
that it's sponsored by a major corporation...

>>John (back from holimoon)
>
>Congratulations?

Thank you? ;-)
[It was our honeymoon really - just 2.3 months after the wedding...]

 
John

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:14:33 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Income

Woden2014@aol.com writes:
 Hans said:
><snip>
><<  The Cr500/person is straight out of _Trillion Credit Squadron_. It is
>also
>equal to 5% of the average person's yearly income. (This figure, Cr10,000
>per person on the average was something I calculated based on the monthly
>expenses quoted in CT; with the publication of _Pocket Empires_ it also
>became canon (Yay! ;-))  >>
>  
>where in PE did you find a persons yearly income?  I couldn't find it.

The one-page sidebar that tells you how to calculate just what a RU is worth
and exchange rates between worlds.
 
> <snip>
><<  I don't know about you, but I use more money than just for my food and
> rent.
> So I would add 50% to that figure for other expenses. That's Cr600 per month
> or Cr7,200 per year. Then I assume that people pay 25% in taxes on the
> average (Note: According to _Pocket Empires_ this is on the low end of the
> scale for taxes). That gives an average income of Cr9,600 which I rounded
> up to Cr10,000. @5% taxes gives you Cr2500 per person of which 20% goes to
> defense. Now, that isn't so unreasonable, is it?  >>
> 
>Ok, you  took personal expences (7200/yr) added planetary taxes(?) back into
>it (+2400 =9600cr) then you rounded up (10,000) so far I'm with you, now you
>sutracted the Imperial taxes of 5% (which is actualy 500cr.).  I suppose you
>probably mean 25%, but what about planetary taxes? those goverments don't run
>on their own.

No, I took income after taxes (Imperial and planetary) and assumed that 25%
in taxes wasn't unreasonable. The planet takes 25% in taxes of which 1/5th
will be used for naval purposes. Some of it (70% according to the rules)
is used by the planet; the planetary army may or may not come out of that.
30% goes to the Imperium. The remaining 4/5th of the taxes I don't know
about. The planet may use all of it or they may pay some more of it to the
Imperium to support the Imperial bureaucracy. The rules dosen't say.

Note that using PE I can come up with more precise figures for what goes to
what, but I haven't done the calculations yet.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:21:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Ewan Quibell <E.D.Quibell@bton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread

>I beleave that given the cost of admin of the Imperial fleet the amount
>of ships available would be limited quite severly, making piracy
>possible. Another element is the almost ridicilous amount of habited
>systems in the Imperium. All M size stars will probably not contain
>sentient life and would quite well serve as pirat bases.

I thought that all systems, ie stars with planets round them were mapped
in Travller. The ones not populated having UPP's of X...000-0 (insert
anything you like in the dots) which would mean that most systems in
Traveller are inhabited (1110 anyway).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong

Ewan

	Ewan Quibell
	Data Communications Technician        The Game's afoot:
	Computer Centre                       Follow your spirit, and apon
	University of Brighton                  this charge
                                              Cry 'God for Harry, England,
	E.D.Quibell@brighton.ac.uk              and Saint George !'
	http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/~edq/
                                                    Henry V 3:1
	#include<stddisclamer.h>                    W. Shakespeare

	My spelling is entierly due to dyslexia, typoes and poetic license

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Bill Prankard wrote:

> Fuel isnt the only problem.  What about the planet's own gravity well?  What 
> would happen to the planet with the planet-wide jumpgrid going into jump 
> since it cant get 100 diameters away from itself.  Would the planet...(Looks 
> around to see if Hengebar Spofulam of his kids are listening and in a hushed 
> voice...)er...go boom... or misjump?.  Also would everybody have to go 
> underground and close the venitian blinds or go nuts from looking up in the 
> air at the jump field?  Just what we need, an entire world of lunatics 
> jumping into an unsuspecting star system...hmmmm....sounds like a EEEEEE-vil 
> little scenario!

IMHO, the planet's gravity field would not be the problem, as it is
generated _inside_ the jump field (as are Inertial Compensation and Floor
Fields on ships).  You'd have to watch out for the solar gravity field
tho'.  Additionally, I don't think fuel would be that big of a problem
for the first jump, as long as the planet had a hydrosphere of at 
least [intended jump].  Could be a problem for subsequent jumps tho'...

Consider having the lanthium contract (or maybe not...where would it all 
come from!) for this project!  How would they lay it down?  (Hmmm...this
mountain range will disrupt the primary field for J-space insertion -
they've gotta go)

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:22:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Traveller: The Insane Era

Ok, with all the posts of Jump/Coke Projectors.  Superdense Hi-velocity 
planetary crust penetrator rounds, Ultra-Mega Gigazap planetbusting Lasers 
and "Great Jumping Planets"  I have come up with a new milleu, which may 
have been the game Granddad /Cthulhu may have played with his kids:

For your approval:  Commander X's Quick and Dirty PlaNeTbUsTr WaRfArE 
RulZ!!!


To avoid being hit by a 0.1c rock, FS Planetbuster Round, or Gigazotz Lazer:

Staggering, Engineering(?)(Fateful)

+4 DM if you have a planetary Jump Grid*
+2 DM If the Planet Has thrusters(risk loosing orbital integrity, might fly 
into the star)
+1 DM if you have a deep meson site (maybe, just maybe, you can vape the 
rock, or the warship firing the thing)

*Using the Planetary Jump grid results in automatic misjump of the planet 
and a SAN check for everyone on the planet who is in clear view of the sky.

To avoid spewing coke on your screen while reading the "Mad Scientist" 
thread

Imposible inverted SAN check* -- If you are more sane, you will spew coke.

Those failing the SAN check will cackle with glee and ask more questions as 
to the "Explodability Factor of a Terrestrial size Planet" or "If I build a 
mind bogglingly huge blade made of Superdense and machined to 1 atom's width 
thick,  and hurl it at a planet, can I cleave the planet in twain?"  Follwed 
by more cackling and screaming of "It's alive! IT"S ALIVE!!!"

*If your name is Doug Berry,  Coke Spewage is automatic.

I think we have more material for the Silly Era right here! :-)

 ---------------------------------
The Commander sees the future profits relating to Cthulhu Chip Cookie Sales 
and doubles production as quickly as possible!

CmdrX

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 01:01:39 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Re : Jump Projectors

>Is it just me, or has the list been taken over by mad scientists
laughing
>insanely in white lab coats ( planet busters, jumping ringworlds,
>nanoshovels ?)
>Has someone put something in the water ?

>Andy Brick

Nahh, it's just you.  ;)

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:24:35 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Extended System Generation Question

Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com> Wrote:
>Peter H. Brenton wrote:
>>
>> Wait a sec, are you saying that a world the size of Earth is most likely to
>> have a smaller moon than a world the size of, say, Mercury?  That smaller
>> planets tend to attract larger moons?  This seems counterintuitive, but I
>> have no facts to go on.
>>
>
>This makes sense to me. Smaller planets will have relatively larger
>moons, if they have them at all. They're more likely to be "binary"
>satellites, like Earth-Moon, orbitting each other. It takes a really
>large planet to have a true moon (where both points of the semimajor
>axis of the moon's orbit lie within the planet).

But a smaller planet is less likely to *capture* a moon, and more likely to
be pulled apart over geological time by the stresses of the moon.

For moons formed from the parent planet, the smaller planet is more likely
form a smaller moon since the "leftover" materials circling the parent
equatorially would be proportional, therefore smaller in absolute terms.

There must be something basic I am missing here.

Pete

Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:28:22 +0100
From: "Nicholas Wright" <xgr52@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Software

Steve Dorfman wrote

>I am still very (and only) interested in Classic Traveller.  Anything 
>on software would be of great help.  I agree starting point is with 
>what you have listed.  Eventually,it would be nice to see and 
>interactive CD-Rom game much like the AD&D stuff

The MT Games 1 and 2 by Empire have character generation systems 
in them. I am not sure exactly which system they use (CT or MT) it is 
a while since I had them up but they can be picked up rather cheaply now 
that they are so old.  And on CD.  Maybe someone has them on the net 
but I have not seen them so far. 

If you do play the games be careful of the solar system movement system 
in game one it is full Newtonian motion - run out of fuel and you continue
forever.......

Nick

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:54 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Tigress and Plankwell?

>>And how much does a BatRon of Tigress-class dreadnaughts cost?  A BatRon
>>of Plankwells?   Alas, I no longer have a copy of 'Fighting Ships'...

*I* have a copy of Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium, and I don't
remember name references for warships. What gives? I dunno why, but for
some reason I would like to know the names of these ships if they have
them. It sounds so much better than "TL-11 Battleship ... You know, the
squarish one."

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:57 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread

>Woulden't a large portion of the Imperiums Naval Budget go to admin?

I think Hans is taking this into account by using only 1/1000 of the budget
for starship appropriations.


>All M size stars will probably not contain sentient life and
>would quite well serve as pirat bases.

The problem is not lack of places to put a base, but rather that to
operate, pirates would have to attack merchants in well-patrolled systems.
One of his main contentions that the Imperium easily has the resources
necessary to keep pretty much all member systems well patrolled.

I'll throw my opinion out. I think piracy would be possible within the
Imperium, but only in special circumstances. You will have isolated acts of
piracy. Not pirates living off the booty of raids, living the pirate
lifestyle. Rather, you would have singular incidents, more along the lines
of hijacking than the "heave to and prepare to be boarded" type. Actually,
it would seem to me to be easier to just steal the stuff on the ground ...

Of course, this is in the stable Imperium. The shattered Imperium, the post
Virus Imperium, the Long Night Imperium -- these are completely different
cases.

"Arggh, what planet did we bury that Subsidized Merchant on? Where's me map?"

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Ian or Katts wrote:

> Semo wrote :
> 
> >Now, based on that we have:
> >
> >Cr500 (which I think is too high to begin with) for a naval tax (this is over
> >1/10th of the average persons budget according to the Traveller Book [CT]) x
> >54 billion = 2.7 trillion.
> 
> Cr500 isnt too bad ... assuming naval spending at 5% of GDP, that puts per
> capita income at Cr10 000 a head, which is pretty much within the figures
> I've worked thru PE and Striker I.
> 
> >
> >1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 27 billion.

I think this has been pointed out in the original thread, but since it
continues to be quoted, I'll point it out again.  1/1000th of 2.7 Trillion
is 2.7 Billion.

> >
> >Now we have 27 billion credits per 36 worlds, that's enough for 122 patrol 
> >cruisers, or 27 Kinunirs, or 93 close escorts per year.  

This should be 12.2 Patrol Cruisers, or 2.7 Kinunirs, or 9.3 Close escorts
per year.

> >including maintenance costs on these craft (including serious repairs, after
> >all they will be *fighting pirates*), salaries per craft (all CT figures), or
> >salaries for ship's troops (wouldn't it be embarassing for a Kinunir to be
> >boarded and taken over by a small team of pirates?), or salaries for
> >coordinating and command peoples, or costs for life support (hefty using our
> >CT model here), costs for sensor stations, etc. etc.  All these things add up
> >in a big way.  Then of course you have to pay the families of those who are
> >killed in combat.
> 
> Thats 27 *new* Kinuirs per year ... assuming crew costs etc are 10% of ship
> costs per year, and maintainence etc is 20% per year (wayyyyy more than
> merchants pay btw), then it means we can maintain about 70 Kinuirs with our
> defense budget, and retire them when they get old.

Again, the numbers here would be 2.7 new Kinuirs per year and maintain
about 7 Kinuirs with the defense budget, vice 27 and 70. Makes quite a
difference, eh?

[snip]

> Small worlds get fighter squadrons ... you only need to damage the pirate
> to make them go away. Six twenty ton fighters can do a lot of damage to
> a pirate.

Fighters have basic life support and no facilities.  That means an 8 hour
endurance, which really cuts back on patrolling.  Fighters, then, whould
be reactive and no proactive (ie, they respond to pleas for help, not
patrol to deter the pirate activity).  They would also be limited to a
sharply defined area of the system.

> 
> And thats buy a new ship each year. How many ships was the USN commissioning
> each year when they were trying for a 600 ship navy, anyway ? What was it,
> thirty at most ?

A U.S. warship has an effective life of 20 years.  In order to maintain
600 ship fleet, 30 new ships per year are required.  (For those of us in
the U.S., if you want a real look at the Navy of the future, just look at
the new ship construction figures [shudder])  With proper maintenance and
care, a ship's lifespan can be drawn out to @30 years.

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread 

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Harry wrote:

> At 11:30 PM 29/09/97 -0800, you wrote:
>  
> >> IMHO, Any military alliance within the Imperium is going to be soundly
> >> slapped down.  That's a direct challenge to the authority of the Imperial
> >> nobility (and essentially, resulted in the chaos of the Rebellian).  Any
> >> support for the individuals planets is requested from the Imperial Navy.
> >
> >But lots of planets in the Imperium have captive governments.  These
> >planets are owned or ruled by other planets.  This is a lot more control
> >over the other planet than in a mere alliance.  Why would the Imperium
> >permit ownership of other planets but prohibit the less threatening
> >alliance ?
> 
> Anything that expands the power of you r local nobility is good. Owning
> more than one planet is good.... and it doesn't actually interfere with the
> authority of the Imperium. Worlds making alliances between themselves are
> acknowledging that the Imperium has no real effective power over them, plus
> the nobles get nothing out of it. Remeber that htis is an Empire, an
> enlightened empire, but still an empire!

Anything that expands the power base laterally is not good, at least not
from the view of the nobles above you.  The idea is to diffuse power at
the local level (i.e. you grant specific powers to specific people who
report to you), but not let the power get concentrated in any one area
(where it might come back to bite you).  So instead of giving one of your
barons authority over two worlds, you grant a fiefdom to a new baron.  As
a Duke, you still retain the power flow from both fiefdoms, but neither
Baron alone can challenge you.


- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:57:14 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1896

Dave golden Wrote:
>At 01:32 pm 09/30/97 GMT, you wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:35:44 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:05:11 -0700
>>>From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
>>>Subject: Re: Rumor or fact??
>>>[snip]...that means it will
>>>represent a steady stream in liscencing fees to keep IG's going.
>>Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but IG doesn't get licensing fees
>from SJG
>>-- the *parent* Company, Sweatpea, does. Now, it may be that they will use
>the
>>fees from SJG to cross subsidise IG -- but this doesn't necessarily make good
>>business sense!
>	I thought the person owning the copyright got the licensing fees... i.e.
>Marc Miller. Unless Sweetpea has an exclusive contract with him, that also
>allows them to "sublicense."

Dave is correct.  According to Marc in a lately reposted message neither IG
nor Sweetpea lisenced GURPS:Traveller.  He did.

IG has exclusive rights to the "Authoritative" printed rules.  Sweetpea has
the right to other media.  IG can sublicense certain types of material
supplements and adventures for example).

I'll send the text to any who ask of the previous post.

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 16:54:11 EDT
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Re : Piracy and Economics

   Hi.
   
>    From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>    For the 10th or 11th time: _The decision to pay 
>    the cost of keeping dozens 
>    of patrol vessels on station continiously was made when the Imperium or
>    the planet decided to use a percentage of their income to build a navy_!
>    You may not think that using 5% of each system's GWP on warships are a
>    good idea, but that is just as canonical as the pirates. In short, we
>    have a contradiction. Since I _do_ think that 5% of GWP is a not
>    unreasonable figure then it follows that IMO the element that makes
>    least sense is the pirates, not the warships. 
   
   Just a quibble (I don't think it changes your argument much); the 
   Department of the Navy of the USA (a rather more militaristic than
   average civilized nation) spends about 1% of the USA's GNP.  Total
   military spending in the US is about 3%.  (Total federal spending
   is 22%; the state and local total spend somewhat less, 18% or so.)
   I think your 5% number is really high.
   
>>From: David Summers
>>and people start exploring them.  This is why I am allways warning
>>people that want to play around with more fundamental things like how 
>>communications work in the Imperium (like the jump torps in Leviathan).  
>>Another example of this is thread on jump torps that proceed along for 
>>a while based on the assumption that they aren't used because of Imperial 
>>policy without realizing then that you have done nothing to explain why
>>they aren't used by those outside (or from outside) of the Imperium.  One 
>>needs to be _very_ careful with changing a background after it has been 
>>set up.  Especially so if one is dealing with one of the fundamental 
>>building blocks.]
   
   And yet rationalizing j-torps is easy compared to rationalizing
   piracy.
   
>    I agree 100% with you David. I, too, would prefer to have a Traveller
>    Universe with pirates. Unfortunately, when you reality-check the two
>    basic elements, the amount of resources a world can generate and the
>    difficulties of being a pirate in a universe with that amount of armed
>    warships, it's the pirates who fail the check and the taxes that makes 
>    it. So what I usually do is ignore the conflict and hope my players
>    won't object (they are pretty good about that sort of thing (though I
>    have my problems with them over the flat galaxy)). But the fact that
>    I ignore the discrepancy (and would, indeed, reccommend that you do too)
>    has nothing to do with my opinion that there is, in fact, a discrepancy.
   
   Ignoring the discrepancy sounds like fine advice to me.
   
   
>    From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
   
>    Make that military spending and I wil agree, if it only goes to the
>    Imperial Navy it is horribly large.
   
   Seconded.
   
>    But buying 27 new Kinuirs means that the Imperial Navy has not used any of
>    the Naval Budget for admin. This is just plain silly. About half or more
>    of budget will go to paying admirals, officers, desk clerks, office
>    buildings, computer systems, computer experts, naval ports, naval depots
>    and so on. When I think of it I guess only about 5% to 10% would be
>    available for new investments into ships, buildings, camps, depots.
>    Much of this will be supply ships, troop carriers and so on. That leaves 
>    say 1 to 2% for fighting vessels. Now that isn;t a lot.
   
   According to TCS, about 10% of the up-front cost of the Kinunirs
   per year goes to support.  Realistically, this number may be a little
   low, but it is not ridiculously so.
   
>    Cheap repairs means that you would need a yard, more money from the budget
>    to its employees, admin andso on. Less money is 
>    available for fighting the pirates.
   
   Presumably, these expenses also come out of the 10% figure...
   
>    But having a fighter squadron in a system means that they have to have a
>    base, base personell, refuel depots, sensor satellites and so on. Large
>    ships can operate more independently and therefor IMO will totally be the 
>    cheaper.
   
   As do these expenses.  Et cetera and so on.
   
>    But there is no way in hell that the fleet can be everywhere, because then
>    they need depots, ports, support lines, support personell, desk clerks and
>    on and on. This is going to drain the Imperial Navy Budget like a black
>    hole. I really think that large world will protect themself and the worlds
>    they consider important to trade and planetary security, the others are
>    out of luck.
   
   US warships spend about 30% of their time at sea.  Trav merchant ships
   spend 50% of their time in space.  So your total fleet may need to be
   2 to 3 times larger than your `ready' fleet.
   
   As for the cost of maintenance and support and bases and everything
   else, TCS uses a 10%-of-cost-per-year figure.  Compare to the modern
   day US: The cost of our fleet's ships is something like 400 to 800
   billion dollars.  The annual budget for the entire Department of the
   Navy is about 80 billion dollars (fiscal years 1996 and 1997).  So the
   modern US would use a 10% to 20% figure which is not necessarily
   incompatable with the TCS figure.
   
   Here are some stats that might interest you economics wonks if
   you're interested in comparing and contrasting to 20th century 
   America (which is not necessarily a good model of a 57th century
   feudal empire).
   
   DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
   FY 1997 BUDGET SUMMARY BY APPROPRIATION (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
   
   Military Personnel, Navy                                16.97
   Military Personnel, Marine Corps                         6.06
   Reserve Personnel, Navy                                  1.40
   Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps                          0.39
   Operation and Maintenance, Navy                         20.52
   Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps                  2.29
   Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve                  0.89
   Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve          0.10
   Environmental Restoration                                0.29
   Kahoolawe Island                                         0.06
   Aircraft Procurement, Navy                               6.87
   Weapons Procurment, Navy                                 1.36
   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy                        5.49
   Other Procurment, Navy                                   2.89
   Procurment, Marine Corps                                 0.58
   Procurment of Ammunition                                 0.28
   Research, Developement, Test, and Evaluation             7.86
   Sealift Fund                                             1.43
   Military Construction, Navy                              0.71
   Military Construction, Naval Reserve                     0.04
   Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps                    1.52
   Base Realignment and Closure                             1.37
   
   Total DON                                               79.37
   

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1905
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 1 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1906



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1895
[T97#1898] WBH Religious Profile
FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors
FFS2 errata: sensors
Re: Piracy by the numbers
Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors
Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1901
Industrial Capacity (was Re: The Piracy Thread (continues to be long))
Re: Jump Projectors

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 21:12:40 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1895

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:33:10 -0400, you wrote:

>OK, maybe I'm making a few leaps in logic here, but...  If it is =possible to
>destroy planets, and somebody gets the tech, somebody else will steal it= from
>them.  If there's a war, they'll each end up using the planet busters on= each
>other.  The "winner" will have few enough resources left (because their =planets
>got toasted) that they can't hold up to another agressor and will have =to use
>the planet-busters as deterrant.  Which will work until someone steals =the
>tech again.  Continue until you don't have enough planets left.  It may =take a
>while, but eventually you _will_ run out of planets.  Anybody want to =try
>building an entirely spacegoing civilization?

Go look at the Hhkar, from Challenge magazine.  Not only
spacegoing, but from outside charted space to Amdukan sector with
sublight ships only.

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 21:12:48 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: [T97#1898] WBH Religious Profile

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:15:01 -0400,
Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk wrote:

>>Also, what do you do if they want a faith that isn't a state religion
>>(i.e., for one of the other government types)?  Do you just decide =which
>>of D or E would be most appropriate?

>If you want something random you could always roll 3D-3.  Note that this
>does not make all possibilities equally likely though. My *guess* is =that
>this was what was intended and may have been left out.  Golly gosh, an
>erratum in a DGP book???  ;-)

Could be.  But if I was interested in having a "main religion"
for a planet of gov't type not D/E, I basically just started
picking what I liked, rather than randoming.

Incidentally, Gov D/E aren't the only govs where you can have a
state religion; many European countries have state religions
(most notably the UK, with the official Church of England).  The
distinction between D/E and others is that in the case of D/E,
the church _is_ the state, whereas in others it may be the
official religion (for determining movable holidays, for
instance, or a required profession of faith for holders of
certain public offices) but not mandated among the populace as a
whole, and without the church interfering in secular affairs.
Iran is a D/E; England is not.

>Having said all this, I confess that I don't exactly create hundreds of
>religions (!) so it's not really a problem anyway.  Perhaps it could be =
a
>new BITS book, 101 Religions.  Anyone interested if I started putting =
some
>together?

I like this idea!  Go for it, and start getting the other BITS
101 series available in the US.

Recommendations: (1) include URPs for some of the major Terran
religions of the 20th century.  (2) in addition to the URPs for
all n! religions, summarize in words, and describe specifics of
ritual/liturgy, organization, holy days, liturgical calendars,
and so on.

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:30:39 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors

Some addenda that didn't make it into the first draft, but ship designers
might be interested in:

Sensor Options:

High or Low-powered active sensors.

Active sensors may be designed to trade off required input power for size - 
achieving greater sensitivity in a small package by use of a higher-powered
beam, for example. High-power active sensors of a given sensitivity have
the price as a normal sensor of the same sensitivity, but the designer
may decrease the surface area
by any factor between 2 and 5, increasing the power consumption by the same 
factor.  High-power sensors have a volume of 10m3 per m2 of area.

Similarly, low-power active sensors decrease the input power by a factor of
2 to 5, increasing the surface area by the same amount. Low-power 
sensors have a volume of 2.5 m3 per m2 of area.


Continous sensor formula (handy for spreadsheets):



Mathematically inclined users can calculate the area of sensors of arbitrary
sensitivity by using the following formula:
Area = Base Area * 100 ^ (sensitivity-13)   (the ^ signifies exponentiation.)
The base area is found on the following table:

TL	PEMS base area	AEMS base area	
8			   50,000
9			    1,000
10-11 		2	    5,000
12-13		1	    2,500
14-15		0.5	    1,000

The minimum diameter and firing range (for PEMS) is taken from the nearest
PEMS on table 198. Sensors may not be constructed with greater or lesser
sensitivity than those on Table 198 and Table 201 at a given TL.


Exotic Sensors:

	There are three types of exotic sensors available: Neutrino sensors,
Gravitic Sensors, and Neural Activity Scanners.

Neural Activity Scanners detect and classify life forms based on brain
activity. They are extremely short-ranged, expensive, and fragile.
At each TL two basic models are available - a lightweight (portable)
model and a somewhat larger ranged device.

TL	Range	MW	Vol	MCr
13	0.010	0.004	0.002	0.02
13	0.100	40.0	50.0	20.0
14	0.050	0.005	0.002	0.02
14	0.200	50.0	50.0	20.0
15	0.100	0.006	0.002	0.02
15	0.400	60.0	50.0	20.0

Range: Typical range in km
MW: power required in MW
Vol: volume in m3. All NAS mass 2 tonnes per m3 
Antenna area (m2) = MW x 100

Neutrino scanners attempt to detect neutrinos emitted by nuclear power plants.
Pracitcal high-efficiency neutrino sensors are made possible by the 
increasing mastery of nuclear forces at TL12; however, they are generally
too short ranged to be useful in starship combat. In addition, they function
only as scanners - dececting targets but not providing a precise enough
position for fire control. 

Neutrino scanner volume is given by the following table:

Sensitivity	Volume by TL			    Typical Range
		12-13		14-15
8		10.0		5.0		    	50 km	
8.5		50.0		20.0			160 km		
9		500.0		200.0			500 km
9.5		50000.0		20000.0			1600 km

Neutrino scanners mass 2 tonnes per m3 and cost MCr 5/m3. They require
0.1 MW per m3. They require no surface area.

For detection purposes, neutrino signature can be calculated by totalling 
the power of all nuclear
(fusion, fission, and fusion+) power plants on the vehicle and comparing
to table 13. At TL13+, power plants can be constructed with neutrino
shielding. Neutrino shielding requires 0.1 m3 per m3 of power plant
volume, masses 1 tonne per m3, cost MCr 1.0 per m3 and require 0.01 MW
per m3, and reduces the neutrino signature by 1.0.



Gravitic scanners detect both static gravitational fields and gravitational
radiation. The ability of grav sensors to detect
static fields is limited to strong fields or anomalies such as those caused
by large mineralogical anomalies, or large astronomical objects.
Their ability to detect graviational radiation, however, gives them
some sensitivity to the gravity waves produced by thruster plates and
contra-grav propulsion. Like neutrino scanners, they are not accurate
enough to provide a fire-control solution, and are somewhat short-ranged.
Despite the impressions of certain science-fiction authors, gravitational
radiation travels only at the speed of light.

Gravitic scanner volume is given by the following table:

Sensitivity	Volume by TL			    Typical Range
		12-13		14-15
7.0		 ---		0.01			 5 km
7.5		 0.5		0.05			16 km
8		 5.0		0.50		    	50 km	
8.5	       100.0		5.00			160 km		
9	      5000.0		100.0			500 km
9.5	    500000.0		2000.0			1600 km
10.0		---		200000.0		5000 km

Mass is 2 tonnes per m3. Price is MCr 8 per m3. Power required is 0.01 MW
per m3. Antenna area is 0.5 m2 per m3.

Gravitic sensors operating on a planetary surface or on a ship with
active thruster plates have their sensitivity reduced by 0.5

The gravitic signature of a vehicle may be calculated from the following
table:

    Thrust (kn)                Signature
          1 -           10      -2.0
         10 -          100	-1.5
        100 -        1,000	-1.0
      1,000 -       10,000	-0.5
     10,000 -      100,000	 0.0
    100,000 -    1,000,000	 0.5
  1,000,000 -   10,000,000       1.0
 10,000,000 -  100,000,000       1.5
100,000,000 -1,000,000,000       2.0

(As a rule of thumb, thrust in kn = (G-rating)*(size in Td)*(100.)
Vehicles propelled by contra-grav instead of thruster plates have their
signature reduced by 0.5. 

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:30:07 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: FFS2 errata: sensors

Stealth (pg 65):
	At TL8-9, only one level of stealth maybe applied, and this
stealthing has no effect against TL10+ sensors. At TL10-11, only two
levels of stealth may be applied. At TL12+ ships may have up to three
levels of stealth. Regardless of armour thickness stealthy hulls have a
minimum cost. For convienience the effects of stealth are summarized below
(rounded off slightly for convienience)

Level	Minimum   Component   Component    Armour      Min Cost  Signature Mod
	TL	  vol mult      area mult  cost mult    (MCr/m2)
1	8		1.1       1.25     x5           0.005	     -0.5
2	10		1.2	  1.56     x25          0.025        -1.0
3	12		1.3	  1.95     x125         0.125        -1.5

Component vol mult=multiplier for volume of all surface-area-using
  components (except drives and radiators), such as weapons, sensors, etc.
Component area mult=multiplier for surface area of all surface-area-using
  components


Sensors (page 72-74):

	See instead the "Definitive Sensor Rules" by Bruce Macintosh
(http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/house/sensor.rules.html.)
In particular, active sensors no longer use twice
the range factor, but instead use a modified detection chart.
The range factors given in the examples should be increased by 6. 

Sensor Options: Folding arrays: ignore the "double the volume." 
Instead, folding arrays multiply the cost by 1.2 and reduce the required 
surface area to 10% of normal. Note that the spacecraft cannot evade while
the folding array is deployed. At TL10+, PEMS arrays can operate while
folded, at a penalty of -1 to sensitivity.

Passive Sensors:

Resolution: Resolution is in meters. To calculate resolution
at any other distance, use the following formula:

	resolution = R * (D/50000km)
where R is the resolution given in the table and D is the distance
in km.


Active sensors: delete "twice" in "twice the range factor".

Vehicle Active Sensors:
(see new table below.) Note that TL6-7 active sensors are missing
and will be added later. The only TL6-7 passive sensors available 
are those in the "Portable Visible and Infrared Light Sensors" table.
Rules for specialized TL-6 and 7 trackers will be added later (but
will only rarely be used, since there are no TL-6 or 7 beam weapons
to require fire control.) 


Jammers: 
Active sensor jammers are divided into two types, "area jammers" and
"deceptive jammers". Detailed rules will appear in the next edition
of the Definitive Sensor Rules.

Area jammers blanket an entire region with electromagnetic
interference to reduce sensor sensitivity.All sensors within a 
active jammer's range and in a 30 degree arc from the jamming ship have their
sensitivity reduced by 0.5 for both detection and fire control.
Area Jamming enemy sensors is a Staggering task,
reduced one difficulty level for every tech level the jammer exceeds the
sensor (One DM for every two tech levels in TNE.) 
Jamming sensors one TL higher is an Impossible task; sensors more than
two TLs higher cannot be area jammed.

Deceptive jammers protect a single ship by attempt to mimic 
radar/AEMS signals hitting the jammer-equipped ship to disrupt fire control
locks (but not detection.) 
Fire control locks against a ship equipped with
a deceptive jammer, by a sensor within that jammer's range, 
have sensitivity reduced by 0.5. Deceptive jamming is a Formidable task,
recuced one difficulty level for every tech level the jammer exceeds the
sensor (One DM for every two tech levels in TNE.) 
Jamming sensors one TL higher is an Impossible task; sensors more than
two TLs higher cannot be area jammed.


Passive sensor jammers also operate to prevent fire control locks.
(The name is something of a misnomer since they actually do emit radiation.)|
Fire control locks against a ship equipped with
a passive jammer, by a sensor within that jammer's range, 
have sensitivity reduced by 0.5. Deceptive jamming is a Impossible task,
recuced one difficulty level for every tech level the jammer exceeds the
sensor (One DM for every two tech levels in TNE.) Passive jammers can only
be used against sensors that have been detected by the jamming ship.
Sensors of higher TL cannot be jammed. The next DSR edition will include
rules for using passive jammers to blind or decieve enemy sensors (generally
only possible for sensors of lower TL than the jammer.)

Decoys: Active sensor decoys and LIDAR decoys are also available. They
require 0.1 m3 per m2 of the ship's surface per decoy bundle, mass
2 tons per m3 and cost MCr 5 per m3. The launcher rquires 0.01 m3 per m2 of
surface area, masses one ton per m3 and costs MCr 0.1 per m3. 
(Seperate decoys and launchers are required for active sensors and LIDAR.)
They reduce the signature of the deploying ship by 0.5. Decoys of all types
are only effective against sensors of equal or lower tech level. Successfully
operating decoys is an Impossible task,
recuced one difficulty level for every tech level the jammer exceeds the
sensor (One DM for every two tech levels in TNE.)
TL6-7 decoys cost one tenth as much as normal decoys.


Tables:

Table 195: Detection Probability

SIGNAL	active detection	passive detection
	task			task
<0	(target cannot be detected under any circumstances)
0	Impossible		Impossible
0.5	Average			Staggering (TNE: Formidable)
1.0	(automatic detection)	Average
1.5				Easy
2.0				(automatic detection.)



Table 196: Sensor mass is 1 ton/m2, not m3.

Table 197: change the last two lines:

Sensitivity	Max Range  Diameter   Area by TL(m2)   Resolution
                                        8     9        @50,000km
14		500,000     15.0       ---  100.0      1.5m
14.5          1,500,000     50.0       --- 1000.0      0.5m

Sensor mass is 1 ton per m2, not per m3.

Table 198: change the "firing range" column to read
Sensitivity	Firing range (km)
12.5		50,000
13.0	       160,000
13.5	       500,000
13.5         1,600,000
14.0         5,000,000  
14.5        16,000,000
15.0        16,000,000
15.5        16,000,000

PEMS mass is 1 ton per m2, not per m3.
PEMS power is 0.001 MW per m2.
Footnote: * indicates "limited by diameter. PEMS15.5 and 16 may be built with larger
than listed diameter; multiply resolution and maximum range by 
(diameter/300m), to a maximum of x3 for PEMS 15.5 and x10 for PEMS 16.

The table for converting from FFS1/T4 is mislabelled as the second copy of
"Table 204: LIDAR Volume". In any event, it is in error; replace with the
following tables:

Table 204a: Passive Sensor Conversion Table

FFS range(hexes)		Sensitivity
or T4 rating
0.01 - 0.1			13
1-2				13.5
3-4				14
5-6				14.5
7-8				15.0


Table 204b: Active Sensor Conversion Table

FFS range(hexes)		Sensitivity
or T4 rating
0.01-0.1			11.5
1-7				12.0
8-16				12.5


Table 205c: LIDAR conversion table

or T4 rating
FFS range       Sensitivity
1               13.5
2               14.0
4               14.5
6               15.0
8-16            15.5
 

Add the Active Jammer Table:

Range	Area by TL (m2)
	8	9	10-11	12-13	14-15
11        500    100      50      25      10
12      5,000  1,000     500     250     100
13     50,000 10,000   5,000   2,500   1,000
14    -----  100,000  50,000  25,000  10,000
15      ---   -----    -----    ---- 100,000

Active area jammers have area given by the above table. They have
a volume of 5m3 per m2, a mass of 2 tonnes/m3, and require 5 MW per m2.
They cost MCr 5 per m2.

Active deceptive jammers have 1/10 the area given above. They have
a volume of 2m3 per m2, a mass of 2 tonnes/m3, and require 0.1 MW per m2.
They cost MCr 5 per m2.

Passive jammer table:
Range	Area by TL (m2)
	8	9	10-11	12-13	14-15      
13       1      0.5      0.2     0.1     0.1
14      10      5        2       1       0.5
15     100     50       20      10       5
16    1000    500      200     100      50

PEMS jammer volume is 2m3 per m2 of area. Mass is 2 tonnes per m2.
They require 0.1 MW per m2 and cost MCr 5 per m2.

Table 205: Vehicle Active Sensors:

Sensitivity	Area by TL				Typical
		8	9	10-11	12-13	14-15	Range
6.5		0.05	0.025	0.01	0.005	0.002     16
7		0.1	0.05	0.025	0.01	0.005     50
8		0.25	0.10	0.05	0.02	0.010    160
8.5		0.5	0.20	0.10	0.05    0.025    500
9		1.0	0.50	0.20	0.10	0.050  1,600
Volume: sensor volume is 1m3 per m2 of area at all TL. Mass is 2 tonnes per m3.
Power required is 0.05 MW/m2. Price is MCr 1 per m2.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:46:21 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

At 07:04 PM 10/1/97 +0200, Tommy Grav wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Ian or Katts wrote:
>> Cr500 isnt too bad ... assuming naval spending at 5% of GDP, that puts per
>> capita income at Cr10 000 a head, which is pretty much within the figures
>> I've worked thru PE and Striker I.
>
....
>> Thats 27 *new* Kinuirs per year ... assuming crew costs etc are 10% of ship
>> costs per year, and maintainence etc is 20% per year (wayyyyy more than
>> merchants pay btw), then it means we can maintain about 70 Kinuirs with our
>> defense budget, and retire them when they get old.
>
>But buying 27 new Kinuirs means that the Imperial Navy has not used any of
>the Naval Budget for admin. This is just plain silly. About half or more
>of budget will go to paying admirals, officers, desk clerks, office
>buildings, computer systems, computer experts, naval ports, naval depots
>and so on.

You might wish to reconsider this after looking at the cost of the vessels
per crew member.  From my reading, it seems like traveller ships tend to be
fairly large by Earth standards, and fairly sparsely crewed.

On Earth, ships are relatively cheap.  There are scads of crew members, and
scads of support people at the home base, per dollar of vessel.

In the CT universe, ships cost a LOT of money, and are very, very large,
compared with the amount of cargo they hold, and the number of people on
board.  This is why piracy and bulk cargo transshipment is so silly in the
Trav universe - any pirate could sell the ship for a tenth of its real
value, and still retire happy.

Look at the recent post by Hans, in which he demonstrated that the 10%
maintenance figure used by TCS leaves a healthy amount of money left over
each year, even after salaries, maintenance, and every other expense he
could try to add.  This could pay for legions of support personnel.  I seem
to recall him saying that a typical Kinunir would have some 60-70 MCr left
over, or something like 6000 support personnel per 1200 ton ship.  (Sorry
if I misquoted...)

I am trying to call various shipping companies to find out what a modern
merchantman costs, just to see if my model is right.  Anyone with real,
recent data is invited to let me know.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:14:19 -0400
From: "Allen Shock" <ashock@gte.net>
Subject: Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors

- ----------
> From: Bruce Alan Macintosh <bmac@astro.ucla.edu>
> To: gdw-beta@quark.qrc.com; traveller@mpgn.com
> Subject: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors
> Date: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 5:30 PM
> 
> 
> Some addenda that didn't make it into the first draft, but ship designers
> might be interested in:

Thanks, Bruce! This really fills in some holes! Very much appreciated!

Allen

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:28:36 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors

Bruce,

You could also use a grav sensor to notice passing laser fire, no?
(assuming the grav pulse focussing is in effect)  This might be a
way to at least get a heads up that somebody is shooting---or it
might trigger sandcasters to fire on the premise that the first shot
will rarely be the one to hit...

- -Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:43:22 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1901

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:34:55 -0400, Sanders <kalin@swlink.net>
wrote:

>                            Vargr Character Profile
>                                    - of -
>                               Arorrbar-Harroga
>                                      by
>                                 Paul Sanders
>
>

With your permission, I am going to use this as the first article
in a new section of Freelance Traveller, the Electronic Fan-
Supported Traveller=AE Resource (Web site can be found at
http://www.dragonfire.net/~FreelanceTraveller/), to be
tentatively entitled "Up Close and Personal".

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Industrial Capacity (was Re: The Piracy Thread (continues to be long))

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:
> >On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
> >>And the average answer is roughly 5 trillion credit squadrons per 
> >>billion people living in the sector.
> > 
> >I must have missed something - is the military budget 500 cr per person
> >per year, or per month?  (hmmm...do I have a copy of TCS around
> >somewhere?)
> 
> What you missed is that the Emperor dosen't buy a new set of ship each
> year. Initial TCS fleets are equal to 10 times the annual budget, not
> to the budget.

DOH!  [sound of hand smacking forehead]

>  
> >>Sample world with 50 billion inhabitants:
> > 
> >A population of 50 Billion indicates a Pop A world (defined as
> >tens of billions). Your "sample" slants the scale to the extreme top end
> >of the charts, 
> 
> Ehh... since starport capacity is proportional to population size and naval
> budgets likewise, the exact figure is immaterial. The point is that the
> starports available can handle more than twice the work its own naval budget 
> generates.

Well, I might say something about the psychological impact of large
numbers, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it!  :)

> >The entire Spinward Marches sector has a population of 872.123 Billion
> >and 11 Pop A planets.
> 
> OK, and have you calculated the naval budget of the Marches and compared
> it to the shipyard capacity of those planets?

OK, here they are.  (I have to put this into a database so I can quit
crunching the numbers by hand each time I do this!)

[Note - my system for calculating population is to assume the pop code
range goes from half below to half above.  (ie. Pop Code 4 has a range of
500 to 5000)  In this way, the code is equal to the average population.  I
am not stating this to start any dispute, simply so you will know how I
get my numbers.]

Assumption - Shipyard capacity = 1 ton per 1,000 pop. per week

Spinward Marches 

TL 9 shipyard capacity @ 10,110.01 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 KT/wk

TL A shipyard capacity @ 1,120,213.01 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
	3 shipyard @ 1 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 10 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 MT/wk

TL B shipyard capacity @ 1,121,062.1 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .1 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 1 Tn/wk
	6 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 KT/wk
	2 shipyard @ 10 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk

TL C shipyard capacity @ 1,112,200.01 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .02 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 1 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk

TL D shipyard capacity @ 400,110.011 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .001 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	4 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk

TL E shipyard capacity @ 100,000.001 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ .001 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk

TL F shipyard capacity @ 2,200,000 per week
	2 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
	2 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk

TL G shipyard capacity @ 100,000 per week
	1 shpyard @ 100 Kt/wk (Darrian, had to put it in!)

Total shipyard (Class A) capacity is 6,163,695 (plus change) tons per
week.  However, 2,251,385 of that capacity is TL B-, which IMHO, would
be...underutilized for the Imperial Military.

Almost a full third of the capacity is held by two starports, Rhylanor and
Trin (which I missed on my listing of TL-F Pop A starports, ref: my
previous post)[which is also why the Imperials consistantly kick ZHO
BUTT!!  :)

Now, starting with the figures given above, who wants to figure out how
much of this shipbuilding capacity is used by the Imperial fleets based in
and around the Spinward Marches?  (I'm not!!)


- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:27:47 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

At 10:03 PM 9/29/97 +0000, Doug Berry wrote:
><snip>
>
>You are part of an evil plot involving the Coca-Cola bottling company to
>increase their profits by making spit their products all over my computer.
>I imagine that Dell is involved also.
>
>As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but let's
>have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
>
>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
>
>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
>
><snip>

Is that with or without atmosphere?

>
>>>--
>+-------------------------------------------------+
>|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
>|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
>|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
>|*************************************************|
><snip>
>

Garry

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1906
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 2 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1907



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Tigress and Plankwell?
Re: Future THUDDD Designs
Re: Piracy by the numbers
Re: Very Sharp Knives
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Ping!
Re: Re : Jump Projectors
Re: How high are skill levels, really.
#Traveller
Re: Re : Piracy and Economics
Signed Copy of Belter?
Delayed TML
RE: population
RE: Industrial Capacity (was Re: The Piracy Thread (continues to be long))
Re: Extended System Generation Question
Re: IG, Quality and the future (very long)
Re: Startown Chandlery
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Delayed TML
Re: Piracy by the numbers
Re: Tigress and Plankwell?

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 16:24:35 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Tigress and Plankwell?

At 03:38 PM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>And how much does a BatRon of Tigress-class dreadnaughts cost?  A BatRon
>>>of Plankwells?   Alas, I no longer have a copy of 'Fighting Ships'...
>
>*I* have a copy of Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium, and I don't
>remember name references for warships. What gives? I dunno why, but for
>some reason I would like to know the names of these ships if they have
>them. It sounds so much better than "TL-11 Battleship ... You know, the
>squarish one."

Flying Sex-Toys of the Shattered Imperium (name given to the book by an
ex-gf who games-- look at the cover) isn't going to tell you much about the
Tigress (the ultimate Happy Fun Ball/Space Pac-Man) or the Plankwell;
they're from Supplement 9, Fighting Ships.

According to this tome, a single Tigress cost MCr. 362,721; and a Plankwell
will set you back MCr. 120,494.
- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Future THUDDD Designs

> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:51:48 -0700
> From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
> 
> >if there's some facet of CSC which is so much better/cheaper than the FFS
> >family of systems that it would seriously unbalance the contest, let me
> >know and I'll reconsider this ruling.
> 
> CSC/EA don't include any weapons that are really useful at spacecraft combat
> ranges, so people using them will have to put in weapons from some other
> source (which should be easy enough.) Armour conversion (so one can compare
> designs) is also tricky...the conversion tables in EA were supposed to be 
> flawed somehow. Finally, propsective CSC users should be aware that
> the best sensor in CSC is about a A1 or P1 in other terms, which is pretty
> inadequate, so they may also want to use sensors from another supplement.
> (Once I know what TL the contest is I may make some QSDS sensor packages 
> appropriate to it.)

Thanks for the info!  The Heavy Fighter THUDDD will be a 3I naval design,
at TL 12, 20-50 dt, optimized for performance with cost a secondary
concern (within reason).

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

At 02:08 PM 9/27/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Semo wrote :
>
>>Now, based on that we have:
>>
>>Cr500 (which I think is too high to begin with) for a naval tax (this is over
>>1/10th of the average persons budget according to the Traveller Book [CT]) x
>>54 billion = 2.7 trillion.
>
>Cr500 isnt too bad ... assuming naval spending at 5% of GDP, that puts per
>capita income at Cr10 000 a head, which is pretty much within the figures
>I've worked thru PE and Striker I.
>
>>
>>1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 27 billion.
>>

        1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 2.7 billion, not 27 billion.

>>Now we have 27 billion credits per 36 worlds, that's enough for 122 patrol
>>cruisers, or 27 Kinunirs, or 93 close escorts per year.

        Divide by 10 -- 12 Patrol cruisers, 2 Kinunirs, or 9 close escorts

>>Now, this is not
>>including maintenance costs on these craft (including serious repairs, after
>>all they will be *fighting pirates*), salaries per craft (all CT figures), or
>>salaries for ship's troops (wouldn't it be embarassing for a Kinunir to be
>>boarded and taken over by a small team of pirates?), or salaries for
>>coordinating and command peoples, or costs for life support (hefty using our
>>CT model here), costs for sensor stations, etc. etc.  All these things add up
>>in a big way.  Then of course you have to pay the families of those who are
>>killed in combat.
>
>>All this stuff adds up after awhile.  Of course, as I said, I think your
>>Cr500 per person figure is awfully high.  Traveller rules say the average
>>person has to spend Cr400 a month for food and lodging.  Cr500 is a little
>>over 10%.  And that's just for the Imperial Navy!!!  How about the Scout
>>service (tons of ships, facilities, and the X-Boats)??  The Imperial
>>bureaucracy?  Etc. etc.
>
>Actually, it's the total Naval budget if I read the arguments correctly.
>I mean, if there isnt a war on, you might as well do an anti-pirate sweep
>as a live-fire excercise.
>
>Ian Whitchurch
>

	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50% -- either a thing will happen or it won't.
		This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:47:33 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Very Sharp Knives

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Guy Wilson wrote:

> Also, the Conquistadors in the American SW found that obsidian
> arrow points would go through chainmail very easily. So how about
> some type of glass-pointed crossbow bolt as a weapon against
> cloth-type armors.
> 
> Guy Wilson

That was because the points were quite small and fit through the rings,
not because of any great advantage of glass points...glass is still softer
than steel after all.

Ordinary metal hunting crossbow bolts will go through cloth-type armor,
which is only effective against relatively blunt objects in real life.

Cloth _might_ stop field points, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in
the armor trying.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:10:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Quoth Tommy Grav:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the planet only have to travel to the 
> stars 100 diameter limit. Any self gravitational pull is irrelevant to
> jump or large wouldn't large ships have just the same problem.

Calculate the gravitational field produced by even a massive starship, and
compare to the attraction the Earth has even at 100 diameters.  I think,
playing a game in which planet-hopping is so easy, that we often forget
just how big the durn things are....  :-)

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:18:03 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Ping!

At 09:44 am 10/01/97 -0700, Douglas wrote:
>Sorry for this off-topic post, but I'm having a bit of trouble at the
>moment.  Has anyone else been seeing growing delays between when you post
>a message and when you actually see it?
>
>For the past several weeks I've been seeing delays up to 5 hours from the
>time I send in a post, until it comes back to me via the list.  Now, I am
>just starting to see my posts from yesterday...today (24 hr delay).
>
>I have, however, found the posts in some of the digests that I recieved
>late last night and this morning (before I recieved the individual
>message).
>
>Based on some of the messages I have recieved, I may be missing messages
>as well...
>
>I am trying to determine if this is a global (ie the entire list is having
>problems, so it's not my ISP's fault) problem, or if I need to contact the
>tech support center here at teleport.

	I've been receiving replies to my messages before I get my own message
back from the list ...
- -- 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: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:17:06 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Re : Jump Projectors

At 11:10 am 10/01/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>At 12:50 PM 9/29/97 -0700, J-Man wrote:
>
>>My next question is, what tech level can planets be made "Jump capable"?
>
>You can't make planets jump. The reason being that a planet is always
>inside 100 diameters of itself, so at best, even if you make it jump, it
>will
>misjump all over the local stellar neighbourhood. Very messy !

	And a ship is always within 100 diameters of itself ... so's an asteroid,
and those are canonically used for jump-capable vessels...

	If the question came up in one of my games, there's several ways I could go:

	1. It's not actually the total gravity that matters (since 100diameters
from a size-0 world will be at a different gravity level than a size-8
world), but the gradient. But this answer doesn't immediately address the
question ...

	2. It's the gravity field that _intersects_ the jump field surface that
matters. Specifically, it's the field impinging from the outside, since the
jump field cuts the interior off from the rest of the universe. So a planet
should be as jump-able as a planetoid ship as a scout ship ... if you've
got the money, materials, and fuel, AND you can accurately place a grid
over the entire planet such that no point on the planet is more than 1m
away from the gridlines ...

	3. BOOM!

		3a Jump-drive sized boom
		3b Planet sized boom

	4. Where the ^&%*&^% did we end up (puke)?

	
I'd probably go with a mixture of 1 & 2 ...

- -- 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: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:26:07 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: How high are skill levels, really.

At 08:25 PM 9/30/97 -0800, R. Hough wrote:
>Nice work, Scott, I just wish this had been posted during the task wars
>thread.

Thank you.

I created it then, but neglected to send it out due to a mailing address
failure. :(

> I let my players choose which table to roll from, can you make an
>estimate of what effect that will have on the distribution of skill levels?
>They tend to make all their rolls from only two or three tables.

Off the cuff, I would say that it would make a big difference.  This limits
the total number of skill picks down to 12 or 18, rather than the 36 I
simulated in the first table.  If they pick the majority of their skills
off three tables, this is the equivalent  of the "skills are in the charts
two times," and if they pick them off two tables, it is like the "skills on
the tables three times" numbers.

Thus, allowing the tables to be selected will produce dramatically higher
skill numbers.

As Andy Lilly pointed out, cascade and cluster skills also change the
outlook, as they allow certain skills to be represented a number of times
on the tables, in a non obvious way.  For example, if Pilot and Space are
both on the table, one can get pilot a fairly large number of times.

FWIW, I am using a different arrangement, wherein I have replaced virtually
all of the skills with the various cascades, so the player rolls randomly
for whether they get a stealth, ship, academic, combat, technical, or
physical boost in any given year.  Once they know that, I leave it up to
them what skill they get, with a few provisos about availability.  Since I
usually let people design their characters anyway, this works fairly well.

I used this Monte Carlo as a way to determine how many skills an undesigned
person should get.  I assume that the skill charts are more accurately
representations of how an "average" person goes through the services, with
few people actually being the average.  By generating actuarial tables, the
Scout service can see, for example, how many high pilot skills they have,
and then decide to adjust the percentage of Scouts accepted for the "pilot
refresher" course up by 3% next year.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:23:57 -0400
From: "Allen Shock" <ashock@gte.net>
Subject: #Traveller

	Once upon a time, there was a channel on the Undernet called #Traveller,
where good folk would get together on many weeknights and weekends and
discuss Traveller, and sometimes other things as well. Alas, the Undernet
occasionally fell prey to the Lag Monster, and when Imperium Games produced
a server, the good folk of #Traveller fled there, leaving the Undernet
version depopulated. Alas, the IG server has now fallen, but the #Traveller
people have not returned; some, such as the fabled Den Mother, have other
commitments now. others have simply vanished into the wilderness. Two brave
souls remain, except for those few that occasionally pass through, often
asking directions to some foreign place or another.
	Won't you come and discuss the far future with us? we are there most
weeknights (and often at other times as well), and would enjoy the
friendship and companionship.

Allen

"There's three things that can happen in baseball; you can win, you can
lose, or it can rain."
- -Casey Stengel

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:46:12 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Re : Piracy and Economics

Wed, 1 Oct 97 16:54:11 EDT, Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
>>>From: David Summers
>>>and people start exploring them.  This is why I am allways warning
>>>people that want to play around with more fundamental things like how
>>>communications work in the Imperium (like the jump torps in Leviathan).
>>>Another example of this is thread on jump torps that proceed along for
>>>a while based on the assumption that they aren't used because of Imperial
>>>policy without realizing then that you have done nothing to explain why
>>>they aren't used by those outside (or from outside) of the Imperium.  One
>>>needs to be _very_ careful with changing a background after it has been
>>>set up.  Especially so if one is dealing with one of the fundamental
>>>building blocks.]

>   And yet rationalizing j-torps is easy compared to rationalizing
>   piracy.

I couldn't disagree more.  The main difference is that the presence
of j-torps would fundamentally alter how the Imperium works while
piracy could be dropped out without a big deal of difference.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:44:30 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Signed Copy of Belter?

Marc:

(I'm cc-ing this to the TML in the hopes that if you can't help me,
someone else can.)

Just today, I stopped into a game store here in St Louis that I had never
been in.  They had a *ton* of old Traveller and GDW stuff.  After
gathering up stuff to fill some of the holes in my collection, I also
found a mint, still-in-shrink-wrap copy of Belter.  Having never owned
this game, I snatched it.

On the front of the game, in the upper right corner of the box (not the
shrinkwrap), is one of those stick-on typewriter labels (about 3in by 1in)
with the following printed on it:

Copy 1 of 10
Belter - Mining the Asteroids, 2076
9 June 1979

Then, across the rest of the label is a signature - 'Marc W. Miller'

My question:  do you know anything about this copy of the game, and why
your signature is on it?

(Also, I picked up a copy of the Spanish language Traveller hardback.  An
incredible work of art.  Wouldn't it be nice to see the T4.1 hardback
looking like that?  With color counters and slipcover - Wow!)



- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:44:27 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Delayed TML

Well, now I'm sure of it. Something is delaying the TML. Lately the
posts have been coming in later and later. I called the admin at my ISP
when I d/l my mail this evening and not one new trav email showed up. He
checked and everything seemed OK at his end. Now I'm just receiveing
emails from 8:00 or 9:00 am on 9/30 at 10:00 pm (EST) on 10/1. I checked
the ftp site where the journals are stored and saw that I'm about 50 -
60 messages behind. Is anyone else seeing this problem? oh, if so,
please reply by personal mail since I may not see an answer until next
week at this rate.

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:10:32 +1200
From: Brody Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: population

On Wednesday, 1 October 1997 13:04, Woden2014@aol.com [SMTP:Woden2014@aol.com] 
wrote:
[snip]
> By the way, at 10,000 worlds, with 36 worlds per subsector, there should be
> 281 subsectors in the Imperium. (280.55 actualy)  Is that right, canonicaly
> speaking ?  I have no idea myself.

281 Subsectors is only ~17 sectors (or ~4 domains) and that seems quite 
reasonable.  ....recalling map of imperial space....  Yeah - right enough.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:11:26 +1200
From: Brody Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Industrial Capacity (was Re: The Piracy Thread (continues to be long))

On Thursday, 2 October 1997 10:58, Douglas [SMTP:douglas@teleport.com] wrote:
[snip]
>[Note - my system for calculating population is to assume the pop code
>range goes from half below to half above.  (ie. Pop Code 4 has a range of
>500 to 5000)  In this way, the code is equal to the average population.  I
>am not stating this to start any dispute, simply so you will know how I
>get my numbers.]

Have you given any thought to having the numbers range from 2 to 19 so that a 
pop code 4 has a range of 2000 to 19000 and pop 5 ranges from 20000 to 190000. 
 We use this (or a varient at any rate) so that the world pops have a smoother 
range.

Brody

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Extended System Generation Question

>Wait a sec, are you saying that a world the size of Earth is most likely to
>have a smaller moon than a world the size of, say, Mercury?  That smaller
>planets tend to attract larger moons?  This seems counterintuitive, but I
>have no facts to go on.

No, not at all.  Bigger worlds will still, by and large, have bigger moons.
 That is to say, an Earthlike body (size 8) _could_ have a satellite of
between 2 and 7...  Whereas Mercury would have a moon between size S (Very
Small) and 2...

I'm not sure where you're coming from with this question, actually.

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:39:52 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: IG, Quality and the future (very long)

Andrew,

Excellent discussion on the products, while I'm sure that there is still
going to be a lot of hard feeling, that will be expressed, very well
thought out.

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:50:20 +1200 Andrew Moffatt-Vallance
<a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz> writes:
>Well this one really brings out the strongest emotions, doesn't it?
>
>I think much could be gained by sitting down and taking a dispassionate
>look at exactly what IG has produced, what IG is doing wrong and what IG
>is doing right. This post is going to be *long*, so you might want to skip
>it; ut I think I'm saying things here which need to be said and remembered.
>
>So to start, the products (1 rules book, 11 supplements, 2 adventures, 1
>gamescreen and 2 JTAS).
>

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: neo@total.net (Glenn Grant)
Subject: Re: Startown Chandlery

Sanders <kalin@swlink.net> posted:

>Below is something else I stumbled across in my archives today. If you 
>find it useful, good, if not, hit your delete key :)
>
>The following list is from a campaign I was involved with several years 
>ago. The world where the campaign started was TL9, and below are the items 
>that the PC's found available to purchase at the local Startown Chandlery 
>prior to departure. 

Copy; open new text file; paste; save.

Nice post, Paul! Got any more neat stuff in your archives?

 + GMG +

    -----------------------Glenn Grant-----------------------  
                         <neo@total.net>
    Web: <http://helios.physics.utoronto.ca:8080/ggrant.html>
"Nature abhors normality. It can't go too long without a mutant."
                        --Dr Blockhead

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:22:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Okay, I'm back to the discussion after a few days of missing it.

I'm going to stay away from the numbers for a moment, and turn around and
take it from the top.  Right now, there are several definitions of piracy
flying around.  We can't debate the existance of something that isn't well
defined...

Well, we can, but it makes little sense.

So, what are pirates in the Imperium?

Start with canon.  Some are merchants who turn to piracy during "dry spells".
 No cargos to be had.  No smuggling to be done, and a ship payment is due
next week.

I can believe this in the fringes of the Imperium.  Traders would be armed if
they were to deal with other states outside the Imperium.  Would _YOU_ go to
trade in Vargr space without packing some serious heat?  In addition, there's
a good possibility that Imperial ships in these areas would have bigger fish
to fry (I'm thinking the Coreward edge of the Imperium in particular).  This
piracy scenario really depends on whether or not Imperial traders are allowed
to freely interface with non-Imperial territories.  I would imagine that this
would be really common around Antares, which I would imagine has a high Vargr
population.

The golden age of piracy.  "Argh, me hearties, shiver me timbers!".  These
are the pirates I'd like to see.  Autonomous utopian raiders.  Highly skilled
seafarers that fight hard, and play hard.  They don't translate well to an
Imperial campaign though.  I'd love it if they did, but they just don't fit.
 There were environmental factors that just aren't present in the latter day
Third Imperium (they're there in spades in the early days of the 3rd
Imperium, however).

The common form of Piracy.  Real piracy throughout history and throughout the
world has been traditionally based in locales that the ruling empire of the
time couldn't eliminate for some reason or another.  Imperial examples might
be the edge of Solomani space.  Moving in warships could ignite another war!
 The "neutral zone" of Reaver's Deep (named after pirates and raiders,
fittingly enough).  Here, attacking an Aslan ship could ignite a war as well,
or cause an uncomfortable "international incident".  In addition, moving
ships into the heart of the "neutral zone" to ferret out a pirate base could
be seen as an act of war.  The human client states Spinward of the Spinward
Marches are another sensitive area.  Wouldn't want to ignite another frontier
war, would we?  The Vegan Autonomous District could be another sticky locale.
 Granted, the Imperium could whallop the Vegans, but the Solomani in Vegan
space are known to revolt.  War can breed piracy, especially as Vegan
warships are moved to quell rebellion and generally stretched thin...

And finally there is "modern day land piracy", or truck hijacking.  Cargos
are boosted from trucks.  In the late 70s and early 80s, law enforcement in
the US believed this to be true hijacking, with weapons and violence.  It
turned out to be most commonly the driver turning over the truck and contents
to organized crime for a cut of the profits.  This is the most realistic
scenario within the Imperium.  It happens today even in major cities like New
York and Philadelphia...

Um...  I have more ideas, I'll continue when I'm less tired.

Semo

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:52:14 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: Re: Delayed TML

I have been seeing this for some time...at least the past couple of days.  
Then suddenly WHAMMO, a whole bunch drop into my box.

On  1 Oct 97 at 22:44, Michael D. Peters wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:44:27 -0400
From:           	"Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
To:             	"traveller@MPGN.COM" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject:        	Delayed TML
Send reply to:  	traveller@MPGN.COM

> Well, now I'm sure of it. Something is delaying the TML. Lately the
> posts have been coming in later and later. I called the admin at my ISP
> when I d/l my mail this evening and not one new trav email showed up. He
> checked and everything seemed OK at his end. Now I'm just receiveing
> emails from 8:00 or 9:00 am on 9/30 at 10:00 pm (EST) on 10/1. I checked
> the ftp site where the journals are stored and saw that I'm about 50 - 60
> messages behind. Is anyone else seeing this problem? oh, if so, please
> reply by personal mail since I may not see an answer until next week at
> this rate.
> 
> Mike Peters
> Letterworks@Comten.com
> 
> 


 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:17:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

>>>1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 27 billion.
>>>

>        1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 2.7 billion, not 27 billion.

As I said, I typed this late at night and was very tired.  It should actually
read 1/1000th of 27 trillion is 27 billion.  I was tired, and just read
straight from the calculator completely ignoring the powers of ten when I
typed it...

As I said, my apologies to all involved.

Especially since I was correcting someone else's math.

Semo

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 00:07:50 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Tigress and Plankwell?

On 1997-10-01 14:38, Joseph R. Dietrich <yikes@evansville.net> wrote the 
following:

>>>And how much does a BatRon of Tigress-class dreadnaughts cost?  A BatRon
>>>of Plankwells?   Alas, I no longer have a copy of 'Fighting Ships'...
>
>*I* have a copy of Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium, and I don't
>remember name references for warships. What gives? I dunno why, but for
>some reason I would like to know the names of these ships if they have
>them. It sounds so much better than "TL-11 Battleship ... You know, the
>squarish one."

I have a copy of _Supplement 9: Fighting Ships_, for Classic Traveller, 
and therein ye shall find the cool names for the big warships.

The Plankwell class dreadnaughts cost MCr 120,494 each, and weigh in at 
200 ktons. They are named for notable admirals in the Imperial Navy. The 
class name is taken from Grand Admiral Olav hault-Plankwell, a sector 
admiral in the Spinward Marches who rose to Grand Admiral of the Marches 
and lead the defeat of the Outworld Coalition during the First Frontier 
War.

The Tigress class dreadnaught costs MCr 362,721 and masses a hefty 
500ktons, and was (in 1107) the largest line-of-battle vessel currently 
in service in the Spinward Marches. Only one Tigress class BatRon is 
deployed in the Marches, assigned to 212th fleet, at Rhylanor. The 
Pantheress is another ship of the class.

Compared to this supplement, the FSotSI disappointed me. I was used to 
the cool names and pictures in Supp.9. The drawings in FS of Shattered 
Imperium didn't have the same dynamism. Each ship wasn't given the same 
history, just a pile of stats. Eh -- maybe it was just nostalgia of the 
fact that Supp. 9 was the very first Traveller book I ever saw. My friend 
brought it back from his trip to the UK (still has the "Arts and Crafts 
Studio, Chester" sticker on it for 2.5 pounds), and I fell in love with 
the game before we even got a rulebook. Funny, I seem to recall that we 
only got the actual Traveller rulebook later, we started playing with 
Books 4-6 and some supplements and adventures...

This trip down memory lane brought to you by...

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1907
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 2 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1908



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: 101 Religons
Re: Jump Projectors
RE: Constant Laser Fire
Re: Subject: Re: Jump Projectors
Re: To Ken Bearden
Re: The Piracy Thread 
TML: Physicists
The March Harrier--Avionics
The March Harrier--M-Drive
Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors
Re: #Traveller
WBH Religious Profile [long]
Re: #Traveller
Re: Traveller Software
Re: Definitive Sensor Rules: Part 1/5 (Intro)

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:50:22 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: 101 Religons

Douglas E. Berry wrote
> Subject: Re: 101 Religons
> 
> At 05:07 PM 9/30/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Timothy Collinson Wrote;
> >>Having said all this, I confess that I don't exactly create hundreds of
> >>religions (!) so it's not really a problem anyway.  Perhaps it could be a
> >>new BITS book, 101 Religions.  Anyone interested if I started putting some
> >>together?
> >
> >Oooo Sounds good!
> >
> >It would have to be in the same format; just a couple of paragraphs with
> >the URP and a bit of detail to fill out the edges.
> >
> >I'll volunteer for 20 or so!
> 
> I'm good for about ten.

I already have half a dozen or so & am good for 10 or 15.

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:57:13 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

At 08:52 AM 1/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 09:45 AM 10/1/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> wrote:

>>How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
>>talking misjumps here? ;-)
>
>Hmmm.. I could build a CG drive big enough to neutralize the Earth's own
>gravity....

That would make gas giant refueling easier, and we could get everyone to
where dark sunglasses to avoid going insane when they looked up into the
sky while in jumpspace..... then again... what's wrong with a planet full
of raving loonies.

We could call it Toon world. :)

We're the jump'o'maniacs....



Harry

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:08:10 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: RE: Constant Laser Fire

>FA of 2000? Hmm, must have overlooked that somewhere...I'm not that clued
>up on Laser physics so I thought leaving a laser on constantly for a few
>seconds couldn't hurt... They do in laser light shows etc...

Then it couldn't hurt the target either right?


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

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:28:12 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

At 10:31 AM 1/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>IMHO, the planet's gravity field would not be the problem, as it is
>generated _inside_ the jump field (as are Inertial Compensation and Floor
>Fields on ships).  You'd have to watch out for the solar gravity field
>tho'.  Additionally, I don't think fuel would be that big of a problem
>for the first jump, as long as the planet had a hydrosphere of at 
>least [intended jump].  Could be a problem for subsequent jumps tho'...
>
>Consider having the lanthium contract (or maybe not...where would it all 
>come from!) for this project!  How would they lay it down?  (Hmmm...this
>mountain range will disrupt the primary field for J-space insertion -
>they've gotta go)

That's why it would be better to use a gas giant... I bet there would be
some way that we could generate a psuedo-lanthanium grid using charged
metallic hydrogen. Use the resources given... that's what I say!

Imagine the reaction of the SDB commander as he detects a gas giant jumping
into system!



Harry

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 02:12:33 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: To Ken Bearden

Jeff & Michelle Norton wrote:
> 
>         In regards to you recient message of you mom's passing, please
> accept my heartfelt condolences....


I want to thank you and everybody on this list who have e-mailed me with
your condolences.  I really appreciate it.

I also want to say that these messages are not necessary (although I
have appreciated every one of them), and you need not take up TML
bandwith with them.

I do appreciate the kind words.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:50:26 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: The Piracy Thread 

At 01:47 PM 1/10/97 -0700, you wrote:

>> Anything that expands the power of you r local nobility is good. Owning
>> more than one planet is good.... and it doesn't actually interfere with the
>> authority of the Imperium. Worlds making alliances between themselves are
>> acknowledging that the Imperium has no real effective power over them, plus
>> the nobles get nothing out of it. Remeber that htis is an Empire, an
>> enlightened empire, but still an empire!
>
>Anything that expands the power base laterally is not good, at least not
>from the view of the nobles above you.  The idea is to diffuse power at
>the local level (i.e. you grant specific powers to specific people who
>report to you), but not let the power get concentrated in any one area
>(where it might come back to bite you).  So instead of giving one of your
>barons authority over two worlds, you grant a fiefdom to a new baron.  As
>a Duke, you still retain the power flow from both fiefdoms, but neither
>Baron alone can challenge you.

Agreed, If I were the Duke, I would make sure that would happen....
however... if I was the Baron... well.... rules were made to be
stretched.... and is it really that bad that I contol a second world....
c'mon... it's only has a pop of 40,000... whats the problem?.....

I quite like your arguement combined with mine... I can see lot's of
adventure possibilities. Thanks


Harry

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:16:55 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: TML: Physicists

Here's some interesting comments one of my players sent me on my jump
drive post regarding the March Harrier.  He poses a question for the TML
physicists.

As a math major, he's got a unique way of looking at the world.  Check
out what he says about this paragraphy from my post (I used the Starship
Operator's Manual as a source for this section.

I said:

An unavoidable by-product of the sudden conversion of so much fuel to
energy is waste low-grade heat energy.  This heat is vented via a series
of thermal transfer techinques:  superconducting hull radiators built
into the hull, and convection techniques using some of the liquid
hydrogen fuel as coolant and expelling it with the fusion by-products
out the rear of the ship.  (During the pre-jump power build up, the ship
presents a significant IR signature, particularly from the rear, in case
of other ships picking you up with their passive IR sensors, in space
combat.)

The he responds:

Fusion gives off an extreme amount of energy.  It would be interesting to
do some calculations to see how much fusion energy is in 40 tons of
liquid hydrogen.  We don't know exactly how what percentage of energy
is wasted as heat, but I would guess that if it were even as high as one
percent, then most of the rest of the 40 tons of fuel is actually used as
coolant.  Maybe this is a question for the physicists on the TML.


Well, how about it TML physicists?  What do you think.


And, my player makes another comment that's very interesting:

Marginally related: I saw a news program recently on antimatter.  A
physics lab (in Sweden?, definitely Europe) has been able to isolate
antimatter particles for a few milliseconds.  They're trying to find a way
to stabilize the stuff, and then they propose that it could be used as fuel
for space travel.  Antimatter gives off a *lot* of energy when combined
with matter (just like in Star Trek).  Supposedly it would take only a few
milligrams to go to Mars and back.  The Emporer's Arsenal hypothesizes
the use of antimatter as a propellant for weapons at very high tech
levels (15+).


Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 02:57:35 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Avionics

Here's post number four, detailing the various systems of the March
Harrier.

I've received at least one personal reply stating that they are enjoying
these posts, so I'm going to keep posting these.  I wasn't sure at first
if I was wasteing bandwidth.

Kenneth.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

(the following is the Avionics post)


This is post #4 in getting to know the March Harrier on an intimant
level.

========================================================================

AVIONICS

Avionics includes the control systems,flight avionics, and terrain
following equipment used by the March Harrier to control her in
flight--normal space, jumpspace, and through microjumps.

Together, the various equipment has a volume of 1.7 tons, taking up
internal space.  Each of the components are manufactured to civilian
standard requirments, and, together, they use 1.3 Mw from the ship's
power plant.

Antennas and hull sensors take up .3 square meters on the ship's hull. 
Together, these control systems cost Cr9,200,000.

Normal space flight controls are typically operated by the pilot, with
supplemental input from the navigator.  Various pieces of equipment are
included for normal space flight, including the normal space nav
computer which correlates information from the ship's maneuver drive,
orientation controls, power plant, sensors, and communications
equipment.

The Harrier also mounts a TL 12 holotank (next to the navigator's
station on the bridge) used to plot three dimensional images.

For jumpspace, the controls section includes a jumpspace local CPU,
which correlates information from the ship's jump drive, sensors (for
stellar information in normal space), and the jump governor/hull net
systems.  This set of controls is typically operated by the navigator
with supplemental input from the pilot.

The main computer is also interlinked with all of these systems for
backup and coordination purposes.

These systems are located throughout the entire ship, and each can be
viewed as a single system.  Because they are so interlinked, they are
typically group together in one package, called the avionics section of
a starship.

The pilot and the navigator use them;  the engineer (and possibly the
ship's electrician and computer tech) keep them running.

Next Up?  Sensors.

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:00:18 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--M-Drive

This is post number three in my series on the March Harrier, for those
of you following this thread.

This post focusses on the Harrier's Maneuver Drive.

Kenneth.
==================================================================

(the following is copied from a post I sent to my players)




This post focuses on the Harrier's maneuver drive.

This is pretty straight forward stuff, but ask me a question if you need to.

===============================================================================

Unlike the TL 9 jump drive, the Harrier mounts a TL 12 M-Drive.  The unit is
seperated into two sections, port and starboard, located in the same
drive rooms as the two halves of the jump drive.  

Total size of the unit is about the same size as the jump drive, which
is 8 tons.  A new one costs Cr28,000,000.

This drive also takes up a sizeable portion of the engineer's time,
amounting to 30% or about 3 hours of his 10 hour day--or about 13 hours
a week.

This drive is in the Thruster category, meaning it is a reactionless
drive.  A reactionless drive means that there is no reaction that takes
place to produce thrust, like burning fuel in rockets.  Thruster plates
operate by electrical power being juiced to them from the ship's power
plant.

Here's how the Starship Operator's Manual describes thruster plates: 
"Upon reaching TL 11, breakthroughs in quantum physics lead to
reactionless thruster plates.  Faster and more efficient than gravitic
propulsion system (anti-grav vehicles like air/rafts, grav belts, and
other grav cars), thruster plates represent the most modern form of
slower than light transportation to any known race."

Here's a short history of how thruster technology was developed (from
the Starship Operator's Manual).

"The gravitic drive relies on interaction with the graviton.  The
graviton, a massless subatomic particle, is the carrier of gravitational
force.

"The gravitic drive produces a field which, in effect, alters the way
incoming gravitons react with the ship.  In so doing, the grav-propelled
craft is able to use normally attractive gravitons for thrust in any
direction.  It is worth noting that this basic ability to affect the way
in which gravitons interact is fundamental to many other fields of
modern physics and engineering."

As you can see, the gravitic drive is the pre-cursor to thruster
technology.  The gravitic drive basically uses a planet's gravitational
force to push off of, propelling the craft in what ever direction is
desired.  Beyond the strong pull of gravity, drives of this type rapidly
fall off in efficiency.

Then comes the thruster units...

"Thrusters are somewhat more advanced than gravitic propulsion units,
but operate in a similar manner.  Their development is an outgrowth of
the combined effects of both gravitic technologies and nuclear damper
technologies.  By reacting with both the strong and weak nuclear force,
thrusters are able to produce a reactionless thrust which allows a
spaceship to move at high speed even beyond the limits of a strong
gravitational field (like a planet--thrusters can use the gravitational
field of the system's star to "push" off of)."

The two thruster plates on the Harrier are at the rear of the ship. 
Remember that thruster plates only have full thrust in one direction. 
The maneuver drive on the Harrier provides thrust equal to push the ship
along at 1 G of acceleration (the amount of thrust needed to push the
ship out of a 1G, Earth-like, gravity field).  

Since the plates are reactionless and operate at the subatomic level,
thrust can be produced anywhere on the ship.  You could locate them
inside the ship, if you wanted to, but there is a certain amount of
radiation build up that needs to be vented (which is why most thruster
plates are mounted outside the ship in the conventional manner as other
reaction-based thrust engines.

But, the thruster plates can be used to provide thrust in other
directions besides directly aft.  25% of the thrust can be used to the
sides of the ship, and 10% of the thrust can be used to push the ship
"in full reverse".  For the Harrier, this would mean .25 G to the sides
and .1 G to the bow (pushing the ship, aft first).

The two thruster plates on the Harrier measure 11.5 square meters each.

A problem comes up when you think of landing the ship on a planet with a
higher gravitational field than the ship's acceleration.  For example,
let's say the Harrier, with its 1G maneuver drive, needs to land on a
planet with a 2G gravitational field.  How does it land without
crashing--the gravitational field being stronger than the ship's thrust
power?  If it did indeed land, how would it take off again?

This is solved by the M-drive's overdrive capability.  For a short
period of time (usually about 5 minutes), the M-drive can be
overdriven--producing more thrust as if the drive produced thrust like a
more powerful drive.  The limit on this is 400% of the drive's normal
thrust (normal overdriving procedure is to overdrive the drives by 40%,
and the Harrier's drive can maintain this for a few days if need be--but
it should be used sparingly, only for take offs and landings, as it
makes for a lot of wear and tear on the drive).  Since the ship can
produce .25 G's of thrust to the sides of the plates (and thus, to the
bottom of the craft), the Harrier can land on 1G (and below) planets
easily.

But, what about worlds that have gravity higher than earth-normal, you
ask?  Well, the pilot can land the Harrier aft first, in a vertical
position, bringing to bear the full force of the thruster plates on the
planet.  Overdriven, the Harrier's thruster plates can provide 4G's of
thrust.  (If ever the ship come in contact with a planet with higher
than a 4G gravity field, the ship will be unable to land.)

The ship approaches a planet with this requirement aft first and begins
the landing procedure.  When the ship is close enough to the planet to
use its contra-grav lifters (mentioned in the first of these posts
detailing the hull's systems), the Harrier can use the planet's own
gravitational field to land normally--no matter the G strength of the
planet's field.

Since, out in space, thruster plates use the gravitational fields of
massive bodies to "push off from", thrusters usually use the fields of
the system's star(s) (a planet can also be used, but this field is not
near as strong as that of the star).

There is a limit, though, to the distance to which the thruster drive
can operate.  1000 diameters tends to be the limit that thruster plates
are effective.  After that point, their effectiveness drops off quickly.

Given this, the Harrier's M-drive is not suitable for deepspace
operations.  There's no gravitational field close enough for the ship to
use to push off from.

When the Harrier is jumping two parsecs (two hexes in the game), it has
to make two jump-1 jumps.  The first jumps the ship into the dead of
space, and the second takes it to it's destination.  This is possible
because of the dismountable fuel tanks installed on the cargo deck.

Out in the dead of space, the ship is basically helpless and immobile. 
The ship does have an auxillary maneuver system for this instance (and
in case the M-Drive is knocked out in space combat), but this system is
so inefficient that movement by the ship is reduced to a virtual crawl.

This auxillary system is the ship's orientation thrusters.  This is a
gas-jet attitude control system useing gas, sprayed out the thruster
nozzel, to turn and orient the ship in space.  In space combat, these
orientation thrusters produce so little thrust that the ship is
considered dead in the water.

There is another system for orientation control that can be installed in
the Harrier.  This is a gyroscopic system in which a unit, installed in
the craft's center of mass, revolve at speeds nearing one million RPM. 
The tremendous inertial force generated from the device actually allows
the starship to "push itself off" the flywheel by means of a surrounding
sphere of focussed grav modules.  Thus, the ship rotates about the gyro
when changing its orientation.

These units are very expensive, and they see limited use in commercial
vessels.  Imperial Naval architects, however, generally prefer the more
exacting orientation controls possible with the gyro system (meaning the
Naval vessels you come into contact with will have these, and will be
able to maneuver better on this level than the Harrier).

The M-Drive is one of the most power consuming systems aboard the ship. 
The Harrier's M-Drive requires 112 Mw of power in order to be able to
operate.

Next up?  Avionics.

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:08:56 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors

At 04:28 PM 1/10/97 -0600, Merrick Burkhardt wrote:
>Bruce,
>
>You could also use a grav sensor to notice passing laser fire, no?
>(assuming the grav pulse focussing is in effect)  This might be a
>way to at least get a heads up that somebody is shooting---or it
>might trigger sandcasters to fire on the premise that the first shot
>will rarely be the one to hit...
>

Hmmm... I just had a thought.... has anyone thought of the possibilies of
using gravitic focussing with plasma/fusion weapons. Just off the top of my
head I would imagine the following.

The range would be increased (space combat ranges?)
The focusing would reduce the cross-sectional area (would that play a part?)
The tightly held plasma would be much hotter than non-focussed plasma
(would that increase penetration?)

thoughts anyone?


Harry

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:13:46 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: #Traveller

At 09:23 PM 1/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>	Once upon a time, there was a channel on the Undernet called #Traveller,
>where good folk would get together on many weeknights and weekends and
>discuss Traveller, and sometimes other things as well. Alas, the Undernet
>occasionally fell prey to the Lag Monster, and when Imperium Games produced
>a server, the good folk of #Traveller fled there, leaving the Undernet
>version depopulated. Alas, the IG server has now fallen, but the #Traveller
>people have not returned; some, such as the fabled Den Mother, have other
>commitments now. others have simply vanished into the wilderness. Two brave
>souls remain, except for those few that occasionally pass through, often
>asking directions to some foreign place or another.
>	Won't you come and discuss the far future with us? we are there most
>weeknights (and often at other times as well), and would enjoy the
>friendship and companionship.
>
>Allen
>
>"There's three things that can happen in baseball; you can win, you can
>lose, or it can rain."
>-Casey Stengel
>

Where and how? I'm interested... but can only get on at odd times (odd for
you guys, late at night for me)


Harry

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:24:53 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: WBH Religious Profile [long]

John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk> originally wrote:
>>>In Government Related Details 8a (God View, p.79), what *are* you
>>>supposed to roll for government type E?  2D+3D-5 makes very little
>>>sense to me.
>

To which I'd replied:
>>I've not had any problem with this.  Basically it makes it *likely*
>>that the result will be at the higher end of the table which tends to
>>make sense, but it is *possible* for it to be anything.
And John replied:
>Hm, OK - the -5 supports that interpretation - but then, why write 2D+3D
>rather than just 5D?

Urh, for those of us who can't add 2 and 3?  For those who aren't used to
the idea of 5D?  Good question.

Maybe it was because the previous roll for government type 'D' was
2D-2+..., that the 2D bit just stuck through various trials of a 'formula'
and when 2D+3D-5 was settled on, the authors were just too close to it all
(or fed up with the whole thing) and failed to notice it could be reduced
to 5D-5.


John then opined:
>Never!  How could you SUGGEST such a thing?  DGP books were always
>absolutely, completely, 10% error-free.

Just try out the index of Starship Operator's Manual.


I'd written
>>I always assumed that you were simply to pick what you felt was most
>>appropriate bearing in mind all the previous details of the world that
>>you've generated.
John responded:
>Well, you can always do that - but of course computers aren't very good
>at it, and sometimes it's fun to just let chance decide.  Last time I
>left it to Lady Luck, I got a religion with more than 100 billion
>adherents...

Hey, jihad time!


But yes, your point is well taken.  If there was ever a time to for the
referee to take a hand in the generation process, the URP was it.


jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin) then chipped in:
>Could be.  But if I was interested in having a "main religion"
>for a planet of gov't type not D/E, I basically just started
>picking what I liked, rather than randoming.

Urh, yes.  That too.  (I said as much in a paragraph that I've requoted
above).  Come on, pay attention at the back of the class.
;-)

<snippage of interesting stuff on state religions>

>certain public offices) but not mandated among the populace as a
>whole, and without the church interfering in secular affairs.
>Iran is a D/E; England is not.

Pheweee!  What a relief!


<snip my bright (?) idea of a _101 Religions_ book>
>I like this idea!


Thank you.  I have been quite surprised by the interest shown in this
(slightly ironic and certainly off-hand) remark of mine.

>  Go for it, and start getting the other BITS
>101 series available in the US.

This would be up to Andy Lilly, but I quite agree - you guys don't want to
be missing out on the 101 books just because they're tricky to obtain!  I'm
sure Andy is as concerned to reach as wide an audience as anyone especially
considering the number of North American Traveller enthusiasts.  I admit to
having no real concept of the actual logistics involved in achieving this,
however.

I should also point out, perhaps, that I have nothing to do with any of the
101 books except being an avid fan of the first two, (and reviewer of them
for Jeff's Freelance pages) and am waiting with eager anticipation for the
recently published volumes.


>Recommendations: (1) include URPs for some of the major Terran
>religions of the 20th century.


Funny you should suggest this, I've been having a stab at it but also
thought it might be a wee bit too controversial to be a good idea to
include.  I'm game, but remember that interpreting URPs can be a very
subjective thing.  Just take, say, the 'devotion required' for
Christianity.  A fundamentalist might argue that the code should be '0',
others might say '4' thinking of daily devotions, others might think '6'
for a weekly visit to church, and some would think 'D'
(dedication/confirmation, wedding, funeral).  (And I'm sure there are 'F's
as well!)

That's just *one* of the stats.  The rest can be as tricky.  (Not that that
in itself is a reason to avoid the work.)


>  (2) in addition to the URPs for
>all n! religions, summarize in words, and describe specifics of
>ritual/liturgy, organization, holy days, liturgical calendars,
>and so on.

I like the idea but this is beginning to sound like an IG supplement not a
40 page (give or take) BITS book!  Of course, you might be able to get 20
religions with that detail into such a space but I'm getting the impression
that folk would rather have a greater 'range' to choose from and take
inspiration from but containing less details.

I'd be interested to hear what folk think.

Pardon the length of this post, but I think it was my turn for a longer
one!  I'll return you now the current schedule of Traveller: The Amazingly
Violent Era.



tc
"OK, OK, I'll get back in my cage."

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:25:46 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: #Traveller

Allen Shock wrote:

>         Once upon a time, there was a channel on the Undernet called #Traveller,
> where good folk would get together on many weeknights and weekends and
> discuss Traveller, and sometimes other things as well. Alas, the Undernet
> occasionally fell prey to the Lag Monster, and when Imperium Games produced
> a server, the good folk of #Traveller fled there, leaving the Undernet
> version depopulated. Alas, the IG server has now fallen, but the #Traveller
> people have not returned; some, such as the fabled Den Mother, have other
> commitments now. others have simply vanished into the wilderness. Two brave
> souls remain, except for those few that occasionally pass through, often
> asking directions to some foreign place or another.
>         Won't you come and discuss the far future with us? we are there most
> weeknights (and often at other times as well), and would enjoy the
> friendship and companionship.
>
> Allen
>
> "There's three things that can happen in baseball; you can win, you can
> lose, or it can rain."
> -Casey Stengel

 I'm still new to a lot of Internet things, so the "Undernet" and how to access it,
are a complete mystery to me.  :)

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:58:58 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Software

I have both Megatraveller computer games, "Zhodani Conspiracy" and
"Search for the Ancients".

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:54:33 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Definitive Sensor Rules: Part 1/5 (Intro)

Would you mind if I put the sensor rules on my Traveller page?


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 

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1908
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 2 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1909



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: WBH religious profile
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Subject: Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Traveller software
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Extended System Generation Question
Focussed Plasmas
BITS Products and 101 Religions
Re: Industrial capacity
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1904
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1901
Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 15:04:48 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

What other CT stuff was there?

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:07:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Joseph Chepe Lockett wrote:

> Quoth Tommy Grav:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the planet only have to travel to the 
> > stars 100 diameter limit. Any self gravitational pull is irrelevant to
> > jump or large wouldn't large ships have just the same problem.
> 
> Calculate the gravitational field produced by even a massive starship, and
> compare to the attraction the Earth has even at 100 diameters.  I think,
> playing a game in which planet-hopping is so easy, that we often forget
> just how big the durn things are....  :-)
> 

But nowhere in the rules is there anything that says selfgravitation is 
an issue. Only external gravitational wells are considered. So is still
stand by my statement above, which would make an interesting problem in 
gaming senses. 

>  Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,

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: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:09:02 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

>>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
>>
>>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
>>
>><snip>
>
> Is that with or without atmosphere?

The atmosphere is maybe 100 km thick, and that's if you are being
generous. That's less than 1%...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:06:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

>
>>How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
>>talking misjumps here? ;-)
>
>>Dom
>
> Install an internal gravity field generator and revers the affects ;-) ?

And watch the planet come apart when the internal pressures exceed the
"tamping forces" that gravity *had been* providing...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:41:13 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: WBH religious profile

In mail you write:

> Perhaps the author of each religion could pick out a couple of details
> to individualise it: a unique tradition or initiation ceremony, the fact
> that it's sponsored by a major corporation...                   ^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You've been playing with the Scientoligists again, haven't you?

:-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:04:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

>
>
> Linda Baxter wrote:
>
>> > From: Michael D. Peters <Letterworks@Comten.com>
>> > We COULD tell..... but then we would have to destroy you!!!!
>> >
>> > Fear the Forerunners, Grandfather was only a kid!
>>
>> Ah! Another Andre Norton reader. :-)
>
> Make that "three" norton readers..:)  I grew up on her stuff.

Heck, I *own* most of her stuff (the SF anyway, I'm a bit light on the
Fantasy). 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:27:18 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

> voice...)er...go boom... or misjump?.  Also would everybody have to go 
> underground and close the venitian blinds or go nuts from looking up in the 
> air at the jump field?  Just what we need, an entire world of lunatics 
> jumping into an unsuspecting star system...hmmmm....sounds like a EEEEEE-vil 
> little scenario!

Actually, you should be able to use the ionisphere as the jump grid.
It's conductive and surrounds the planet. Just use lasers or something
to "super-ionize" it to improve the conductivity where you want it.

And this gives you a super aurora borealis effect, so you can't see
past the light show in the sky.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:07:21 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

> On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
>
>> At 09:45 AM 10/1/97 +0100, you wrote:
>> >Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>As I recall, planet sized jump portals become possible at TL21... but 
> let's
>> >>have some fun.  Let's equip Earth with a jump-1 drive (TL 15).
>> >>Earth has a radius of 6,378,000 meters (roughly)
>> >>This gives a volume of 1.0868X10^21 m^3
>> >>Jump Drive Volume:  2.1736x10^19 m^3
>> >>Jump Drive Mass:    4.3472x10^19 tons
>> >>Jump Drive Cost:    6.5208x10^18 MCr
>> >>Jump Grid Area:     7.65099x10^9 m^2
>> >>Jump Fuel (1 jump): 1.0868x10^20 m^3
>> >
>> >
>> >How do you get the Earth out of it's own gravitational field or are we
>> >talking misjumps here? ;-)
>> 
>> Hmmm.. I could build a CG drive big enough to neutralize the Earth's own
>> gravity....
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the planet only have to travel to the 
> stars 100 diameter limit. Any self gravitational pull is irrelevant to
> jump or large wouldn't large ships have just the same problem.

They'd have to be *really* large. Remember, a planet is as much more
massive than a free trader as a free trader is more massive than a virus!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 00:56:10 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

> If a series of "core taps" were used on a planet, what kind of
> destructive capabilities would the planetary defenses have if they
> utilized every erg of power?

Doesn't matter. You see, there's this slight problem with "core tap"
type power plants. You are generating power from the difference between
the mantle temp (you can't dig all the way to the core) and the surface
temp. This won't work on worlds like Luna or Mars, as they've cooled
too far.

Worse, if you are using "every erg", you've just raised the planet's
surface temp to that of the mantle! In which case neither you nor the
enemy will *want* the planet.

There are actually limits on how much power you can use on a planet,
based on how much you want to disrupt the ecology (if any) and weather
patterns.

And of course, something like the massive core-taps you propose are
going to cause other problems due to the deep cooling effects. Probably
increased vulcanism (due to the mantle circulation getting sped up
*drastically* by the cooling of the outer layers) and greatly increased
earthquake activity (due to the contraction of the planet as you cool
it). 

Oh yes, there are even theoretical limits on the amount of power you
could use "safely" in open space. If theory is right, when you hit a
high enough energy density (don't worry, it'd take TL 50 or so), you
could cause a "phase transition" in space time! In short, you'd wreck
the *universe*.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:11:37 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller software

In mail you write:

> There is a program out there called Library by Jo Grant (aka Jo Jaquinta)
> which is exactly what I would want; a cross between Metator and Jim
> Vassilikos' Galactic.  You start at the Full map of known space, zoom in on
> a particular sector (which is "dotmapped" the a specific subsector.  From
> here you can hold the pointer over a particular world and see the "quick"
> details, or double click on the world to get the full picture.

I'd want it to start with a map of the galaxy, so you can show players
just how insignificant "known space" is. (Hint: on the map for the old
SPI game Outreach, Known space fits into one *hex* with some space left
over. :-)

> If it is the first time this world was clicked on it will prompt you to
> generate the full system details including trade tables, world map, animal
> encounters, satellites and other planets, weather and temperature,
> sociological, religous, and economic data.  In addition there would be a
> "GMs Notes" associated with section which could hold vast amounts of
> information about whatever category the GM wanted to elaborate on.  All
> stats would be fully editable, random tables could be easily added to, etc.
> etc.
>
> If it is not the first time through, the information shown was what was
> originally generated and entered.

It should also have provision for storing "official" data versus
"homebrew" data (so the ref can see how his version differs from the
official one) and support for multiple time periods would be nice.

> Metator, Library (including 'C' source for sysgen) are at;
> http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/software

How much disk space does it take, how much RAM does it need, and will
it run under system 6?

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:50:36 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

SemoFetus@aol.com writes:

>So, what are pirates in the Imperium?
> 
>Start with canon.  Some are merchants who turn to piracy during "dry spells".
>No cargos to be had.  No smuggling to be done, and a ship payment is due
>next week.
> 
>I can believe this in the fringes of the Imperium.  Traders would be armed if
>they were to deal with other states outside the Imperium. Would _YOU_ go to
>trade in Vargr space without packing some serious heat?

I can agree with that. Of course, that means the weekend pirate's prey would
have the same dirves and armaments as the pirate himself, but that isn't the
big problem -- a 600 T armed merchant could outfight a 200 T armed merchant
(if it could catch it) -- the big problem is that the would-be pirate has
two options: He can jump into a system with his transponder on, in which case
he won't be able to take advantage of any prey, or he can jump in with his
transpponder off, in which case he has blown any chance of doing legitimate
business if he dosen't find an easy target. (Btw. according to canon it is
illegal even to install an on-off switch on your transponder; I don't use
that in my campaign universe, but it's the official rule).

>In addition, there's a good possibility that Imperial ships in these areas 
>would have bigger fish to fry (I'm thinking the Coreward edge of the 
>Imperium in particular).

Not unless they are at war.

>The common form of Piracy.  Real piracy throughout history and throughout the
>world has been traditionally based in locales that the ruling empire of the
>time couldn't eliminate for some reason or another. [Various examples].

There are two ways to suppress pirates. One is to hunt them down in their
lairs and ground them into dust. There are canonical examples of the
Imperium doing just that, but I'm quite ready to postulate situations
where that is not possible, like some of the ones you suggested. The
second method is to always have a patrol ship close enough to catch or
at least drive off the pirate. Historically this was made difficult by
the fact that there were always far more places to patrol than ships
available to do the patrolling. A ship could only watch as far as the
horizon (30 miles diameter or so, IIRC). 

What I've been trying to demonstrate is that a civilization where one
world in 36 has 10s of billions of inhabitants and 2 more have billions,
will have enough patrol ships to cover all the places. Imagine a
situation where ships can leave one harbor and teleport to just outside
any other harbor. 

>And finally there is "modern day land piracy", or truck hijacking.  Cargos
>are boosted from trucks.  In the late 70s and early 80s, law enforcement in
>the US believed this to be true hijacking, with weapons and violence.  It
>turned out to be most commonly the driver turning over the truck and contents
>to organized crime for a cut of the profits.  This is the most realistic
>scenario within the Imperium.  It happens today even in major cities like New
>York and Philadelphia...

Yes, but the trucks are not under the observation of a police officer every
mile of the trip.



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:45:04 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Extended System Generation Question

SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:
>I'm not sure where you're coming from with this question, actually.

Actually I got confused.  Here's the post I replied to originally;

- ---------
Ken Bearden Wrote;
>SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Okay, I wanted to clear something up from my MegaTraveller/TNE books on
>> Extended System Generation.  In _Step 35: Satellite Size_  "For Worlds: Roll
>> 1D-World-Size."  This makes no sense, as smaller worlds would have bigger
>> moons.  The mistake in uncorrected in both books and is listed exactly the
>> same.  I'm reading it for now as "World Size-1D" but it still kind of needs
>> work maybe...
>>
>
>You are reading it correctly.  It was a mistake in both editions.
>
>From the MT errata, it's "World Size-1D"
>
- ----------

I misunderstood and thought that you guys were saying  "World Size-1D" was
the errata not "1D-World Size".  Obviously 1D-World Size will produce
nothing but planetoids for size 6 or larger and moons potentially larger
than the mainworld for size 1-3 worlds.

Should learn how to read one of these days.

Pete


Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:00:52 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Focussed Plasmas

Harry Wrote;
>Hmmm... I just had a thought.... has anyone thought of the possibilies of
>using gravitic focussing with plasma/fusion weapons. Just off the top of my
>head I would imagine the following.
>
>The range would be increased (space combat ranges?)
>The focusing would reduce the cross-sectional area (would that play a part?)
>The tightly held plasma would be much hotter than non-focussed plasma
>(would that increase penetration?)
>
>thoughts anyone?

I would guess that weapons grade plasma is already pretty well condensed.
Plasmas are a strange animal (did you know it is the fourth state of
matter? i.e. liquid, solid, gaseous, plasma, (and debatably superfluid)).
They can be compressed only so far, especially since the ionized particles
in a hot gas plasma are very excited.

I would say that there is more effect in moving the plasma faster towards
the target.  Like you said it would increase the effective range, primarily
by getting the hot plasma to the target before it flys apart.

What would really help plasma based weapons (Fusion weapons are just plasma
thats fusing as it goes) is a projectable magnetic field.  This would serve
as both longer range focussing (high power magnets are certainly the
initial focussing element) and would serve to disrupt the focussed plasma
when it did reach the target, i.e. as a shield.  AFAIK there is no way to
produce a magnetic "pulse" in vacuum.  On the other hand, you could run big
coils throughout the hull and turn your ship into  one big electromagnet
the instant the plasma hit, which would put most of the plasma into a
circuit around the ship where it could cool and disperse.

I bet the magnetic power/space required would far outweigh the advantage
unless you were faced with a fusion only opponent.

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:52:10 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: BITS Products and 101 Religions

Hi All,

Sorry that my inputs are currently so short, but work really is a *bitch* at
the moment. It's nice to have the added responsibilities, etc. but...

Anyway, just to answer those US enthusiasts who want to get hold of 101
books and other BITS products, here's the current situation:

(1) I can accept International Money Orders here in the UK but that costs
you guys extra to buy, and lots on trans-Atlantic post.
(2) I can accept US dollars cheques, provided you add about $10 to allow for
what *I'm* charged when I bank them, plus you're still paying lots on
trans-Atlantic post.
(3) Jo Grant is currently in the US and is hopefully setting up a trial
system for taking orders directly while over there. However, this is only a
temporary option (he won't be in the US for ever), and in the long term
would still require us to transport large numbers of books to the US.

I'm investigating the following:
(4) Printing in UK, distribution via UK to US (via UK distributor).
(5) Printing in UK, distribution via UK and US (direct).
(6) Printing in US, distribution via US to UK (via US distributor).
(7) Printing in US, distribution via US and UK (direct).
(8) Some strange combination of 4-7, other options, etc.
(9) Distribution to Europe as well!

Given the shoestring profit involved in going through a distributor, I have
to consider very carefully before committing my limited BITS funds to a
particular option.

I really do appreciate the interest that has been shown in the 101 series -
many thanks for all the e-mails. I don't have time to reply individually,
but as soon as the above is all sorted out, I will get back to you.

101 RELIGIONS

I (or an appointed representative) will be giving out details of how you can
contribute (should you so wish) to this (possible - no promises!) upcoming
BITS publication. Stand by for further communications! :-) [Please don't get
your hopes up - this is not a huge money-making opportunity, and at the end
of the day it will be horribly fussy old me who edits everything and chucks
out what I don't like. Given the extremely sensitive nature of religions, I
shall feel obliged to edit this very carefully).

Andy

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:03:44 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:

>>>The entire Spinward Marches sector has a population of 872.123 Billion
>>>and 11 Pop A planets.
>> 
>>OK, and have you calculated the naval budget of the Marches and compared
>>it to the shipyard capacity of those planets?
> 
>OK, here they are.  (I have to put this into a database so I can quit
>crunching the numbers by hand each time I do this!)
> 
>[Note - my system for calculating population is to assume the pop code
>range goes from half below to half above.  (ie. Pop Code 4 has a range of
>500 to 5000)  In this way, the code is equal to the average population.  I
>am not stating this to start any dispute, simply so you will know how I
>get my numbers.]

This is incorrect. The rule is to generate a figure between 1 and 9 and
stick the appropiate number of zeroes after it. Personally I use a D10
and reroll any tens, but if you are an Orthodox Traveller Person you'd
of course roll 2D-2 and reroll any zeroes and tens. In both cases, 
however, the average would be 5, five times the figures you use.

Of course, the method I would use for calculating the population of planets
in the Spinward Marches would be to look up the figures in the listings. 
And then I'd pretty much ignore everything but the high-population worlds
except for establishing whether a world can defend itself against piracy.
  
>Assumption - Shipyard capacity = 1 ton per 1,000 pop. per week

I reccommend using tons per year as the measure and then divide all
maintenance by 50 (or perhaps 45 to allow for a 10% messup in scheduling
of maintenance).
 
Spinward Marches 
 
TL 9 shipyard capacity

 	1 shipyard with 30 Mt/year (Junidy)
	1 boatyard with  2 Mt/year (Aki)

TL A shipyard capacity

 	1 shipyard with  8 MT/year (Vilis)
	1 shipyard with 20 Mt/year (Narsil)*

TL B shipyard capacity

 	1 shipyard with 20 Mt/year (Porozlo)
	1 shipyard with 10 Mt/year (Mire)
	1 shipyard with  6 Mt/year (Gram)*
	1 boatyard with  8 Mt/year (Sacnoth)*

TL C shipyard capacity

 	1 shipyard with  6 Mt/year (Jewell)
	1 shipyard with 20 Mt/year (Fornice)
 
TL D shipyard capacity 

 	1 shipyard with  8 Mt/year (Chronor)*
 	1 shipyard with  8 Mt/year (Efate)
	1 shipyard with  8 Mt/year (Lunion)
	1 shipyard with  9 Mt/year (Strouden)

TL E shipyard capacity

	1 shipyard with  3 Mt/year (Pallique)

 
TL F shipyard capacity

 	1 shipyard with  8 Mt/year (Rhylanor)
	1 shipyard with 10 Mt/year (Mora)
	1 shipyard with  8 Mt/year (Glisten)
	1 shipyard with 10 Mt/year (Trin)

TL G shipyard capacity

 	1 shipyard with 2 Mt/year (Darrian)*
 
Of course, Darrian doesn't become functionally TL G until some time after
the Rebellion, but since we're only concerned with Imperial planets at 
the moment, it dosen't matter.

Total shipyard (Class A) capacity is 158,000,000+ tons per year (Note that
statistically speaking it is propably about 6 Mt more than that, but that
I can't prove). 70,000,000 of that capacity is TL B-, but then, if I was
buying the Imperial navy I'd find ways to get around that.

>Now, starting with the figures given above, who wants to figure out how
>much of this shipbuilding capacity is used by the Imperial fleets based in
>and around the Spinward Marches?  (I'm not!!)

Well, assuming the Imperial part of the 872 billion inhabitants you mention
above is 10/16th (roughly 10 subsectors are Imperial), the Imperial 
population is 545 billion. Naval taxes would be 272,500,000 MCr. Cut that
down by roughly a 3rd to reflect that some of the worlds that pay but don't
build have credits worth less than the worlds that both build and pay (If
you want more exact figures you'll have to provide them yourself). That
gives a budget of about 180,000,000 MCr. That gives you a fleet worth
1,800 trillion credits. This includes planetary, reserve, and regular
fleets. If you use that to buy system defenses (at MCr0.85 per T) you get
about 2,117 trillion tons of ship. If you use them to buy jump-6 ships
(not possible, of course) you'd get about 3,600 trillion tons. An
average of that would be 2858,t trillion tons. Let's say 3,000 trillion
tons for convenience.

Shipyard utilization:
	New construction: 2.5% of 3,000 trillion tons = 75 trillion tons.
	Maintenance: 3,000 trillion tons/45 =           67 trillion tons

Total 142 trillion tons out of 158 trillion tons, leaving 16 trillion
tons unaccounted for. That's about 10% off and in the right direction.
Seems to dovetail quite nicely.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8


 

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:21:51 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1904

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:17:56 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
>From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
>Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1899
>
>Phil said: 
>> If you don't like GURPS, tough. *I* didn't like the stupidity of Virus in TNE,
>> nor did I like the stupidity of 1st Printing MTrav. No-one consulted me, then,
>> either :-)
>
>  If you don't like TNE, tough.  *I* didn't like the stupidity of "spaces" in 
>the Rigger Black Book, nor the stupidity of not having any sensor rules.  
>No-one consulted me, then, either :-)

Hey, what can I say? One man's meat is another's poison -- *I* don't like the
needless, pointless, excessive detail of FF&S #1 *and* #2. Spaces suit me just
fine ... and a lot of other people! ;-P

Phil

- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:19:03 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1901

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:34:55 -0400, you wrote:

>>Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but IG doesn't get licensing fees
>from SJG
>>-- the *parent* Company, Sweatpea, does. Now, it may be that they will use
>the
>>fees from SJG to cross subsidise IG -- but this doesn't necessarily make good
>>business sense!
>
>	I thought the person owning the copyright got the licensing fees ... i.e.
>Marc Miller. Unless Sweetpea has an exclusive contract with him, that also
>allows them to "sublicense."

I *said* someone would correct me! And, if this *is* true, it makes IG's fate
even more precarious -- if Sweetpea hasn't bothered to ante up enough money to
date to allow IG (a wholly owned subsidiary, as we have been informed on this
list) to do a decent job, then it seems highly unlikely that they're going to do
so when sales take a dive (as I think we all suspect -- whether we like the idea
or not -- they will) after the release of the *LINE* of GURPSTrav products.

In other words, they won't be throwing good money after bad. In other words, it
looks like IG's days are numbered whether you like it or not.

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:21:58 -0400
From: "Allen Shock" <ashock@gte.net>
Subject: Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)

>  I'm still new to a lot of Internet things, so the "Undernet" and how to
access it,
> are a complete mystery to me.  :)

	I'm sorry, I should have explained that :) Must be those Zhodani thought
treatments...

	#Traveller is an IRC channel. IRC means Internet Relay Chat. To connect,
you need an Internet connection (which, if you're reading this, you
probably have) and an IRC client. There are many of these, the best
probably being MIRC and PIRCH. These can be found on various Web sites; try
a search on Webcrawler or Infoseek to find them. Once you are there, choose
a server from among those marked "UNDERNET"; use the one closest to where
you are if possible. Once you get connected, type /JOIN #Traveller, and
there you are :) 

Allen

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1909
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 2 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1910



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1901
Re: #Traveller
Planet Busters
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors
Re: #Traveller
Re: TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List
Re: Delayed TML
TIGRESS AND PLANKWELL
re: TML: Physicists
Re: Magical Moments
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1907
Piracy
Mad Scientists taking over Andy Brick
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1907
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Legal stuff (was Re: Hacking, betaware, and you (was RE: Traveller
Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)
Re: Sneaky radiation effects
Re: Industrial Capacity (was Re: The Piracy Thread (continues to be long))
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: #Traveller
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:15:51 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1901

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:34:55 -0400, you wrote:

>>Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but IG doesn't get licensing fees
>>from SJG
>>- -- the *parent* Company, Sweatpea, does. Now, it may be that they will
>>use the
>>fees from SJG to cross subsidise IG -- but this doesn't necessarily make good
>>business sense!
>
>Well, it really doesn't matter if the fees go to IG or not.
>If they did, the owners (is Mark the sole owner?  Or did he get
>investors?  Do we know?  [After all, I don't think he has to

Mark, as far as I know (and, again, I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong)
has nothing to do with IG per se ... Mark is, as i understand it, "FarFuture
Enterprises" and it is they who did the deal with Sweetpea -- IG is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sweetpea. That's what's been on the list, anyway.

>tell anyone about such things])  could just take the fees as
>profit.  For a privately held company  the difference in
>the companies money and the owner's money is mostly one
>of liability (you can't necessarily sue and owener for a
>companies liabilities) and wether personal taxes have
>yet been paid (unless the owner is another company).

Since Sweetpea is the owner of IG and Mark is (through FarFuture) simply
licensing them to license IG *and* Steve Jackson, Mark will make money
regardless. In a sense, so will Sweetpea -- however, most businesses are in it
(especially in the US) these days *purely* for the "bottom line". And, if said
"bottom line" is that IG does not bring in the cash and GURPSTrav does, then it
seems unlikely that a good businessman would cross-subsidise a losing
proposition (as IG seems to be at the moment) with profits from a winning one.
That sort of thing is passe. In short, there seems to be no logical way we can
expect Sweetpea to cross-subsidise IG from SJG profits from the GURPSTrav
license.

>But what the fee also mean, in all cases, is that
>IG games is somewhat protected from one very common route of
>failure, those who own the company just run out of money
>to continue (in world of small gaming companies, this happens
>a lot).  Thus IG had the resources to recover from mistakes
>it might not otherwise recover from.

I don't think we're connecting here -- it is not good business sense (or it
wasn't back in the early '70's when I did my Economics :-) to take good money
(profits from GURPS Traveller license) and throw it after bad (money invested in
IG). I thinks its going to be fairly obvious that *UNLESS* IG can get their
quality control and product layout to at least GURPS standards (which isn't
super-high in the industry -- but is a good solid average), then GURPS will
outsell IG ... and Sweetpea won't take their profits from GURPSTrav and put it
towards bailing out IG ... makes no business sense. After all, if they can't (or
won't) afford the money *HERE AND NOW* to produce a reasonable product, then I
can't see them taking *real* profits and giving them to IG to squander.

No, it seems likely (and logical) that Sweetpea would cut their losses and
simply let IG die and take the money from GURPSTrav. Sorry, but that's business
sense ... you may not like it any more than I liked the business sense that
drove GDW to the wall, but its the way it is likely to be.


Phil

- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:47:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: #Traveller

>Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:25:46 -0700
>From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
>Subject: Re: #Traveller

>Allen Shock wrote:

>>         Once upon a time, there was a channel on the Undernet called 
#Traveller,
>> where good folk would get together on many weeknights and weekends and
>> discuss Traveller, and sometimes other things as well. Alas, the Undernet
>> occasionally fell prey to the Lag Monster, and when Imperium Games 
produced
>> a server, the good folk of #Traveller fled there, leaving the Undernet
>> version depopulated. Alas, the IG server has now fallen, but the 
#Traveller
>> people have not returned; some, such as the fabled Den Mother, have other
>> commitments now. others have simply vanished into the wilderness. Two 
brave
>> souls remain, except for those few that occasionally pass through, often
>> asking directions to some foreign place or another.
>>         Won't you come and discuss the far future with us? we are there 
most
>> weeknights (and often at other times as well), and would enjoy the
>> friendship and companionship.
>>
>> Allen
>>
>> "There's three things that can happen in baseball; you can win, you can
>> lose, or it can rain."
>> -Casey Stengel

> I'm still new to a lot of Internet things, so the "Undernet" and how to 
access it,
>are a complete mystery to me.  :)

>- --
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com

I have just updated the #traveller information page.  Thank's to Allens post 
it reminded me that I should have updated the thing before.  Basicaly the 
information is the same, but the reference to the now defunct IG site has 
been deleted.

The site is accessable via the X-TERM, the Planet-X Information Kisosk:

http://www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx/x.htm

Click on the "Online Chat Information" icon.  there will be basic 
information on how to get mIRC and logon to the undernet.

So far the only game mentioned is my own, going on and off every Tuesday or 
so due to unseen events.  I only have 2 players, as it seemed my 3rd has 
dropped out, this game can go for 4 more.  Email me for details.

Also if anyone else is running games, e-mail me so I can put them on the 
site.  As IG no longer has a IRC server, I am making this site the 
#traveller IRC info zone, as was its original plan when I designed it back 
in January.

Hope to see you tonite!

The Commander

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:20:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Ringrose <ringrose@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Planet Busters

>>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:06:12 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
[snip]
Leonard> And watch the planet come apart when the internal pressures exceed the
Leonard> "tamping forces" that gravity *had been* providing...

Hey!  A whole new way of making a planet buster!  No more pesky
introduce-enough-energy-to-split-the-planet, just counteract gravity and let it
blow itself apart!

*groan*

	- Robert Ringrose
	  ringrose@ai.mit.edu
	  (Who doesn't really _want_ usable planetbusters to exist in his 
	   universe.  Call me biased, I don't care.)

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:25:31 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

> On the front of the game, in the upper right corner of the box (not the
> shrinkwrap), is one of those stick-on typewriter labels (about 3in by 1in)
> with the following printed on it:
> 
> Copy 1 of 10
> Belter - Mining the Asteroids, 2076
> 9 June 1979
> 
> Then, across the rest of the label is a signature - 'Marc W. Miller'

Gak! A 18 year old still-wrapped, mint, signed copy of Belter!
Don't think about telling us what you paid for it! Double Gak!

That isn't collecting, that's archaeology and some freakish luck! 
Wow.

My suggestion - take it to Origins and just after Marc gets
inducted into the Hall of Fame (congrats, btw), start the bidding...
Of course, they may have trouble prying it from you not-yet-cold,
not-yet-dead fingers.

Really jealous,
Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                     ehenry@magma.ca

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:10:13 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors

>You could also use a grav sensor to notice passing laser fire, no?
I think laser pulses will be more detectable from their scattered light off
local dust/solar wind (not naked-eye-visible, but certainly detectable on a
PEMS...) but yes, grav sensors should see passing laser pulses as well.
Signature for a laser pulse should be about -4 or so.

Bruce

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:53:35 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: #Traveller

At 09:23 PM 10/1/97 -0400, Allen wrote:

>	Once upon a time, there was a channel on the Undernet called >#Traveller,

If my server will behave in the evening, sure, I'll be back.  But no Den
Mother???



- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:51:49 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List

Entity       : Gridlore Tecnologies
Founder      : Sir Arameth Gridlore, OEG
Founded In   : -13 Imperial
Contact      : Public Relations <dberry@hooked.net>
Main Office  : 101 Chanstin Prm. #563, Capital District, Sylea
Sectors      : Core, Lishun, Vland
Summary      : Weapons and Exploratory gear manufacturer, importer.
Product Line : Revalation Big Game Rifle, FG-series assult rifles,
Protector                ship-board shotgun, Terrapin-Class Merchant Cruiser.


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:27:23 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Delayed TML

At 10:44 PM 10/1/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, now I'm sure of it. Something is delaying the TML. Lately the
>posts have been coming in later and later. I called the admin at my ISP
>when I d/l my mail this evening and not one new trav email showed up. He
>checked and everything seemed OK at his end. Now I'm just receiveing
>emails from 8:00 or 9:00 am on 9/30 at 10:00 pm (EST) on 10/1. I checked
>the ftp site where the journals are stored and saw that I'm about 50 -
>60 messages behind. Is anyone else seeing this problem? oh, if so,
>please reply by personal mail since I may not see an answer until next
>week at this rate.


That's odd, since I've noticed that the turn around time for my messages
seems to be about three hours from the time I hit the send button to when
they show up in my in-box.  Are you on instant or digest?
- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:32:24 -0400
From: "Hayse, Daniel" <DHAYSE@ceridian-hr.com>
Subject: TIGRESS AND PLANKWELL

These were two dreadnought classes that appeared in Supplement 9 (CT)
Fighting Ships.  The Tigress was 500kt, spherical, and according to the
book "the largest class of ships in service in the Spinward Marches".
The Plankwells were 200kt, of modular construction, and their
description had a cool background to the class' namesake Olav hault
Plankwell.  These two are not (to my knowledge) mentioned again.
Unfortunately they are not used in MT, though one in the Rebellion
Sourcebook comes close.

Dan

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:31:49 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: TML: Physicists

Kenneth writes

>[jump-fuel-burned-for-energy-and-used-as-coolant model from SOM] The he responds:
>Fusion gives off an extreme amount of energy.  It would be interesting to
>do some calculations to see how much fusion energy is in 40 tons of
>liquid hydrogen.  We don't know exactly how what percentage of energy
>is wasted as heat, but I would guess that if it were even as high as one
>percent, then most of the rest of the 40 tons of fuel is actually used
>coolant.  Maybe this is a question for the physicists on the TML.

This is one of the reasons that many people (me among them) don't like the
jump-fuel-burned-for-energy-and-used-as-coolant model and prefer the 
"jump ballast" model. 40 tonnes of hydrogen is a really, really ludicrous
amount of energy...

Other reasons include
(1) If there are these miraculous power plants in jump drives that can 
create such high peak power (albeit at high fuel consumption) why aren't
they ever used for anything else? (If even 1% of the fuel goes to power,
the peak power of the jump drive PP is thousands of times higher than a
conventional PP.) You could use them for powering weapons, 
for example...How about
a spinal mount powered by the same thing - it'd use lots of fuel for each
shot but the power plant would be *tiny* compared to a conventional one.)

(1b) If the power plants in jump drives aren't miraculously better than 
normal power plants, why aren't there ships that use normal power plants
and fancy capacitors to jump? 

(2) Why don't the power plants (and hence fuel requirements) get better
with increasing TL? Normal fusion plants do - and if most of the fuel is
used for coolant than how much fuel you need should certainly scale with
TL (and also possibly with ship design - a small open-frame ship needs
less cooling per unit volume than a Tigress.)

(3) (Only a T4 issue): Fusion plants below TL12 are now pretty huge. Why
can you build a Miracle Jump Fusion Plant that's only a few tons but not a
conventional one at TL9?

Bruce

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:42:09 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Magical Moments

MJ Dougherty wrote:

>Playing TNE (yes, really)

I commend you. Best choice of all Traveller rule sets.

>the characters finally catch up with the
>merchant ship full of baddies they've been after. It's carried a salvage
>crew to a ruined city on - oh, some world or other. <snip>
>This guy's luck was just awesome. One of the pilots managed to miss him
>four times with a handgun before being cloven to the teeth. It was one of
>those nights where he just couldn't miss!

Sounds like a blast. Cool scenario. I have a player in my group who seems
to repeatedly be able to accomplish such feats. Every time I think he's
sealed his fate, he seems to make the crucial die rolls to save his skin.

In my late, great mercenary campaign, also done with TNE rules, his
character, armed with light battledress, a fusion gun and a grav belt,
swooped down to surprise the enemy who were entering the service elevator
of a building, buying his unit precious time to get organized in the upper
floors.

Considering that they enemy was armed with gravitics rifles and a few
fusion guns, I was sure the player would buy the farm. Making successful
Difficult stealth and ground tactics rolls, he surprised them, correctly
chose the commander of the team (how, I don't know, but he picked the right
guy), blew him away with his fusion rifle and awaited his fate. At medium
range, it was an easy shot for the fusion-rifle armed corporal of the enemy
squad. 19! Miss! The others inflicted some blunt trauma on the player with
their gravitics rifles and the player took his next shot. Boom! Fusion
rifleman down and out! The others, having failed their morale roll,
retreated into the elevator and limped upstairs.

The player was later seriously wounded in the battle, but he survived even
after his foolhardy solo attack. Truly one of the magical moments of the
campaign.

Best,

Chris Griffen

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

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


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

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

Date: 02 Oct 1997 17:22:33 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1907

Vanya writes:
(Also, I picked up a copy of the Spanish language Traveller hardback.  An
incredible work of art.  Wouldn't it be nice to see the T4.1 hardback
looking like that?  With color counters and slipcover - Wow!)

Colour counters of what?

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

Date: 02 Oct 1997 17:28:44 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Piracy

Modern piracy is increasing, according to the insurance industry.  Certain
parts of the world (eg. Indonesia, the Caribean) suffer from pirates.  The
relevant local conditions are:

1) A lot of ship traffic

2) The pirates prey on the (relatively wealthy) outsiders, not the poor
locals, and thus have a population to hide in.

3) The vessels used are small fast boats and automatic weapons, easy to
conceal in rivers etc.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:38:43 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Mad Scientists taking over Andy Brick

Quote the Brick that is Andy
>Is it just me, or has the list been taken over by mad scientists laughing
>insanely in white lab coats ( planet busters, jumping ringworlds,
nanoshovels ?)

Are you asking the list if you have been taken over by a mad scientist?
If you believe you have been, I recommend wrapping your head in tinfoil.
That will usually stop it.

Glad to be of help.

Glenn "Mad Scientist control free for 4 months now" Crawford

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 05:17:07 +1200 (NZST)
From: Idiot/Savant <idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
 
> Oh yes, there are even theoretical limits on the amount of power
> you could use "safely" in open space. If theory is right, when you
> hit a high enough energy density (don't worry, it'd take TL 50 or
> so), you could cause a "phase transition" in space time! In short,
> you'd wreck the *universe*.
 
 Argh! Don't say that! Hengabar Spofulum could be listening!
 
- --
Idiot/Savant			idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz
Thou shalt not suffer a spammer to live

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

Date: 02 Oct 1997 17:22:33 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1907

Vanya writes:
(Also, I picked up a copy of the Spanish language Traveller hardback.  An
incredible work of art.  Wouldn't it be nice to see the T4.1 hardback
looking like that?  With color counters and slipcover - Wow!)

Colour counters of what?

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 19:06:35 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Hans,

>>Sorry, Gas Giants, either directly or indirectly, are a main source of 
>>fuel in Traveller. They are going to have a lot of traffic.   
 
>No, they are supposed to be a main source of fuel, but unfortunately the
>economic system and cold common sense shows that they would not be  

I thought I had been following this thread closely, but your arguments against 
the use of GG for refuelling must have slipped by me.

Could you summarise again why you feel that the GG would not be available for 
free traders (and others) to refuel at?

thanks,

Simon

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 18:06 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Legal stuff (was Re: Hacking, betaware, and you (was RE: Traveller

In-Reply-To: <970919.020604.1k5.rnr.w165w@krypton.rain.com>

Leonard,

> Anyway, I won't give away the plot. But Bujold introduces us to a "new"
> feature of the Barrayan empire. The "Imperial Auditor". Think of a
> cross between an Inspector General and a double-0 agent. Sort of like a
> "Special Prosecutor". These are the folks the Emperor sends when he
> wants *answers*. The have the authority to do just about *anything*.
>  
> There are permanently appointed ones, and a provision for "temporary"
> ones. The "temps" only serve for one investigation.
>  
> I *like* the concept. And I think it'd fit nicely into the Imperium.

A MoJ agent with an Imperial Warrant?
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 18:05 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)

In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970918084951.3bf78286@mail.hooked.net>

> >I've been thinking about jumping to the implications of s/w in Traveller:
> >
> >* How do you call the helpdesk when you're gunnery program GPFs?
>  
> Hope you survive the encounter then have a nice long talk with the company
> rep.  Seriously, I imagine that you'd keep several copies of the program in
> storage to take over if the main program fails.  Probably the three ship;s
> comps would be running the same program simultaniously and pull any copy
> that shows signs of failure.

Better still, three *different* programs - that way, they won't all fall over 
simultaneously with the same problem.

I don't think this is really a meaningful subject - computers as we know them 
have only been around for ~25 years. We can probably imagine their progress for 
the next 25, but I doubt if we can predict what they're going to be like in 
another 250, and 2500 years from now, forget it. Real-time speech recognition, 
in any known language, with a vocabulary better than the speaker; VR displays 
indistinguishable from reality; self-writing, self-modifying, evolving code. 
Starship crews are little more than passengers - the ship could easily carry out 
all their tasks (excluding physical repairs, unless you have robots too) far 
better itself.

> Patents last for seven years IIRC, copyrights last as long as you defend them.

Copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death (although I think the 
duration has recently changed). You're thinking of trade marks.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 18:05 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Sneaky radiation effects

In-Reply-To: <v02140b00b047195f0007@[192.121.125.201]>

> >I seem to remember reading somewhere that radars on aircraft can be
> >dangerous if someone was to walk in front of them while they were turned
> >on (microwaves, possibly?). Is this true? If it is, then what effect
> >would the hugely more powerful radar/Active EMS that are mounted on
> >starships have? 
>  
> The radar wont penetrate the metallic hull (thats why the are so easy to
> detect those metalhulls on radar). You will NOT damage anything with radar
> at spacecombat wavelengths and you cannot focus them as they're bound by
> the same quantum mechanical laws that forces visible light lasers to
> handwave grav focussing in order to keep their beams together, radars on
> microwaves have SO much larger wavelength/focussing spot.
> Guys crawling around on your hull or nearby however are a different topic.
> You could fry them easily with your radars.

And there's also commo lasers/masers to consider - if they can hit a target a 
few metres across on the other side of the system, they should make a nice 
hole through a man a few km away. You might even get away with using a 
mesoncom as an AP weapon if you're feeling really sick...

Anybody fancy working out some numbers for this?

>  They'd get leukemia at mild effect doses, at high doses they get blood
> clotting from proteins in blood denaturizing etc, skinburns etc. Apparantly
> some workers got slightly cooked while working at the focus on some NORAD
> radars when some klutz accidentally turned one of them on. They got
> leukemia in the long run but this I got from hearsay so it might be one of
> those "rat in pizza" stories.

I heard a similar tale about a sailor doing repairs on a Navy ASW helicopter.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:12:13 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Industrial Capacity (was Re: The Piracy Thread (continues to be long))

At 03:58 PM 10/1/97 -0700, Douglas wrote:
>[Note - my system for calculating population is to assume the pop code
>range goes from half below to half above.  (ie. Pop Code 4 has a range of
>500 to 5000)  In this way, the code is equal to the average population.  I
>am not stating this to start any dispute, simply so you will know how I
>get my numbers.]

Be warned, the system in the rules, IIRC, indicates that a pop 3 world has
a U[1-9] distribution times a thousand people, so in ten pop three worlds,
we would expect to see one each of 1000, 2000, 3000, ..., 9000.  This has
an average of 5000, so ten pop three worlds should be expected to have 50k
people.  Under your system, they would have (if I understood it) 500 -
5000, with an average of 1000, or a total of 10k people.

(I can hardly object, as I use a U(1,5) for pop A.  I just do not see more
than 50 billion people in a single system, given the other traveller
assumptions.)

A question, though.  How do you distribute the numbers between 500 and
5000?  My rough guess was something like

8x500+1x1000+1x5000, which means that the median pop three world has a
population below 1000, even though the mean is a thousand.

An alternative would divide the standard pop code by five, so that a pop
three world ranges from 200-1800 people, with an average of 1000, and an
equal chance of 200, 400, 600, 800, 900, ..., 2000.

I do like the Traveller idea that the pop digit represents the minimum pop
of a world, but you can easily make an argument that it should represent
the average.  I might argue that equal chances of each population
multiplier leads to a rather bizarre population distribution.  Since I do
not yet have a better one, though, I will save that for another day.

Scott

Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 01:33:45 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Phase Tranisition?  At the risk of sounding crass, do I hear another
great idea for a weapon here?

Phase Transition rifle?

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: #Traveller

> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:23:57 -0400
> From: "Allen Shock" <ashock@gte.net>
>
[...] 
> version depopulated. Alas, the IG server has now fallen, but the #Traveller
[...]

What happened to the IG server?  Surely they can see the benefits they
gained from sponsoring a private IRC meeting place, especially given that
the cost of hosting a channel is effectively zero once you have a server
and the appropriate software.  *Sigh*.

> 	Won't you come and discuss the far future with us? we are there most
> weeknights (and often at other times as well), and would enjoy the
> friendship and companionship.

I'll try to drop by!

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:29:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

In a message dated 97-10-02 16:16:49 EDT, you write:

<<=20
 What other CT stuff was there?
=20
 --
  >>

Belter wasn't technically part of Traveller. Here's a list of Classic (and
more) Traveller:

/	TRAVELLER
	Traveller was initially published in June, 1977 and within the first 12
months sold more than 10,000 sets.
	Classic Traveller was published between 1977 and 1988 and accounted for =
more
than 250,000 rules sets. During that time, the basic background for the g=
ame
was established.
MegaTraveller shook up the universe by revealing the Rebellion and its
upheaval. The MegaTraveller rules set was published between 1988 and 1991.
	In 1991, Game Designers=92 Workshop undertook a revision in order to emp=
hasize
the military/ mercenary aspects of the game universe. The result was
Traveller New Era, which appeared between 1992 and 1995.=20
Traveller 4 (the latest edition of the game system) appeared in 1996.

RULES SETS
	T1	Basic Traveller=09
	T3	Deluxe Traveller=09
	T5	Starter Traveller=09
	T6	The Traveller Book=09
	T8	The Traveller Adventure=09
	T9	MegaTraveller (Boxed Set)=09
	T10	Traveller New Era=09

BOOKS
	B0	Introduction To Traveller=09
	B1	Characters and Combat=09
	B2	Starships=09
	B3	Worlds and Adventures=09
	B4	Mercenary
	B5	High Guard=09
	B6	Scouts=09
	B7	Merchant Prince=09
	B8	Robots=09

SUPPLEMENTS
	S1	1001 Characters=09
	S2	Animal Encounters=09
	S3	The Spinward Marches=09
	S4	Citizens of the Imperium=09
	S5	Lightning Class Cruisers=09
	S6	76 Patrons=09
	S7	Traders & Gunboats=09
	S8	Library Data (A-M)=09
	S9	Fighting Ships=09
	S10	The Solomani Rim=09
	S11	Library Data (N-Z)=09
	S12	Forms & Charts=09
	S13	Veterans=09

	SS1	Merchant Prince=09
	SS2	Exotic Atmospheres=09
	SS3	Missiles in Traveller=09

BOARDGAMES
	G1	Mayday=09
	G2	Snapshot=09
	G3	Azhanti High Lightning=09
	G4	Fifth Frontier War=09
	G5	Invasion: Earth=09
	G6	Striker Miniatures Rules=09
 ALIEN MODULES
	AM1	Aslan=09
	AM2	K'kree=09
	AM3	Vargr=09
	AM4	Zhodani=09
	AM5	Droyne=09
	AM6	Solomani=09
	AM7	Hivers=09
	AM8	Darrians=09

ADVENTURES
	A0	The Imperial Fringe=09
	A1	The Kinunir=09
	A2	Research Station Gamma=09
	A3	Twilight's Peak=09
	A4	Leviathan=09
	A5	Trillion Credit Squadron=09
	A6	Expedition to Zhodane=09
	A7	Broadsword=09
	A8	Prison Planet=09
	A9	Nomads of the World Ocean=09
	A10	Safari Ship=09
	A11	Murder on Arcturus Station=09
	A12	Secret of the Ancients=09
	A13	Signal GK=09

DOUBLE ADVENTURES
	D1	Shadows/Annic Nova=09
	D2	Mission on Mithril/Bright Face=09
	D3	Argon Gambit/Death Station=09
	D4	Marooned/Marooned Alone=09
	D5	Chamax Plague/Horde=09
	D6	Night/Divine Intervention=09

MODULES
	M1	Tarsus (boxed)=09
	M2	Beltstrike (boxed)=09
	M3	Spinward Marches Campaign=09
	M4	Atlas of the Imperium=09
	M5	Alien Realms=09

MEGATRAVELLER
		MegaTraveller Boxed Set=09
		Players Handbook=09
		Referee=92s Handbook=09
		Imperial Encyclopedia=09
		Referee's Companion=09
		Rebellion Sourcebook=09
		COACC=09
		Fighting Ships=09
		Knightfall=09
		Hard Times=09
		Arrival Vengeance=09

SPECIAL PRODUCTS
		Striker Miniatures Rules=09
		Understanding Traveller=09
		Beowulf Traveller Poster=09
		Vargr Traveller Poster=09
		Imperium Map Poster=09
		History of the Imperium Handout=09
		Alien Hand-Out=09
		Spinward Marches Map=09
		Traveller Galaxy Sticker=09
		For Use With Traveller Sticker=09

 JOURNAL OF
THE TRAVELLERS' AID SOCIETY
	J01	Annic Nova=09
	J02	Victoria=09
	J03	Asteroids=09
	J04	Gazelle=09
	J05	Imperium=09
	J06	Imperial Interstellar Scouts=09
	J07	Champa Starport=09
	J08	Broadsword=09
	J09	War=09
	J10	Planet-Building=09
	J11	Striker=09
	J12	Merchant Prince=09
	J13	Hivers=09
	J14	Laws and Lawbreakers=09
	J15	Azun=09
	J16	Susag=09
	J17	Atmospheres=09
	J18	Travelling without Jumping=09
	J19	Skyport Authority=09
	J20	Ways of Kuzu=09
	J21	Vargr=09
	J22	Port to Port Jumping=09
	J23	Zhodani Philosophies=09
	J24	Religion of the 2000 Worlds=09

BEST OF THE JOURNAL
	BJ1	Best of the Journal 1=09
	BJ2	Best of the Journal 2=09
	BJ3	Best of the Journal 3=09
	BJ4	Best of the Journal 4=09

TRAVELLER NEW ERA
		Survival Margin=09
		Brilliant Lances=09
		Fire, Fusion & Steel=09
		Smash & Grab=09
		Players' Forms=09
		Referee's Screen=09
		Battle Rider=09
		Path of Tears=09
		RC Equipment Guide=09
		World Tamers Handbook=09
		Vampire Fleets=09
		Striker II=09
		Keepers of the Flame=09
		Star Vikings=09
		Aliens of the Rim: Hivers, Ithklur=09
		The Guilded Lilly=09
		Death of Wisdom (novel)=09
		To Dream of Chaos (novel)=09


 LICENSED MATERIALS
For reference, this is a partial list of materials produced by licensees of
Traveller.

AD ASTRA
		World Displays

BARON PUBLICATIONS
		Imperial Form 1

WARFIELD GAMES
		Evening Star

CITADEL MINIATURES
		Set 1: Adventurers
		Set 2: The Military
		Set 3: Ship's Crew
		Set 4: Citizens
		Set 5: Aliens
Striker Set 1: Low Tech Infantry
Striker Set 2: Medium Tech Infantry
Striker Set 3: High Tech Infantry
Striker Set 4: High Tech Infantry
Striker Set 5: Imperial Infantry

HIGH PASSAGE MAGAZINE
		High Passage 1
		High Passage 2
		High Passage 3
		High Passage 4

FAR TRAVELLER MAGAZINE
Far Traveller 1
Far Traveller 2

GRENADIER
		Adventurers
		Alien Mercenaries
		Disappearance on Aramat
		Imperial Marines

MARTIAN METALS
?	?	Martian Metals

GAMELORDS
A Pilot's Guide to the Drexilthar Subsector
Ascent to Anekthor
Duneraiders
Lee's Guide to Interstellar Adventure
Startown Liberty
The Desert Environment
The Drenslaar Quest
The Mountain Environment
The Undersea Environment
Wanted: Adventurers

MARISCHAL ADVENTURES
		Fleetwatch
		Flight of the Stag
		Salvage Mission
		Trading Team

MEGATRAVELLER JOURNAL
		MegaTraveller Journal 1
		MegaTraveller Journal 2
		MegaTraveller Journal 3
		MegaTraveller Journal 4

DIGEST GROUP PUBLICATIONS
		Grand Survey
	863	Grand Census
	864=09
	865=09
	866=09
	867=09
	868=09
	869=09
	870=09
	871=09
	871	101 Vehicles
	872=09
	872	Starship Operators Guide
	873=09
	874=09
	875=09
	875	World Builder=92s Handbook
	876=09
	876	Referee=92s Gaming Kit
	877=09
	878=09
	878	Vilani & Vargr
	879=09
	880=09
	880	The Flaming Eye
	881	Solomani & Aslan
		101 Robots

TRAVELLERS=92 DIGEST
		Travellers' Digest 1
		Travellers' Digest 2
		Travellers' Digest 3
		Travellers' Digest 4
		Travellers' Digest 5
		Travellers' Digest 6
		Travellers' Digest 7
		Travellers' Digest 8
		Travellers' Digest 9
		Travellers' Digest 10
		Travellers' Digest 11
		Travellers' Digest 12
		Travellers' Digest 13
		Travellers' Digest 14
		Travellers' Digest 15
		Travellers' Digest 16
		Travellers' Digest 17
		Travellers' Digest 18
		Travellers' Digest 19
		Travellers' Digest 20
		Travellers' Digest 21

QUEST GAMES
		Down and Out of Luck
		Imperial News Service
		Original Traveller Referee Screen

GAMES WORKSHOP
		Beyond (UK Edition)
		IISS Ship Files
		Personal Data Files
		Star Ship Layout Sheets

 FASA
Action Aboard
Adventure Class Ships - Volume 1
Adventure Class Ships - Volume 2
Aslan Mercenary Ships
Fate of the Sky Raiders
FCI Consumer Guide
ISCV: King Richard
ISCV: Leander
ISPMV: Fenris
ISPMV: Tethys
Legend of the Sky Raiders
Merchant Class Ships
Ordeal by Eshaar
Rescue on Galatea
SPV: Valkyrie
Starport Module 1 - Hotel Complex
Stazhlekh Report/The Harrensa Proj
The Trail of the Sky Raiders
Uragyad'n of the Seven Pillars
ZISMV: Vlezhdatl

GROUP ONE
Encounters in the Corelian Quadrant
Encounters in the Phoenix Quadrant
Encounters in the Ventura Quadrant
Geptorem
Hydronaut
Lamoda IV
Marinagua
Mission to Zephor
Nithus=09
Nystalux
Pen-Latol's World
Port Xanatath
Sapies
Theta Borealis Sector
Wabor-Parn

JUDGES GUILD
Amycus Probe
Corsairs of the Turku Waste
Crucis Margin
Darkling Ship
Darthanon Queen
Doom of the Singing Star
Dra'k'ne Station
Fifty Starbases
Glimmerdrift Reaches
Laser Tank
Ley Sector
Maranatha - Alkahest Sector
Marooned on Ghostring
Navigator's Starcharts
Rogue Moon of Spinstorme
Simba Safari
Starships & Spacecraft
Tancred
The Astrogator's Chartbook
The Traveller Logbook
Traveller Referee Screen
Waspwinter

STEVE JACKSON GAMES
		Soldiers of Fortune
		Imperial Marines
		Zhodani

PARANOIA PRESS
		Beyond
		Merchants & Merchandise
		Personal Data Sheet
		Planetary Data Sheet
		Scouts & Assassins
		Ship's Papers
		SORAG
		Starship Logs
		System Data Sheet
		Vanguard Reaches

SEEKER
		Escape
		Fleetwatch
		Flight of the Stag
		Gazelle Class Close Escort
		The Corporation
		Research Facility
		Merchant Class Ships
		Salvage Mission
		Trading Team

THE ADJUTANT
		Air Cushion
		Aircraft, Rotary & Fixed Wing
		Exotic
		Grav
		Infantry Weapons
		Orbital Assault & Landing Craft
		Track Laying
		Waterborne
		Wheeled Vehicles, Service/ Spt
		Wheeled, Combat

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1910
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1911



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Tigress and Plankwell
Re: Magical Moments
Re: Industrial capacity
[T97#1908] WBH Religion thread...
Mitch Schwartz
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
Re: Traveller software
Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors
Gurps Traveller
Emp's Vehicles
Universe Busters
Re: Ping!
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
Re: BITS Products and 101 Religions
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
#Traveller: clarification
Re: Traveller, Spanish Edition
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
Re: #Traveller
Re: Delayed TML
Piracy
TML: Physicists
Re: Future THUDDD Designs.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:35:55 +0100
From: "Nicholas Wright" <xgr52@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Tigress and Plankwell

>>>And how much does a BatRon of Tigress-class dreadnaughts cost?  A BatRon
>>>of Plankwells?   Alas, I no longer have a copy of 'Fighting Ships'...
>
>*I* have a copy of Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium, and I don't
>remember name references for warships. What gives? I dunno why, but for
>some reason I would like to know the names of these ships if they have
>them. It sounds so much better than "TL-11 Battleship ... You know, the
>squarish one."
The cost question has previusly been answered but for comparison
Scout (100 Dtons) std design MCr 29.43 in quantity

Incidently the description of the Plankwell class goes on to say

"Modular Construction: Plankwell class dreadnaughts were built using a
modular design and constuction technique which has proven cost-effective in
commercial ship-building. A central strut or keel serves as a foundation,
bracing the drives and aligning the spinal mount, while all other parts of
the ship are mounted to brackets or strengthened points along it.  The
technique allows seperate construction of the various modules (such as
quarters, electronics areas, fuel tankage, and control
areas) with a final mating of all the various components being performed
only after the drives and keel have been tested and accepted.  There was
some initial concern that the connecting points would be foci for weakness
in battle, but the losses of two separate Plankwells in combat has been
attributed by investigating control boards to strategic misdirection."

Plus ca change....

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:56:06 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Magical Moments

[snip magical moments]

I can remember as a CT player, My character "Mac" grabbed what was left in
the ship's locker; a shotgun.  "Do you have any shotgun skill?" I remember
the GM asking.  "No." I said not realizing the implications.

Later I was following the other characters around a corner.  The lead
character knocked down a Bad Guy on the way around a corner of our ship
(which was being invaded by Imperial customs agents at the time...oh! I
mean "nasty Pirates" as our cover went).  I shouted "Go on, I'll take care
of this guy."  Shotgun, right?  point blank, Right? Can't miss?  Wrong.
Rolled a '2' (snake eyes, Perfect in T4, rotten in CT).  The GM ruled I had
simply missed after a good recovery roll (i.e. no fumble) and the bad guy
had "rolled out of the way of my shot.  So next round I shot again,  Miss.
'3' this time.  Arrrrhg.  GM says "He rolled the other way".

Next round I reversed the shotgun, held it by the barrel, and said "I try
to beat his face in."  Roll.  11; "What's your Strength", "11". "11?".
"Yep, 11".  "Well, then, his face is a bloody pulp where you hit him, he's
out."  "Good."

And it felt *goooood*.

Pete

Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

At 03:03 PM 10/2/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:
>
>>[Note - my system for calculating population is to assume the pop code
>>range goes from half below to half above.  (ie. Pop Code 4 has a range of
>>500 to 5000)  In this way, the code is equal to the average population.  I
>>am not stating this to start any dispute, simply so you will know how I
>>get my numbers.]
>
>This is incorrect. The rule is to generate a figure between 1 and 9 and
>stick the appropiate number of zeroes after it. Personally I use a D10
>and reroll any tens, but if you are an Orthodox Traveller Person you'd
>of course roll 2D-2 and reroll any zeroes and tens. In both cases, 
>however, the average would be 5, five times the figures you use.

        Actually, the average of the first method is probably 2750 --
        If some truly uniform spread is used (say, 1d10 x 500) then 
        the average value should be 2750 -- (500 + 5000) / 2 = 2750.

	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50% -- either a thing will happen or it won't.
		This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 20:52:04 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: [T97#1908] WBH Religion thread...

On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 06:11:02 -0400, you wrote:

>>Recommendations: (1) include URPs for some of the major Terran
>>religions of the 20th century.

>Funny you should suggest this, I've been having a stab at it but also
>thought it might be a wee bit too controversial to be a good idea to
>include.  I'm game, but remember that interpreting URPs can be a very
>subjective thing.  Just take, say, the 'devotion required' for
>Christianity.  A fundamentalist might argue that the code should be '0',
>others might say '4' thinking of daily devotions, others might think '6'
>for a weekly visit to church, and some would think 'D'
>(dedication/confirmation, wedding, funeral).  (And I'm sure there are 'F's
>as well!)

Well, there are a whole lot of Christian sects (and that's true
even if you don't include Eastern rite/Eastern Orthodox
Christianity in that statement), and Judaism and Islam aren't
immune to sectarianism, plus there are at least two kinds of
Buddhism, and there's many personal interpretations of the
requirements.  If there's an "official" statement that could be
used for the interpretation of a stat, go by that, otherwise,
just eyeball it based on your perception of the "norm"-in-
practice.  The Intro to 101 Religions would naturally point out
that there is a lot of variation in personal compliance with the
stated norms; this information is probably sufficient to orient
the typical Traveller well enough to avoid the most serious
gaffes - but this information should not under any circumstances
be taken as definitive.

>>  (2) in addition to the URPs for
>>all n! religions, summarize in words, and describe specifics of
>>ritual/liturgy, organization, holy days, liturgical calendars,
>>and so on.

>I like the idea but this is beginning to sound like an IG supplement not=
 a
>40 page (give or take) BITS book!  Of course, you might be able to get =
20
>religions with that detail into such a space but I'm getting the =
impression
>that folk would rather have a greater 'range' to choose from and take
>inspiration from but containing less details.

Hmm...  I didn't realize that the BITS books were 40-pagers; I
somehow was thinking that they were 96ers. In a 96er, you can get
a half-page per religion, with room left over for artwork, intro,
index, etc.; I guess you'd be limited to a quarter-page for a
40-page book.  In which case, you should have room for the
summary and maybe a brief look at the hierarchy and major holy
days.

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:15:39 -0700
From: "Roger Sanger" <rodge@case.cyberspace.com>
Subject: Mitch Schwartz

I still can't get through to Mitch, even though his email gets through
to me.

I'd be abliged if someone fowarded this message to him (he's at
ted7@world.std.com).

Mitch,

Since email doesn't work, please call me at  (206) 363-1094, voice.

Leave your number.

Thanks

Rodge

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:16:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

In a message dated 97-10-02 01:24:14 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Copy 1 of 10
 Belter - Mining the Asteroids, 2076
 9 June 1979
 
 Then, across the rest of the label is a signature - 'Marc W. Miller'
 
 My question:  do you know anything about this copy of the game, and why
 your signature is on it?
 
  >>

It was a policy of GDW to produce the first 10 copies of a new title with
those stickers and the designer's signature. Usually, most of them went to
the designers, staff, or collectors. Some of them wandered out of the
warehouse or were just shipped as part of ordinary sales. You have a real
keeper there.

Marc

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:13:04 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller software

>> Metator, Library (including 'C' source for sysgen) are at;
>> http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/software
>
>How much disk space does it take, how much RAM does it need, and will
>it run under system 6?

Disk Space; Base Program is just 600k, but each system takes as much as
300k by itself.  I have 6 system files, largest is 288k, smallest is 128k,
Go figure.

For memory, minimun (according to finder) is 400k, preferred is 2000k (2MB).

System 6? Who knows (I'm on 7.6.1) ? Its copywright 1997.  Rob?  Are you
listening?

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:11:13 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: FFS2 addenda: sensor options and exotic sensors

>Hmmm... I just had a thought.... has anyone thought of the possibilies of
>using gravitic focussing with plasma/fusion weapons. Just off the top of my
>head I would imagine the following.

Grav focussing pulses travel at the speed of light. Plasma/fusion bolts
travel at ~100 km/s.

Also, the field in a travelling grav pulses is only a G or so - enough to 
hold a beam of photons together against diffraction but not enough to hold
plasma together.

>The range would be increased (space combat ranges?)
For space combat, the real problem is that a pulse travelling at a few hundred
(or even thousand) km/s is just too slow to hit an evading target at 
any significant range. 

(Which is a pity - I do miss fusion weapons in space combat.)

Bruce

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 97 18:00:37 -0400
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Gurps Traveller

Hi,
I was reading the Comic Shop News from last week, and I saw this blurb
about Gurps: Traveller, I thought it was pretty amusing considering the
bit about rumors in the TML.

"Steve Jackson Games has announced that they have acquired the rights
to Traveller, the esteemed science fiction RPG, Mark Miller and Frank
Chadwick, orginal Traveller writers, will help to rework the game to
fit in with the GURPS rules system. Plans call for the design to allow
for the use of as manmy existing Traveller products as possible..."

Seems like they got a couple of the facts wrong, unless we have some of
the facts wrong.  I thought Loren Wiseman was working on this product,
not Frank.  Unless Frank is a common misspelling of Loren. :)

They also make it sound like Traveller by IG never existed.  I thought
maybe Loren or Marc might want to inform CSN of their mistake.  

They have email at cliffbig@netdepot.com and their address is:
2770 Carillon Crossing
Marietta GA 30066
Fax: 770-973-6949

 
Lewis Roberts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------    
Q:Why did the fish cross the ocean?                    
A:To get to the other tide.  
 
lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:24:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: FKiesche@aol.com
Subject: Emp's Vehicles

Greetings:

Anybody out there get their advance order copy of Emp's Vehicles?

When I pre-ordered IG was offering the following deal: You pre-order and IG
guarantees that you would get your product three days before your local store
did.

This did not happen with M0 Campaign and certainly hasn't happend with Emp's
Vehicles for me...

And, still haven't seen Citizens of the Imperium (even though I was charged
in July for it!).

Sigh.

Well, all isn't negative. I've just closed a deal to buy a second hand
telescope, the first one I've had in about 15 years. Why dream about the
stars when you can look at them for real? If the astro bug is still with me,
I'll start saving for a "real big" telescope...if my wife doesn't kill me
first!

Reminder for US readers: The remaining episodes of Season Four of B5 are
starting this weekend!!!

Recommendation: Elizabeth Moon's Hunting Party, Sporting Chance and Winning
Colors. Great background for a Traveller adventure and great source material
for little items that can go wrong with a Free Trader sized ship...

Fred Kiesche
(FKiesche@aol.com)

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:39:39 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Universe Busters

Leonard.... are you saying that Universe Buster weapons come in at TL 50?

Can I get the handgun version at, say, TL 55? (I'd better, before Jory fits
one to the end of a dagger or something....)

Martin

Too bloody late! I wrote the above, moved down the digest, and there her
was, first in the queue when the universe busters were issued.....

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:54:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: SWMego@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ping!

In a message dated 97-10-02 00:50:58 EDT, you write:

> 
>  If you are also having trouble, please mail me direct (or I may not see it
>  for several days!  :)

I also sometime wait for hours to see a post of my own...

Derek.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:26:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

Marc said: 
> /	TRAVELLER
> 	Traveller was initially published in June, 1977 and within the first 12
> months sold more than 10,000 sets.
> 	Classic Traveller was published between 1977 and 1988 and accounted for
> more than 250,000 rules sets.

Marc or Loren,

	Can either of you tell us how well the subsequent three versions 
of Traveller have sold?  Thanks.

- -JM

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:56:30 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: BITS Products and 101 Religions

At 01:52 pm 10/02/97 +0100, Andy Lilly wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I'm investigating the following:
>(4) Printing in UK, distribution via UK to US (via UK distributor).
>(5) Printing in UK, distribution via UK and US (direct).
>(6) Printing in US, distribution via US to UK (via US distributor).
>(7) Printing in US, distribution via US and UK (direct).
>(8) Some strange combination of 4-7, other options, etc.
>(9) Distribution to Europe as well!
>
>Given the shoestring profit involved in going through a distributor, I have
>to consider very carefully before committing my limited BITS funds to a
>particular option.

	Have you considered the option of providing Adobe Acrobat files (i.e.
..PDF), via a secure web site with credit-card authorization? It works for
Greg Porter, for example. That's how I got my copy of 3G3.  AND ... if you
choose the right level of protection for the file, I can cut & paste useful
pieces into my own scenario documents, and edit as needed.

	The downside is the integrity issue (sad to say, not the most common trait
in our modern world). How many people will "share" their electronic copy
rather than have others go out and buy their own. OTOH, how many folks here
in the US can get their hands on some of these things right now?

- -- 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: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:07:40 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

> What other CT stuff was there?


Not much by the time I was done with them! :).

They have a few more Spanish language Traveller hardbacks, a few copies of
Bloodtree Rebellion, a copy of Tarsus, a copy of Double Star, and *maybe*
another copy of Belter.  They also had quite a hunk of TNE stuff, but,
again, not after I was done.

They also had quite a few of the older GDW wargammes.

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:58:14 -0400
From: "Allen Shock" <ashock@gte.net>
Subject: #Traveller: clarification

> If my server will behave in the evening, sure, I'll be back.  But no Den
> Mother???

Suz is, as I'm sure you all realize, a mom, and that's a big responsibility
:) she's also helping with editing and stuff on those Traveller products
that her husband and CORE works on, another big responsibility. And in both
of these, she does a great job. I was not implying she was not involved
anymore; just not as much as she used to be. My post was mainly a plea for
people to come around on nights OTHER than Thursday; we used to have a
fairly regular group on other nights, and I'd like to see that happen
again, if possible.

Allen
 

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:04:35 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller, Spanish Edition

> Vanya writes:
> (Also, I picked up a copy of the Spanish language Traveller hardback. An
> incredible work of art.  Wouldn't it be nice to see the T4.1 hardback
> looking like that?  With color counters and slipcover - Wow!)
> 
> Colour counters of what?

It comes with a sheet (apx 8.25in by 11.5 in) of light cardboard, the top
2/3 is printed with color pictures of numerous, standard Traveller
starships and small craft as seen from the top.  The bottom 1/3 is small
(1/2 in by 1/2 in) counters of various humans and humanoid races, in
various poses and dress.  Very nice little addition to the game.

If its OK with Marc, I could scan it and email you a copy.  Would that be
OK, Marc?

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:58:14 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

> > Copy 1 of 10
> > Belter - Mining the Asteroids, 2076
> > 9 June 1979
> > 
> > Then, across the rest of the label is a signature - 'Marc W. Miller'
> 
> Gak! A 18 year old still-wrapped, mint, signed copy of Belter!
> Don't think about telling us what you paid for it! Double Gak!

Well, the cover price was $11.98.  I paid $20.00 + tax.

> That isn't collecting, that's archaeology and some freakish luck! 
> Wow.

I have an amazing way of finding old, out of print gaming materials.  It
helps that most of my favorite games are out of print.

> My suggestion - take it to Origins and just after Marc gets
> inducted into the Hall of Fame (congrats, btw), start the bidding...
> Of course, they may have trouble prying it from you not-yet-cold,
> not-yet-dead fingers.

No, No, NO!! It's mine, Mine, MINE! HAHAHAHAH!!!

Oops, my wife is watching me type. :0

> Really jealous,
> Ethan

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:16:11 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

>  Copy 1 of 10
>  Belter - Mining the Asteroids, 2076
>  9 June 1979
>  
>  Then, across the rest of the label is a signature - 'Marc W. Miller'
>  
>  My question:  do you know anything about this copy of the game, and why
>  your signature is on it?
>  
>   >>
> 
> It was a policy of GDW to produce the first 10 copies of a new title with
> those stickers and the designer's signature. Usually, most of them went to
> the designers, staff, or collectors. Some of them wandered out of the
> warehouse or were just shipped as part of ordinary sales. You have a real
> keeper there.
> 
> Marc

Whoa! Wait a minute...You're saying that I've got the *first copy* of
Belter?

<Drops over dead from shock>

God's Teeth, man!  I was *nine* when it came out! I've never even *played*
it!  


- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:13:41 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: #Traveller

> If my server will behave in the evening, sure, I'll be back.  But no Den
> Mother???

I'm still around <G>

Suz


 

Suzette C. Dollar
#Traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 23:05:09 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: Delayed TML

Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> That's odd, since I've noticed that the turn around time for my messages
> seems to be about three hours from the time I hit the send button to when
> they show up in my in-box.  Are you on instant or digest?
> --
>
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
> | Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
> |    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
> |----------------------------------------|
> |      I am trying to find myself.       |
> | If I should return before I come back, |
> |        please ask me to wait.          |
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
>

 Douglas,
I waited to answer this to see when it would show up on TML. From the time
header it looks like you posted it some time around 8:30 am on Thursday. When
I d/l'ed my mail at 5:00 pm Thursday your direct post to me was there. It is
now 10:55 pm and the TML post just showed up ten minutes ago. The mail was
set to recieve since I got home, son that equals a delay of about 11 hours I
guess. Since I've gotten about four or five posts from others on different
systems I don't think the problem's on my IPS. Since yesterday, at least I'm
getting the TML.

My  main problem is I just can't wait to read what new and exciteing Toy of
Distruction Jory is going to come up with nexr! Ican't imagine why Famille
Spofulam hasn't got this guy on waivers (at least)!

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:14:30 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Piracy

Moin Rob Prior,

> Modern piracy is increasing, according to the insurance industry.  Certain
> parts of the world (eg. Indonesia, the Caribean) suffer from pirates.  The
> relevant local conditions are:
> 
> 1) A lot of ship traffic
> 
> 2) The pirates prey on the (relatively wealthy) outsiders, not the poor
> locals, and thus have a population to hide in.
> 
> 3) The vessels used are small fast boats and automatic weapons, easy to
> conceal in rivers etc.

	for traveller :

	where is the difference between a armed shuttle in the wilds
	called pirates and a system defense boat at the gas giant
	enshuring that you buy refined fuel and pay tax at the starport.

	Alex told the following story. The pirates had 3 motor boats
	with small MG's mounted, they gave a warning shot, came on
	bord, and got some money from the captain. Of of the looked
	at the Alex clock and also wants it. After a small discussion
	only the captian still had his digital clock for navigation
	reason (the ship had NAV-SAT but the crew had no need to tell
	them ;-) after about 10 minutes the pirates left.

	Now my story. When I was in africa I often had police encounters.
	They allways told that I've done something wrong, and they allways
	got happy eys when offering some small money. 

	So where is the difference ;-)

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:35:15 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: TML: Physicists

Moin Kenneth Bearden,

> An unavoidable by-product of the sudden conversion of so much fuel to
> energy is waste low-grade heat energy.  This heat is vented via a series
> of thermal transfer techinques:  superconducting hull radiators built
> into the hull, and convection techniques using some of the liquid
> hydrogen fuel as coolant and expelling it with the fusion by-products
> out the rear of the ship.  (During the pre-jump power build up, the ship
> presents a significant IR signature, particularly from the rear, in case
> of other ships picking you up with their passive IR sensors, in space
> combat.)

	First of all the fuel is not burned as efficient as in a
	normal fusion drive. Fuel consumption is often in a 
	output = sqrt( input ) relation. So if a lot of fuel is
	burned in the jump drive, you wont have the same effectivty.

	Second the jump drive contains about 1/3 HPGs. our house rule
	limits HPGs to a maximum ROF of 25*TechLevel, this is also
	the limit of netto energy used for jump.

	In our "canon" a jump drive is creating graph pulses around the
	ship, to enclose the ship inside a event horizon. Most of the
	fuel is released with high speed to this jump bubble to create
	the inner room of the bubble (no matter/no room/boom) to prevent
	the gracitic collapse of the jump bubble.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:53:01 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Future THUDDD Designs.

>Note, however, that I'm personally unfamiliar with CSC vehicle design; if
>there's some facet of CSC which is so much better/cheaper than the FFS
>family of systems that it would seriously unbalance the contest, let me
>know and I'll reconsider this ruling.

There are a few features of the CSC Vehicle design sequence that may
unbalance the contest. CSC has an optional rule for "stacking" grav
compensators to compensate for more than the maximum Gs of a single
compensator. CSC uses this to get grav fighters with 17+ Gs acceleration.

Also, computers are extremely effective as crew replacements. A typical TL
12 R3 dedicated computer (about 1KCr) would have a Gunnery skill of 6 or a
Pilot skill of 12 (!). With these rules, why would anyone bother to have a
human crew?

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1911
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1912



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: TML: Physicists
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: WBH Religious Profile [long]
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Questions about Traveller
Virtual Beer
Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)
Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)
Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
Re: Jump Projectors
Fuel for Jumps
re: Software for Traveller
Re: Software for Traveller
Re: Industrial capacity
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Industrial capacity
re: Software for Traveller
Re: Signed Copy of Belter?
Re: Piracy by the numbers
Cloth Armor [was Very Sharp Knives]
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
Re: Industrial capacity

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:41:59 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

In mail you write:

> Other reasons include
> (1) If there are these miraculous power plants in jump drives that can 
> create such high peak power (albeit at high fuel consumption) why aren't
> they ever used for anything else? (If even 1% of the fuel goes to power,
> the peak power of the jump drive PP is thousands of times higher than a
> conventional PP.)

Simple. Work out the power output of a rocet engine sometime. It's
equally ludicrous, albeit at a much lower level. The Saturn V was
generating *gigawatts*. The thing is, that power is *only* usable as
thrust. There's no practical way to use it as (for example) electrical
power.

So Jump drives could be a similar situation.

> (2) Why don't the power plants (and hence fuel requirements) get better
> with increasing TL? Normal fusion plants do - and if most of the fuel is
> used for coolant than how much fuel you need should certainly scale with
> TL (and also possibly with ship design - a small open-frame ship needs
> less cooling per unit volume than a Tigress.)

Again, rockets hit their maximum efficiency very quickly. So why can't
jump drives?

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:05:47 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

> Phase Tranisition?  At the risk of sounding crass, do I hear another
> great idea for a weapon here?
>
> Phase Transition rifle?

The kind of "phase transition" in question is like when the different
forces "seperated" as the energy density of the universe changed. 

So it's only useful as a doomsday weapon, as the result is an
alteration of the entire universe (dropping to a lower energy level,
and winding up with "different" phsyics.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:33:43 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: WBH Religious Profile [long]

In mail you write:

> <snip my bright (?) idea of a _101 Religions_ book>

Since I don't have whatever book has the URP stuff in it, could someone
post a sample "form" so I'll know what is needed. I've got lots of
idea, but I need to know the format.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:11:08 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

> shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>  
>> Oh yes, there are even theoretical limits on the amount of power
>> you could use "safely" in open space. If theory is right, when you
>> hit a high enough energy density (don't worry, it'd take TL 50 or
>> so), you could cause a "phase transition" in space time! In short,
>> you'd wreck the *universe*.
>  
>  Argh! Don't say that! Hengabar Spofulum could be listening!

Even *he* won't build a weapon that he can't survive the use of!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:18:10 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

In mail you write:

>>>Sorry, Gas Giants, either directly or indirectly, are a main source of 
>>>fuel in Traveller. They are going to have a lot of traffic.   
>  
>>No, they are supposed to be a main source of fuel, but unfortunately the
>>economic system and cold common sense shows that they would not be  
>
> I thought I had been following this thread closely, but your arguments 
> against the use of GG for refuelling must have slipped by me.
>
> Could you summarise again why you feel that the GG would not be available 
> for free traders (and others) to refuel at?

They are available, they just aren't *practical*. GGs are too far from
most mainworlds. It takes a lot of time to go from the GG to the
mainworld. Time that you aren't "in port" trading, or in jump.

So if you figure out how many trips per year you make, and how much you
make per trip (and thus how much you make per year), the "savings" from
getting cheaper fuel at the GG turns into a *loss* because of the
smaller number of jumps you were able to make.

Time is money. And a GG refuel costs you *days*.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:08:56 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Virtual Beer

Hy Gurus,

	perhaps people wonder : what is "virtual beer"

	we (alt.os.linux in march 90) came up with this idea as the
	news group growed up, and the sound to noise ratio droped
	significantly. So we came up with the idea to send virtual
	beer when a posting was construtive, and not just noise.

	alt.os.linux showed the same revers relation between quality
	and number of replies as TML. A virtual beer is a PRIVATE
	reply to the author, not increasing noise (like the aol-me-to)
	but only to show somebody that his posting was good, and that
	its stored or printed or received in mind while rotfl.

	so dont wonder when you receive a virtual beer ;-)

By Michael

PS : I've seen Linus drunk under 18 in Heidelberg, but I think he'll never
     manage to drink as much beer as he got per email in the early days.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:13:31 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)

Ships of the future need not have robots to repair themselves, they
could be built from amorphous dense metals with nanotechnology woven
into them to respond instantly to repair commands sent from the master
computer.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:11:22 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)

Thanks for the info.  I almost didn't have an internet connection
anymore.  I was stupid enough to download and auto-install Microsoft
Internet Explorer, which deleted my entire Dial-Up networking folder and
it's contents, providing me with no way to log onto the Internet (my
provider is Netcom, but I have AOL and Hewlett Packard and a Local BBS
for Internet access also).

I clicked on "Go online" and Explorer said it couldn't because i wasn't
connected to the Internet.  So I clicked on HELP, which told me :

Your URL wasn't processed because you aren't connected to the Internet.

Then it gave me a MORE Help option, which I clicked, which gave me this
:

When you cannot access a URL you are in offline mode and either you
stopped the page before it was done loading or you do not have an active
connection to the Internet.  Click the BACK button and then RELOAD or
exit Explorer.

Well.  some help that was.  So i open the EMPTY dial-up networking
folder, thinking, "ok, I still have my manual from work, I can set up my
Hewlett Packard connection so at least I can continue to do work".  So I
open the EMPTY folder, and guess what?  No way to edit, add a
connection, or do anything but view it's icons, which there were none it
being EMPTY.

Thank you Microsoft.  <KICK!>

So i reboot my computer, thinking, "Ok, I had my dial-up connection for
Netcom in the startup folder"...  Screen comes back up, i enter my
password and logon, and woosh.  No Netcom logon.  I get a bunch of open
screens about Microsoft Internet Explorer.   ARGH!

I choose "Take a tour", hoping this will shed some light on the matter.
It doesn't.  It goes on to tell me all the wonderful things I can now do
ONLINE.

Umm, o..k.

I find an icon that says, "click here to sign on and win a prize". so I
click.

"Cannot establish connection to server" it replies.  I click on MORE
INFO, which tells me :

MS Explorer was unable to connect to the server because either :
You clicked the stop button before the page was finished opening, or
you do not have a connection to the Internet.

(About this time I am imagining a brick wall I can smack my head against
repeatedly)

I click on HELPFUL HINTS and it says :

If you are having trouble establishing a connection to the internet,
click HERE and an Internet Connection Wizard will help you configure
your connection.

(I'm thinking, "Ah hah!  Paydirt!")

So I click on HERE, and nothing happens.  No wizards come up to save the
day.

I go to general HELP, which turns about to be just as informative as the
rest of the messages I've seen already.

FINALLY, I think, "Hmmmmm..  Maybe if I goto settings, I just might find
a way to make a connection."

So, I do that.  There is an icon (looks like MSIE 3.02) that says
"Internet".  So I click on it.  Up pops a mox with "http://www.aol.com/"
in it.  I look up, and there are TABS.  One says CONNECTION.  YIPPEEE!

Apparently all my settings and separate dial-up connections were saved
in this area sort of like bookmarks and I can choose any of them here.

Did Microsoft explain ANY of this before?  nope.  I'll bet they're going
to be swamped with calls from angry customers soon.  :)

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:20:23 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

I was thinking, what if a Jump ship had a Spinal gunmount (say Meson),
equipped to be able to convert all jump mass into energy and channel it
through the spinal gunmount?  Sure, it's a one-shot deal between
fuel-ups, but it would kick butt as a last-ditch offense.  Just figure a
full drop tank full of fuel, convert all that fuel to energy (joules?)
and then figure if a hit, the damage done.  (probably a ludicrous amount
that instantly vaporizes most other ships).

What do you all think?

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:35:39 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

I used to own all of Andre Norton's stuff, but as I got older, found a
lot of it beginning to sound "whiny" and "2 dimensional".  There are
some classics like Star Guard, The Last Planet, The Stars are Ours,
Yurth burden, No Night Without Stars, the Crystal Gryphon Books, Breed
to Come, etc, which I have kept.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:04:39 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Fuel for Jumps

bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh) noted:

>This is one of the reasons that many people (me among them) don't like the
>jump-fuel-burned-for-energy-and-used-as-coolant model...

>(1) If there are these miraculous power plants in jump drives that can 
>create such high peak power (albeit at high fuel consumption) why aren't
>they ever used for anything else? (If even 1% of the fuel goes to power...

Just a thought, but is it possible that entering Jump requires a peak power
that can't be supplied by a normal power plant, but in order to get that
power, the Jump drive is a different, hideously inefficient type of plant?

Andy

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 97 10:22 BST-1
From: ilaskey@cix.compulink.co.uk (Iain Laskey)
Subject: re: Software for Traveller

Thanks to all for the feedback. Some very good ideas there and some 
serious tasks to undertake too! One final question:

Should I stick with CT rules or go for T4.x?

Iain

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

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:09:27 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Software for Traveller

Iain Laskey wrote:

> Thanks to all for the feedback. Some very good ideas there and some
> serious tasks to undertake too! One final question:
>
> Should I stick with CT rules or go for T4.x?
>
> Iain

 Please stick with CT.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:01:52 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

I write:
>Well, assuming the Imperial part of the 872 billion inhabitants you mention
>above is 10/16th (roughly 10 subsectors are Imperial), the Imperial 
>population is 545 billion. Naval taxes would be 272,500,000 MCr. Cut that
>down by roughly a 3rd to reflect that some of the worlds that pay but don't
>build have credits worth less than the worlds that both build and pay (If
>you want more exact figures you'll have to provide them yourself). That
>gives a budget of about 180,000,000 MCr. That gives you a fleet worth
>1,800 trillion credits. This includes planetary, reserve, and regular
>fleets. If you use that to buy system defenses (at MCr0.85 per T) you get
>about 2,117 trillion tons of ship. If you use them to buy jump-6 ships
>(not possible, of course) you'd get about 3,600 trillion tons. An
>average of that would be 2858,t trillion tons. Let's say 3,000 trillion
>tons for convenience.

I don't know what it is with me and decimal points these days, but those
figures are, of course, off by a factor 1,000,000. It should be millions
of tons, not trillions.

And consequently:

Shipyard utilization:
	New construction: 2.5% of 3,000 million tons = 75 million tons.
	Maintenance: 3,000 million tons/45 =           67 million tons
 
Total 142 million tons out of 158 million tons, leaving 16 million
tons unaccounted for. That's about 10% off and in the right direction.
Seems to dovetail quite nicely.

 
       Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
      rancke@diku.dk
- - ------------
         "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
          events based on the individual situation."
                                 _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:23:05 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Simon Early writes:
 
>>>Sorry, Gas Giants, either directly or indirectly, are a main source of 
>>>fuel in Traveller. They are going to have a lot of traffic.   
>  
>>No, they are supposed to be a main source of fuel, but unfortunately the
>>economic system and cold common sense shows that they would not be  
> 
>I thought I had been following this thread closely, but your arguments 
>against the use of GG for refuelling must have slipped by me.
>
>Could you summarise again why you feel that the GG would not be available 
>for free traders (and others) to refuel at?

They are available enough. It's just that every hour a merchant spends
travelling to and from a Gas Giant is an hour where he is not earning
money by freighting cargo from one world to another. The money saved by
not buying fuel at the starport while you're there anyway is by far
outweighed by the money you lose be not going directly to your destination.

(Btw. it turns out that refined fuel won't cost Cr500/T either. If unrefined
fuel is available at Cr100/T then it becomes cheaper for a freighter to
install a fuel purifier plant and lose the revenue from the cargo space it
takes up when refined fuel costs much more than Cr300/T.)

(And if fuel isn't a monopoly it will be even cheaper. Provided you can
sell all you refine it costs about Cr5/T to refine fuel.)

There will be situations where you want to go through a system without
having any cargo to pick up or deliver there, but such situations will
be rare, because while a jump-1 freighter is cheaper than a jump-2 over
one parsec, it is far more expensive over 2. Even then it takes longer to
get to and from a Gas Giant than it takes to get to and from an inhabited
world, but I won't swear that you won't save a few credits by refuelling
at a Gas Giant, because I haven't done those calculations. I can say,
though, that it won't be cheaper if there is the tiniest extra risk 
connected with Gas Giant refuelling.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:29:28 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

Scott Ellsworth writes:
>Be warned, the system in the rules, IIRC, indicates that a pop 3 world has
>a U[1-9] distribution times a thousand people, so in ten pop three worlds,
>we would expect to see one each of 1000, 2000, 3000, ..., 9000.  

You mean in nine pop 3 worlds, don't you?

>(I can hardly object, as I use a U(1,5) for pop A.  I just do not see more
>than 50 billion people in a single system, given the other traveller
>assumptions.)

I myself would suggest using a D6 to roll population for pop A worlds, but
that is because pop A worlds have far too much influence on the rest of
the universe. realistically, looking at how many people you can pack onto 
a world even at TL 8 makes it difficult for me to claim that you couldn't 
have far larger populations at TL 15. I wish I could.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "This gives a possible range of 56 to 178 starships
         total  in the three Terran starport facilities,  a
         believable quantity for such a star system."

        "We have a maximum of 178 ships in port, and (as it
         is a busy star system)  we will say that there are
         70 docking berths at the Phoenix facility."

                        ---Journal of the Traveller's
                           Aid Society # 22

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:17:52 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: re: Software for Traveller

>Thanks to all for the feedback. Some very good ideas there and some
>serious tasks to undertake too! One final question:
>
>Should I stick with CT rules or go for T4.x?

It only matters if you are doing Character Generation or shipbuilding.  If
so, I'd say go for T4.

All the world stuff translates into any rules set well (Its mostly
descriptive results).

Pete


Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:20:34 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Signed Copy of Belter?

Vanya (that dirty rotten slime) wrote;
>> > Copy 1 of 10
>> > Belter - Mining the Asteroids, 2076
>> > 9 June 1979
>> >
>> > Then, across the rest of the label is a signature - 'Marc W. Miller'
>>
>> Gak! A 18 year old still-wrapped, mint, signed copy of Belter!
>> Don't think about telling us what you paid for it! Double Gak!
>
>Well, the cover price was $11.98.  I paid $20.00 + tax.
>
[snip]
>No, No, NO!! It's mine, Mine, MINE! HAHAHAHAH!!!

So...ah....just where do you live anyway eh?  Vanya?

Pete, just joking (and sulking).


Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

>I think this has been pointed out in the original thread, but since it
>continues to be quoted, I'll point it out again.  1/1000th of 2.7 Trillion
>is 2.7 Billion.

You are right, of course. However, I posted a correction.  The top figure was
_mistyped_.  It should have been 27 trillion, NOT 2.7 trillion.  The rest of
the numbers are correct as far as I can tell.

Semo

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:48:43 -0500
From: Guy Wilson <ccguy@showme.missouri.edu>
Subject: Cloth Armor [was Very Sharp Knives]

This raises the question in my mind of what is cloth armor at higher
tech levels. At our tech level, I have always assumed it is Kevlar-like,
but just as plate armors have evolved considerably over the last
thousand years, how might cloth armor evolve over the next few
thousand. Among other things, if we can have nano-shovels attached
to blades as someone suggests, why not have nano-devices that
repair cloth armor as it is partially damaged by weapons, so that
repeated blows to the same area don't penetrate.  Or what about
fibers with different characteristics in the same weave to absorb
different kinds of damage?

Guy Wilson

Bruce Johnson wrote:

> Ordinary metal hunting crossbow bolts will go through cloth-type armor,
> which is only effective against relatively blunt objects in real life.
>
> Cloth _might_ stop field points, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in
> the armor trying.
>

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:18:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
> >  
> >> Oh yes, there are even theoretical limits on the amount of power
> >> you could use "safely" in open space. If theory is right, when you
> >> hit a high enough energy density (don't worry, it'd take TL 50 or
> >> so), you could cause a "phase transition" in space time! In short,
> >> you'd wreck the *universe*.
> >  
> >  Argh! Don't say that! Hengabar Spofulum could be listening!
> 
> Even *he* won't build a weapon that he can't survive the use of!
> 


Hey! Watch it! He'll just pinch off his own universe...the only problem is
that there's no way you can recover R&D costs, since it's kinda hard to
sell them:

Hengabar: "This new FSY UnivBuster handgun is just the greatest! and only
500 PetaCredits!"

Customer, a tinhorn dictator with FAR too much money to spend, if his
wife hasn't spent it all already on shoes:"I don't know...I'd like to see
a test firing."

Surrounding crowd of journalists and industry reps, busy scarfing down the
free chow: "MrrmmmMrrmm Mrrm!"

H: "Ok, see that quasar way over yonder...not that one, the one _there_,
projecting the 5000 parsec high holoprojection of Sir Ara....erp.Mfff
Mfff"

FSY Lawyer:"What Mr. Spofulam meant to say was that holoprojection of
absolutely no one in particular, an similarity to any being alive dead or
fictional is purely coincidental, all rights reserved, no guarantees
implied or otherwise, offer void where prohibited, Some restrictions
may..."

BANG!

Stepping over the late, unfortunate FSY lawyer, Hengabar continues: "Watch
that holoprojection." and fires the UniveBuster handgun as a mysterious
portal opens up behind him. He vanishes as a brilliant multi colored
streak of hyperlight shrieks across the universe. 

The Crowd: "OOOOOOoooooooh!"

GIANT AWFUL RENDING NOISE THAT BLOTS OUT EVERYTHING

Well, if he hadn't been vaporized like everything _else_ in the universe,
Mr Tinhorn dictator would have been very impressed indeed!.

See...just no future in it, no sales are possible in this cynical, "Show
Me the Universe Buster!" world of ours ;-) 


Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:59:46 +0000
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

At 01:20 PM 10/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I was thinking, what if a Jump ship had a Spinal gunmount (say Meson),
>equipped to be able to convert all jump mass into energy and channel it
>through the spinal gunmount?  Sure, it's a one-shot deal between
>fuel-ups, but it would kick butt as a last-ditch offense.  Just figure a
>full drop tank full of fuel, convert all that fuel to energy (joules?)
>and then figure if a hit, the damage done.  (probably a ludicrous amount
>that instantly vaporizes most other ships).
>
>What do you all think?
>
>--
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com
>
	I think that (assuming you could use your j-drive that way) you would
	have a massive overload of your weapons system. You might well "vaporize
	most other ships" but you would probably also vaporize your own. I guess
	"a one-shot deal" is a pretty good description.


Tim Connors

All probabilities are 50% -- either a thing will happen or it won't.
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

 . . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> I don't know what it is with me and decimal points these days, but those
> figures are, of course, off by a factor 1,000,000. It should be millions
> of tons, not trillions.
> 

You and me both.  This seems to be the week for decimal point errors.

For the record, I may have spotted an error in my figures that puts me
down by (amazingly) a factor of 10.  I'll be reworking 'em and releasing
them to the list (hopefully) today...  :(

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1912
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 3 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1913



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
THUDDD update
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Industrial capacity
Phase transition?
Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
Traveller Campaign Listing
Re: 101 Religions
Re: TML: Physicists
Re: Future THUDDD Designs.
Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1911
imperiumgames@imperiumgames.com,internet
Re: Traveller Software
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1911
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Fuel for Jumps
Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)
Re: Questions about Traveller

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:42:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

>Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:20:23 -0700
>From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
>Subject: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

>I was thinking, what if a Jump ship had a Spinal gunmount (say Meson),
>equipped to be able to convert all jump mass into energy and channel it
>through the spinal gunmount?  Sure, it's a one-shot deal between
>fuel-ups, but it would kick butt as a last-ditch offense.  Just figure a
>full drop tank full of fuel, convert all that fuel to energy (joules?)
>and then figure if a hit, the damage done.  (probably a ludicrous amount
>that instantly vaporizes most other ships).

>What do you all think?

>- --
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com

>------------------------------

This sounds very much like the spinal mounted Plasma/Fusion gun I was trying 
to create using FF&S2.  In the new system the have rules to use direct 
energy input and hydrogen fuel instead of just the EPC's in FF&S1.  The 
problems I had were that the danged things get huge (almost 1500Std with all 
the components), the force of the blast could wreck the ship (recoil, flash) 
but the worst thing was the lowsy range.  The X-TEK "Dragonfire" gun could 
do close to 20 USD dammage, but it had a range of only 3,000km!  Mesons, 
PAWs and even Lasers are more effective.

Perhaps Granddaddy/Cthulhu figured a way to make the fusion blast go 
farther, and put it into a Man Portable version! ;->

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: THUDDD update

> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:53:01 -0800
> From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>

I had written:

> >Note, however, that I'm personally unfamiliar with CSC vehicle design; if
> >there's some facet of CSC which is so much better/cheaper than the FFS
> >family of systems that it would seriously unbalance the contest, let me
> >know and I'll reconsider this ruling.
> 
> There are a few features of the CSC Vehicle design sequence that may
> unbalance the contest. CSC has an optional rule for "stacking" grav
> compensators to compensate for more than the maximum Gs of a single
> compensator. CSC uses this to get grav fighters with 17+ Gs acceleration.

An optional rule, hmmmm?  OK, provisional ruling:  no gcomp stacking
allowed for the THUDDD.  How would folks feel about that?

> Also, computers are extremely effective as crew replacements. A typical TL
> 12 R3 dedicated computer (about 1KCr) would have a Gunnery skill of 6 or a
> Pilot skill of 12 (!). With these rules, why would anyone bother to have a
> human crew?

That's an easy one.  The Imperial Navy insists on SITL (sophont in the
loop) controls on all warcraft, for reasons of safety.  In practical
terms, this limits autopilots, gunnery programs, and the like to skill-1
operation -- basically, 'dumb' backups for the pilot in case the latter
gets distracted.  Comments?

By the way, the THUDDD 6 voting deadline was officially set at today
(Friday 10/4) at midnight PDT.  However, given that I've received only a
few ballots, and how generally screwed up this THUDDD has been, I'm
extending the deadline to Sunday 10/6.  *Please* get your ballots in by
then...if people don't vote, designers won't be motivated to provide all
these cool ships for your games!

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:09:03 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

At 01:33 AM 10/2/97 -0700, J-Man wrote:
>Phase Tranisition?  At the risk of sounding crass, do I hear another
>great idea for a weapon here?

Well, that depends on whether your goal is the reenactment of the Big Bang.
 This will have negative effects on local property values.

Scott

Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:34:32 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

At 02:29 PM 10/3/97 +0200, you wrote:
>Scott Ellsworth writes:
>>Be warned, the system in the rules, IIRC, indicates that a pop 3 world has
>>a U[1-9] distribution times a thousand people, so in ten pop three worlds,
>>we would expect to see one each of 1000, 2000, 3000, ..., 9000.  
>
>You mean in nine pop 3 worlds, don't you?

Yep.  Sigh.  I seem to have problems with numbers over about three :(

>>(I can hardly object, as I use a U(1,5) for pop A.  I just do not see more
>>than 50 billion people in a single system, given the other traveller
>>assumptions.)
>
>I myself would suggest using a D6 to roll population for pop A worlds, but
>that is because pop A worlds have far too much influence on the rest of
>the universe. realistically, looking at how many people you can pack onto 
>a world even at TL 8 makes it difficult for me to claim that you couldn't 
>have far larger populations at TL 15. I wish I could.

I use a quality of life argument - I have been trying to make the universe
match the following principles:

1.  Economic growth is maximized in the 100M-50G range, depending on the
world in question.  You do not want a world too small, but when they get to
large, administration costs go non linear, thus it is categorically hard to
administer a world of a billion, than 10 worlds of a hundred million.

2.  Humans do not like certain kinds of crowding as a species, and Earth is
roughly (factor of 2?) at the limit right now.  Much more crowding, and a
significant amount of diversity will go away, as people packed cheek to
jowl will not be culturally able to handle significant variation in
individual beliefs.

3.  High tech makes some previously unlivable places acceptable - by TL12,
grav cities and underwater cities easily add a factor of three to the area
available for life, so I have no problem with 15G people on an earthlike
world.

4.  Given that Mars is only a few days away with thruster tech, and you
need little terraforming in a system with cheap power, a typical TL12
system will be composed of 2-4 reasonable worlds, so populations of 30-50G
are not out of line at TL12+.

5.  Jump drive makes anything more than an orbit or two away about as hard
to get to as another system, so it is an even call whether you will build
up near a gas giant, or colonize another system.  Where this breaks down,
is that it is still cheaper to send stuff through normal space slowly than
through jump space.

6.  Colonizing is cheap, while tech growth is hard.  Until you start
hitting the crowding limits, you are going to see more production benefits
from adding more workers than adding more tech.

I would bet, though, that systems will average in the hundreds of millions,
as this leads to lots of space for the people who do so to enjoy.

As always, the above are just my visions of a possible future universe, and
I have not yet found a way to make the rules cause it.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:31:51 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Phase transition?

Idiot/Savant wrote:

>
>shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>
>> Oh yes, there are even theoretical limits on the amount of power
>> you could use "safely" in open space. If theory is right, when you
>> hit a high enough energy density (don't worry, it'd take TL 50 or
>> so), you could cause a "phase transition" in space time! In short,
>> you'd wreck the *universe*.
>
> Argh! Don't say that! Hengabar Spofulum could be listening!
>


	Actually, Uncle Hengie is brutally busy these days, but the idea
sounds kinda funky!  What exactly is a phase transition in space time
anyhow?



Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:12:55 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)

At 01:11 PM 10/2/97 -0700, you wrote:

<rant about IE snipped>

Didja hear about the latest round of pranks between Microsoft and Netscape?

Yesterday, some MicroSerfs left a giant IE logo on NetScape's front lawn.
The NetScape people immediately set Mozillia loose on it.

Last night, I wandered out to Microsoft's homepage (looking for some 3.1
goodies) and there, and the top of the page:

This page best viewed with NetScape 4.0

Complete with the ani-gif.

I haven't laughed that hard in days.. it was gone inside an hour, but full
marks!
- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:15:04 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

At 10:05 PM 10/2/97 PST, Leonard wrote:

>The kind of "phase transition" in question is like when the different
>forces "seperated" as the energy density of the universe changed. 
>
>So it's only useful as a doomsday weapon, as the result is an
>alteration of the entire universe (dropping to a lower energy level,
>and winding up with "different" phsyics.

We may have a canonical explanation for the different rule sets...  Some
Darrien lab test-fires the phase transition gun, and we get a new set of
rules!

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:22:18 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

At 01:20 PM 10/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I was thinking, what if a Jump ship had a Spinal gunmount (say Meson),
>equipped to be able to convert all jump mass into energy and channel it
>through the spinal gunmount?  Sure, it's a one-shot deal between
>fuel-ups, but it would kick butt as a last-ditch offense.  Just figure a
>full drop tank full of fuel, convert all that fuel to energy (joules?)
>and then figure if a hit, the damage done.  (probably a ludicrous amount
>that instantly vaporizes most other ships).

Change the words "most other" to "your own" in the last sentence.  Also,
who is the different from just letting the ship get killed?  You've
destroyed the main gun, have no jump fuel, and probably caused serve damage
throughout the ship.  For what?  That spinal mount isn't designed to take
that much energy. It'll most likely melt.
- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:04:12 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Traveller Campaign Listing

For a compilation of Robert Eaglestone's list of currently running
Traveller campaigns, please see the following link:

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/campaign/live_campaigns.html

For those of you who provided information about your campaigns, please
verify the accuracy of the information in the table and e-mail me with
corrections or changes. Also, if anyone else would like to add their
campaign to the list, by all means, e-mail me and/or the list with your
campaign information.

Best,

Chris Griffen

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

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


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

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

Date: 03 Oct 1997 18:40:19 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: 101 Religions

>Hmm...  I didn't realize that the BITS books were 40-pagers; I
>somehow was thinking that they were 96ers. In a 96er, you can get
>a half-page per religion, with room left over for artwork, intro,
>index, etc.; I guess you'd be limited to a quarter-page for a
>40-page book.  In which case, you should have room for the
>summary and maybe a brief look at the hierarchy and major holy
>days.

Why not print a 96-page book, if we have the material?  The cost can't be
that much more than a 40-page (OK, a bit more but not double) and to do a
decent job of a religion you need more than a quarter page.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:47:46 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

>Simple. Work out the power output of a rocet engine sometime. It's
>equally ludicrous, albeit at a much lower level. The Saturn V was
>generating *gigawatts*. The thing is, that power is *only* usable as
>thrust. There's no practical way to use it as (for example) electrical
>power.

Actually, there are various (mostly russian) devices that essentially do 
convert a rocket-like chemical burn into electrical power - often using
MHD; these are vaguely analagous to the Explosive Power Generators in 
FFS. Very high peak power, very short duration.

For the analogy to be valid for jump drives, then the Miracle Jump Drive
Fusion Plant has to be producing something other than electricity that
the jump drive needs to use to jump; it'd have to be using the raw heat
energy of the fusion reaction somehow, which seems implausible. 

Bruce

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:54:32 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Future THUDDD Designs.

At 09:53 PM 10/2/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Note, however, that I'm personally unfamiliar with CSC vehicle design; if
>>there's some facet of CSC which is so much better/cheaper than the FFS
>>family of systems that it would seriously unbalance the contest, let me
>>know and I'll reconsider this ruling.
>
>There are a few features of the CSC Vehicle design sequence that may
>unbalance the contest. CSC has an optional rule for "stacking" grav
>compensators to compensate for more than the maximum Gs of a single
>compensator. CSC uses this to get grav fighters with 17+ Gs acceleration.

Richard,

Correction the grav stacking is an *Optional* rules is CSC. 

>Also, computers are extremely effective as crew replacements. A typical TL
>12 R3 dedicated computer (about 1KCr) would have a Gunnery skill of 6 or a
>Pilot skill of 12 (!). With these rules, why would anyone bother to have a
>human crew?

Yes but that is one of the *Canon's* of our multi *Canon* Traveller 4
multiverse.<G>

Thud, Thud, Thud, Thud, sound of my head banging against a hard brick wall.<G>

Easy solution then why ot have a section for CSC only designs.



- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)

While reviewing the thread at home, I discovered that, in my haste to get
it out while I was still actually on my lunch break, I had shifted my
columns by over by one.  This built in a massive error in my numbers
which, in good conscience, I could not allow.  I have corrected my post
and (hopefully) it will withstand the scrutiny of the list... :)


Assumption - Shipyard capacity = 1 ton per 1,000 pop. per week

Spinward Marches 

TL 9 shipyard capacity @ 101,100.1 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .1 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 KT/wk

TL A shipyard capacity @ 11,202,130.1 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .1 Tn/wk
	3 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 1 Kt/wk
	2 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 MT/wk

TL B shipyard capacity @ 11,210,621 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ 1 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
	6 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 KT/wk
	2 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 Mt/wk

TL C shipyard capacity @ 11,122,000.1 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .1 Tn/wk
	2 shipyard @ 1 Kt/wk
	2 shipyard @ 10 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk
	1 shipyard @ 10 Mt/wk

TL D shipyard capacity @ 4,001,100.11 tons per week
	1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ .1 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Kt/wk
	4 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk

TL E shipyard capacity @ 1,000,000.01 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
	1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk

TL F shipyard capacity @ 22,000,000 per week
	2 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk
	2 shipyard @ 10 Mt/wk

TL G shipyard capacity @ 1,000,000 per week
	1 shpyard @ 1 Mt/wk (Darrian, had to put it in!)

Total shipyard (Class A) capacity is 61,636,951 tons (plus change) tons
per week or approximately 3.205 Trillion tons per year.  However,
1.170 Trillion tons of that capacity is TL B-, which IMHO, would be...
underutilized for the Imperial Military.  

Almost a full third of the capacity is held by two starports, Rhylanor and
Trin (which I missed on my listing of TL-F Pop A starports, ref: my
previous post)[which is also why the Imperials consistantly kick ZHO
BUTT!!  :)

Now, starting with the figures given above, who wants to figure out how
much of this shipbuilding capacity is used by the Imperial fleets based in
and around the Spinward Marches?  (I'm not!!)


- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: 03 Oct 1997 18:51:40 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1911

FKiesche@aol.comwrites:
>Anybody out there get their advance order copy of Emp's Vehicles?

Haven't seen mine either.

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

Date: 03 Oct 1997 18:50:25 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: imperiumgames@imperiumgames.com,internet

From the TML:
Anybody out there get their advance order copy of Emp's Vehicles?

When I pre-ordered IG was offering the following deal: You pre-order and IG
guarantees that you would get your product three days before your local store
did.

- ----------

Me too on this one.  

Robert Prior
67 Greenbelt Crescent
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4C 5S1

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

Date: 03 Oct 1997 18:48:14 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Traveller Software

traveller@MPGN.COM,Internet writes:
>> Metator, Library (including 'C' source for sysgen) are at;
>> http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/software
>
>How much disk space does it take, how much RAM does it need, and will
>it run under system 6?

Disk Space; Base Program is just 600k, but each system takes as much as
300k by itself.  I have 6 system files, largest is 288k, smallest is 128k,
Go figure.

For memory, minimun (according to finder) is 400k, preferred is 2000k (2MB).

System 6? Who knows (I'm on 7.6.1) ? Its copywright 1997.  Rob?  Are you
listening?

Pete

- ------


I'm here.

The latest version of Metator is at 

www.interlog.com/~dmci104/GamingClub/Traveller/software.html

As far as I know the source code is not available.  At least, if it _is_
available then it was put there without my permission and is in violation of
copyright.

The system files can get quite large, especially if you are drawing maps of
every world.  There is certainly a more efficient way of saving data, but
until I start getting some money for this I can't spare the time to rewrite
the code.  I have tried to interest IG, including sending them a disk, even
offering the software free in exchange for credit, but not a single reply.

I have no idea whether it works under system 6.  It should, mostly, but I
didn't make system 6 compatibility an issue when I wrote it, so some of the
data may not display correctly (especially in dialog boxes).

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

Date: 03 Oct 1997 18:58:54 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1911

Michael Koehne writes:
	Now my story. When I was in africa I often had police encounters.
	They allways told that I've done something wrong, and they allways
	got happy eys when offering some small money. 

	So where is the difference ;-)


Uniforms.  Police got uniforms :-)

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:20:15 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:18:10 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
[Regarding using gas giants for fuel...]
>They are available, they just aren't *practical*. GGs are too far from
>most mainworlds. It takes a lot of time to go from the GG to the
>mainworld. Time that you aren't "in port" trading, or in jump.
>
>So if you figure out how many trips per year you make, and how much you
>make per trip (and thus how much you make per year), the "savings" from
>getting cheaper fuel at the GG turns into a *loss* because of the
>smaller number of jumps you were able to make.
>
>Time is money. And a GG refuel costs you *days*.

OK, a few points.  You also will have ships "just
passing through", they will have good reason to
just skip port and use the gas giant.  Also, You aren't
saying the gas gaints wouldn't be used.  You are
saying they wouldn't be used directly (the fuel
you buy in port may wall come from the gas giant).
Finally, you are assuming that there is enough trade
for every trader all the time.  If you have a trader that
is just scraping buy and usual ends up need a number
of day to get cargo, then a gas giant might be
a real savings.

I do agree that for a standard merchant on a busy
schedule certainly would buy fuel in port.  However,
since the ability to use unrefined fuel tends to
be less common on traders, I think that is covered.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:27:40 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Fuel for Jumps

bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh) noted:
>(1) If there are these miraculous power plants in jump drives that can
>create such high peak power (albeit at high fuel consumption) why aren't
>they ever used for anything else? (If even 1% of the fuel goes to power...

Because there is nothing else that requires that kind of
power?

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:04:39 +0100, Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
>Just a thought, but is it possible that entering Jump requires a peak power
>that can't be supplied by a normal power plant, but in order to get that
>power, the Jump drive is a different, hideously inefficient type of plant?

That what I've always proposed.  After all, if most of the need
was for cooling you would carry something the works better
than hydrogen (which isn't that good a coolant) and have
a small tank for hydrogen just for fuel.  It is also
reasonable that to get throughput orders of magnitude
higher than a normal reaction (and still be small enough
to fit on a ship) your efficiency will drop.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 97 20:42 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)

In-Reply-To: <memo.956960@cix.compulink.co.uk>

> Top 10 things likely to be overheard if you had a Klingon on your
> software development team:
>
>
> 10) "This code is crap!  You have no honor!"
>
> 9) "A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code!"
>
> 8) "By filing this bug report you have questioned my family honor.
> Prepare to die!"
>
> 7) "You question the worthiness of my Code?! I should kill you where
> you stand!"
>
> 6) "Our competitors are without honor!"
>
> 5) "Specs are for the weak and timid!"
>
> 4) "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need dual Pentium processors 
if
> I am to do battle with this code!"
>
> 3) "Perhaps it IS a good day to Die!  I say we ship it!"
>
> 2) "My program has just dumped Stova Core!"
>
> And the number one thing most likely to be overheard if you had a
> Klingon on your software development team is:
>
> 1) "Behold, the keyboard of Kalis!  The greatest Klingon code warrior
> that ever lived!"

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:42:45 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:23:05 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>There will be situations where you want to go through a system without
>having any cargo to pick up or deliver there, but such situations will
>be rare, because while a jump-1 freighter is cheaper than a jump-2 over
>one parsec, it is far more expensive over 2.

Well, I would be curious to see how this works up for jump -6
(ie is a jump 6 ship making one jump cheaper than a jump -3
making 2?).  However, in any case, their will be long
distance trade (the background if full of thing being
shipped from the Capital and the Extents to the Marches)
and there will cargos going longer than jump-6.  There
will also be jump-1 ships taking jump 2 cargos because
their don't happen to be any jump 2 ships around.

However, there is problem here, IMO, and that is with
the flat cost of cargo being based on numbers of jumps
(regardless of length).  Even if we buy the explination
that the Imperium fixed rates (and it is not clear why
they should do it such a pointless way), then the
background doesn't make sense.  The most profitable routes
will be with jump 1 ships and it is these routes that
the megacorps will move into first.  The background
describes the tramp steamers as jump 1 ships eaking out
a living, yet these will be the most profitable.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1913
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 4 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1914



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)
World Mapping Software
Re: Fuel for Jumps
Re: Jump Projectors
Obsidian Points
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Future THUDDD Designs.
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1904
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1899
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Norton (was Re: Jump Projectors)
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
Re: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)
Re: TML: Physicists
Re: Questions about Traveller
High tech "oops"

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 01:22:45 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

Well a series of books by Thorarinn Gunnarson, "The Star Wolves",
"Battle at the Ring", "Tactical Error", etc, make use of huge "carriers"
whose main weapon is a planet destroying spinal gunmount that uses tons
of water as reaction mass.  This gunmount is capable of a lot of
destruction but it's a one-shot till fuel up thing.

Since the carriers are self-aware themselves, accuracy and range are
great.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 15:13:32 -0500
From: Matt McLaughlin <mkm@umr.edu>
Subject: Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)

Remember the "Infinity Module" (or some such) from FASA's 'Merchants and
Merchandise'?  A little CT TL16(?) toy that could rebuild your ship from
virtually nothing given enough time and material (space dust, etc) to
work with.  No good for >800 tons, and had to be reprogrammed whenever
your ship was modified.  Also tres pricey.  No scientific basis, and
probably not 'canon', but a nice little toy nonetheless.

Matt McL

> Ships of the future need not have robots to repair themselves, they
> could be built from amorphous dense metals with nanotechnology woven
> into them to respond instantly to repair commands sent from the master
> computer.
> 
> - --
>                               The J-Man

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:36:50 -0500
From: Alex Rebsch <grazzit@flash.net>
Subject: World Mapping Software

I was wondering what world mapping software is available? The only one I know
of is Core's TravSuit which has a world mapping utility. It would be the
perfect tool if it didn't crash everytime you save or try to open a world map.
Are there any others out there? 




Alex Rebsch

<underline><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>grazzit@flash.net

Alex.Rebsch@wang.com</color></underline>

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:48:56 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Fuel for Jumps

We've had this debate before, at length, but I'll repeat a few of the
highlights:

David Summers writes
>bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh) noted:
>>(1) If there are these miraculous power plants in jump drives that can
>>create such high peak power (albeit at high fuel consumption) why aren't
>>they ever used for anything else? (If even 1% of the fuel goes to power...
>Because there is nothing else that requires that kind of
>power?

Weapons require lots of power, but not all the time. A substantial fraction of
the mass and price of a warship is power plant to support the weapons. 
There has to be *some* niche in which a low-efficiency high-peak-power 
plant is cost-effective for powering weapons. 

I invite all the people who support the jump-drive-includes-high-peak-power-
power-plant theory to suggest numbers for it - what fraction of the jump
drive is Miracle Power Plant, how much power it generates, how long it runs 
for, etc. It's very hard to come up with a version that is both simultaneously
(a) so much better at peak power that it is never better to substitute a 
conventional power plant
(b) so inefficient that it's never better to use the Miraclo plant to 
power weapons.

Bruce

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:03:22 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Jory M. Earl wrote:

> I used to own all of Andre Norton's stuff, but as I got older, found a
> lot of it beginning to sound "whiny" and "2 dimensional".  There are
> some classics like Star Guard, The Last Planet, The Stars are Ours,
> Yurth burden, No Night Without Stars, the Crystal Gryphon Books, Breed
> to Come, etc, which I have kept.
>
> --
>                               The J-Man
>                              GOC Systems
>                            j-man@iname.com

My favorites have always been the stuff she wrote as Andrew North,
Sargasso of Space, Plague Ship, etc. The Solar Queen books. I've attempted
to model the way her Free Traders operate in my Trav. Games.
Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:45:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
Subject: Obsidian Points

Bruce Johnson responded thus to 

Guy Wilson, who wrote:

>> Also, the Conquistadors in the American SW found that obsidian
>> arrow points would go through chainmail very easily. So how about
>> some type of glass-pointed crossbow bolt as a weapon against
>> cloth-type armors.
>> 
>> Guy Wilson
>
>That was because the points were quite small and fit through the rings,
>not because of any great advantage of glass points...

A friend of mine makes reproduction obsidian arrow points, and says the
reason they penetrated the conquistadors mail was because they shattered and
drove small, very sharp pieces of glass through the rings. Evidently the
wounds tended to fester more readily than ordinarily.

Also, knapping obsidian requires great care, because the little shards of
glass get _everywhere_ and are tough to clean up.


Loren Wiseman

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 03:49:25 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> At 01:33 AM 10/2/97 -0700, J-Man wrote:
> >Phase Tranisition?  At the risk of sounding crass, do I hear another
> >great idea for a weapon here?
>
> Well, that depends on whether your goal is the reenactment of the Big Bang.
>  This will have negative effects on local property values.
>
> Scott
>
> Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
> "When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
> results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
> "The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

 I love it!  <maniacal laughter>

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:36:59 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Future THUDDD Designs.

At 09:53 PM 10/2/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Note, however, that I'm personally unfamiliar with CSC vehicle design; if
>>there's some facet of CSC which is so much better/cheaper than the FFS
>>family of systems that it would seriously unbalance the contest, let me
>>know and I'll reconsider this ruling.
>
>There are a few features of the CSC Vehicle design sequence that may
>unbalance the contest. CSC has an optional rule for "stacking" grav
>compensators to compensate for more than the maximum Gs of a single
>compensator. CSC uses this to get grav fighters with 17+ Gs acceleration.

Richard,

Correction the grav stacking is an *Optional* rules is CSC. 

>Also, computers are extremely effective as crew replacements. A typical TL
>12 R3 dedicated computer (about 1KCr) would have a Gunnery skill of 6 or a
>Pilot skill of 12 (!). With these rules, why would anyone bother to have a
>human crew?

Yes but that is one of the *Canon's* of our multi *Canon* Traveller 4
multiverse.<G>

Thud, Thud, Thud, Thud, sound of my head banging against a hard brick wall.<G>

Easy solution then why ot have a section for CSC only designs.



- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:43:34 -0500
From: "Linda Baxter" <Baxter@midusa.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

> My favorites have always been the stuff she wrote as Andrew North,
> Sargasso of Space, Plague Ship, etc. The Solar Queen books. I've attempted
> to model the way her Free Traders operate in my Trav. Games.
> Mike Peters

I have to agree with Mike. I always pictured Traveller while reading any of
the Solar Queen books. I can actually picture most spacemen learning 
their trade this way. 
   BTW, have any of you seen the movie based on her book Starship
Troopers? Previews don't exactly look like I remember the book. 

Baxter@midusa.net

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:18:48
From: Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1904

A
>From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
>Subject: Re: Piracy by the numbers

>> 
>> Cr500 isnt too bad ... assuming naval spending at 5% of GDP, that puts per
>> capita income at Cr10 000 a head, which is pretty much within the figures
>> I've worked thru PE and Striker I.
>
>Make that military spending and I wil agree, if it only goes to the
>Imperial Navy it is horribly large.

Make that *naval* spending. All navies will be involved in anti-piracy work.
Arguably planetary and subsector navies will be more involved, because it's
their economies the pirates are affecting.

As much as the Army and Marines may disagree, the Navy is the main arm of
the military in the Trav universe.

>> 
>> >
>> >1/1000th of 2.7 trillion is 27 billion.
>> >
>> Thats 27 *new* Kinuirs per year ... assuming crew costs etc are 10% of ship
>> costs per year, and maintainence etc is 20% per year (wayyyyy more than
>> merchants pay btw), then it means we can maintain about 70 Kinuirs with our
>> defense budget, and retire them when they get old.
>
>But buying 27 new Kinuirs means that the Imperial Navy has not used any of
>the Naval Budget for admin. This is just plain silly. About half or more
>of budget will go to paying admirals, officers, desk clerks, office
>buildings, computer systems, computer experts, naval ports, naval depots
>and so on. When I think of it I guess only about 5% to 10% would be
>available for new investments into ships, buildings, camps, depots.
>Much of this will be supply ships, troop carriers and so on. That leaves 
>say 1 to 2% for fighting vessels. Now that isn;t a lot.

Yes. All that stuff is covered in the 30% cost per annum for maintainence.
Assuming a fleet of 70 Kinuirs, we are spending the equivalent of building
18 Kinuirs a year in recurrent naval spending. That pays for a *lot* of
navy bureaucrats, admirals piloting a desk, maintainence depot workers,
spare parts subcontractors and so on.

>> Small worlds get fighter squadrons ... you only need to damage the pirate
>> to make them go away. Six twenty ton fighters can do a lot of damage to
>> a pirate.
>
>But having a fighter squadron in a system means that they have to have a
>base, base personell, refuel depots, sensor satellites and so on. Large
>ships can operate more independently and therefor IMO will totally be the 
>cheaper.

This is getting into the whole "Are fighters viable under Trav rules" debate.
Me, I say anything without a gigawatt main weapon capable of combat out to 
one light-second should not stand in line of battle, but may be suitable
for auxilary duty (eg patrol, escort and anti-pirate work).

>
>But the support crew is tremendous. Think of what it takes the US Navy in
>admin personell to keep tabs on their fleet, compare this to 11.000
>worlds. The personell needed to coordinate this is tremendous when you
>take into consideration the one week lag in jump communications.
>This is where most of the money is disappering. Admin!

Yup. In my example, about 18 new Kinuirs a year worth, for a 70 Kinuir fleet.

>> Trust me. The numbers work. Where there is the Fleet, the pirates arent,
>> unless there is a safe haven just across the border, and then we arent
>> talking about piracy but War.
>
>But there is no way in hell that the fleet can be everywhere, because then
>they need depots, ports, support lines, support personell, desk clerks and
>on and on. This is going to drain the Imperial Navy Budget like a black
>hole. I really think that large world will protect themself and the worlds
>they consider important to trade and planetary security, the others are
>out of luck.
>
>> 

Once again, all the Navy's "tail" is what explains the mammoth 30% of ship
value per year maintainence cost.

And yes, large worlds will protect worlds they find important. The Imperium
will protect what it considers important - the space between the worlds.

Merchants will also adopt the millenia old protection of the weak against
the strong-
convoy. Five Free Traders, each with one missile rack with conventional
missiles, a sandcaster and a laser turret will easily cause unacceptable
damage to a 400 t pirate ship and thus force the pirates to adopt
concentration against concentration, with all the problems that implies.

Of course, convoy will affect how many jumps you can make per year
(down-time waiting
for enough ships to be secure), but if the customers want the cargo to get
through,
then they can pay for freight at War rates.

Finally, didnt the Vilani use massive convoys during the Ziru Siirka ?

Ian Whitchurch

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 22:26:35 EDT
From: lugh1@juno.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1899

>Phil said: 
>> If you don't like GURPS, tough. *I* didn't like the stupidity of 
>Virus in TNE, nor did I like the stupidity of 1st Printing MTrav. No-one
consulted 
>me, then, either :-)
>
>  If you don't like TNE, tough.  *I* didn't like the stupidity of 
>"spaces" in the Rigger Black Book, nor the stupidity of not having any sensor 
>rules.  No-one consulted me, then, either :-)
>

If you don't like the big mac tough ! I didn't like the stupidity of
flame broiling in the whopper , nor the stupidity of the big king burger
.
no one consulted me either , it mu8st be a conspiracy !

chip

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 19:04:31 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

At 06:43 PM 10/3/97 -0500, you wrote:

>   BTW, have any of you seen the movie based on her book Starship
>Troopers? Previews don't exactly look like I remember the book. 

Let be the first to say Huh?

Starship Troopers was written by the Grand Master Robert Heinlein

The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
reshot Aliens.

Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.
- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 09:04:41 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Out of the books you mentioned, I've never read any of those.

My favorites were the Time Traders series :

Time ????
Galactic Derelict
The Defiant Agents
A Key out of Time


- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 09:08:50 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

Linda Baxter wrote:

> > My favorites have always been the stuff she wrote as Andrew North,
> > Sargasso of Space, Plague Ship, etc. The Solar Queen books. I've
> attempted
> > to model the way her Free Traders operate in my Trav. Games.
> > Mike Peters
>
> I have to agree with Mike. I always pictured Traveller while reading any
> of
> the Solar Queen books. I can actually picture most spacemen learning
> their trade this way.
>    BTW, have any of you seen the movie based on her book Starship
> Troopers? Previews don't exactly look like I remember the book.
>
> Baxter@midusa.net

 Ms. Norton didn't write "Starship Troopers", Robert A. Heinlien did.  And
so far, the previews seem to be following the book and the Avalon Hill game
pretty closely.  We'll see whether or not they kept the other aliens in it,
the human-like "skinnies".

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:56:25 -0500
From: "Linda Baxter" <Baxter@midusa.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

> Starship Troopers was written by the Grand Master Robert Heinlein
> 
> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they
took
> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*,
and
> reshot Aliens.

Sorry about that, got mixed up. :-(  I was thinking of Norton's Star
Guards.

Baxter@midusa.net

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 22:00:07 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Norton (was Re: Jump Projectors)

In mail you write:

> I used to own all of Andre Norton's stuff, but as I got older, found a
> lot of it beginning to sound "whiny" and "2 dimensional".  There are
> some classics like Star Guard, The Last Planet, The Stars are Ours,
> Yurth burden, No Night Without Stars, the Crystal Gryphon Books, Breed
> to Come, etc, which I have kept.

Even the *worst* of Norton's SF is still full of little details and
ideas that can be used in a Traveller campaign.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 22:03:55 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

>> >> so), you could cause a "phase transition" in space time! In short,
>> >> you'd wreck the *universe*.
>> >  
>> >  Argh! Don't say that! Hengabar Spofulum could be listening!
>> 
>> Even *he* won't build a weapon that he can't survive the use of!

<snip>

> Stepping over the late, unfortunate FSY lawyer, Hengabar continues: "Watch
> that holoprojection." and fires the UniveBuster handgun as a mysterious
> portal opens up behind him. He vanishes as a brilliant multi colored
> streak of hyperlight shrieks across the universe. 

Well, you have to remember that this isn't something you "aim". It's
something you "set off".

One of the more interesting things about a universal phase transition
is that it would propogate at light speed. So you *could* outrun it.
For a while...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:24:15 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

"Star Guard" was a great book.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 22:10:08 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

In mail you write:

> I was thinking, what if a Jump ship had a Spinal gunmount (say Meson),
> equipped to be able to convert all jump mass into energy and channel it
> through the spinal gunmount?  Sure, it's a one-shot deal between
> fuel-ups, but it would kick butt as a last-ditch offense.  Just figure a
> full drop tank full of fuel, convert all that fuel to energy (joules?)
> and then figure if a hit, the damage done.  (probably a ludicrous amount
> that instantly vaporizes most other ships).
>
> What do you all think?

First thing is that you need a powerplant capable of converting all
that hydrogen to energy *quickly*. Then you need hompolar generators or
the equivalent to store the energy for that one massive burst. Finally,
you need a meson gun designed to *handle* that big a burst of energy.

I rather suspect that the end result would be that you can't fit the
gun, power plant or homopolar generators (accumulators) into the ship.

To put it another way, what you are doing is equivalent to asking "Gee,
what if we equipped a battleship with a gun that could use *all* the
powder and shells in the magazine in one shot?" If you look at it that
way, you realize *why* it doesn't work.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 14:19:42 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)

I may be coming in to this rather late, but the figures provided in TCS,
form which you seem to work are, IMHO, indeed a little high.  Those in the
INH (imperial navy handbook)seem a lot better.  (a note from J Cunningham in
INH runs "I remember computing a budget for a medium sized world using the
striker system (or was it TCS?)and computing that the world would be able to
build and maintain severalhundred Tigress class 500,000 ton dreadnoughts per
year.  Mr. Miller was not amused by the fact that the design rules made this
possible, and told us to more or less ignore the system.") Check out the
campaign rules in there if you have one.  If you do not have a copy here are
some parts.

(INH-draft, p. 34)
'Per capita GNP depends on Tech level and trade charachteristics.  To
determine per capita GNP, multiply the base GNP for the tech level by any
modifiers.

Tech level      Base income     Trade class     Modifier
5               2000            Ri              1.6
6               4000            In              1.4
7               6000            Ag              1.2
8               8000            Po              0.8
9               10000           Ni              0.8
10              12000           Na              0.8
11              14000
12              16000
13              18000
14              20000
15              22000
16              24000


The percent of the GNP expended on the military averages 3%.  This can rise
as high as 15% on worlds with high international tensions.  The military
budget may be as low as 1% where conflict has been rare.

Member worlds of interstellar states generally transfer 30% of their
military budgets to maintain interstellar military.  Independent worlds may
expend their entire budget for local defense.

For worlds of TL8+, divide the local budget between space and ground forces.
The army normally gets about 40%, but only around 6% on worlds with vacuum
or trace atmospheres.  Planetary defences are jointly funded:  the refereee
must decide how to apportion it.'

The rules go on to state that (naturally) taxes are received in local
credits, and that Relative value must be determined if transferring funds to
other nations. (Chart provided in rules - looks the same as in other pubs.)
, maintenance costs are 10% (A long way over running costs, but includes all
infrastructure costs.  '

There is a lot more gumph, including a note that the GM (from TCS) modifies
capacity of orbital yards, as you use. Production is pop/100000.

I hope this is of some use.

                Colin

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 01:36:24 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

Leonard Erickson wrote

> > (2) Why don't the power plants (and hence fuel requirements) get better
> > with increasing TL? Normal fusion plants do - and if most of the fuel is
> > used for coolant than how much fuel you need should certainly scale with
> > TL (and also possibly with ship design - a small open-frame ship needs
> > less cooling per unit volume than a Tigress.)
> 
> Again, rockets hit their maximum efficiency very quickly. So why can't
> jump drives?

Jump drives do improve in fuel efficency (in MT) but not until TL 17. 
This implies three things to me:

1) Improveing the fuel efficency of a jump drive is hard work.
2) At less than TL 17 the theoretical understanding of jump drive is
still somewhat questionable.
3) At TL's 9 through 15 most of the theoretical efforts being done on
jump drives is all trying for higher jump numbers.  THis effort works
for quite a while gaining jump 1 at TL 9, Jump 2 at TL 11 (finding the
2nd level of jump space must be theoretically difficult, jump 3 at TL
12, jump 4 at TL 13, jump 5 at TL 14, and jump 6 at TL 15.  At TL 16
they try for jump 7 (not knowing it is imposiible).  When they fail they
start looking harder at other aspects of jump.  At TL 17 they sucseed in
needing less fuel for jump.  As TL's increase further the fuel needed
for jump steadily decreases.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 01:44:58 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Leonard Erickson writes 

> >>>Sorry, Gas Giants, either directly or indirectly, are a main source of
> >>>fuel in Traveller.

> >>No, they are supposed to be a main source of fuel, but unfortunately the
> >>economic system and cold common sense shows that they would not be
> >

> > Could you summarise again why you feel that the GG would not be available
> > for free traders (and others) to refuel at?
> 
> They are available, they just aren't *practical*. GGs are too far from
> most mainworlds. It takes a lot of time to go from the GG to the
> mainworld. Time that you aren't "in port" trading, or in jump.
> 
> So if you figure out how many trips per year you make, and how much you
> make per trip (and thus how much you make per year), the "savings" from
> getting cheaper fuel at the GG turns into a *loss* because of the
> smaller number of jumps you were able to make.
> 
> Time is money. And a GG refuel costs you *days*.

Have you done an economic analysis of the validity of gas giant
refueling if the mainworld is a gas giant satellite ?  If you did not
have to travel as far to get to the gas giant you would not loose as
much time.  It might well still be more profitable to avoid gas giant
refueling but it would be a lot closer thing.

I also thing that it may be an error to look at the per anum profits. 
What about the case of a merchant ship that is just getting by and flat
out _does_not_have_ the money needed for regular refueling ?  Sure they
would make more per year if they refuled at the starport but they can
not afford to do so.  It is the old problem of having to have money
before you can make money.  Similarly they would make more if they
engaged in speculative trade rather than hauling cargo but again they
may not be able to afford to buy trade goods in the first place.

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:17:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: High tech "oops"

The "Probability Zero" item in the November issue of Analog should be
read by all refs and players. It has an interesting take on the
response of members of sufficiently *high* tech societies to
sufficiently *low* tech devices. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1914
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 4 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1915



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)
Re: Obsidian Points
Re: Phase transition?
Re: TML: Physicists
Emp Vehicles
Re: TML: Physicists
High tech "oops"
Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived
Re: Jump Projectors
re:TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List
Burst Fire is LETHAL
Re: Industrial capacity -- New numbers
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:07:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hacking, betaware, and you Series: Computer Architecture)

In mail you write:

> Remember the "Infinity Module" (or some such) from FASA's 'Merchants and
> Merchandise'?  A little CT TL16(?) toy that could rebuild your ship from
> virtually nothing given enough time and material (space dust, etc) to
> work with.  No good for >800 tons, and had to be reprogrammed whenever
> your ship was modified.  Also tres pricey.  No scientific basis, and
> probably not 'canon', but a nice little toy nonetheless.

My favorite use for such is laying the "infinite minefield". Much like
the one they used in the end-of-season cliffhanger on Star Trek: Deep
Space 9.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:10:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

In mail you write:

> At 06:43 PM 10/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>   BTW, have any of you seen the movie based on her book Starship
>>Troopers? Previews don't exactly look like I remember the book. 
>
> Let be the first to say Huh?
>
> Starship Troopers was written by the Grand Master Robert Heinlein
>
> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
> reshot Aliens.
>
> Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.

I thought that she was "technical advisor" or some such? (Not that this
counts for much in the movie industry!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:51:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: #Traveller (and how to get there)

In mail you write:

> At 01:11 PM 10/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
> <rant about IE snipped>
>
> Didja hear about the latest round of pranks between Microsoft and Netscape?
>
> Yesterday, some MicroSerfs left a giant IE logo on NetScape's front lawn.
> The NetScape people immediately set Mozillia loose on it.
>
> Last night, I wandered out to Microsoft's homepage (looking for some 3.1
> goodies) and there, and the top of the page:
>
> This page best viewed with NetScape 4.0
>
> Complete with the ani-gif.
>
> I haven't laughed that hard in days.. it was gone inside an hour, but full
> marks!

Well, that tells me all I need to know about Microsloth's security....

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:14:38 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Obsidian Points

In mail you write:

> A friend of mine makes reproduction obsidian arrow points, and says the
> reason they penetrated the conquistadors mail was because they shattered and
> drove small, very sharp pieces of glass through the rings. Evidently the
> wounds tended to fester more readily than ordinarily.
>
> Also, knapping obsidian requires great care, because the little shards of
> glass get _everywhere_ and are tough to clean up.

A friend of mine used to make such things (he was studying antro and
archeology). He said that the preferred practice material for small
things like arrowheads was pieces of broken pop bottle. He said he made
some *lovely* arrowheads from the bottoms of the old green coke
bottles. Of course the color was a dead giveaway.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:38:55 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Phase transition?

In mail you write:

>         Actually, Uncle Hengie is brutally busy these days, but the idea
> sounds kinda funky!  What exactly is a phase transition in space time
> anyhow?

Ok, it's like this...

Back when the universe was formed in the big bang, all four forces
(strong force, weak force, gravity, and electromagnetism) were all the
same. As the energy dropped, the rules changed a bit, and the forces
seperated. Not all at once either. I think it was strong force, weal
force, electromagnetism, gravity. 

We've managed to achieve energy densities where the weak and
electromagnetic forces merge.

Anyway, the idea of phase transitions is that there may be lower energy
states for the universe than the one it's currently in. It doesn't drop
to them because there's an energy "hump" that space time has to be
boosted over. We happened to slip past the hump as the universe cooled.
But the wrong sort of application of *lots of energy might drag part of
the universe above the hump and then let it slide down the other side.
And it'd likely drag the rest of the universe with it.

As an analogy, consider a container of super-cooled water. This is
liquid water that has been carefully cooled below freezing. It'll stay
liquid as long as you don't introduce a seed crystal of ice, or agitate
it (supply enough energy to bump it over the hump). Supply either, and
the entire contents of the container freez as fast as the "wave of
crystalization" can travel across it.

So basicly, if the universe *does* have a lower energy state, "kicking"
it the wrong way would result in it transitioning to the lower energy
state, which will have noticeably different properties. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:53:15 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

In mail you write:

>>Simple. Work out the power output of a rocet engine sometime. It's
>>equally ludicrous, albeit at a much lower level. The Saturn V was
>>generating *gigawatts*. The thing is, that power is *only* usable as
>>thrust. There's no practical way to use it as (for example) electrical
>>power.
>
> Actually, there are various (mostly russian) devices that essentially do 
> convert a rocket-like chemical burn into electrical power - often using
> MHD; these are vaguely analagous to the Explosive Power Generators in 
> FFS. Very high peak power, very short duration.
>
> For the analogy to be valid for jump drives, then the Miracle Jump Drive
> Fusion Plant has to be producing something other than electricity that
> the jump drive needs to use to jump; it'd have to be using the raw heat
> energy of the fusion reaction somehow, which seems implausible. 

Not necessarily. It *could* be using the energy at a more fundamental
level. Just what *are* the details of a fusion reaction at the quark
level, anyway?

Perhaps it's doing something utilizing the quark-quark reactions, and
you wind up with "fusion" as a side effect. Unfortunately, the reaction
uses the energy thus produced. So it's a great way to convert hydrogen
to helium, but the energy output is ridiculously low. 

This actually has possibilities. For the folks that reverse engineered
a jump drive, what they may have *thought* they had was a *high* power
fusion reactor (after all, it is *obviously* designed to handle
*massive* flows of hydrogen, and looks like it should be fusing it).

For the folks who invented it on their own, they may have started out
with a design for a new type of fusion reactor.

In either case, after some accidents at "low" power show that it
doesn't like grav fields much, the try it far enough out in space and
get rather surprised when the reactor jumps. 

Given the previous accidents, it'd probably be being run by remote
control and sending lots of telemetry. So it disappears in a flash, and
then a week later while they are still trying to figure out what
happened this time, they get a weak signal on the telemetry band....

This could also explain why they are a bit vague on how jump drives
work. They don't really *know* why. But they have determined
empirically how the drives behave.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 07:25:03 -0400
From: "Alan M. Nuss" <amnuss@earthlink.net>
Subject: Emp Vehicles

Got mine last Monday.  As of Thursday, none of the Titan's stores in
Atlanta had it.  I had heard that another hobby shop in the area got
them in though.

Alan

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:11:28 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

>3) At TL's 9 through 15 most of the theoretical efforts being done on
>jump drives is all trying for higher jump numbers.  THis effort works
>for quite a while gaining jump 1 at TL 9, Jump 2 at TL 11 (finding the
>2nd level of jump space must be theoretically difficult, jump 3 at TL
>12, jump 4 at TL 13, jump 5 at TL 14, and jump 6 at TL 15.  At TL 16
>they try for jump 7 (not knowing it is imposiible).  When they fail they
>start looking harder at other aspects of jump.  At TL 17 they sucseed in
>needing less fuel for jump.  As TL's increase further the fuel needed
>for jump steadily decreases.

Some on TML have argued that "fuel" for jump is actually some kind of
displacement mass handwaved so that it has to be pure hydrogen. The reason
we do not improve J-drives until TL-17 is that no so called major race
really understand jumpdrives and jumpspace (they all got their copies from
Yaskoydroy according to a very interesting conspiracy theory here on TML) -
my addittion to this is arguing that Yaskoydroy gave all major races their
j-drives so that they'll get the blame when baddies from the core arrive
and wondering whye the hell someone is misusing their galactic powersystem
(jumpspace is simply a sideeffect of their huge superscience powersystem).


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

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 08:42:59 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: High tech "oops"

Leonard Erickson wrote:

>
>The "Probability Zero" item in the November issue of Analog should be
>read by all refs and players. It has an interesting take on the
>response of members of sufficiently *high* tech societies to
>sufficiently *low* tech devices.
>
>- --
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
> shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort


	Just had that kind of experience this week.  At the firm I work
for, I was told that all the computers are on W95... which, albeit being a
few TLs behind the MacOS that I'm used to, is something that I can still
work with.  However, then, in the student room, I discovered to my horror
that the students' computers are still running DOS and WP5.1.

	I still haven't figured out where to start shovelling the coal in ;).

<dons FSY flameproof jammies, ducks, runs>

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 97 14:35 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived

In-Reply-To: <v03007803b05720c044dd@[18.77.3.40]>

Peter,

> A neat supplement.  One problem, there are no tech levels listed with the
> vehicles.  Now don't panic!  They are not 'broken' because of this since
> most of them are clearly at about Imperial M:0 TL12 and none are clearly
> well above this point (some are quite below - but how far!?!).

Just received my copy. AFAIAC, the lack of TLs makes the whole thing almost 
worthless - any other data is irrelevant if you've no way of telling 
whether or not they're available on the planet you're on.

Other problems (these are just the ones I spotted after a couple of short 
skims through the book):

- - Often, the introductory text for each section has no connection at all to 
(and sometimes contradicts) the actual vehicles listed.

- - While engine type and endurance are listed, fuel capacity is not, so you 
don't know what it costs to refuel when you run out.

- - Weapon descriptions are too vague. What's the damage of a 'plasma 
cannon'? What's the range of a 'laser turret'? If we new the TL, we could 
make a guess, but we don't.

- - Some vehicle data are listed as '?' or 'classified'. For a couple of 
vehicles, almost everything except the name is unknown. What the f*ck is 
the point?

- - The tables explaining what the data mean are at the back. They should be 
at the front. IMHO.

This really makes me angry. A potentially very useful book ruined for no 
reason. Unless somebody (preferably the author, since he's the only person 
who knows) produces a list of TLs and weapon stats for these vehicles, I'm 
*very* tempted to send this book back to IG with detailed instructions 
about where to shove it. 
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:59:14 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:


>In mail you write:
>> Linda Baxter wrote:
>>> > From: Michael D. Peters <Letterworks@Comten.com>
>>> > We COULD tell..... but then we would have to destroy you!!!!
>>> >
>>> > Fear the Forerunners, Grandfather was only a kid!
>>>
>>> Ah! Another Andre Norton reader. :-)
>>
>> Make that "three" norton readers..:)  I grew up on her stuff.
>
>Heck, I *own* most of her stuff (the SF anyway, I'm a bit light on the
>Fantasy).

ME TOO! ME TOO! <g>

Norton and Cherryh, probably the best SF authors in the world. Shame that
Norton is out of print in the UK... mostly.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:26:55 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List

In mail you wrote:

>I am building a list of Imperial Corporations not mentioned
>in the Traveller material; i.e. corporations & institutions
>you have spun and weaved from your own creative energy.

Note that Starlane is at present *not* an Imperial corporation, it is based
in the Old Earth Union.

>Here is an example:

Entity: 		Starlane Drive Manufacturers
Founder: 		xxxUnknownxxx (funding has been supplied by OEU
MoD)
Founded In: 	Imperial Year 20 (present form, from a merger with
Llavondyss Associates)
Contact:		Export Department <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Main Office:	Terra
Sectors:		Rim & Diaspora (expansion programme underway)
Summary:		GP Starship Machinery/Weapons
Product Line : 	Current equipment cleared for export - Pirana class Missile SDB

Forthcoming lines: 	Pirana support facilities.
		SensorNet remote stations.

____
repost:

<Inbound Courier Forwarded Message:>

xxxclassifiedxxx, Diaspora
"sdm Inc. announces diversification programme:

Starlane Drive Manufacturers has announced a diversification programme that
seeks to build on existing areas of expertise. The drive design subdivision
has been combined with a local Diasporan design house, Lavondyss
Associates, in a joint stock arrangement.

The arrangement will combine the best of military drive technologies to the
naval architectural requirements of the commercial sector. A spokesman for
the company stated that "Although this merger moves Starlane into the
commercial sector away from a dependency on military contracts, the company
does not rule out bidding for Naval contracts."

The company has denied any intentions to join the Imperial Ship Builders
Association (ISBA). A speaker for the company stated that "the ISBA is an
incestuous relationship between the manufacturers of the new Imperium and
the Throne. It is part of the ongoing attempts of the Imperium to
economically support its expansionist policies. The relevance of the ISBA
to this region is negligible - links with the Old Earth Union are much more
important."

<End Transmission>

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 15:03:56 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Burst Fire is LETHAL

My players have been plodding up and down the Spinward Main for a while,
having such fun as delivering products to the WRONG Dinom(n), encounters
with pirates (okay I know the current thread shoots this down but they're
funded by the Zho's in my world, preFFW) and general missing all the clues
that come their way about Twilight's Peak.

To date, the most dangerous encounter has been getting past the Maitre D at
the restaurant: they've been non-violent and the last four sessions have
involved 1 sacking, 2 visits to restaurants, two interviews and a
disciplinary hearing. Needless to say, the referee was getting a tad
bored...

Anyway, they arrived at the scout base at Dinomn, and were asked to carry a
covert team back to Dinom to retrieve some Zuchai crystals. Knowing that
there was a limited Imperial warrant available to the person asking them (a
character from 101 Travellers p57 Cimaya Emell) they agreed to do the job.
The scenario was loosely based on Marc's 'Crystals on Dinom' from BJTAS2.

They arrived at Medianne, location of the HQ of the company who owned the
info and decided to raid the offices to covertly find the information. This
went well (they used a commercial emergenyc breaching charge to blow the
front door, and went in the back. Most of the group were armed with TL11
Snub Pistols, though the Aslan Engineer had a TL13 Heavy Snub (basically
the 30mm SMG from EA). Now, they were being discrete until our 'youth'
(real age 17, going on 12) encountered one of the revolutionaries who had
occupied the building carrying a bucket of water to throw at the fire.

He achieved surprise and drilled the guy with a 'burst fire' attack. This
resulted in a large messy fatality, after which the subtle approach went
out the window. The aslan destroyed the base of a stairwell and the three
NMEs hiding there with a burst fire attack, and the players kept on winning
initiative. End result? 9 NMEs dead, 1 player almost unconscious from a
shotgun hit (the vac suit and cover saved her), another two with light
damage from snub pistol explosive back blasts.

Conclusion -
	1) Snub Pistols are more dangerous in T4 than they were in MT.
	2) Burst fire is very nasty (possibly 10D damage with a snub!)
	3) Initiative is critical in T4
	4) I like the combat system - it is fast and potentially very lethal.
	5) Once you get into burst fire and 5D base damage, called shots
aren't that necessary!

Any thoughts?

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 16:30:51 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity -- New numbers

Colin Hutchinson writes:

>I may be coming in to this rather late, but the figures provided in TCS,
>form which you seem to work are, IMHO, indeed a little high.  Those in the
>INH (imperial navy handbook) seem a lot better. 

Are you talking about "Imperial Squadrons"?

>(a note from J Cunningham in
>INH runs "I remember computing a budget for a medium sized world using the
>striker system (or was it TCS?)and computing that the world would be able to
>build and maintain severalhundred Tigress class 500,000 ton dreadnoughts per
>year.

Those computations would have been wrong. A medium sized world (500 million
inhabitants) would have a TCS naval budget of MCr250,000 which would allow
them a fleet worth MCr2,500,000 or 6.9 Tigresses. It's the high-population
worlds that really up number of naval vessels around.

>Mr. Miller was not amused by the fact that the design rules made this
>possible, and told us to more or less ignore the system.") Check out the
>campaign rules in there if you have one.  If you do not have a copy here are
>some parts.

So whatever book you're talking about has been published and it's too late
to hope to influence the basic assumptions? Sigh...
 
>(INH-draft, p. 34)

I recognize these figures. They're from _Striker_. And they have a bigger
spread than TCS, but about the same average. They are not going to reduce
your fleet size significantly from TCS. They may even increase them.

>'Per capita GNP depends on Tech level and trade charachteristics.  To
>determine per capita GNP, multiply the base GNP for the tech level by any
>modifiers.
> 
>Tech level      Base income     Trade class     Modifier
>5               2000            Ri              1.6
>6               4000            In              1.4
>7               6000            Ag              1.2
>8               8000            Po              0.8
>9               10000           Ni              0.8
>10              12000           Na              0.8
>11              14000
>12              16000
>13              18000
>14              20000
>15              22000
>16              24000

 
Too bad. I had hoped that after PE you would have gone with the average
income of 10,000, with the difference in actual buying value put on the
exchange rates.
 
>The percent of the GNP expended on the military averages 3%.  This can rise
>as high as 15% on worlds with high international tensions.  The military
>budget may be as low as 1% where conflict has been rare.

The problem here is that the average TL of the Imperium is not 9, it it 12.
3% of 16,000 is 480, so on the average you're not very far from the Cr500
in TCS. And you now have the option of increasing that by a factor 5 in
times of crisis where TCS only allowed an increase of about 1.5. Worse,
there is a build-in bias in the world generation rules that gives high-
population worlds a higher average TL than the rest. Furthermore high-
population worlds have a good chance of being industrial too, which ups
their income by anouther 1.4. A world like Vincennes (Deneb 1122) would
have an average income of Cr33,600 which, with a tax of 3%, would give
Cr1,008.
 
>For worlds of TL8+, divide the local budget between space and ground forces.
>The army normally gets about 40%, but only around 6% on worlds with vacuum
>or trace atmospheres.  

This does help quite a bit. But have you calculated the size of the army
you'll get with that kind of a budget? Mora, for example, will have an
army budget of Cr370 per citizen, or MCr3,700,000. You can keep quite a
lot of people in uniform with 3,7 trillion credits, even if you have to
equip them too.

>The rules go on to state that (naturally) taxes are received in local
>credits, and that Relative value must be determined if transferring funds to
>other nations. (Chart provided in rules - looks the same as in other pubs.), 

Which means that if a TL 15 world want to invest in some patrol ships they
can buy the drives from a TL 12 world and get them 15% cheaper...
 
>There is a lot more gumph, including a note that the GM (from TCS) modifies
>capacity of orbital yards, as you use. Production is pop/100000.

Splendid. That limits the number of big ships you can build and force you
to use that much more on small ships. So instead of having perhaps 1% of
your fleet consisting of ships suitable for pirate suppression, you will
have 90% or more consisting of <5,000 T ships. Not a big help for the 
survival-minded pirate...
 
>I hope this is of some use.

Yes indeed, thank you very much. I'm just sorry to learn that you haven't
followed up on what PE began and worked out a consistent economic system.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:31:52 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

David P. Summers writes:
>Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:18:10 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>[Regarding using gas giants for fuel...]
>>
>>Time is money. And a GG refuel costs you *days*.
> 
>OK, a few points.  You also will have ships "just passing through", 

Yes, when absolutely unavoidable.

>they will have good reason to just skip port and use the gas giant.  

Only if there is no port; refuelling at a Gas Giant still takes more time
than it takes to refuel at a port. Of course, there are systems that don't
have a real port. In such systems, and only in such systems, will you see
Gas Giant refuelling.

>Also, You aren't saying the gas gaints wouldn't be used.  You are saying 
>they wouldn't be used directly (the fuel you buy in port may well come 
>from the gas giant).

Only if the planet don't have water. It will be far easier, and thus 
cheaper, to get your fuel from the planet than from a Gas Giant.

>Finally, you are assuming that there is enough trade for every trader all
>the time.  If you have a trader that is just scraping buy and usual ends 
>up need a number of day to get cargo, then a gas giant might be a real
>savings.

If a trader loses several days each jump by refuelling at Gas Giants, he
won't be able to survive on what he can earn at standard freight rates
in the rest of the time.
  
>Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:23:05 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>There will be situations where you want to go through a system without
>>having any cargo to pick up or deliver there, but such situations will
>>be rare, because while a jump-1 freighter is cheaper than a jump-2 over
>>one parsec, it is far more expensive over 2.
> 
>Well, I would be curious to see how this works up for jump -6 (ie is a 
>jump 6 ship making one jump cheaper than a jump -3 making 2?).  

OK. I only had figures worked out for passenger liners up to jump 3, so I
worked out the cost of a mid passage with a jump 6 liner; the freight
business will have comparable figures.

As it turns out (unless I've made a mistake, which is quite possible as I
did the calculations on the fly), a 600 T jump-3 liner should be able to
sell tickets at Cr9,000 per jump, or Cr18,000 for a six-parsec trip. But
a 600 T jump-6 liner has to charge Cr33,000 for a jump, which is quite a
bit more expensive. Interesting... I'll have to do the figures for jump-4
and jump-5 soon, but I haven't the time just now. 

>However, in any case, their will be long distance trade (the background
>if full of thing being shipped from the Capital and the Extents to the 
>Marches) and there will cargos going longer than jump-6.

Definitely. And if I didn't make any mistakes, the traffic will be jump-3
or possibly jump-4 instead of jump-6 (unless time is a factor, which it
will be sometimes).

>There will also be jump-1 ships taking jump 2 cargos because there don't
>happen to be any jump 2 ships around.

But not too often, because a jump-1 ship can't survive on the rates that
a jump-2 ship can offer.
 
>However, there is problem here, IMO, and that is with the flat cost of 
>cargo being based on numbers of jumps (regardless of length).  Even if 
>we buy the explanation that the Imperium fixed rates (and it is not 
>clear why they should do it such a pointless way),

Especially since jump-3 ships can't survive on the rates as they are fixed.
(You know, I'm almost sure that the Cr9,000 figure I gave above is wrong.
I seem to recall that it was Cr11,500. I'll have to check when I come home
tonight).

>then the background doesn't make sense.  The most profitable routes will 
>be with jump 1 ships and it is these routes that the megacorps will move
>into first.  The background describes the tramp steamers as jump 1 ships
>eking out  a living, yet these will be the most profitable.

I agree with you 100%. That's why I've been trying to work out the true
rates based on the true expenses. Unfortunately I'm not in agreement with
some of the expenses either (The life support costs are way too high, IMO,
and the fuel costs are wrong too). Perhaps the Cr11,500 I remember was
when I did use the official expenses... 


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:14:23 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Linda Baxter wrote:

>    BTW, have any of you seen the movie based on her book Starship
> Troopers? Previews don't exactly look like I remember the book. 

Andre Norton is Robert Heinlien in disguise? Virginia will be _most_
surprised!!

Then again, the previews don't look much like the book _he_ wrote, either
:-(

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1915
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 4 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1916



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Fuel for Jumps
Science Fiction Authors (was: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton))
Re: Industrial capacity -- New numbers
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1904
Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived
Re: Obsidian Points
Starship Troopers
Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Re: Fuel for Jumps (fwd)
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Science Fiction Authors (was: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton))
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Obsidian Points
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: TML: Physicists

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:24:57 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Fuel for Jumps

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:48:56 -0700, bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)

>We've had this debate before, at length, but I'll repeat a few of the
>highlights:

Well, sorry I missed it! :-)  (I don't read every thread).

>>bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh) noted:
>>>(1) If there are these miraculous power plants in jump drives that can
>>>create such high peak power (albeit at high fuel consumption) why aren't
>>>they ever used for anything else? (If even 1% of the fuel goes to power...
>>Because there is nothing else that requires that kind of
>>power?

>Weapons require lots of power, but not all the time. A substantial fraction of
>the mass and price of a warship is power plant to support the weapons.
>There has to be *some* niche in which a low-efficiency high-peak-power
>plant is cost-effective for powering weapons.

Yeah but is power really the main limiting factor?  Regular power
supplies aren't so big or expensive that you can't put in a bigger
one if you want more effective use of weapons.  If jump drive power
supplies are like a ram jet, either they run at full tilt, or
near full tilt, or they don't run at all (actually I don't know
if ram jets have to run at full tilt, but you get the idea) then
if you consider the limited use in loosing all, or big portion,
of your jump fuel for one round of increased fire power battle
(while  simultaneously dumping enough extra energy to be seen
through out the system) and having to carry the expense and wasted space
on all those extra power leads and equipment to dump the excess
energy, then it is quite reasonable, IMO, that jump drives would
not be used for "normal" power.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 13:36:44 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Science Fiction Authors (was: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton))

Jory M. Earl wrote:

>  Ms. Norton didn't write "Starship Troopers", Robert A. Heinlien did.  And
> so far, the previews seem to be following the book and the Avalon Hill game
> pretty closely.  We'll see whether or not they kept the other aliens in it,
> the human-like "skinnies".

J-man is correct RAH wrote Starship Troopers, But after that I disagree. From
what I've seen on their web site and the previews the movie has little in
common with the book bu the basic plot of humans against aliens. Why, they even
left out the Mobile Infantry power armor, which, when the book was written, was
totally new and original. I'll probably go see it when it comes out, but I'm
afraid I'll be disappointed! I cut my sci-fi teeth on the "Grand Master's"
work, and I'm afraid this will be another "Puppetmasters",  a decent sf movie
but NOT what Heinlien wrote.

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:29:33 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity -- New numbers

 > This does help quite a bit. But have you calculated the size of the army
> you'll get with that kind of a budget? Mora, for example, will have an
> army budget of Cr370 per citizen, or MCr3,700,000. You can keep quite a
> lot of people in uniform with 3,7 trillion credits, even if you have to
> equip them too.

Millions in battle dress. MILLIONS! WOO HOOOO!!!! BWAHHAHHAHAHAHAA!

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 15:45:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1904

>Make that *naval* spending. All navies will be involved in anti-piracy work.
>Arguably planetary and subsector navies will be more involved, because it's
>their economies the pirates are affecting.

5% of someone's yearly income going to _only_ the navies?  I reiterate what I
said at the beginning of this debate:  this could really be considered Boston
Tea Party levels of taxation.  In my humble opinion, I think that people
wouldn't stand for this.  I think naval taxes would be among the lowest taxes
to avoid revolt and dissent.  The vast majority of people in Traveller are
_not_ starfarers.  In fact, there's a good chance that most people will not
ever even see a spaceship close up, let alone a starship.

So, where am I going with this?  The further removed people are from
something, the less they will like paying _high_ taxes for it.  Sure, every
enlightened person "knows" that the navy keeps the pirates, the Zhos,
theVargr and the Aslan out of our system.  It doesn't mean they have to like
paying for it.

Make 5% _total_ military and imperial spending (including local army, wet
navy, aerospace force, space force, Imperial Scouts, etc.) and I'll accept
this.

>As much as the Army and Marines may disagree, the Navy is the main arm of
>the military in the Trav universe.

No disagreement here if you mean IMPERIAL military.  Planetary citizens are
going to get very itchy if they have no standing army.  The Imperial military
is mainly the navy, as far as I can gather from all canon sources.  The
marines serve as ship's troops and jump troops.  The Imperium has a small
army, but relies mostly on local worlds and mercenaries to keep the peace.
 Imperial army spending will be low, but individual world spending would be
considerably higher.

>Yes. All that stuff is covered in the 30% cost per annum for maintainence.
>Assuming a fleet of 70 Kinuirs, we are spending the equivalent of building
>18 Kinuirs a year in recurrent naval spending. That pays for a *lot* of
>navy bureaucrats, admirals piloting a desk, maintainence depot workers,
>spare parts subcontractors and so on.

Where are you pulling this 30% number out from?

>This is getting into the whole "Are fighters viable under Trav rules" debate.
>Me, I say anything without a gigawatt main weapon capable of combat out to 
>one light-second should not stand in line of battle, but may be suitable
>for auxilary duty (eg patrol, escort and anti-pirate work).

Fighters are canon, and have been since the early days of Traveller.  Since
we're mainly dealing with canon here, we should keep them regardless of the
"are fighters viable under trave rules" debate.

Semo

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 14:21:07 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived

Andrew Boulton wrote about Emperor's Vehicles:

> Just received my copy. AFAIAC, the lack of TLs makes the whole thing almost
> worthless - any other data is irrelevant if you've no way of telling
> whether or not they're available on the planet you're on.

Who wrote the EV?

This really disappoints me.  After the great supplement, EA, I was
really hopeing for the EV to be a good supplement-kinda like DGP's 101
Vehicles.

How can they skip the TL's?

The EA, which I was assuming the EV would be modled after (and was
hopeing), is set up BY TECH LEVEL!  How can they skip this in the EV?

Disappointed.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Obsidian Points

> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:45:32 -0400 (EDT)
> From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
> 
> Bruce Johnson responded thus to 
> Guy Wilson, who wrote:
> 
> >> Also, the Conquistadors in the American SW found that obsidian
> >> arrow points would go through chainmail very easily. So how about
> >> some type of glass-pointed crossbow bolt as a weapon against
> >> cloth-type armors.
> >
> >That was because the points were quite small and fit through the rings,
> >not because of any great advantage of glass points...

Actualy, rolled-cotton armor with a leather skin was the standard among
Aztec warriors precisely because it offered the best protection against
obsidian darts and arrows.

> A friend of mine makes reproduction obsidian arrow points, and says the
> reason they penetrated the conquistadors mail was because they shattered and
> drove small, very sharp pieces of glass through the rings. Evidently the
> wounds tended to fester more readily than ordinarily.

Which cloth armor won't do, hence its superiority.  Many Spaniards adopted
variants of Aztec rolled-cotton armor because it was lighter, more
comfortable, and more effective against Aztec weaponry than chain.

> Also, knapping obsidian requires great care, because the little shards of
> glass get _everywhere_ and are tough to clean up.

Tell me about it!  My wife knapped about a quarter kg of obsidian to
produce small flakes for an art project, using our fireplace hearth as a
work surface, and (in theory) the fireplace itself to catch the debris.
No such luck...teeny shards of obsidian got all over our living room,
invisible in the carpet, and destroyed our vaccuum cleaner before *most*
of them were cleaned up.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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, 4 Oct 1997 13:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Starship Troopers

> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 19:04:31 -0700
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> 
> At 06:43 PM 10/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >   BTW, have any of you seen the movie based on her book Starship
> >Troopers? Previews don't exactly look like I remember the book. 
> 
> Let be the first to say Huh?
> 
> Starship Troopers was written by the Grand Master Robert Heinlein
> 
> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
> reshot Aliens.

Powered armor doesn't make the book...it is a weird choice, though.  The
political and philosophical discussion (and illustrations) *do* make the
book, and it ain't ST without them.  On the draft issue, though...

This has always been one of the subtler points of the book to me.  Yes,
you're free not to 'volunteer' for service (military or Peace Corps-ish)
according to the surface message of the book, with the only cost being
that you forfeit your right to vote.  However, in my view, the book
contains numerous hints that other informal sanctions apply -- you'll
never get a good job, good housing, whatever unless you've served.  It's
also clear that at a social level everyone without exception is *expected*
to 'volunteer', and those who do not do so become outcasts from their
peers.

So, in short, saying that the MI were 'drafted' isn't technically
accurate, but may be closer to the truth than you imply.

> Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.

With *this* point I'm in utter agreement!

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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, 04 Oct 1997 14:41:52 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

SD Mooney wrote:

> Conclusion -
>         1) Snub Pistols are more dangerous in T4 than they were in MT.

agreed.

>         2) Burst fire is very nasty (possibly 10D damage with a snub!)

How are you figuring that?  Burst fire damage is like autofire
damage--you double the dice.

So a snub does 5D?  Then, you doulbe these results.  Ex:  you roll 5D,
and the results are 1,3,5,6,2.

This translates to damage of 2,6,10,12,4.

Doubling dice is just slightly different than rolling 10D.  For
instance, 1's aren't possible when you double dice, but are possible
when you roll 10D.

>         3) Initiative is critical in T4

Oh yea Baby!  We've learned that the hard way.

The other night, I let one of my players run an NPC policeman (his
character wasn't involved, and I was keeping him involved in the
game--besides that's one less thing I have to worry about as a GM).

I had two guys coming in, both with gauss pistols set on full
automatic.  He had an auto shotgun, set on full auto.

We went into initiative, he won, and BAM!  Both of my bad guys were
incapacitated, one dead and one unconscious (group hit rule).

Deadly,deadly stuff.

Also, we've spiffed up our game by going tactical.  We're using Snapshot
tactical movement rules from CT.  I've done a few Ken's Tweaks to them
to make them completely compatible with T4.

In this system, every action a PC takes costs points (action points). 
If he moves a square (1.5 meters), for instance, it costs him one
point.  If he fires his weapon on full auto, it costs him 6 points, and
so on.

Well, this has been a real neat improvement in my game because my
players can influence when they go in the round (initiative).  If you
want to do a lot in the round (like move a good distance and fire you
gun), you're going to go later.

Why?

I follow standard T4 initiative rules, except I add the amount of
movement points bid.

Our initiative goes like this:

First, everybody bids on how many points they are going to use in the
round.

Second, we roll initiative normally, except the action point bid is
added to the normal inititive throw.  Lowest goes first.

As a player, you have to decide.  Do you want to do a lot in the round,
with the big chance that you're going last, or do you want to keep you
actions to a minimum, thereby helping you to go earlier in the round.

You might want to try this.  It adds a whole new dimension to the game.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 06:06:32 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Fuel for Jumps (fwd)

Moin Bruce Alan Macintosh,

> I invite all the people who support the jump-drive-includes-high-peak-power-
> power-plant theory to suggest numbers for it - what fraction of the jump
> drive is Miracle Power Plant, how much power it generates, how long it runs 
> for, etc. It's very hard to come up with a version that is both simultaneously
> (a) so much better at peak power that it is never better to substitute a 
> conventional power plant
> (b) so inefficient that it's never better to use the Miraclo plant to 
> power weapons.

	there is a well known maximum : one third of the jump drive
	are HPG banks.

	Lets say its a Tl9/100dt Scout

		Tl9-J1 ~ 5dt jump drive ~ 23qm HPG ~ 230Mj HPG capacity

	asumining a maximum ROF of Tl*25 ( or I'll pack all lasers on
	a single HPG round robin ;-)

		230Mj * 225 ~ 29 MW

	now lets look how to procude 30 MW, asuming TNE base limits
	these 30MW wont come from a 100qm/200MW PP, or in T4 from a
	even larger plant. These 30MW come from your standart PP,
	running all the time. What happen with those 30MW, they are
	pulsing graph wells like in a graph focused laser, together
	with these graph wells the LHy is relased to build a steady
	jump bluble, to avoid collapse to a point zero, as the ship
	is now point zero behind a event horizon, tunneling thru
	the so called jump space. Its not the most nervous time
	of the chief, allways looking at the HPGs, the plant, the
	disposern and pulsern. Anything failing now, will at best
	cause a missjump if detected, but could case that the ship
	is realy becoming the imaginative point, the mirco hole.

	Next question :

	Why is a military TL12 J1 drive for a 100dt ship still,
	5dt and not 4.1dt ?

	The HPG is smaller, but its allways better to have more
	HPG then needed, even the Tl9-J1 had backup HPG.

	To cite FFS " capacitators store electricity directly as
	electromagnetic charge; HPGs convert electricity in kinetic
	energy, storing it in a rapidly spinning flywheel. "

	To be mechanicaly devices is ok for laser HPGs, you use
	only seldom, having them running (slow spinup, rapid spindown)
	for a week, will certainly increase wearvalue if the chief
	dos'nt do exelent work.

	And last question :

	Why is the JDs HPG not used for lasers ?

	Overcharging HPGs will cause 2d20 major hits in power
	plant and jump drive. As its usual to discharge laser
	HPGs infrequently, they are a bit differnt. Heavy weapons
	on tl15+ warships are often connected in a PP,JD/HPG,
	BlackGlobe combination.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 16:38:39 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

At 12:10 AM 10/4/97 PST, Leonard wrote:

>> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
>> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
>> reshot Aliens.
>>
>> Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.
>
>I thought that she was "technical advisor" or some such? (Not that this
>counts for much in the movie industry!

Maybe at the beginning, but when it became clear that the director hadn't
bothered to read the book, and was only interested in producing yet another
blood splattered shoot-em-up, she removed herself from the film and started
campaigning to have Heinlein's name taken of the title.

At this year's WorldCon in San Antonio, the trailer was greeted with
deafing chourses of boos and catcalls..

- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 16:48:43 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 01:45 PM 10/4/97 -0700, Craig wrote:

I wrote:
>> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
>> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
>> reshot Aliens.

>Powered armor doesn't make the book...it is a weird choice, though.  The
>political and philosophical discussion (and illustrations) *do* make the
>book, and it ain't ST without them.  On the draft issue, though...

I'd argue this point...  The whole point of the MI was that they could be
effective in small groups due to the armor.  MI used grenade launchers,
smart missiles, and small plasma weapons to maximum effect.

I remember rereading the book at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin.
 After reading the final combat sequence, I pulled out a map and did some
figuring.  ONE platoon of MI had held an area that an entire US Army
Brigade could barely defend.

>This has always been one of the subtler points of the book to me.  Yes,
>you're free not to 'volunteer' for service (military or Peace Corps-ish)
>according to the surface message of the book, with the only cost being
>that you forfeit your right to vote.  However, in my view, the book
>contains numerous hints that other informal sanctions apply -- you'll
>never get a good job, good housing, whatever unless you've served.  It's
>also clear that at a social level everyone without exception is *expected*
>to 'volunteer', and those who do not do so become outcasts from their
>peers.

Except that the Rico family is rich, lives well, and Juan was going to
recieve a vacation to Mars as a graduation gift (the equivilant of touring
Europe?).  The impression I got was that while certain government jobs were
restricted to veterans, the primary difference between Citizen and Taxpayer
was the ability to vote.

>So, in short, saying that the MI were 'drafted' isn't technically
>accurate, but may be closer to the truth than you imply.

Except draftees can't quit.  The service gives you every chance to back out
before your graduation.  Also, anybody over eighteen can join, even Juan's
father who must have been in his late forties by the middle of the book.
If you decide at 90 that you have to be a Citizen, they will find you an
appropriate job.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 05:27:55 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Science Fiction Authors (was: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton))

I didn't know they left the powered armor out..sigh..

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 20:12:41 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Craig Berry wrote:

> This has always been one of the subtler points of the book to me.  Yes,
> you're free not to 'volunteer' for service (military or Peace Corps-ish)
> according to the surface message of the book, with the only cost being
> that you forfeit your right to vote.  However, in my view, the book
> contains numerous hints that other informal sanctions apply -- you'll
> never get a good job, good housing, whatever unless you've served.  It's
> also clear that at a social level everyone without exception is *expected*
> to 'volunteer', and those who do not do so become outcasts from their
> peers.
>
> So, in short, saying that the MI were 'drafted' isn't technically
> accurate, but may be closer to the truth than you imply.

Without getting into a totally off subject discussion of RAH's philosophy (oft
times called "facists"), I have to disagree with you on this point. While he did
imply that CIVIL SERVICE jobs were restricted to veterans, he made it clear IMHO
that none vets could do well for them selves. Juan's on father was not a vet
during the majority of the book, yet it was made clear that his familly was
well-to-do with his father owning his own business.

I believe that his whole point was to point out that authority without the
responsibility, as he saw in our society, could only lead to decline. I'm not
sure I agree that the society he envisioned would work, military duty doesn't
confer any more intelligence or reasoning power, but I also don't agree that a
lw degree does either, (as seems to be the trend in the U.S., today.)

Any way sorry for the off subject post.

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 97 19:23:20 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

On 10/04/97 at 01:45 PM,  Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> said:

>> Starship Troopers was written by the Grand Master Robert Heinlein
>> 
>> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
>> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
>> reshot Aliens.

So, I've heard and from the movie trailers it does looks that way.

>Powered armor doesn't make the book...it is a weird choice, though.  

Yeah, I would have thought Hollywood would have considered the Powered
Armor Suits to be "sexy."

>The political and philosophical discussion (and illustrations) *do* make the
>book, and it ain't ST without them.  

Agreed, and that includes the issue of the draft and "service"...

>On the draft issue, though...

>This has always been one of the subtler points of the book to me.  Yes,
>you're free not to 'volunteer' for service (military or Peace Corps-ish)
>according to the surface message of the book, with the only cost being
>that you forfeit your right to vote.  However, in my view, the book
>contains numerous hints that other informal sanctions apply -- you'll
>never get a good job, good housing, whatever unless you've served.  It's
>also clear that at a social level everyone without exception is *expected*
>to 'volunteer', and those who do not do so become outcasts from their
>peers.

Oh, I didn't quite see it that way.  Sure those that *did* volunteer
probably thought less of those that didn't, but they wouldn't have
discriminated against the non-volunteers in *that* society.

To me, what Heinlein was exploring was the role of responsibility that an
individual owes to society and the responsibilities that society owes to
the individual.  The individuals that *chose* to serve are taking on the
responsibility for organizing, governing (that's the franchise), and
protecting their society.  Part of the social contract was that the
"volunteers" assumed the responsibility for protecting the rights, lives
and fortunes of the "non-volunteers" what they got in return (besides the
franchise) was the knowledge that they were the protectors of society.  ;->

I, personally, don't think a human society could *maintain* that nobel
attitude.  I'm afraid it would evolve into precisely what you describe, and
based on RAH's other writings I suspect he would agree. But he was
presenting a series of social lessons in ST, more than trying to describe
how a *real* society would organize itself, so he had to maintain an
unrealistic level of idealism in the book.

One point that a lot of people miss when discussing RAH's work is that most
of it was written for the "juvenile" market.  Some of his short fiction and
all his novels from _Stranger In A Strange Land_  on were written for
adults, but most of his work in the 40's and 50's was aimed *specifically*
at boys and girls in the 8 to 16 age range.  This colored his writing, what
subjects he covered, how he covered them, how his characters acted and
reacted, etc. 

>> Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.

>With *this* point I'm in utter agreement!

Yeah, I am too.  And the fact that this movie is likely to be a stinker
doesn't hurt either. ;->

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

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 97 19:37:20 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Obsidian Points

On 10/04/97 at 01:37 PM,  Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> said:

>> >> Also, the Conquistadors in the American SW found that obsidian
>> >> arrow points would go through chainmail very easily. So how about
>> >> some type of glass-pointed crossbow bolt as a weapon against
>> >> cloth-type armors.
>> >
>> >That was because the points were quite small and fit through the rings,
>> >not because of any great advantage of glass points...

>Actualy, rolled-cotton armor with a leather skin was the standard among
>Aztec warriors precisely because it offered the best protection against
>obsidian darts and arrows.

It is my understanding, too, that the Aztec's used a quilted leather armor
with cotton filling and a linen backing.  The quilting material's tangled
fibers worked well against the slashing obsidian studded swords and the
linen backing made it easier to extract darts and arrow points that had
used up most of their energy punching through the leather and cotton
quilting.

What the quilted armor *didn't* do well was resist thrusts from steel
swords or lead bullets.

I don't have much to say that brings this back to Traveller...;->

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

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 00:42:13 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

At 04:08 PM 10/3/97 +0000, Jory wrote:
>
>
><Snip>
>
> Ms. Norton didn't write "Starship Troopers", Robert A. Heinlien did.  And
>so far, the previews seem to be following the book and the Avalon Hill game
>pretty closely.  We'll see whether or not they kept the other aliens in it,
>the human-like "skinnies".
>
>--
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com
>
>
>

Eh? You consider those poor slugs in the fancy flak jackets to be close to
Heinlien's MI? Three choices:

1) You don't remember the book or the Avalon Hill game very well.
2) You are seeing a different set of previews than what I have seen.
3) Your eyesight is worse than mine. 

Sorry, but Hollywood has once more taken great science fiction and produced
big budget SCI-FI, as Harlan Ellison has pointed out many times in the
recent past.

I may not find Harlan someone I agree with often, but on the subject of
Science Fiction vs SCI-FI, I do agree. That is the key to Traveller and to
great authors, like Heinlien, Clark & Asimov. Speculative Science in a
Fictional setting to explore human interactions & reactions. Not big bangs,
bright lights and gee whiz special effects for cardboard sterotypes re play
classic westerns against.

Garry

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 00:57:18 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

At 06:47 PM 10/3/97 +0000, Bruce wrote:
>
><snip>
>>For the analogy to be valid for jump drives, then the Miracle Jump Drive
>Fusion Plant has to be producing something other than electricity that
>the jump drive needs to use to jump; it'd have to be using the raw heat
>energy of the fusion reaction somehow, which seems implausible. 
>
>Bruce
>

Electrons. The fusion power plant at Jump time is a single massive electron
stripper; the electrons are used to stimulate the Lanthanum's pseudo
gravitational  properties to create the Jump Effect. 

Garry

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1916
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 5 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1917



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Snowblower-7 damage rating?
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
High Guard USP
Re: Snowblower-7 damage rating?
Re: imperiumgames@imperiumgames.com,internet
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: High Guard USP
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: TML: Physicists
Burst Fire is LETHAL (fwd)
re:TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List
Traveller Magazines
Services
SoK?
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: High tech "oops"
Re: Obsidian Points

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 20:50:56 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Snowblower-7 damage rating?

	Just out of curiosity, are there any canonical sources for damage
ratings for snowblowers at various tech levels?

	Was just sitting here studying when all of a sudden that question
leapt into my head.  For that matter, are there any damage ratings for
construction equipment in general?  It strikes me as being kind of a useful
sort of thing for any vehicle design sequences.

	Anyhow, off to pop some caffeine tabs and take my Thorazine and
then get back to studying...

:)

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:54:33 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

I didn't even notice the MI's in the trailer didn't have Armor, i saw
the trailer when Star Trek : First Contact, opened at the theatre.  So I
hardly remember any real details about the trailer.  Most of my opinion
is actually based on the www.starshiptroopers.com page, where they are
allowing people to joint eh ranks of the Mobile Infantry.

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 23:26:16 -0500
From: Alex Rebsch <grazzit@flash.net>
Subject: High Guard USP

Could someone post an explanation of the high guard usp system, I just got
fighting ships and it doesn't explain it as far as I can tell.




Alex Rebsch

<underline><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>grazzit@flash.net

Alex.Rebsch@wang.com</color></underline>

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 21:16:16 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Snowblower-7 damage rating?

At 08:50 PM 10/4/97 -0500, Rod wrote:

>	Just out of curiosity, are there any canonical sources for damage
>ratings for snowblowers at various tech levels?

Like I'm supposed to be able to SLEEP after this one.



- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 00:13:27 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: imperiumgames@imperiumgames.com,internet

At 01:32 AM 10/4/97 EST, you wrote:
>From the TML:
>Anybody out there get their advance order copy of Emp's Vehicles?
>
>When I pre-ordered IG was offering the following deal: You pre-order and IG
>guarantees that you would get your product three days before your local store
>did.
>

I received my mail ordered copy on 10/2/97.  I first saw it at the Game
Parlor on 9/26/97.





Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:34:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>Yeah, I would have thought Hollywood would have considered the Powered
>Armor Suits to be "sexy."

In the beginning they were going to do the MI suits, but they were too bulky
with the cooling gear, and too brutally hot with the cooling gear removed.
In addition, IIRC, they couldn't get the suits to "move" right, and they
needed far too many suits with all the extras involved.

From a logistics point of view, I also think it would be difficult for
someone watching the movie to tell the main character's suit from anyone
else's (this wasn't a reason I heard, this is just my own observation).

Semo

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

>I may not find Harlan someone I agree with often, but on the subject of
>Science Fiction vs SCI-FI, I do agree. That is the key to Traveller and to
>great authors, like Heinlien, Clark & Asimov. Speculative Science in a
>Fictional setting to explore human interactions & reactions. Not big bangs,
>bright lights and gee whiz special effects for cardboard sterotypes re play
>classic westerns against.

Sorry to continue an off topic discussion here, but its one of those things
that gets under my nails.  Every time a new SCI-FI movie comes out,
science-fiction readers the world around get all up in arms.

Films are a dynamic, visual medium.  People tend to have short attention
spans, and not everybody wants to go to a heavy, deep cerebral movie.
 Usually I don't like deep, cerebral movies.  There are a few exceptions, but
none are even remotely on topic here.  As a result, movies have to be dynamic
and visual, read bright lights, gee whiz and classic westerns.

I didn't like Aliens for the deep philosophical underpinnings.  I liked it
'cause space marines blowed stuff up.  I didn't like Alien for its heavy,
cerebral dialog (there was none, was there?), I liked Alien because it was a
1950s man in a rubber suit movie updated to a more modern look and feel.  I
liked it because the Alien looked cool.  Same thing with the Star Wars
series, and the Star Trek series (with the exception of Star Trek: The
Motionless Picture).  Terminator was one of the best sci-fi films of all
time.  Why was it cool?  Arnold with an UZI killing cops, Arnold having his
skin torn off, Arnold's endo-skeleton battering down doors as a cool 80s
synth soundtrack plays in the background.  And then there's Escape from New
York, my favorite sci-fi film of all time.  Why was it cool?  Kurt Russell
shooting his SMG, Isaac Hayes as the Duke with his cool ass car,
stormtrooper-esque cops...

As I said, there are exceptions.  2001, 2010, Contact, and Starman all leap
to mind, and all of these were good, and Starman had very few special effects
at all...

My point is, if I want speculative science in a fictional setting, I'll open
up a book and read.  And I'll pick my book well too, because the vast
majority of modern science fiction books are licensed franchises that hold
about as much interest with me as your average commercial.  If I want big
explosions, automatic weapons fire, cardboard cut-outs doing the good vs.
evil thing, and pointy headed monsters slavering and chomping away I'll go
see a movie.

That, and I really like Sno-Caps and Cherry Coke, and they ONLY taste good at
the movie theater.

Semo

(Please e-mail any responses, I don't want to mire down the mailing list with
my off topic rantings, thanks).

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 21:41:24 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:31:52 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>

>>OK, a few points.  You also will have ships "just passing through",
>
>Yes, when absolutely unavoidable.
>
>>they will have good reason to just skip port and use the gas giant.
>
>Only if there is no port; refuelling at a Gas Giant still takes more time
>than it takes to refuel at a port. Of course, there are systems that don't
>have a real port. In such systems, and only in such systems, will you see
>Gas Giant refuelling.

Well, of course the larger systems will also have interplanetary
traffic at the gas giant using it for fuel, plus you will have
traffic in an out getting fuel to sell at port.  Nor
do I agree that skipping port would be only when unavoidable.
The travel times to jump at a gas giant are only a few hours
more (which can easily be lost in waiting for traffic or
ones turn to refuel at port).  Add the free cost and I see
it as immentently viable.

(Here I almost forgot we had moved on the a new thread and
put in something about piracy :-)  Amazing how one can get
into a rut.

>>Also, You aren't saying the gas gaints wouldn't be used.  You are saying
>>they wouldn't be used directly (the fuel you buy in port may well come
>>from the gas giant).
>
>Only if the planet don't have water. It will be far easier, and thus
>cheaper, to get your fuel from the planet than from a Gas Giant.

Not necessarily.  What does it cost to split the water?  How
does this compare to shipping (mining a gas giant would
just require throwing containers into a trajectory that
reaches the main planet eventually (like we currently do
by sticking punny little chemical thrusters on our probes).
Then it coasts for free (no fuel, no salaries, no nothing)
and is picked up at the main planet.

>If a trader loses several days each jump by refuelling at Gas Giants, he
>won't be able to survive on what he can earn at standard freight rates
>in the rest of the time.

A slow ship looses, at most, looses just under a day (compared to an
Earth sized world).  A fast ship looses as little as 5 hours.
looses

[Stuff where Hans appears to have calculations that agree with
a point of mine have been deleted on the ground that is must be
some sort of a trick.... :-)]

>>There will also be jump-1 ships taking jump 2 cargos because there don't
>>happen to be any jump 2 ships around.
>
>But not too often, because a jump-1 ship can't survive on the rates that
>a jump-2 ship can offer.

Yeah, but they survive on Jump-1 cargos and just take jump-2 cargos
as an exception (I'm not advocating that all, or even most, traffic
would go through gas giants, in fact I I wouldn't quibble with any
number between 20% and 80%).

>That's why I've been trying to work out the true
>rates based on the true expenses. Unfortunately I'm not in agreement with
>some of the expenses either (The life support costs are way too high, IMO,
>and the fuel costs are wrong too). Perhaps the Cr11,500 I remember was
>when I did use the official expenses...

I wouldn't mind seeing some number for reasonable costs for cargo
based on jump distance based on the current costs.  I might not
be perfect, but it would fix something.  I once looked at figuring
it out, but decided it was more time invested than I had at the
moment.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 02:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: High Guard USP

       grp A      grp B   grp C
AA-1234567-123456-12345-6

AA = Ship Type
- --
a1 Tonnage Code
a2 Configuration
a3 Jump
a4 Maneuver
a5 Power Plant
a6 Computer
a7 Crew
- --
b1 Hull Armor
b2 Sandcasters
b3 Meson Screen
b4 Nuclear Dampers
b5 Force Field
b6 Repulsors
- --
c1 Lasers
c2 Energy Weapons
c3 Particle Accelerator
c4 Meson Gun
c5 Missiles
- --
c6 Fighter Squadrons

Hope that helps

Semo

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

Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 16:48:43 -0700
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> 
> >> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
> >> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
> >> reshot Aliens.
> 
> >Powered armor doesn't make the book...it is a weird choice, though.  The
> >political and philosophical discussion (and illustrations) *do* make the
> >book, and it ain't ST without them.  On the draft issue, though...
> 
> I'd argue this point...  The whole point of the MI was that they could be
> effective in small groups due to the armor.  MI used grenade launchers,
> smart missiles, and small plasma weapons to maximum effect.

My point is that any tech that makes small groups ultracapable is
sufficient to get an ST-like military feel.  Powered armor is probably the
simplest way to get that effect, of course.  I truly can't understand how
Hollywood could pass up being true to the book *and* having something so
kewl-techish to put on the screen.  Maybe being untrue to the book has
become an end in itself at this point. :)

> >This has always been one of the subtler points of the book to me.  Yes,
> >you're free not to 'volunteer' for service (military or Peace Corps-ish)
> >according to the surface message of the book, with the only cost being
> >that you forfeit your right to vote.  However, in my view, the book
> >contains numerous hints that other informal sanctions apply -- you'll
> >never get a good job, good housing, whatever unless you've served.  It's
> >also clear that at a social level everyone without exception is *expected*
> >to 'volunteer', and those who do not do so become outcasts from their
> >peers.
> 
> Except that the Rico family is rich, lives well, and Juan was going to
> recieve a vacation to Mars as a graduation gift (the equivilant of touring
> Europe?).  The impression I got was that while certain government jobs were
> restricted to veterans, the primary difference between Citizen and Taxpayer
> was the ability to vote.

I had the feeling that the distinction ran deeper, but I may be projecting
my own agenda onto the book (see below).

> >So, in short, saying that the MI were 'drafted' isn't technically
> >accurate, but may be closer to the truth than you imply.
> 
> Except draftees can't quit.  The service gives you every chance to back out
> before your graduation.  Also, anybody over eighteen can join, even Juan's
> father who must have been in his late forties by the middle of the book.
> If you decide at 90 that you have to be a Citizen, they will find you an
> appropriate job.

True enough, and that is a crucial distinction.  Peer pressure plus
differential treatment doesn't equal being forced to choose between a
lengthy prison term and being shot at.  I was just suggesting that it
wasn't quite as no-strings a choice as you'd initially implied.

Moving on to the next response...

> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 20:12:41 -0400
> From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
> 
> Without getting into a totally off subject discussion of RAH's
> philosophy (oft times called "facists"), I have to disagree with you on
> this point. While he did imply that CIVIL SERVICE jobs were restricted
> to veterans, he made it clear IMHO that none vets could do well for them
> selves. Juan's on father was not a vet during the majority of the book,
> yet it was made clear that his familly was well-to-do with his father
> owning his own business. 

I don't think this is necessarily off-topic; ST has certainly colored my
approach to Trav Marines and special forces, and the political/social
background of the book makes an interesting study for anyone working out
what drives the 3I.

I *had* forgotten that Rico Sr. was a clearly wealthy and influential
non-vet...guess it's been what, 10 years since I last read it, so details
are slipping.  This does indeed damage my case, of course.

> I believe that his whole point was to point out that authority without
> the responsibility, as he saw in our society, could only lead to
> decline. I'm not sure I agree that the society he envisioned would work,
> military duty doesn't confer any more intelligence or reasoning power,
> but I also don't agree that a lw degree does either, (as seems to be the
> trend in the U.S., today.) 

I think military duty (or 'duty' of any kind) does confer more
self-discipline and a wider view of responsibility...and perhaps that's
enough to get the benefits RAH describes.

And one more response...

> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 97 19:23:20 -0500
> From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
> 
> To me, what Heinlein was exploring was the role of responsibility that an
> individual owes to society and the responsibilities that society owes to
> the individual.  The individuals that *chose* to serve are taking on the
> responsibility for organizing, governing (that's the franchise), and
> protecting their society.  Part of the social contract was that the
> "volunteers" assumed the responsibility for protecting the rights, lives
> and fortunes of the "non-volunteers" what they got in return (besides the
> franchise) was the knowledge that they were the protectors of society.  ;->

Yes, perhaps I've become too cynical to see it that way, but you're right,
the book itself, stripped of my prejudices, probably supports this view.
Oh, dear, now I have an excuse to read it again...what a tragedy... :)

> I, personally, don't think a human society could *maintain* that nobel
> attitude.  I'm afraid it would evolve into precisely what you describe, and
> based on RAH's other writings I suspect he would agree. But he was
> presenting a series of social lessons in ST, more than trying to describe
> how a *real* society would organize itself, so he had to maintain an
> unrealistic level of idealism in the book.

In some ways this reminds me of Niven and Pournelle's Second Empire, in
which the nobility is largely, ah, noble, commited to securing benefits
for society at large...though N&P have stated explicitly that there's no
reason to expect this to last very long, it *does* happen to societies
from time to time.

Back to Traveller:  At what point in 3I history did this situation occur,
if ever?  M:0 has the scheming Cleon maneuvering to grab and consolidate
his power base, driving off or killing rivals and operating with a firm
eye on the bottom line, so probably not then; the RSB implies that, at
least in retrospect, Spinward Marches nobility had a large fraction of
dissipated scheming parasites; so -- was there some Camelot period in
between when the nobility was largely dedicated to the common good? 

> One point that a lot of people miss when discussing RAH's work is that most
> of it was written for the "juvenile" market.  Some of his short fiction and
> all his novels from _Stranger In A Strange Land_  on were written for
> adults, but most of his work in the 40's and 50's was aimed *specifically*
> at boys and girls in the 8 to 16 age range.  This colored his writing, what
> subjects he covered, how he covered them, how his characters acted and
> reacted, etc. 

Yes, and reading his 'juveniles' today always makes me wonder if he was
aiming too high, or if kids in general were just far more socially
'intelligent' than their modern replacements (save my own brilliantly
Heinleinesque daughter, of course. :))

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 02:11:35 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

Moin Peter Newman,

> Jump drives do improve in fuel efficency (in MT) but not until TL 17. 
> This implies three things to me:

	of course they improve in MT and TNE, while they dont improve
	in CT/T4. The MT/TNE formular is (N+1)*5%*(P/N) where N is jump
	drives number, and P the number of parsecs.

By Michael
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:18:54 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Burst Fire is LETHAL (fwd)

Moin SD Mooney,

	we are still playing TNE, with very simplified personal
	combat rules. The simplification is easy :

	We have 3 kinds of hits :

	- minor hits made with a role of the right difficulty level
	- normal hits made with one level higher 
	- good hits made with two levels higher

	Good hits kill, while normal hits cripple, a test on constitution
	reduces kill to cripple and cripple to a small wound.

		average, when hit from a weapon, intendet to cripple humans.
			(eg. knives, small pistols)
		difficult, when hit from a weapon, intendet to kill humans.
			(eg. swords, large pistols, small handguns)
		formidable, .... destroy vehicles.
			(eg. SMGs, small energy weapons)
		imposible, .... destroy starships.
			(starship, or groundbased energy weapons)

	Cover and Armor will reduce difficulty one level of the survival
	role, while the posibility to move and versalite cover increases
	the difficulty to hit for the to hit role on referees discretion.

	This is easy and fast and avoid that players start fire exchange
	without prior rethinking of proper tactic.

	Most "street fights" are not so bloody because neither side
	places a hit even on short distance, but if somebody is gotcha
	by a letal weapon hes likely dead within minutes. If one or
	both sides are killers (high skilled) initiative becomes very
	important.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 02:05:59 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: re:TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List

Moin Folk,

	The FTN is canon my early FTN is a bit different, what do
	you think about.

> Entity: 		FTN - Free Traders Network
> Founder: 		xxxUnknownxxx 
> Founded In: 		~100 before Imperial
> Contact:		ftn@bakunin.north.de
> Main Office:		Kange
> Sectors:		2 step around Kange.
> Summary:		Information/Marketing/Survey
> Product Line : 	FTN

	The Free Traders Network is a union of free traders, traders who
	own their starship founded at Kange about 100 years BI. Started
	with one mainframe and an office at Kange for storing marketing
	information and survey datafiles. Membership of FTN is for "free
	traders" only, where free trader is defined as a captain or
	representative from a ship owned by the crew or parts of the crew.

	This restriction barly helps to exclude big companies and
	governments, because anybody owning a Yacht can claim to be a
	free trader. So many CEOs are personal members of the FTN.

	At 14 Imperial FTN had 173 offices storing FTN information at
	138 differnt worlds. A free trader who wants to access FTN has
	to pay 100Cr at FTN office and to carry FTN floodfeed to his
	next systems. Storage of unencrypted mail is free, while using
	the FTN floodfeed for private encrypted mail costs additional
	100Cr per year of storage.  Most FTN offices on backwater
	starports are just a room with a mainframe.

	FTN is a comparingly cheap service only working because free
	traders can not live without. At Kange the tradional FTN office
	is still in the backroom of Kanges Starport Bar, so are the most.
	FTN representatives are not payed, and have to bring at least
	one state of the art mainframe into the FTN.  Becoming an FTN
	repesentative is a typical retirement for a active free traders.

	FTN information has a high value, the surveys are most times
	more acurate that the Scout-Service surveys, because they are
	based on traders first hand knowledge, and not limited by
	diplomatic ideotism (govlevel=lawlevel at example) On the other
	hand side, FTN is big, a Tl10 mainframe can barly store actual
	FTN data, while you need a Tl11 mainframe to make easy searches
	and a Tl12 mainframe to make expert system searches. Viewing
	FTN without expert software aid for valuable information is
	a imposible task of computer/edu, with a expert system this
	becomes formidable. Search for a private mail adressed to the
	own ship is routine using the FTN mainframe.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 13:21:41 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Traveller Magazines

I was just going thru some stuff tonight and found a bunch of "Space
Gamer" magazines devoted to "Traveller".

Specifically issues : #40, June 1981
                                 #46, December 1981
                                 #49, March 1982
                                 #56, October 1982
                                 #59, January 1983

#40 has an add in the back for the upcoming Traveller book #6, "Aliens".

Interesting, as Book #6 turned out to be "Scouts".

What happened Marc?

- --
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 13:30:53 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Services

<HTML>
In issue #46 of the Space Gamer, there is a Terrorist Service for Traveller,
complete with generation and mustering out tables.&nbsp; :)

<P>--
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The J-Man
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
GOC Systems
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
j-man@iname.com
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 11:32:34
From: Paolo Marino <marino@inrete.it>
Subject: SoK?

I've tried (in vain) to reach the people at the Sowrd Of Knight site. I'm
trying to buy some stuff from them (Traveller Chronichle and some other
used RPG modules) but I've never got any answer.

Are they still active? How can I reach them (besides the aol account they
have on their page?)

TIA,


__  Paolo Marino  __          |Inrete Games Page: www.inrete.it/games/gms.html
 mc4799@mclink.it (Preferred)  | marino@inrete.it (Best for MIME/BinHex)

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:32:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

In mail you write:

> Out of the books you mentioned, I've never read any of those.
>
> My favorites were the Time Traders series :
>
> Time ????
The Time Traders
> Galactic Derelict
> The Defiant Agents
> A Key out of Time

There's a passable new novel in the series called "Firehand". It's by
Norton and P.M. Griffin. It came out a couple years back. 

I note that the list of books in the front lists "Redline the Stars"
(again by Norton and Griffin) and I seem to vaguely recall that title
from an old article as being a Solar Queen story that never got
written. I may have to try ordeing it!

Another recent Norton release is "Brother to Shadows". It's only so-so,
but it would make a good "backstory" for an NPC Rogue. Human, raised by
alien martial artist/mystic types (yes, it *does* seem a bit like Kung
Fu). He has to leave gets involved with the Thieves guild, and gets
out of the mess. Typical Norton, if a bit less well developed than what
she used to do (hey, she's getting *old*!).

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:45:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: High tech "oops"

In mail you write:

>         Just had that kind of experience this week.  At the firm I work
> for, I was told that all the computers are on W95... which, albeit being a
> few TLs behind the MacOS that I'm used to, is something that I can still
> work with.  However, then, in the student room, I discovered to my horror
> that the students' computers are still running DOS and WP5.1.
>
>         I still haven't figured out where to start shovelling the coal in ;).

MacOS is ok. I find that I don't mind using it too much. Windoze is a
rather different matter. And I frankly consider MS-DOS to be overly
primitive. Unfortunately, MacOS has the same major shortcoming:
"Security? What's that?"

I'd love to see what you'd do confronted with some of my old 8-bit gear
(I eventually hope to have one of them running CP/M and WordStar :-)

BTW, silly Mac question... How the hell do you *compare* files? I had
two floppies both of which seemed to have the same program on them, but
I thought one copy might be damaged. Under MS-DOS, I'd just run a
compare utility. But I can't find anything like that....

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:50:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Obsidian Points

In mail you write:

>> A friend of mine makes reproduction obsidian arrow points, and says the
>> reason they penetrated the conquistadors mail was because they shattered 
> and
>> drove small, very sharp pieces of glass through the rings. Evidently the
>> wounds tended to fester more readily than ordinarily.
>
> Which cloth armor won't do, hence its superiority.  Many Spaniards adopted
> variants of Aztec rolled-cotton armor because it was lighter, more
> comfortable, and more effective against Aztec weaponry than chain.

Which is weird, because you *have* to wear quilted padding that is
effectively the same as that "cloth armor" *under* your chainmail. 

You do this for two reasons. First, chainmail does *not* stop blows. It
just spreads the impact and (usually) prevents the cutting edge from
getting to you. 

Many an SCA fighter can tell you about the "waffle bruise" you get if
you have inadequate padding under chain. And both from tests on
inanimate objects "wearing" chain, and from old records it's quite
possible to wind up with the rings embedded in the wearer if the
padding is sufficiently inadequate.

>> Also, knapping obsidian requires great care, because the little shards of
>> glass get _everywhere_ and are tough to clean up.
>
> Tell me about it!  My wife knapped about a quarter kg of obsidian to
> produce small flakes for an art project, using our fireplace hearth as a
> work surface, and (in theory) the fireplace itself to catch the debris.
> No such luck...teeny shards of obsidian got all over our living room,
> invisible in the carpet, and destroyed our vaccuum cleaner before *most*
> of them were cleaned up.

Now you know *why* flint knappers either used a work area away from
everything else *or* spread out a hide to work on and bundled it up to
shake out outside. :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1917
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 5 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1918



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
T4.1 date gone back again
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived
WTB CT Books
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 02:03:26 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

In mail you write:

> Powered armor doesn't make the book...it is a weird choice, though.  The
> political and philosophical discussion (and illustrations) *do* make the
> book, and it ain't ST without them.  On the draft issue, though...
>
> This has always been one of the subtler points of the book to me.  Yes,
> you're free not to 'volunteer' for service (military or Peace Corps-ish)
> according to the surface message of the book, with the only cost being
> that you forfeit your right to vote.  However, in my view, the book
> contains numerous hints that other informal sanctions apply -- you'll
> never get a good job, good housing, whatever unless you've served.  It's
> also clear that at a social level everyone without exception is *expected*
> to 'volunteer', and those who do not do so become outcasts from their
> peers.

Better re-read the book. For example, it's strongly implied that Mr.
DuBois is one of the *few* teachers at the high school who is a veteran
(otherwise why make such a point of the fact that you have to be a
veteran to teach History & Moral Philosophy?).

For another, Juan's *father* is a business man. Quite well-to-do. And
he isn't shunned, and obviously got an ok job. And for that matter, all
thru the book, great pains are taken to *discourage* people from
joining the military. 

Oh yeah, don't forget that your "service" could quite easily be
*non*-Military. You could even request such. As Heinlein pointed in an
essay where he was commenting on the many strange ways critics seemed
to misinterpret the book, in that society "veteran" did *not* mean
"military veteran". Most folks wound up doing the equivalent of some
low-level *civil service* job. 

> So, in short, saying that the MI were 'drafted' isn't technically
> accurate, but may be closer to the truth than you imply.

Again, the MI were a *small* fraction of the people "serving their
term". And they went to great pains to keep things "volunteer".

I suspect that you are thinking of the implied "status" of someone who
refused to make a drop. That didn't sound like "shunning" to me. More
like pity.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 02:18:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

In mail you write:

>>Yeah, I would have thought Hollywood would have considered the Powered
>>Armor Suits to be "sexy."
>
> In the beginning they were going to do the MI suits, but they were too bulky
> with the cooling gear, and too brutally hot with the cooling gear removed.
>  In addition, IIRC, they couldn't get the suits to "move" right, and they
> needed far too many suits with all the extras involved.
>
> From a logistics point of view, I also think it would be difficult for
> someone watching the movie to tell the main character's suit from anyone
> else's (this wasn't a reason I heard, this is just my own observation).

Well, we also have the not so minor detail that with the exception of
retrieval and special situations like going into the tunnels, MI
operate *very* spread out. Remember, they do their "tight sweeps" with
men around 50 yards apart! On the attack on the skinny planet they were
more than a hundred yards apart (just barely in sight of each other, as
I recall).

That means that you *won't* have "crowds" of people in armor. But that
also means that most directors wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to
direct the scenes, and most of the audience wouldn't think it was much
of a battle. <sigh>

But given the helmet displays, and the way folks are spread out, I
suspect that a *small* company using state of the art computer graphics
(like Babylon 5 only better) I bet a decent job *could* be done.

One nice thing that helps if you want to do it right is that people are
*used* to false color graphics, and IR displays are so common (from
police and news coverage) that you could actually *show* the "IR"
images for the tunnel fights and the like. 20 or even 10 years ago,
people would have just been confused.

And remember, the only places we see the suits being *used* are at the
training center (which is pretty barren, and thus easy to model) and on
alien planets, where you can take a lot of liberties with things like
vegetation. 

I *really* think that you could handle most armor scenes with special
effects. And for the ones where you can't the objections the director
had are silly. Of *course* the suits are bulky. If he'd read the book,
he'd have noticed that a suited trooper was described as an *eight
foot* tall hydrocephalic gorilla. 

At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously
doubt that more than half a dozen of the suits would be needed for the
shots that have to be done "live".

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:07:12 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Eris wrote:

>
>>> Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.
>
>>With *this* point I'm in utter agreement!
>
>Yeah, I am too.  And the fact that this movie is likely to be a stinker
>doesn't hurt either. ;->


	The trailers that I've seen, with the troops marching around in
deserts, defending very primitive-looking forts, and so forth, makes me
think that ST the movie is gonna come out looking like Aliens meets The
Last Remake Of Beau Geste.

	Which in and of itself is not neccessarily a bad thing if you're
looking for mindless violent action flicks with big guns and alien ooze
flying everywhere, but calling it ST and linking it to Heinlein seems to be
misleading advertising.

	Back to the grind.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:11:42 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

Garry wrote:
>
>I may not find Harlan someone I agree with often, but on the subject of
>Science Fiction vs SCI-FI, I do agree. That is the key to Traveller and to
>great authors, like Heinlien, Clark & Asimov. Speculative Science in a
>Fictional setting to explore human interactions & reactions. Not big bangs,
>bright lights and gee whiz special effects for cardboard sterotypes re play
>classic westerns against.

	Actually, from what I've seen from the trailers ST looks more like
the classic French Foreign Legion movies.

	Betcha a share in FSY that the plotline at some point is going to
turn into landing on some desert planet, slogging through endless wastes
being followed by an enemy whose home turf it is, and then a long battle
scene as waves of expendable bad guy charge a small fort, ending in pyrrhic
victory for the good guys.  The crazed commander with waxed moustache,
monocle, and bad hollywood French accent may not make it in, but something
resembling him will be.

	Beau Geste, I tell you.  Think Beau Geste.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 02:18:33 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: T4.1 date gone back again

Anyone noticed that the IG web page says that the T4.1 release date is now
back to December 97, not November? ;-(

Just so long as it's right this time...

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:39:27 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

You mean to tell me that some people have not read Andre Norton. I
thought she was required reading! (VBG)

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:44:10 -0700 "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
writes:
>
>
>Linda Baxter wrote:
>
>> > From: Michael D. Peters <Letterworks@Comten.com>
>> > We COULD tell..... but then we would have to destroy you!!!!
>> >
>> > Fear the Forerunners, Grandfather was only a kid!
>>
>> Ah! Another Andre Norton reader. :-)
>
>Make that "three" norton readers..:)  I grew up on her stuff.
>
>
>--
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com
>
>
>

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:31:45 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived

IMHO no TL is a big deal. I have every T4 supplement put out, and for me
this one is the most dissappointing. The 
examples are fine, but I like the details.

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:40:54 -0400 "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
writes:
>>  Feedback from other owners?
>
>A neat supplement.  One problem, there are no tech levels listed with the
>vehicles.  Now don't panic!  They are not 'broken' because of this since
>most of them are clearly at about Imperial M:0 TL12 and none are clearly
>well above this point (some are quite below - but how far!?!).
>
>The information on the vehicle cards is presented in a useful, compact
>fashion, and is complete from a users point of view.  Each vehicle 'type'
>(such as "personnel, tracked" or "AFV, Wheeled" or "personal transport,
>Rotary Wing") has (I think) 4 examples (maybe its three) which are suitable
>for photocopying and folding in half to make one, two sided vehicle card
>about 3X5 inches (8cm X 12cm for you metrifans).  I suppose you could cut
>them right out of the book though :)
>
>This was a quick look (came Monday the 29th in Boston MA) and I'll make
>comments later as playtesting commences (which will hopefully occur Thursday).
>
>Pete
>
>
>Peter H. Brenton
>MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
>(617) 253-3185
>pbrenton@mit.edu
>
>
>

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: SWMego@aol.com
Subject: WTB CT Books

Anyone have any of the origianl CT Books, The small Black ones? Remember I
have not played since the late 70's so I am at a loss for all this new stuff
about MT and T4 and what not. I think I want to start by getting some of the
original books I am fimilar with and slowly move up from there...

What system is most compatable with the Classic Traveller system? Is anythign
still available for purchase in stores, mailorder, internet, etc? Or just
this new T4 game? 

Thanks...

Derek...
www.netxp.com/fantasticplastic  <==-- My Custom Action Figure Web Site

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:47:15 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

David P. Summers  writes:
>Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Perhaps it is time to change the subject line. At the moment we seem to
be moving into another favorite topic of mine, Traveller economics.

>Sat, 4 Oct 1997 17:31:52 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>
>Well, of course the larger systems will also have interplanetary traffic at 
>the gas giant using it for fuel, 

If by 'larger systems' you mean systems with a lot of people, then that
isn't going to help the poor pirate at all, since such a system would have
the ability to patrol itself.

>plus you will have traffic in an out getting fuel to sell at port. Nor
>do I agree that skipping port would be only when unavoidable. The travel
>times to jump at a gas giant are only a few hours more (which can easily 
>be lost in waiting for traffic or ones turn to refuel at port).  Add the
>free cost and I see it as immensently viable.

That's because you don't realize that for a freighter unrefined fuel at
Cr100/T represents roughly 3% of its expenses and entails the loss of 1.5%
of its cargo capacity in order to carry a fuel purifier plant. For a
passenger liner the fuel represent less than 2% (I'm being a bit vague
here because I'm using standard Traveller expenses rather than my own and
are doing the calculations on the fly). When you add the fact that
passengers might not enjoy diving into a Gas Giant (btw. in all your
arguments you are assuming that refuelling at a Gas Giant is just as
safe as refuelling at a starport (if it was more dangerous you'd have
to add a risk factor to the expenses), which propably wouldn't be the
case even without pirates and certainly wouldn't be the case with pirates) 
and may care about hours such a trip adds to the journey, you'll see that 
passenger liners certainly won't use Gas Giant refuelling if an alternative 
exists. As for freighters, if the Gas Giant refuelling adds more than 7
hours to the trip then it is too expensive even if the refuelling itself
is as safe as can be. Even Free Traders will lose out if the trip adds more
than 10 hours (Free Traders makes one jump per 14 days or 336 hours; 3%
of 336 is 10.08).
 
>(Here I almost forgot we had moved on the a new thread and put in something 
>about piracy :-)  Amazing how one can get into a rut.

Sorry, I couldn't resist putting the pirates back in ;-) They are relevant
only if they constitute an added risk to Gas Giant refuelling.

>>>Also, You aren't saying the gas gaints wouldn't be used.  You are saying
>>>they wouldn't be used directly (the fuel you buy in port may well come
>>>from the gas giant).
>>
>>Only if the planet don't have water. It will be far easier, and thus
>>cheaper, to get your fuel from the planet than from a Gas Giant.
> 
>Not necessarily.  What does it cost to split the water?

About Cr5/T (That's what it costs to run a fuel purifier plant and a power
plant to supply the energy; that does assume that you can sell all the
fuel you refine). And that gives you refined fuel. The uncracked water
will give you unrefined fuel right away.

>How does this compare to shipping (mining a gas giant would just require
>throwing containers into a trajectory that reaches the main planet 
>eventually (like we currently do by sticking punny little chemical 
>thrusters on our probes). Then it coasts for free (no fuel, no salaries, 
>no nothing)  and is picked up at the main planet.

I don't know, but you have to figure in the cost of producing the
containers, the cost of sending them to the Gas Giant, the cost of
having a ship take them into the Gas Giant and send them back and the
cost of fetching the containers down to the planet. I doubt you can
do that as cheaply as running a hose into a nearby lake.

>>If a trader loses several days each jump by refuelling at Gas Giants, he
>>won't be able to survive on what he can earn at standard freight rates
>>in the rest of the time.
> 
>A slow ship looses, at most, looses just under a day (compared to an
>Earth sized world).  

Far too much.

>A fast ship looses as little as 5 hours.

Very few merchants will have fast ships. It makes the ship more expensive
and cuts down on cargo space, making them less competitive (and making
their time more valuable, btw.).

 
>[Stuff where Hans appears to have calculations that agree with
>a point of mine have been deleted on the ground that is must be
>some sort of a trick.... :-)]

David, I don't want to win an argument at the cost of being wrong. 
I'm just a tad stubborn when I believe that I'm right. ;-)
 
>>>There will also be jump-1 ships taking jump 2 cargoes because there don't
>>>happen to be any jump 2 ships around.
>>
>>But not too often, because a jump-1 ship can't survive on the rates that
>>a jump-2 ship can offer.
> 
>Yeah, but they survive on Jump-1 cargos and just take jump-2 cargos
>as an exception (I'm not advocating that all, or even most, traffic
>would go through gas giants, in fact I I wouldn't quibble with any
>number between 20% and 80%).

I'm sorry to have to spurn your olive branch, but 20% is far too much.
 
>>That's why I've been trying to work out the true
>>rates based on the true expenses. Unfortunately I'm not in agreement with
>>some of the expenses either (The life support costs are way too high, IMO,
>>and the fuel costs are wrong too). Perhaps the Cr11,500 I remember was
>>when I did use the official expenses...
> 
>I wouldn't mind seeing some number for reasonable costs for cargo
>based on jump distance based on the current costs.  I might not
>be perfect, but it would fix something.  I once looked at figuring
>it out, but decided it was more time invested than I had at the
>moment.

Well, if you take the numbers I present below and add about 20% to the
ticket prices and subtract about 1/3 from the freight rates, you will
get something close to what you'd get with the official expenses.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGULAR PASSENGER LINER OR FREIGHTER TRAVELLING FROM SURFACE TO SURFACE (35
jumps per year):
             
           Steerage    Low    Economy    Mid     High    1 dT of  1 dT per
           Passage   Passage  Passage  Passage  Passage  freight   parsec*
Jump-1:     1,200     1,400    2,800    4,800    6,200      840      840
Jump-2:     1,500     1,800    3,800    6,600    8,400    1,170      585
Jump-3:     2,100     2,200    5,100    9,000   11,400    1,660      555
Jump-4:                                13,400             2,400      600
Jump-5:                                19,800             3,660      735
Jump-6:                                35,000             6,370    1,065

*Assuming the route is an exact multiple of the jump rating.

Note 1: The prices above was arrived at by designing a number of 600 T ships
each dedicated to one kind of passengers, ie. a ship with 1 T of cargo space
per passenger and 1 steward per 8 passengers for High Passengers, another
ship with negligible cargo space and 1 steward per 50 passengers for Mid
Passengers, a ship with small staterooms for Economy Passengers, a ship with
Low Berths and 1 medic per 20 berths for Low Passengers, and a ship with bunks
only for Steerage Passengers, plus a ship with cargo hold only for freight. 
In all cases, except the ships for Steerage passengers, the design included
emergency medical low berths enough to accomodate a full complement of crew
and passengers. The blank spots represent ships I haven't worked out yet.

Calculations available on request.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that jump-3 ships are the most economic for long-distance haulage,
followed closely by jump-2 and jump-4 ships; at least when you don't factor
in gains and losses due to speedy vs slow delivery. In practice I'd expect 
to see quite a few jump-4 ships on long-distance trips. There may even be a
niche for jump-6 ships, though I admit that a doubling in the cost is
pushing it. Still going between the Marches and Core you could save almost
a year, so...

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:04:20 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Craig Berry writes:
>I *had* forgotten that Rico Sr. was a clearly wealthy and influential
>non-vet...guess it's been what, 10 years since I last read it, so details
>are slipping.  This does indeed damage my case, of course.

And don't forget that Rico Sr. thought that it was a foolish idea to join
up. A lot of trouble for little gain. This _may_ have been sour grapes, 
but the impression I got was that joining up would _hurt_ Juan's future 
earning prospects (A vet propably can't become a lawyer in the ST 
society ;-)
 
>In some ways this reminds me of Niven and Pournelle's Second Empire, in
>which the nobility is largely, ah, noble, commited to securing benefits
>for society at large...though N&P have stated explicitly that there's no
>reason to expect this to last very long, it *does* happen to societies
>from time to time.
> 
>Back to Traveller:  At what point in 3I history did this situation occur,
>if ever?  M:0 has the scheming Cleon maneuvering to grab and consolidate
>his power base, driving off or killing rivals and operating with a firm
>eye on the bottom line, so probably not then; the RSB implies that, at
>least in retrospect, Spinward Marches nobility had a large fraction of
>dissipated scheming parasites; so -- was there some Camelot period in
>between when the nobility was largely dedicated to the common good? 

From 200 to 400 when the enemies were mostly aliens AND outsiders (Vargr
and Aslans) perhaps? A related question: Is the Ileish Revolt a bunch of
selfish guys revolting against the noble nobles (and being heroically
outfought) or a bunch of noble guys revolting against the selfish nobles
(and being brutally crushed)? The whole tenor of Milieu 400 will depend
on that.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

 

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 09:09:45 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 02:18 am 10/05/97 PST, you wrote:
>At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
>the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously

	HRMMM? More details, please!  I've been wanting to make a suit of powered
armor for a Halloween costume for some time ...
- -- 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: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 08:39:48 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

At 08:54 am 10/04/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I didn't even notice the MI's in the trailer didn't have Armor, i saw
>the trailer when Star Trek : First Contact, opened at the theatre.  So I
>hardly remember any real details about the trailer.  Most of my opinion
>is actually based on the www.starshiptroopers.com page, where they are
>allowing people to joint eh ranks of the Mobile Infantry.

	Out of respect for the Grand Master's memories, I absolutely refuse to
participate in this Hollywood abortion of a great book.
- -- 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: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 08:59:53 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

At 04:38 pm 10/04/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 12:10 AM 10/4/97 PST, Leonard wrote:
>
>>> The movie hasn't been released yet, but even the director admits they took
>>> out all the discussion, the powered armor, and made the MI *draftees*, and
>>> reshot Aliens.
>>>
>>> Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.
>>
>>I thought that she was "technical advisor" or some such? (Not that this
>>counts for much in the movie industry!
>
>Maybe at the beginning, but when it became clear that the director hadn't
>bothered to read the book, and was only interested in producing yet another
>blood splattered shoot-em-up, she removed herself from the film and started
>campaigning to have Heinlein's name taken of the title.

	Last I heard, she resorted to a lawsuit, and won.
- -- 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: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 09:11:08 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 01:45 pm 10/04/97 -0700, you wrote:
>This has always been one of the subtler points of the book to me.  Yes,
>you're free not to 'volunteer' for service (military or Peace Corps-ish)
>according to the surface message of the book, with the only cost being
>that you forfeit your right to vote.  However, in my view, the book
>contains numerous hints that other informal sanctions apply -- you'll
>never get a good job, good housing, whatever unless you've served.  It's
>also clear that at a social level everyone without exception is *expected*
>to 'volunteer', and those who do not do so become outcasts from their
>peers.

	Gee, I got _exactly_ the opposite impression--at Juan's family's social
level, it seemed quite gauche to go into Federal service. In fact, those
who _do_ volunteer tend to be looked down on. And his family certainly
seemed high up there:
	
	- "When my father bought me a Rolls copter for my fourteenth birthday..."
	- "You're going to study business at Harvard ... After that, you'll go to
the Sorbonne..."
	- For graduation, his father offers him a vacation trip to Mars.
	- There's an olympic length swimming pool in their house ...
	- "...if you reach Faraway, you really must look up my dear friends the
Regatos." This from Madame Ruitman, who isn't concerned in the least that
Faraway has been taken by the Bugs--...that's all right, they're civilians!"

	As for there being social pressure to join ... how about these quotes:

	- "So what is this so-called 'Federal Service'? Parasitism, pure and simple."
	-"A decidedly expensive way for inferior people who otherwise would be
unemployed to live at public expense for a term of years, then give
themselves airs for the rest of their lives."
	- "It ought to be against the law to use the schools as undercover
recruiting stations."

	The feeling _I_ got out of the book was that, on Earth at least, and among
the higher strata of society, Federal Service was looked on pretty much the
way military and civil service is nowadays--something more for middle- and
lower-class types rather than the social elite. As for citizenship being
required for a "good job" or "good housing"--all that's ever mentioned is
that a _few_ jobs such as policemen and History & Moral Philosophy
instructor are required to be filled by veterans. Certainly no limitations
on good housing or business jobs. Again, look at Juan's father. And look at
the percentages given for citizenship--"...over eighty percent on Iskander
to less than three percent in some Terran nations..."

	And something most people seem to miss is that, although the book is about
the military branch of the Federal service, that's only a small fraction of
it. Most "veterans" have never been near a weapon... It's not the military
service or putting your life on the line that matters, it's the willingness
to subordinate yourself to the needs of society at large and accept direct
responsibility for making that society work, rather than simply going with
the flow (or against the flow) of society. You actually have to stand up
and say "I'm going to do what's necessary to uphold and defend people's
rights, without any preconditions on how I do that." If you wind up as a
cook in the Navy, you accept it. If you wind up as a bureaucrat, you do
that. And if you wind up in the M.I., see, you get into that capsule, and
you go down, and you kill people and break their toys.

	Another point about the "social" pressure--*no* MI is ever forced into the
capsule. Every drop is completely voluntary. Yes, there's the consequences
of being discharged. But _everything_ in life has its consequences. There's
nobody pressuring you to "not be such a wussy" if you decide at the last
minute you're not getting in.

	Frankly, while powered armor and drop capsules are cool, and it's not
Starship Troopers without them, it's even MORE not ST without the
underlying philosophy.
- -- 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: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 11:14:59 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Craig Berry wrote:

<Snip of previous posts>

> In some ways this reminds me of Niven and Pournelle's Second Empire, in
> which the nobility is largely, ah, noble, commited to securing benefits
> for society at large...though N&P have stated explicitly that there's no
> reason to expect this to last very long, it *does* happen to societies
> from time to time.
>
> Back to Traveller:  At what point in 3I history did this situation occur,
> if ever?  M:0 has the scheming Cleon maneuvering to grab and consolidate
> his power base, driving off or killing rivals and operating with a firm
> eye on the bottom line, so probably not then; the RSB implies that, at
> least in retrospect, Spinward Marches nobility had a large fraction of
> dissipated scheming parasites; so -- was there some Camelot period in
> between when the nobility was largely dedicated to the common good?

<Snip>

> Yes, and reading his 'juveniles' today always makes me wonder if he was
> aiming too high, or if kids in general were just far more socially
> 'intelligent' than their modern replacements (save my own brilliantly
> Heinleinesque daughter, of course. :))

Craig,

Re the first qoute: I tend to see the time period leading to the Emperors of the
Flag as possibly this type of Noble. Oddly enough I like to picture the in-fighting
of that period as being motivated by a sincere sence of social duty, that
eventually broke down into crass power grabbing. In other words the earliest (and I
don't have my books handy for names) Emperors of the Flag were attempting to
preform social reforms that they felt were needed, while later pretenders to the
throne were just power hungry. In My Personal Universe (tm) this period marks a
turning point among the Nobility. I haven't yet placed the beginning of this
"Camelot" (I like this term!) period, but the end falls into the EoF period.

Now to the second qoute: I grew up on the Heinlien juviniles and took much of it to
heart, (perhaps too much). When I had my own children I (not altogether on purpose)
appear to have instilled much of my perceptions of RAH's views on them. Today I
hear them repeat view points and statements that I made that could have come
directly from his books. With two sons currently active duty Marines and a daughter
in high school who speaks of joining the Navy on graduation, and all well rounded
in the arts, and grounded in the sciences, I like to think they are following The
Grand Master's mold, but then again that could just be my own pride coloring the
Real World (tm)  ;^>

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1918
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 5 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1919



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Burst fire is LETHAL
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: Industrial capacity
Re: Obsidian Points
Re: The March Harrier--M-Drive
re: High Guard USP
SCI-FI Movies (was Jump Projectors(Andre Norton))
re:Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Collector's Beowulf Box
Re: WTB CT Books
Books & Andre Norton
Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Questions about Traveller
re: Phase Transitions?
Re: Questions about Traveller

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:20:03 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Burst fire is LETHAL

SD Mooney writes:

>Conclusion -
> 	1) Snub Pistols are more dangerous in T4 than they were in MT.
>	2) Burst fire is very nasty (possibly 10D damage with a snub!)
> 	3) Initiative is critical in T4
> 	4) I like the combat system - it is fast and potentially very lethal.
> 	5) Once you get into burst fire and 5D base damage, called shots
>          aren't that necessary!
> 
> Any thoughts?

It reminds me of one of the first Traveller tournaments I played in, back
when I didn't know the rules very well. Unfortunately, neither did the
referee. We got into a firefight with a crew of Aslans armed with Snub
Pistols and got wiped out. The whole fight took place at medium ranges
and it was only later that I realized that the referee had forgotten 
that Snub Pistols had a to hit DM of -8 at distances over 5 meters!

I don't remember how it is in MT, but in CT Snub Pistols _are_ lethal, but
only at close range. The trick is to make sure your opponent don't get to
close range.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 11:33:30 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

Leonard Erickson wrote:

> I note that the list of books in the front lists "Redline the Stars"
> (again by Norton and Griffin) and I seem to vaguely recall that title
> from an old article as being a Solar Queen story that never got
> written. I may have to try ordeing it!
>

 Leonard,
"Redline the Stars" is indeed a Solar Queen novel. Unfortunately I do not
rate it among the best but it is a passable read. I have also heard rumors
that it is the first in a new set of books in the series. If this is the
case than it's a good thing! I wouldn't buy the hard cover but a paperback
will be worth the price.

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:39:55 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

Scott Ellsworth writes:
>I use a quality of life argument - I have been trying to make the universe
>match the following principles:
> 
>1.  Economic growth is maximized in the 100M-50G range, 

Eh? 100 million to 50 gigallion?

>...depending on the world in question.  You do not want a world too small,
>but when they get to large, administration costs go non linear, thus it is
>categorically hard to administer a world of a billion, than 10 worlds of a 
>hundred million.

That's one of the arguments I use for reducing the average production of a
high-population world (something I'd love to see canonized). In my Traveller
universe any world with a population of over 100,000,000 suffers a gradual
reduction in their average _surplus_ production (ie. what they have left
over for building ships when everybody is fed and bedded and all that). At
1 billion the naval taxes are 1/2 and at 10 billion it is 1/4. That still
makes high-population worlds powerful, just not as powerful as in the
official Traveller universe.
 
>3.  High tech makes some previously unlivable places acceptable - by TL12,
>grav cities and underwater cities easily add a factor of three to the area
>available for life, so I have no problem with 15G people on an earthlike
>world.

You must mean 15B not 15G, right?
 
>I would bet, though, that systems will average in the hundreds of millions,
>as this leads to lots of space for the people who do so to enjoy.

My own theory about the Siru Zirka is that the Vilani deliberately kept the
populations of their worlds low and that most of their planets lay in the
pop 7-8 range. That would go a long way to explain how the Terrans managed
to defeat them (Well, perhaps not explain, but at least make it more
plausible).


Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:

>Now, starting with the figures given above, who wants to figure out how
>much of this shipbuilding capacity is used by the Imperial fleets based in
>and around the Spinward Marches?  (I'm not!!)

As you know, I did just that. But last night it struck that it was
completely irrelevant, because the shipyard capacity you get in _TCS_
is the capacity that is available _after_ you take care of routine
work. If, for example, you are the ruler of a world with 100 million
citizens (which will give you a shipyard capacity of 100,000 T) and
decide that you want a new 100,000 dreadnaught, then (provided you have
the funds) you can start on it the next day, tying up all your shipyard
capacity for the next couple of years, and the rest of your fleet will
still get maintained and replaced. In other words, the 142 million T
capacity I calculated to account for maintenance and replacement are in
addition to the 158 million T (Btw. I just realized that the 142 million
T is wrong; annual maintenance takes two weeks, not one, as I've assumed).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Obsidian Points

> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:50:52 PST
> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> 
> >> A friend of mine makes reproduction obsidian arrow points, and says the
> >> reason they penetrated the conquistadors mail was because they shattered 
> > and
> >> drove small, very sharp pieces of glass through the rings. Evidently the
> >> wounds tended to fester more readily than ordinarily.
> >
> > Which cloth armor won't do, hence its superiority.  Many Spaniards adopted
> > variants of Aztec rolled-cotton armor because it was lighter, more
> > comfortable, and more effective against Aztec weaponry than chain.
> 
> Which is weird, because you *have* to wear quilted padding that is
> effectively the same as that "cloth armor" *under* your chainmail. 

The Spanish quilted padding was optimized as padding, and hence lighter
and not as extensively crosswoven as the Aztec version.  The latter used
twisted 'strings' of unspun cotton to create 'mats' of obsidian-point
catching tangles in the midst of normally-woven cotton.

> You do this for two reasons. First, chainmail does *not* stop blows. It
> just spreads the impact and (usually) prevents the cutting edge from
> getting to you. 

Exactly; the Aztec version of cloth did both duties, and thus had what
amounted to 'cloth chain' (those tangled 'lump cords') incorporated.

> Many an SCA fighter can tell you about the "waffle bruise" you get if
> you have inadequate padding under chain. And both from tests on
> inanimate objects "wearing" chain, and from old records it's quite
> possible to wind up with the rings embedded in the wearer if the
> padding is sufficiently inadequate.

Yeah, chain is definitely one of those "part of this complete breakfast"
situations. :)

> > Tell me about it!  My wife knapped about a quarter kg of obsidian to
> > produce small flakes for an art project, using our fireplace hearth as a
> > work surface, and (in theory) the fireplace itself to catch the debris.
> > No such luck...teeny shards of obsidian got all over our living room,
> > invisible in the carpet, and destroyed our vaccuum cleaner before *most*
> > of them were cleaned up.
> 
> Now you know *why* flint knappers either used a work area away from
> everything else *or* spread out a hide to work on and bundled it up to
> shake out outside. :-)

*Now* I find out. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:13:12 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The March Harrier--M-Drive

Hi Ken - I've been enjoying your March Harrier posts a lot!  A couple of
quibbles/queries, though:

> A reactionless drive means that there is no reaction that takes place
> to produce thrust, like burning fuel in rockets.

Effectively true, but IMO misleading.  A reaction drive just needs to
throw something out the back - the faster you throw, the less you need
to throw, but (for instance) burning fuel isn't part of what makes it a
reaction drive.  You could stand at the back of the ship throwing out
vegetable peelings if you didn't mind going veeeerrrry slooooowly (and
getting arrested for littering).

>  (If ever the ship come in contact with a planet with higher than a 4G
> gravity field, the ship will be unable to land.)

Well, it certainly won't be able to take off unassisted, but could it
land like the Space Shuttle?  It's got a streamlined hull, after all.
 
John G. Wood  |  john@elvw.demon.co.uk  |  Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 17:54:51 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: High Guard USP

>Alex Rebsch <grazzit@flash.net> wrote:

>Could someone post an explanation of the high guard usp system, I just got
>fighting ships and it doesn't explain it as far as I can tell.

I recommend that you get High Guard, but in the mean time....

Type (eg BB)
- -
size (breaks tonnage into ranges - relates to a table)
configuration (eg needle wedge etc - relates to a table)
jump drive (number relates directly to number of parsecs)
acceleration (M-Drive in G)
power plant number (must be >= highest of J-drive or M-Drive)
computer model (letters are 'bis' or fibre optic versions)
crew number (1 is 1-9, 2 10-99 etc)
- -
Hull Armour factor (limited by TL)
Sandcaster USP
Meson Screen USP
Nuc Damper USP
Black Globe USP
Repulsor USP
- -
Laser USP
Fusion/Plasma Gun USP
PA USP
Meson USP
Missile USP
- -
Fighters

Batteries = number of weapons at that USP
Bearing = number of the weapon batteries that can fire in a turn
EP = energy points = 0.01 x dt x power plant number

Hope that this helps

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:06:14 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: SCI-FI Movies (was Jump Projectors(Andre Norton))

SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:

>Sorry to continue an off topic discussion here, but its one of those things
>that gets under my nails.  Every time a new SCI-FI movie comes out,
>science-fiction readers the world around get all up in arms.

Look at how the TMl responded to Event Horizon. Did we discuss the story
and 'adventure'? No, we ripped the physics of the plot apart.

>Films are a dynamic, visual medium.  People tend to have short attention
>spans, and not everybody wants to go to a heavy, deep cerebral movie.
> Usually I don't like deep, cerebral movies.  There are a few exceptions, but
>none are even remotely on topic here.  As a result, movies have to be dynamic
>and visual, read bright lights, gee whiz and classic westerns.
>As I said, there are exceptions.  2001, 2010, Contact, and Starman all leap
>to mind, and all of these were good, and Starman had very few special effects
>at all...

We need to look at films as an entertainment medium. They will rarely
follow a book faithfully, and will often simplify the physics and plot for
effect. Look on them as eye or mind candy, something to enjoy for what they
are...

(NB One of the best recent adaptions (non-sci fi though) was the BBC's
version of Iain Banks 'The Crow Road'. Before that? Maybe Interview with
the Vampire? Anyone else got any suggestions?)

>(Please e-mail any responses, I don't want to mire down the mailing list with
>my off topic rantings, thanks).

Ditto - if you want to flame me, my address is in the sig.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:57:14 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote:

>SD Mooney wrote:

>>         2) Burst fire is very nasty (possibly 10D damage with a snub!)
>
>How are you figuring that?  Burst fire damage is like autofire
>damage--you double the dice.
>So a snub does 5D?  Then, you doulbe these results.  Ex:  you roll 5D,
>and the results are 1,3,5,6,2.
>
>This translates to damage of 2,6,10,12,4.

That's doubling the results of the first 5D thrown..

>Doubling dice is just slightly different than rolling 10D.  For
>instance, 1's aren't possible when you double dice, but are possible
>when you roll 10D.

I think that the difference is somewhat semantic, as you could roll a
second '1' in the second batch of 5D. However, I take your point. How do
you do armour?

>>         3) Initiative is critical in T4
>
>Oh yea Baby!  We've learned that the hard way.
>
>The other night, I let one of my players run an NPC policeman (his
>character wasn't involved, and I was keeping him involved in the
>game--besides that's one less thing I have to worry about as a GM).

Yeah, one of my players was playing an NPC agent on the scenario, as their
character wouldn't get involved in anything so crude as a gunfight...

>Deadly,deadly stuff.
>
>Also, we've spiffed up our game by going tactical.  We're using Snapshot
>tactical movement rules from CT.  I've done a few Ken's Tweaks to them
>to make them completely compatible with T4.

I read your tweaks with interest. Combat seems not to happen too much at
the moment in my campaign (they all - *bar* our younger player - have a
healthy respect for guns). However, I like the T4 rules as they stand,
sufficiently lethal and fast for me!

I run initiative with the standard roll in the book, with a few mods. (D6 +
highest leadership + tactics pool if they want + brownie points if they
want(*) ).

(*) taken from MT character generation. I use them to reward players for
good roleplaying or ideas, as I've tightened up on the experience
progression in skills. They are a one shot + or - 1 DM that the player can
apply as they see fit, not unlike Karma/Fate points in other games.


<snip of Ken's proposal>

>You might want to try this.  It adds a whole new dimension to the game.

If I get into a more military game  I will consider it, but for the moment,
the T4 system is okay.


Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:24:45 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Collector's Beowulf Box

If anybody is interested, I know a guy who has the original Beowulf
Boxed set of little black books which has never been opened and is
sealed with the original plastic.

He's pretty proud of this, and he's asking a hefty $150 for it.  It was
too much for me, but I told him I'd inform the TML that this is
available.

If anybody is interested, e-mail me.  I'll put you in touch with him.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:21:26 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: WTB CT Books

SWMego@aol.com wrote:
 I think I want to start by getting some of the
> original books I am fimilar with and slowly move up from there...

I'd skip that and start straight with T4.  You won't find it too much of
a leap from T4.

> What system is most compatable with the Classic Traveller system? 

Both T4 and MT are very compatible with CT.  TNE is a whole new game
system.

T4 and MT are both improved versions of CT, IMO.

Is anythign
> still available for purchase in stores, mailorder, internet, etc? Or just
> this new T4 game?

You can still find some TNE stuff pretty readily.  MT stuff is getting
harder and harder to find.  CT is even harder than that.

Check your local used book stores and game stores that carry used
items.  Sometimes you get lucky.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Books & Andre Norton

Her SF is great stuff to read for Traveller ideas.  Unfortunately there 
hasn't been much recently and most of it has been terrible.  I've found 
almost everything co-authored by her and someone else to be truly wretched.

There have been two recent exceptions:  The new "Solar Queen" novels
_Derelict for Trade_ and _A Mind For Trade_ co-written by Andre Norton and
Sherwood Smith.  These books are quite good, a bit less of the Norton feel
than some, but excellent novels. 

Some of you may recognize Sherwood Smith's name from the wonderful 
Exordium series (The Phoenix in Flight, Ruler of Naught...) by Sherwood 
Smith and Dave Trowbridge. (which I aslo recommend as a great series with 
wonderful Travelleresque ideas.

Happy Reading


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 97 19:13 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles Arrived

In-Reply-To: <343650D3.3466@brokersys.com>

Kenneth,

> > Just received my copy. AFAIAC, the lack of TLs makes the whole thing almost
> > worthless - any other data is irrelevant if you've no way of telling
> > whether or not they're available on the planet you're on.
>  
> Who wrote the EV?

Timothy Brown and Tony Lee seem to be the main culprits.

> This really disappoints me.  After the great supplement, EA, I was
> really hopeing for the EV to be a good supplement-kinda like DGP's 101
> Vehicles.

My feelings exactly.

> How can they skip the TL's?

Because they're very stupid?
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>That means that you *won't* have "crowds" of people in armor. But that
>also means that most directors wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to
>direct the scenes, and most of the audience wouldn't think it was much
>of a battle. <sigh>

I know that.  You know that.  Fact is that huge amounts of special effects
make movies these days.  As a result, the director's vision was lots and lots
of people.

The thing that disappoints me the most about the upcoming film isn't the lack
of powered armor, or the lack of fascist philosophy, its the fact that the
bugs have been turned from an effective communist hive-mind (as in amazingly
good, tight and sound tactics) to slavering H.R. Giger wannabes.

I'll admit though, it'll probably be neat to see vaguely saurian pointy
clawed monsters tear apart infantrymen as explosions light up the landscape.

Semo

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 16:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>I *really* think that you could handle most armor scenes with special
>effects. And for the ones where you can't the objections the director
>had are silly. Of *course* the suits are bulky. If he'd read the book,
>he'd have noticed that a suited trooper was described as an *eight
>foot* tall hydrocephalic gorilla. 
>
>At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
>the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously
>doubt that more than half a dozen of the suits would be needed for the
>shots that have to be done "live".

I said bulky, not large.  There is a difference.  There's a discussion group
somewhere out there on the web, and one of the members of this group was
involved somewhere in the film and he would give updates every once in awhile
about what was going on.  Apparently, the suits were too _bulky_.  As in they
didn't "work" right when people were wearing them.

That, and all this was being filmed in the desert.  That's a big point to
remember.  Not on air conditioned soundstages.

I don't know.  Maybe they could have put in powered armor.  That would have
been cool.  When it comes down to it though, I'm a little glad it won't be in
it.  I would hate to see how much they butchered my idea of powered armor
from the book (I have visions of the horrible HORRIBLE Avalon Hill
disco-seventies concepts).

No use bitching about it now.  What's done is done.

Semo

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:15:38 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

In mail you write:

> At 02:18 am 10/05/97 PST, you wrote:
>>At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
>>the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously
>
>    HRMMM? More details, please!  I've been wanting to make a suit of powered
> armor for a Halloween costume for some time ...

You don't have the budget of even a *small* movie company.

Anyway, back in the 60s GE was working on some "man amplifiers".
Basicly along the lines of the cargo handler gizmo Ripley used to duel
the Queen Alien. 

I don't think it'd be *that* hard to build something. It doesn't need
the upper body strength. And anybody who has watched shows like Beyond
2000, has seen stuff like the *human*-powered leg extenions that let
you run about 20 mph or hop like a kangaroo...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:57:10 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

In mail you write:

> Well, of course the larger systems will also have interplanetary
> traffic at the gas giant using it for fuel, plus you will have
> traffic in an out getting fuel to sell at port.

Not if the main world has any kind of a decent hydro value!

> The travel times to jump at a gas giant are only a few hours
> more (which can easily be lost in waiting for traffic or
> ones turn to refuel at port).  Add the free cost and I see
> it as immentently viable.

Only if you are "just passing thru". If you aren't then it gets ugly.

> Not necessarily.  What does it cost to split the water?  How
> does this compare to shipping (mining a gas giant would
> just require throwing containers into a trajectory that
> reaches the main planet eventually (like we currently do
> by sticking punny little chemical thrusters on our probes).
> Then it coasts for free (no fuel, no salaries, no nothing)
> and is picked up at the main planet.

Sorry, but the energy required to split water is pretty miniscule
compared to the energy cost of travelling to and from the GG. Also, you
can't just throw a container into a trajectory. It has to go deep
enough to pick reach a reasonable density, and that means that it needs
*active* steering to compensate for atmospheric effects on it's path.
And for that matter, it has to *slow down* while scooping. You *can't*
scoop at orbital velocities, the stresses would tear the ship apart.

And finally, even when you get your "container" of high pressure GG
atmosphere, you still have to refine it! It's got a lot more than
"just" hydrogen in there.

>>If a trader loses several days each jump by refuelling at Gas Giants, he
>>won't be able to survive on what he can earn at standard freight rates
>>in the rest of the time.
>
> A slow ship looses, at most, looses just under a day (compared to an
> Earth sized world).  A fast ship looses as little as 5 hours.
> looses

Huh? What about the travel between the GG and the mainworld? That's
several *days*.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:54:55 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Phase Transitions?

Leonard writes
>So basicly, if the universe *does* have a lower energy state, "kicking"
>it the wrong way would result in it transitioning to the lower energy
>state, which will have noticeably different properties.

The universe afterwards doesn't necessarily have fundamentally
different properties - it's the transition that gets you in trouble.
In particular, it's likely to trigger an epoch of inflation, like the
last (only) phase transition did, a short fraction of a second after
the big bang. During inflation the universe expands exponentially
(instead of linearly-and-slowing-slightly, like it is now); in a 
few nanomircopico seconds the whole universe would expand by a factor
of 10^34 or so. This means that your head and feet would now be 
2x10^34 meters apart, which is generally held to be Bad. 

Fortunately there's no particular reason to assume that we're not
in a a real minimum for vacuum energy, and hence no reason to assume
that transitions are possible. (Although I saw tounge-in-cheek 
articles suggesting that the Supercollider could trigger this effect...)

Bruce

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:42:04 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

>Perhaps it is time to change the subject line. At the moment we seem to
>be moving into another favorite topic of mine, Traveller economics.

Feel free, but I'll leave it for now since it may not be that the
transtion is complete.

>>Well, of course the larger systems will also have interplanetary traffic at
>>the gas giant using it for fuel,
>
>If by 'larger systems' you mean systems with a lot of people, then that
>isn't going to help the poor pirate at all, since such a system would have
>the ability to patrol itself.

Well, I thought we were past the pirates.  In any case, you depend
heavily on larger systems providing resrouces for smaller systems.
Patrolling places like the gas giants in their own system eats into
those resources.

>>plus you will have traffic in an out getting fuel to sell at port. Nor
>>do I agree that skipping port would be only when unavoidable. The travel
>>times to jump at a gas giant are only a few hours more (which can easily
>>be lost in waiting for traffic or ones turn to refuel at port).  Add the
>>free cost and I see it as immensently viable.
>
> When you add the fact that
>passengers might not enjoy diving into a Gas Giant

OTOH, it might be one of the great high points of a passage.  Very
dramatic and scenic.

>(btw. in all your
>arguments you are assuming that refuelling at a Gas Giant is just as
>safe as refuelling at a starport

Well, since you are arguing that it wouldn't happen, and I am only
arguing that it is not unreasonable, then I am free to postulate
anything that is reasonable while you have a certain burden of
proof.  You could relieve yourself of that burden by only claiming
that one can set up the world in a way where gas giants wouldn't
be used for refueling, but I don't actually disagree with that
premise.

>may care about hours such a trip adds to the journey

Until you figure out the delays one encounters at a star port
(for example, only one ship can refuel at each refueling point,
but the there is a lot of room at a gas giant).

>>Not necessarily.  What does it cost to split the water?

>About Cr5/T (That's what it costs to run a fuel purifier plant and a power
>plant to supply the energy; that does assume that you can sell all the
>fuel you refine). And that gives you refined fuel. The uncracked water
>will give you unrefined fuel right away.

Well, I might agree that there is a problem in not distinguishing
between what it costs to actualy split water as opposed to just
sperate hydrogen from other gases.

>>A slow ship looses, at most, looses just under a day (compared to an
>>Earth sized world).

>Far too much.

Only if you assume the that merchant could reliably count on using
that time hauling cargo.  If he is not fully booked, thing are
different.
>
>>A fast ship looses as little as 5 hours.
>
>Very few merchants will have fast ships.

Well, even measly jump to ship can loose as little as about
8 hours.  (And I don't know that very few merchants will have
fast ships, I agree that the fixed cargo cost per jump is a
problem here, but the setting does imply that they are not
uncommon).  In any case, we don't have "no" ships using
gas giants, we have faster ships, ships not fully booked,
and ships passing through.  Is it "most" I don't know.  Is
is "some"? Yes.


>Well, if you take the numbers I present below and add about 20% to the
>ticket prices and subtract about 1/3 from the freight rates, you will
>get something close to what you'd get with the official expenses.

Thanks.  I'll take a look.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1919
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 6 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1920



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Imperial Squadrons
Imperial Squadrons
Re: Industrial capacity
Cooling suits
Re: Snowblower-7 damage rating?
Re: Software for Traveller
Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1916
RE: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Books & Andre Norton
Re: Obsidian Points
Re: Tigress and Plankwell?
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1916
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
RE: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)
Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction
Re: Books & Andre Norton
Starports
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: TML: Physicists

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:29:09 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Imperial Squadrons

(Pardon me - that should have gone to gdw-beta.)

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:28:39 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Imperial Squadrons

It sounds...interesting. Without seeing it, I'm still a little worried
about it being written without reference to ship design or combat rules;
it seems to me that large amounts of naval doctrine do depend on 
technological issues (practicality of fighters, to name one example) that
require ship design and combat rules. And I know that I personally would be
disappointed in a section on roll-playing in the Navy that didn't include
a single naval ship design - or even some clues as to what a typical naval
ship looks like. (How big is a TL-12 battleship? Does the nascent 
Imperium use battleriders? That sort of thing.)

THe playing-your-own FFW does sound fairly cool (especially if it fixes
the problems with bombardment/SDB combat in the original FFW)(Ground
forces and SDB forces took damage as a percentage, not a absolute value, so
it was just as easy to fry a 500-point corps-sized unit from orbit as a
1-point battalion.) 

Anyway, overall it sounds at least as interesting as PE.
Isn't it ironic (or possibly just depressing) that many o fthe best T4
supplements are those that are completely decoupled from the T4 rules?

Bruce

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:35:59 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

>Scott Ellsworth writes:
>>I use a quality of life argument - I have been trying to make the universe
>>match the following principles:
>>
>>1.  Economic growth is maximized in the 100M-50G range,
>
>Eh? 100 million to 50 gigallion?

1e8-5e10.  I usually use G as the billion prefix, rather than B, and I use
the US billion, wich is 1000 million, rahter than the European billion,
which is a million million.  Sorry for not making this clear.

Say, does a hard drive or computer system localized for Europe show a 1.2GB
drive as a 1200MB drive?



.

>>...depending on the world in question.  You do not want a world too small,
>>but when they get to large, administration costs go non linear, thus it is
>>categorically hard to administer a world of a billion, than 10 worlds of a
>>hundred million.
>
>That's one of the arguments I use for reducing the average production of a
>high-population world (something I'd love to see canonized). In my Traveller
>universe any world with a population of over 100,000,000 suffers a gradual
>reduction in their average _surplus_ production.

I like that a lot.  I am going to steal it.

>>3.  High tech makes some previously unlivable places acceptable - by TL12,
>>grav cities and underwater cities easily add a factor of three to the area
>>available for life, so I have no problem with 15G people on an earthlike
>>world.
>
>You must mean 15B not 15G, right?

Yep.  15000 million.

>
>>I would bet, though, that systems will average in the hundreds of millions,
>>as this leads to lots of space for the people who do so to enjoy.
>
>My own theory about the Siru Zirka is that the Vilani deliberately kept the
>populations of their worlds low and that most of their planets lay in the
>pop 7-8 range. That would go a long way to explain how the Terrans managed
>to defeat them (Well, perhaps not explain, but at least make it more
>plausible).

Something like this has to be true, as the ZS was just too big an oppoonent
to lose, unless they had some kind of tech disadvantage.

Scott

- -------
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu.  http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz/
"You die, she dies, EVERYbody dies" - Heavy Metal
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results" -
Calvin Coolidge, attrib. by Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934)

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 15:01:55 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
Subject: Cooling suits

This is off topic, but...

If anyone is interested in it, several years ago my wife and I built
a spacesuit mockup for a costume contest, with functional cooling
and ventilation systems (which were pretty necessary...).
I don't think posting details to the list is a good idea, but
anyone who wants to know can email me and I'll write up and send
out a summary to those who are interested.

- -george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:59:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Snowblower-7 damage rating?

On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 08:50 PM 10/4/97 -0500, Rod wrote:
> 
> >	Just out of curiosity, are there any canonical sources for damage
> >ratings for snowblowers at various tech levels?
> 
> Like I'm supposed to be able to SLEEP after this one.
> 
> 

Shop SMART! Shop S-MART!

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:24:26 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Software for Traveller

Okay, I'll be greedy, both. I am now switched over to T4, so that one
first. <scarcasm mode on>
Of course I want this tommorrow,  cause I know you have nothing better to
do than please me. <scarcasm mode off> Seriously, anything you can do
would me appreciated.
 
Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Fri, 3 Oct 97 10:22 BST-1 ilaskey@cix.compulink.co.uk (Iain Laskey)
writes:
>Thanks to all for the feedback. Some very good ideas there and some 
>serious tasks to undertake too! One final question:
>
>Should I stick with CT rules or go for T4.x?
>
>Iain
>
>

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:17:46 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

Jory, 

One question? What if there is more than one ship?

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:20:23 -0700 "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
writes:
>I was thinking, what if a Jump ship had a Spinal gunmount (say Meson),
>equipped to be able to convert all jump mass into energy and channel 
>it
>through the spinal gunmount?  Sure, it's a one-shot deal between
>fuel-ups, but it would kick butt as a last-ditch offense.  Just figure 
>a
>full drop tank full of fuel, convert all that fuel to energy (joules?)
>and then figure if a hit, the damage done.  (probably a ludicrous 
>amount
>that instantly vaporizes most other ships).
>
>What do you all think?
>
>--
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com
>
>
>

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:18:09 EDT
From: arbor9000@juno.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1916

unsubscribe traveller-digest

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:01:38 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)

On Friday, October 03, 1997 11:20 PM, Colin Hutchinson [SMTP:chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au] wrote:
> I may be coming in to this rather late, but the figures provided in TCS,
> form which you seem to work are, IMHO, indeed a little high.  Those in the
> INH (imperial navy handbook)seem a lot better.  (a note from J Cunningham in
> INH runs "I remember computing a budget for a medium sized world using the
> striker system (or was it TCS?)and computing that the world would be able to
> build and maintain severalhundred Tigress class 500,000 ton dreadnoughts per
> year.  Mr. Miller was not amused by the fact that the design rules made this
> possible, and told us to more or less ignore the system.") Check out the
> campaign rules in there if you have one.  If you do not have a copy here are
> some parts.

I know I've missed something now...what is the Imperial Navy Handbook?

I'm not very comfortable with the numbers myself, but I've been working with what sources I can find

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never anger a dragon, for they have found you are crunchy, and go well with Brie!

Douglas Glatz, MCSE
douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:39:18 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 03:09 PM 10/5/97 +0000, Dave Golden wrote:
>At 02:18 am 10/05/97 PST, you wrote:
>>At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
>>the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously
>
>	HRMMM? More details, please!  I've been wanting to make a suit of powered
>armor for a Halloween costume for some time ...
>-- 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
>
>

Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide, page 20. Looks so much like the suit
description from the ST book that I think Heinlien would have kissed the
illustrator for getting it so perfect.

Just needs weapons to fill it out.

Garry

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 97 15:54:41 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

On 10/05/97 at 05:04 PM,  Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> said:

>A related question: Is the Ileish Revolt a bunch of
>selfish guys revolting against the noble nobles (and being heroically
>outfought) or a bunch of noble guys revolting against the selfish nobles
>(and being brutally crushed)? 

Yes!

And I really mean it.  I think it should be set up to go *either* way. That
way GM's could run campaigns either way or, as I would do it, both ways.  

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

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 97 16:08:02 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Books & Andre Norton

On 10/05/97 at 11:17 AM,  "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com> said:

>Her SF is great stuff to read for Traveller ideas.  Unfortunately there 
>hasn't been much recently and most of it has been terrible.  I've found 
>almost everything co-authored by her and someone else to be truly
>wretched.

Umm, well she's no spring chicken, you know. I read a lot of her stuff back
in the 60's, and it was old then. To be honest, I thought "Andre Norton"
had died years ago. 

One thing I've always wanted to know, and never tried to dig out...what's
her real name?

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

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 97 15:45:51 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Obsidian Points

On 10/05/97 at 01:50 AM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

>> Which cloth armor won't do, hence its superiority.  Many Spaniards adopted
>> variants of Aztec rolled-cotton armor because it was lighter, more
>> comfortable, and more effective against Aztec weaponry than chain.

>Which is weird, because you *have* to wear quilted padding that is
>effectively the same as that "cloth armor" *under* your chainmail. 

Guys, call me crazy, but I don't think the Conquestadors wore chainmail.
Chainmail was "out of fashion" by that time, wasn't it?

They wore breastplates and helments, but little else in the way of actual
armor, if I recall correctly.  They might have ditched the breastplate too
by that time.

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

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 09:16:19 -0700
From: "Brian A. Howard" <bruadh@southwest.net>
Subject: Re: Tigress and Plankwell?

At 04:24 PM 10/1/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Flying Sex-Toys of the Shattered Imperium (name given to the book by an
>ex-gf who games-- look at the cover) isn't going to tell you much about the
>Tigress (the ultimate Happy Fun Ball/Space Pac-Man) or the Plankwell;
>they're from Supplement 9, Fighting Ships.
>
Oh, just great, Doug! Now I'm not going to able to look at that picture
again without sending my mind into the gutter! ;-p
Brian A. Howard

If you hear the sound of a Babel fish, run. 
For a Vogon constuctor fleet cannot be far behind.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 97 15:39:31 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

On 10/04/97 at 11:25 PM,  Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> said:

>> I, personally, don't think a human society could *maintain* that nobel
>> attitude.  I'm afraid it would evolve into precisely what you describe, and
>> based on RAH's other writings I suspect he would agree. But he was
>> presenting a series of social lessons in ST, more than trying to describe
>> how a *real* society would organize itself, so he had to maintain an
>> unrealistic level of idealism in the book.

>In some ways this reminds me of Niven and Pournelle's Second Empire, in
>which the nobility is largely, ah, noble, commited to securing benefits
>for society at large...though N&P have stated explicitly that there's no
>reason to expect this to last very long, it *does* happen to societies
>from time to time.

Yes, that's true.  The nobility of the Second Empire's nobles had already
slipped somewhat by the time of _King David's Spaceship_, I do believe.

>Back to Traveller:  At what point in 3I history did this situation occur,
>if ever?  

Good question! ;->

>M:0 has the scheming Cleon maneuvering to grab and consolidate
>his power base, driving off or killing rivals and operating with a firm
>eye on the bottom line, so probably not then; the RSB implies that, at
>least in retrospect, Spinward Marches nobility had a large fraction of
>dissipated scheming parasites; so -- was there some Camelot period in
>between when the nobility was largely dedicated to the common good? 

Frankly, I doubt it.  However, I think that during the early days of 3I
*many* (but not most) leaders, whether nobles or commoners, were driven by
a sense of (sp for sure!)  "noblesse oblige."  I think it would be most
evident in young, dynamic, growing societies, and less evident in large,
older, more static societies.

>> One point that a lot of people miss when discussing RAH's work is that most
>> of it was written for the "juvenile" market.  Some of his short fiction and
>> all his novels from _Stranger In A Strange Land_  on were written for
>> adults, but most of his work in the 40's and 50's was aimed *specifically*
>> at boys and girls in the 8 to 16 age range.  This colored his writing, what
>> subjects he covered, how he covered them, how his characters acted and
>> reacted, etc. 

>Yes, and reading his 'juveniles' today always makes me wonder if he was
>aiming too high, or if kids in general were just far more socially
>'intelligent' than their modern replacements (save my own brilliantly
>Heinleinesque daughter, of course. :))

I don't know.  It really *seems* like there has been a drop in the social
consciousness and morality (if not the actual intelligence) of our
children..excepting the children of our list members, of course. ;-> That's
probably not true, just me getting closer to being a "grumpy old coot"..I
hope.

Eris,
    grumpy old coot, in training!
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 01:33:54
From: Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1916

>From: SemoFetus@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1904
>

>5% of someone's yearly income going to _only_ the navies?  I reiterate what I
>said at the beginning of this debate:  this could really be considered Boston
>Tea Party levels of taxation.  In my humble opinion, I think that people
>wouldn't stand for this.  I think naval taxes would be among the lowest taxes
>to avoid revolt and dissent.  The vast majority of people in Traveller are
>_not_ starfarers.  In fact, there's a good chance that most people will not
>ever even see a spaceship close up, let alone a starship.

No, no, yes and no.

David Stockman "The triumph of politics" p297. "When fully implemented the
<Reagan Administration> DOD plan would cost 7.5% of GDP. That was not too
much. We had spent far more of our national defense, 8 to 10 percent, in
the 1950s and 1960s". Dave Stockman was heading up OMB under Reagan, so I
trust his numbers.

Now, the only place defense spending can come out of is taxes. You can levy
em directly, indirectly or thru government ownership of means of
production, but at the end of the day taxes is what they all are.

Also, if you check PE you get some pretty obscene rates of taxation with
certain government types - I am thinking of civil service and impersonal
bureaucracies.

Yes, most people will have the same relationship to starships that most
people had to aircraft in the twenties - we recognise their existance, but
who can afford it when a jump-1 costs about a years income ?

However, every world that came out of the Long Night will have cultural
memories of pirates and reavers. Look at the number of old Indian forts in
the Midwest, and look at when the military bases built there got
decommissioned.

As to the majoity of people not seeing a spaceship, nope. No way. Space
travel is at the heart of the Imperium. Just becasue you cant aford it
doesnt mean you dont go to the starport and wave goodbye to Cousin Beth,
who got accepted into the Marines and is shipping off to Boot Camp on a
planet a whole 6 parsecs away ...

In-system travel is also reasonably affordable, especially with TL11
thruster plates linked up to the abomination known as Fusion Plus.


>
>So, where am I going with this?  The further removed people are from
>something, the less they will like paying _high_ taxes for it.  Sure, every
>enlightened person "knows" that the navy keeps the pirates, the Zhos,
>theVargr and the Aslan out of our system.  It doesn't mean they have to like
>paying for it.

5% is *not* high tax rates.

>
>Make 5% _total_ military and imperial spending (including local army, wet
>navy, aerospace force, space force, Imperial Scouts, etc.) and I'll accept
>this.

Nope. See above. As for army/navy shares, check the size of the Royal Navy
vs the size of the British Army in the heyday of Empire. The British Empire
didnt have an army, becasue with naval dominance it didnt need one. Same
within Imperial space. I think it reasonable that the IN has as many ships
of the line as the Imperial Marines have battallions.

ment here if you mean IMPERIAL military.  Planetary citizens are
>going to get very itchy if they have no standing army.  The Imperial military
>is mainly the navy, as far as I can gather from all canon sources.  The
>marines serve as ship's troops and jump troops.  The Imperium has a small
>army, but relies mostly on local worlds and mercenaries to keep the peace.
> Imperial army spending will be low, but individual world spending would be
>considerably higher.

*thinks* Australia is a TL7-8 country, 19 million people, and I think we
have an army of four 700 men battallions, and I think twelve tanks. OK, our
navy and air force are big by regional standards, but I dont see people
demanding a bigger standing army.

>
>>Yes. All that stuff is covered in the 30% cost per annum for maintainence.
>>Assuming a fleet of 70 Kinuirs, we are spending the equivalent of building
>>18 Kinuirs a year in recurrent naval spending. That pays for a *lot* of
>>navy bureaucrats, admirals piloting a desk, maintainence depot workers,
>>spare parts subcontractors and so on.
>
>Where are you pulling this 30% number out from?

The base 10%, doubled for imported high-tech equipment as per Striker, and
adding 10% to cover supporting all those well-connected drones at Sector
HQ, contracting Famile Spofulam for R+D and doing ship maintainence three
times as well as civilians do.

The point of picking 30% was to take a ridiculous maintainence number and
prove you can *still* have enough of a fleet to secure the subsector from
one hi-pop, moderate tech world.

>
>>This is getting into the whole "Are fighters viable under Trav rules"
>debate.
>>Me, I say anything without a gigawatt main weapon capable of combat out to 
>>one light-second should not stand in line of battle, but may be suitable
>>for auxilary duty (eg patrol, escort and anti-pirate work).
>
>Fighters are canon, and have been since the early days of Traveller.  Since
>we're mainly dealing with canon here, we should keep them regardless of the
>"are fighters viable under trave rules" debate.

History is full of weapon systems that were essentially useless, but kept
for various reasons. Andy Fishers comment on the RN's Reserve Fleet ("A
miser's hoard of useless junk ... a modern armoured cruiser would lap them
up like an armadillo on an anthill") comes to mind.

Ian Whitchurch

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:59:07 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>  MI operate *very* spread out. Remember, they do their "tight sweeps"
with
> men around 50 yards apart! On the attack on the skinny planet they were
> more than a hundred yards apart (just barely in sight of each other, as
> I recall).

I think they were farther apart than that, more like tens of miles.

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:52:09 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>From a logistics point of view, I also think it would be difficult for
> someone watching the movie to tell the main character's suit from anyone
> else's (this wasn't a reason I heard, this is just my own observation).


Yeah, and then try convincing a bunch of actors to cover their faces from
the admiring eyes of the camera. ;)

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:54:13 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: RE: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)

>I know I've missed something now...what is the Imperial Navy Handbook?
>
>I'm not very comfortable with the numbers myself, but I've been working
with what sources I can find

The INH was a never(?) published work, I think By HIWG.  I inherited it some
yoears ago from a friend.  (I do not know much about it myself).  It is a
mix of both old and new material, The charts in question are an expansion of
those in Striker.  I thought it would provide lower figure than those in
TCS.  (Which it does if you assume that we are talking about the imperium) 
If it was ever called Imperial squadrons, I do not know-But I would like to
know.
BTW It is notaeable that you get very different sized fleets depending on
the costs of the ships, as claculated using different protocols, i.e.
TNE,MT, CT.


                                Colin

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 08:34:45 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Spinal Weapons of MASS Destruction

<HTML>
If there is more then one ship, you're screwed as without jump and manuever
fuel, and power systems temporaily offline, you are essentially a sitting
duck with an enormous bull's eye painted on you.&nbsp; :)

<P>--
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The J-Man
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
GOC Systems
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
j-man@iname.com
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 08:53:15 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Books & Andre Norton

<HTML>
&nbsp;

<P>Eris Reddoch wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On 10/05/97 at 11:17 AM,&nbsp; "John R. Snead" &lt;jsnead@netcom.com>
said:

<P>>Her SF is great stuff to read for Traveller ideas.&nbsp; Unfortunately there
<BR>>hasn't been much recently and most of it has been terrible.&nbsp; I've found
<BR>>almost everything co-authored by her and someone else to be truly 
<BR>>wretched.

<P>Umm, well she's no spring chicken, you know. I read a lot of her stuff back
<BR>in the 60's, and it was old then. To be honest, I thought "Andre Norton"
<BR>had died years ago.

<P>One thing I've always wanted to know, and never tried to dig out...what's
<BR>her real name?

<P>Eris
<BR>--
<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------
<BR>eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; using MR/2 ICE #245
<BR>-----------------------------------------------------------</BLOCKQUOTE>

I think her real name is Alice Mary Norton, or Anna Marie Norton.

<BR>&nbsp;

<P>--
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The J-Man
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
GOC Systems
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
j-man@iname.com
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 11:52:31 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Starports

Does anybody have any idea how much it costs to build a starport, or how
big/how large thery are.  (Not in terms of traffic)?

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 21:51:13 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 01:15 pm 10/05/97 PST, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>> At 02:18 am 10/05/97 PST, you wrote:
>>>At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
>>>the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously
>>
>>    HRMMM? More details, please!  I've been wanting to make a suit of
powered
>> armor for a Halloween costume for some time ...
>
>You don't have the budget of even a *small* movie company.

Well, actually, I didn't mean a *really* powered set of armor ... although
it'd be nice...

- -- 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: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 20:55:05 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

Michael Koehne wrote

> Moin Peter Newman,
> 
> > Jump drives do improve in fuel efficency (in MT) but not until TL 17.
> > This implies three things to me:
> 
>         of course they improve in MT and TNE, while they dont improve
>         in CT/T4. The MT/TNE formular is (N+1)*5%*(P/N) where N is jump
>         drives number, and P the number of parsecs.

Jump Drives do _not_ improve in fuel efficency in MT until TL 17.  MT
states (Referee's Manual pg 64) Fuel Volume per jump unit (ie
displacement ton of jump drive) "Fuel Volume at TL 9 to 16: x5 (67.5 kl
per jump unit"  In MT jump drives between TL 9 and 16 use 5 times the
drive volume in fuel.  Jump drives do not reduce in volume in MT at any
TL (Ref's Manual pg 64).

Jump Drives (of the same jump number) do _not_ improve in fuel efficency
in TNE at all.  FF&S says (pg 42) "Jump drive machinery requirements are
tied to the volume of the hull and the maximum distance the hull is
capable of jumping...The volume of the jump drive, as a percentage of
the total volume of the ship is equal to 1 plus the maximum jump number
in parsecs [this formula gives the exact same results as MT's table
does] ....Jump drives require fuel, displacement mass, and coolant, all
of which are collectively called jump fuel (liquid hydrogen being used
for all three functions)  The fuel necessary for a jump of 1 parsec is
equal to the total volume of the jump drive machinery multiplied by 5
and divided by the ships maximum jump number.

This rule means that a ship which is capable of a higher jump will use
less fuel for a jump of the same distance as a less capable ship. 
However this has nothing to do with Tech level.  A TL 16 TNE Jump 1 ship
will use exactly the same ammount of fuel for a jump 1 as a TL 9 jump 1
ship will. A TL 11 jump 2 ship of the same size will use less fuel for a
1 parsec jump than this TL 16 jump 1 ship will.

 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1920
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 6 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1921



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

[OT] Mac file comparison (was Re: High tech "oops")
Re: The Ilelish Revolt (was Re: Starship Troopers)
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Take off/Landing Thoughts
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Re: Taxation / Naval Budget
RE: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)
Re: T4.1 date gone back again
Re: THUDDD update
Re: Snub Pistols
book sizes [was 101 Religions]
Conquistadors
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Re: Starship Troopers
Tax rates
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Questions about Traveller

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 97 23:34:06 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: [OT] Mac file comparison (was Re: High tech "oops")

On 1997-10-05 03:45, Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> wrote the 
following:

>BTW, silly Mac question... How the hell do you *compare* files? I had
>two floppies both of which seemed to have the same program on them, but
>I thought one copy might be damaged. Under MS-DOS, I'd just run a
>compare utility. But I can't find anything like that....

There are several options, depending on why you want to compare them...

File Assistant:

An application that first came with powerbooks which compares files and 
folders, synchronizing them to the most recent versions. I believe that 
the latest system software disks allow you to install it as well...

File Buddy:

imho, the most straightforward option if you're just looking for a strict 
"yes" or "no" answer to the question "Are these files the same?" It's 
shareware and does a plethora of other houskeeping chores like finding 
files, checking aliases, unused icon files, finding duplicate files, etc.

Spring Cleaning:

Along the lines of File Buddy, but it's commercial software from Aladdin 
Systems. Cleans the system folder, finds duplicate files giving you the 
option of selecting some for deletion, etc.

ResCompare:

A handy little shareware item that allows you to compare the resource and 
data forks of a file and create an updater for them. So if you have 
created a newer version of your software and want to distribute a patch 
to update an older version to save download time/disk space, you can use 
this.


I know there's more. BBEdit is excellent at straight text file 
comparison, it gives a super-cool list of what's different in each file, 
allows multiple file comparisons, and is the greatest plain text editor 
around -- with grep search and replace and all that fun stuff.  It the 
cat's meow for manipulation of Traveller sector data and such. It makes a 
totally boffo html editor. I wish Windows had something similar, it sure 
would be useful at work...

I suspect that "File Buddy" would do the trick for you, since you just 
want to check to see whether the files are the same or not. You could 
find it at your local info-mac mirror, I'm sure. Or www.filez.com. Or, my 
personal favourite for keeping track of the newest and latest versions of 
commercial and shareware software: www.versiontracker.com.


- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 21:38:06 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: The Ilelish Revolt (was Re: Starship Troopers)

Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote

> Is the Ileish Revolt a bunch of
> selfish guys revolting against the noble nobles (and being heroically
> outfought) or a bunch of noble guys revolting against the selfish nobles
> (and being brutally crushed)? The whole tenor of Milieu 400 will depend
> on that.

If you look at the map in MT's Referee's Manual (pg 102) of Cultural
Regions of the Imperium you will see that the Ilelish Cultural region
"Regions which have historically developed independant cultures and
which have retained their cultural identity iunder the Imperium."
occupies subsectors B,C,F, and G of Illelish Sector while the main
battlefields of the Illelish Revolt (from Wars of the Imperium Map -
MT's Imperial Encyclopedia inside front cover) indicates that the area
of the Ilelish Revolt (418 to 435) was subsectors N & O of Gushmege and
subsectors A,B,C,G, and H of Illelish.  (note thet MT refers to the
Sector as Illelish with 3 l's and the culture & war as Ilelish with only
2 l's).  This similarity of area is presumably _not_ a coincidence.

Therefore I think the whole question of:

> Is the Ileish Revolt a bunch of
> selfish guys revolting against the noble nobles (and being heroically
> outfought) or a bunch of noble guys revolting against the selfish     > nobles (and being brutally crushed)?

will depend on what your assesment of the Ilelish culture is.  We do not
have a good canonical sense of what the Ilelish culture is like so it
will be difficult to make this decision.  MT's depiction of Dulinor may
and does provide some information about Ilelish culture but he was also
influenced by the unusual culture of his home planet Dlan.

I will note that in my Third Imperium the Ilelish Pacification Campaigns
(76 to 120 is the date for the pacification campaigns in general) is
"a bunch of noble guys revolting against the selfish nobles (and being
brutally crushed)."

The Ilelish Pacification Campaign took place in subsectors G,J,K, and L
of Zarushagar while the Darmine Cultural region occupies subsectors
J,K,O, and P of Zarushagar.  It seems clear to me that a good part of
the Ilelish Pacification Campaign was the pacification of the Darmine.

The Darmine (a minor human race), as developed by me, and as posted here
a few months ago, had traditionally not gotten along with the Vilani.
They had been culturally oppresed during the First Imperium and welcomed
the Second Imperium as liberators.  The Third Imperium seems to be
continuing in the intolerant mode of the First Imperium.

The Darmine are unusual looking, have a strange (and annoying to
outsiders) religion based on numerology, and have a tendancy to be
fairly sharp traders.  In the First Imperium they occupied a cultural
niche somewhat akin to that of the Chinese in southeast asia or the jews
in medieval Europe.  They were persecuted and disproportionately
merchantile.

- -- 
 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:29:31 +1000
From: Scott & Isabell <becubed@connexus.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 19:52 5/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>From a logistics point of view, I also think it would be difficult for
>> someone watching the movie to tell the main character's suit from anyone
>> else's (this wasn't a reason I heard, this is just my own observation).
>
>
>Yeah, and then try convincing a bunch of actors to cover their faces from
>the admiring eyes of the camera. ;)
>
That was one of the things mentioned in the book The Making of Dune. The
still suits had to be designed so that the actors faces could be seen.

Scott

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 02:48:33 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Joseph R. Dietrich writes:

>>From a logistics point of view, I also think it would be difficult for
>> someone watching the movie to tell the main character's suit from anyone
>> else's (this wasn't a reason I heard, this is just my own observation).
>
>Yeah, and then try convincing a bunch of actors to cover their faces from
>the admiring eyes of the camera. ;)

   Three words: clear face shields.  They use them in underwater movies
(i.e. The Abyss) all the time with no problem.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 02:08:44 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Take off/Landing Thoughts

John Wood wrote:
> 
> Hi Ken - I've been enjoying your March Harrier posts a lot!  A couple of
> quibbles/queries, though:
> 
> > A reactionless drive means that there is no reaction that takes place
> > to produce thrust, like burning fuel in rockets.
> 
> Effectively true, but IMO misleading.  A reaction drive just needs to
> throw something out the back - the faster you throw, the less you need
> to throw, but (for instance) burning fuel isn't part of what makes it a
> reaction drive.  You could stand at the back of the ship throwing out
> vegetable peelings if you didn't mind going veeeerrrry slooooowly (and
> getting arrested for littering).

Good point.  In my sentence above, I was trying to clue my players in
(who have never played Traveller before our campaign--and I'm slowly
feeding them new things as we go along) as to what a reactionless drive
is.

I was trying to let them know with an explanation they would
understand--lowest common denominator approach.

For one of my players, this is really easy to do.  Heck, he knows more
about real science than I do (which isn't saying a lot).  Two of my
players are about my speed, and one is totally clueless.  He didn't even
know what "bow" and "aft" meant before we started playing this game.

As I stated in my first March Harrier post, I'm writing these March
Harrier posts in very clear, simple, layman's terms.

When you are trying to explain reactionless drives, my players will draw
a blank.  They don't know what "reactionless" means.  A rocket is a
"reaction" based drive, and everybody knows what a rocket is, so I used
that as my example.

> >  (If ever the ship come in contact with a planet with higher than a 4G
> > gravity field, the ship will be unable to land.)
> 
> Well, it certainly won't be able to take off unassisted, but could it
> land like the Space Shuttle?  It's got a streamlined hull, after all.

Well, actually, this is where I think the Traveller rules are vague. 
Since the March Harrier is not only a streamlined hull, but also an
airframe, you are probably right.

But, as I stated in the March Harrier post, the planet's gravity is only
a factor for a ship taking off from the planet and, to a lesser degree,
when the ship is landing.

I read it like this:  the M-Drive blasts the ship off planet out of the
planet's gravitational pull.  The M-Drive also controls landings as the
ship gets into the planet's grav field.

Once the ship is within range to use its contra-grav lifters, which I
read as units that push against the gravitational field of the planet,
the planet's gravity is really no longer a factor.  The ship can land
using the contra-grav lifters.

I'd wing this in a game if we came upon a very, very high-G planet.  If
they were landing, I'd probably make some sort of roll for the PC's to
maintain control of the vessel as the ship switches from the M-Drive to
the contral grav lifters.  If they missed the roll, I'd make them go out
of control, but I'd still give them another shot of regaining control,
using the contra-grav lifters, before they smashed into the surface.

With taking off, I'd say it is not possible to take off from a world
with a higher G rating than the ship's overdrived M-Drive.

But, I could also see an argument stating that the ship's contra-grav
lifters could push the ship away from the planet enough for the G field
to weaken, allowing the PC's to engage the M-Drive and speed away.

I'd probably give them some sort of a roll on this if this happened in a
game.

What are your thoughts on this?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 02:45:00 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

SD Mooney wrote:

> That's doubling the results of the first 5D thrown..

So, you are saying that you allow a player to throw 10D?  Or you roll 5D
and double the results?

> I think that the difference is somewhat semantic, as you could roll a
> second '1' in the second batch of 5D.

It's not really semantic.  There's another difference you might not be
considering, besides the "1" rolls.  

Let's say a weapon does 3D damage, and we are using autofire.  If you
roll 6D, you could roll low enough for a character to survive and remain
conscious (however unlikely) if his stats are high enough.

Remember that each die comes off of one stat.

If you roll 3D and you double the damage, as I read the rule, then you
end up with the possibility of one die being a 6, which, doubled, will
become a 12.

It's doubtful that most characters can remain conscious with a blow of
12 points to one characteristic.

Do you see what I'm getting at?  The two methods are very similar, but
there are subtle differences.


Follow my example:

Fred   Str 4, Dex 5,  End 7

He gets hit with a 2D autofire weapon.



Your method:   damage is rolled as 4D

You roll complete average on each of the 4 dice:  3, 3, 3, 3 (total of
12 points)

Player takes 3 points from Str, 3 points from Dex, and 6 points from End
(using normal wound damage point rules, keeping the whole die together).

Fred ends up with these stats:  Str 1, Dex 2, End 1.  He's still
conscious, up and kicking.


Now, compare this to my doubling method, which is how I read the rule in
the book.  This doubling will be much more deadly for Fred.



My method:  damage is rolled as 2D doubled.

You roll complete average on each of the 2 die: 3, 3

This is doubled to 6, 6 because of autofire (total of 12 points)

Fred needs to keep the die together.  He takes off 6 points from his
End, leaving him one point, but now he's in trouble.  He's got 6 more
points he needs to take off, and he doesn't have a stat high enough to
prevent him from going unconscious.  He take it on his Dex, with the
remaining point on his Str.

This leaves Fred looking like this:  Str 3, Dex 0, End 1.

As you can see, Fred is in a much worse condition using this system
rather than your increasing the dice thrown.

Given this, you can probably see that the difference is much more than
just "half a dozen of one, 12 of the other."

In your case, with the same amount of damage, Fred stands and acts.  In
my case, Fred is out for the count, possibly killed by a coup d' gras.

> However, I take your point. How do
> you do armour?

For autofire?  I read the rule like this:  You figure penetration first,
then you double any damage that penetrates.

Example.  Fred is wearing AV 3 Diplo armor.  He's hit with 4D.  4-3=1. 
1 damage die penetrates, and now this is thrown and the result doubled
(I throw one die and get a 2.  The damage to the character is one die of
4 points that must be taken from one stat).

> I read your tweaks with interest. Combat seems not to happen too much at
> the moment in my campaign (they all - *bar* our younger player - have a
> healthy respect for guns). However, I like the T4 rules as they stand,
> sufficiently lethal and fast for me!

I don't think I posted my Snapshot Tweaks.  You're probably thinking
about my hand to hand combat tweaks.

Snapshot doesn't really do anything for the game except assign costs to
every action taken.  In this way, you can take a lot of the guess work
out of the game concerning how much a character can accomplish in the 6
second round.

It's takes a bit of getting used to, but now that I have, I love it (and
so do my players).  And, it cuts down on a lot of the discussion as to
what a character can do in those 6 seconds.  Too many times,the GM
thinks 6 seconds is such a short time, and the players are thinking that
it is ample time to do all that they want to do in one round.  Snapshot
solves all of that--a player probably has enough time to do all that he
wants in a round, but the expense to him is that he's probably going to
go later in the round allowing the bad guys to shoot at and possible
kill him first.

Or, the player can make a quick action, improving the chance that he'll
probably go first and get the drop on his opponent.

> I run initiative with the standard roll in the book, with a few mods. (D6 +
> highest leadership + tactics pool if they want + brownie points if they
> want(*) ).

I allow tactics pool too, but I do the T4 version (optional rule) where
once the tactics points are used, they are gone for the engagement.

> (*) taken from MT character generation. I use them to reward players for
> good roleplaying or ideas, as I've tightened up on the experience
> progression in skills. They are a one shot + or - 1 DM that the player can
> apply as they see fit, not unlike Karma/Fate points in other games.

Funny!  I use brownie points too, although I only allow them during
character generation.  A player can keep the brownie points he receives
in chargen, if he doesn't use them, and he is allowed to use them in
normal play--but, I don't award them in the game.  Once they are gone,
they are gone.

Given that they are a one time shot, I allow brownie points to do some
pretty miraculous things, probably more like the Fate points you are
talking about.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:07:58 +0800
From: Michael Bailey <mickb@opera.iinet.net.au>
Subject: Re: Taxation / Naval Budget

>*thinks* Australia is a TL7-8 country, 19 million people, and I think we
>have an army of four 700 men battallions, and I think twelve tanks. OK, our
>navy and air force are big by regional standards, but I dont see people
>demanding a bigger standing army.


Erk....not quite, although I'm going from memory here - if anyone really
cares I'll dig out my copy of the 1995 White Paper.  As of '95, the figure
was (roughly) 8,000 in the sharp end of the army, and about 70 Leopard
tanks.  Also about 200-300 APC's (old M113's I believe), and X Light
Armoured Vehicles (bloody memory).

Then again, that 8,000 figure might include reserves.

As an aside, defence spending in 1997-98 is of GDP.  There's apparently a
substantial push by the Defence Minister to get that back up to around 2.5%
- - but where the government is going to find another 3 odd billion is
anybody's guess (maybe they'll get it in repaid travel allowances).

Interesting article in last mopnths Oz Aviation, where the author
recommends buying 50-80 F-22's from 2005 onwards to replace the F/A-18's
and F-111's (from 2015).

ObTrav - I imagine a lot of Imperial client-states have a relationship with
the Imperium similar to that between the US and Oz.  Close defense ties,
lots of Imperial equipment in local inventories (cheaper than developing it
yourself), Imperial facilities in client states, Imperial ships visiting
local starports. Hmmmm....that gives me a few ideas....

Later,


Michael Bailey
mickb@opera.iinet.net.au
				
pillock-at-large and proud supporter of the Chelsea FC and Fremantle AFL
Clubs!

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:11:02 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: RE: Industrial Capacity (new and improved!  Corrected numbers!!)

<I'm just sorry to learn that you haven't
followed up on what PE began and worked out a consistent economic system.>

PE-Pocket Empires?  D**n, I do not have a copy, & will have to get one.  I
have tried to integrate (with some success) with WTH.  This involves quite a
lot of reverse engineering.  

<Mora, for example, will have an
<army budget of Cr370 per citizen, or MCr3,700,000. You can keep quite a
<lot of people in uniform with 3,7 trillion credits, even if you have to
<equip them too.
   
Indeed, But worlds like Mora are not that common, (hmm a population in the
20 000 000 000s- that is al lot of people).  Still, if orbital defence,
costs of Deep site Meson guns are taken into account (Shared by the army and
plaenatry navy) which run from approx 600 MCr for a puny 100m 1000 MJ up to
100, 000s MCr for Battleship sized mounts, (And a navy is a lot more cost
effective), These really eat into your income.  Never mind the cost of city
sized meason screens and Dampers.  The cost of Battledress euipped soldiers
witha all the latest gear and supporting assets is also Horrendous.  But
perhaps it is right that worlds with that much capacity (if they indeed do)
should have so much grunt at their disposal.

<Which means that if a TL 15 world want to invest in some patrol ships they
<can buy the drives from a TL 12 world and get them 15% cheaper...

including the cost of importation?

<I recognize these figures. They're from _Striker_. And they have a bigger
<spread than TCS, but about the same average. They are not going to reduce
<your fleet size significantly from TCS. They may even increase them.

I think that they are slightly more expansive than Striker.  An extra line
maybe., but they make it a lot harder to get 500 cr/ person for the navy alone.

BTW  I think I recall reading somewhere that GNP in the imperium spent on
military was only 1%, (though I cannot remember where)  this might help
reduce still further the budget.

Tricky issue.


                                Colin

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 05:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 date gone back again

In a message dated 97-10-05 09:53:15 EDT, you write:

<<  Just so long as it's right this time...  >>

Thanks for your support. I want it to be right as well.

Marc

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:36:24 +0100
From: "Nick Munn" <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: THUDDD update

Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>:

> An optional rule, hmmmm?  OK, provisional ruling:  no gcomp stacking
> allowed for the THUDDD.  How would folks feel about that?

Very happy.

Also in a similar vein, CSC allows "magnetic shielding" of vehicle 
hulls.  IIRC it handwaves that it can't be used against 
starship-calibre weapons but can we have an official "no shields" 
rule too if I'm wrong?

Nick

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:59:10 +0100
From: "Nick Munn" <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Snub Pistols

> Conclusion -
> 	1) Snub Pistols are more dangerous in T4 than they were in MT.
> 	2) Burst fire is very nasty (possibly 10D damage with a snub!)
> 	3) Initiative is critical in T4
> 	4) I like the combat system - it is fast and potentially very lethal.
> 	5) Once you get into burst fire and 5D base damage, called shots
> aren't that necessary!
> 
> Any thoughts?

One comment: never start a firefight in a hydrogen refinery with Dom 
as referee, *especially* with snub pistols.  Darned right the things 
are lethal.

Nick

P.S. Anyone ever built a .75 inch recoilless pistol, as (mis)used by 
the Stainless Steel Rat.  (Isn't it Hengabar Spofulam's birthday soon?)

Dr. Nick Munn, Dept. of Information Studies, University of Sheffield
Tel. (0)114 222 2673, email n.s.munn@sheffield.ac.uk

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:58:03 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: book sizes [was 101 Religions]

Jeff wrote:
>>Hmm...  I didn't realize that the BITS books were 40-pagers; I
>>somehow was thinking that they were 96ers. In a 96er, you can get
>>a half-page per religion, with room left over for artwork, intro,
>>index, etc.; I guess you'd be limited to a quarter-page for a
>>40-page book.  In which case, you should have room for the
>>summary and maybe a brief look at the hierarchy and major holy
>>days.
Rob replied:
>Why not print a 96-page book, if we have the material?  The cost can't be
>that much more than a 40-page (OK, a bit more but not double) and to do a
>decent job of a religion you need more than a quarter page.


Perhaps my 108 page bibliography put Andy right off the format!

Having said that though it would seem to be one option.  That, or not
having 101 religions to begin with.  What about, say, 76 or something?
(Now why does that number spring to mind?!)

It's Andy's call however and it does seem that he's judged the books so far
very well.


Hmmm, call me Mr On the Fence.

tc

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:43:32 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Conquistadors

The conquistadores wore breastplates and helmets, but quickly discovered
that cloth body protection was lighter and just as effective as metal
against obsidian-edged sword-clubs (Atlatl, wasn't it?).  

Martin

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 22:12:26 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

In mail you write:

> Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote:
>
>>SD Mooney wrote:
>
>>>         2) Burst fire is very nasty (possibly 10D damage with a snub!)
>>
>>How are you figuring that?  Burst fire damage is like autofire
>>damage--you double the dice.
>>So a snub does 5D?  Then, you doulbe these results.  Ex:  you roll 5D,
>>and the results are 1,3,5,6,2.
>>
>>This translates to damage of 2,6,10,12,4.
>
> That's doubling the results of the first 5D thrown..

Right. That's what "doubling the dice" *means*.

>>Doubling dice is just slightly different than rolling 10D.  For
>>instance, 1's aren't possible when you double dice, but are possible
>>when you roll 10D.
>
> I think that the difference is somewhat semantic, as you could roll a
> second '1' in the second batch of 5D. However, I take your point. How do
> you do armour?

There *isn't* a "second batch of 5d". You double the results of the
first 5d.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:51:02 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

In mail you write:

>>I *really* think that you could handle most armor scenes with special
>>effects. And for the ones where you can't the objections the director
>>had are silly. Of *course* the suits are bulky. If he'd read the book,
>>he'd have noticed that a suited trooper was described as an *eight
>>foot* tall hydrocephalic gorilla. 
>>
>>At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
>>the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously
>>doubt that more than half a dozen of the suits would be needed for the
>>shots that have to be done "live".
>
> I said bulky, not large.  There is a difference.  There's a discussion group
> somewhere out there on the web, and one of the members of this group was
> involved somewhere in the film and he would give updates every once in awhile
> about what was going on.  Apparently, the suits were too _bulky_.  As in they
> didn't "work" right when people were wearing them.

Well, I'd not be surprised to find that the "wrong" movement was
*right*, but not what the director wanted. After all, someone in
powered armor should "bounce around" like the astronauts on the moon,
only faster.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:54:51 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Tax rates

> Ian Whitchurch writes:

>Also, if you check PE you get some pretty obscene rates of taxation with
>certain government types - I am thinking of civil service and impersonal
>bureaucracies.

Actually, they aren't as horrble as you'd think. They can easily run into
50% or more, but that is applied to the tax base, which is the total
production of the world divided by the Culture (+1). In other words, if you
have a Culture score of 9 then the tax base is total wealth produced divided
by 10, so the 50% tax is actually only 5% of total wealth produced. So PE
propably provide less money for the navy than TCS, which is fine by me -- I
just haven't gotten around to doing the necessary sums to work with PE 
figures yet. (OTOH a world with a Culture of 1 could have taxes of 25% or
more).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8
  

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 13:20:57 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Hans (and Leonard)

Thanks for the reprise of the economic arguments against GG refuelling. 
 These (and others) were the reasons that my PC group usually paid for 
fuel except in a few cases.  Even when the mainworld was a satellite of 
a GG we still tended to prefer to pay because the Referee gave 
(a small) increased annual maintenace charge for each use of unrefined 
fuel. 

Simon

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:43:41 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

David P. Summers writes:

>>>Well, of course the larger systems will also have interplanetary traffic at
>>>the gas giant using it for fuel,
>>
>>If by 'larger systems' you mean systems with a lot of people, then that
>>isn't going to help the poor pirate at all, since such a system would have
>>the ability to patrol itself.
> 
>Well, I thought we were past the pirates.  In any case, you depend
>heavily on larger systems providing resrouces for smaller systems.
>Patrolling places like the gas giants in their own system eats into
>those resources.

I don't think 'heavily' is the proper word. I rely on the larger systems
providing 0.1% (or possibly 0.2%) of their resources for smaller systems.
That's not heavily. I really think that the remaining 99.9 or 99.8% of
their forces should be enough to cover most Gas Giants.

>>(btw. in all your
>>arguments you are assuming that refuelling at a Gas Giant is just as
>>safe as refuelling at a starport
> 
>Well, since you are arguing that it wouldn't happen, and I am only
>arguing that it is not unreasonable, then I am free to postulate
>anything that is reasonable while you have a certain burden of proof.  

True enough, but don't you think doing power dives into an Gas Giant
atmosphere is apt to be a teeny bit more hazardous than a sedate trip
down to a starport?

>>>Not necessarily.  What does it cost to split the water?
> 
>>About Cr5/T (That's what it costs to run a fuel purifier plant and a power
>>plant to supply the energy; that does assume that you can sell all the
>>fuel you refine). And that gives you refined fuel. The uncracked water
>>will give you unrefined fuel right away.
> 
>Well, I might agree that there is a problem in not distinguishing
>between what it costs to actualy split water as opposed to just
>sperate hydrogen from other gases.

The cracking can be done by the ship itself. Wilderness refuelling involves
setting down in a body of water and getting the fuel. That's something you
can do even without a fuel purifier plant.
  
>>>A slow ship looses, at most, looses just under a day (compared to an
>>>Earth sized world).
> 
>>Far too much.
> 
>Only if you assume the that merchant could reliably count on using
>that time hauling cargo.  If he is not fully booked, thing are
>different.

Not really. Adding an avoidable delay to all the unavoidable ones can't
help but decrease earnings in the long run. It's true that by the law
of averages the unavoidable delays will sometimes dovetail with the
avoidable one  --  but just as often the avoidable delay will lead to
_new_ unavoidable ones.

>Well, even measly jump to ship can loose as little as about 8 hours.

I can't parse that sentense. What do you mean?

>(And I don't know that very few merchants will have fast ships, I agree
>that the fixed cargo cost per jump is a problem here, but the setting 
>does imply that they are not uncommon).  

A 6G jump-1 freighter has about 17% less cargo space and costs about 2.6
more than a 1G jump-1 freighter. That makes freight charges more than 3
times those of the 1G ship. How often do you think that ten and a quarter
hours in delivery times (the difference a 6G drive makes over a 1G when 
going to and from a size 8 world) would make enough of a difference to
warrant paying 3 times as much for delivery? How common do you think
such ships would be? And, as I mentioned before, such a ship would lose
3 times as much for each hour it lost by refuelling at a Gas Giant
instead of at an ordinary world. Fast merchants would be very uncommon
and even less inclined to use Gas Giant refuelling than ordinary ships.
 
>In any case, we don't have "no" ships using gas giants, we have faster 
>ships, 

No. They lose correspondingly more.

>ships not fully booked,

No, they will be even more eager to get to their destination quickly and
get some new bookings.

>and ships passing through.

No, they will be as eager as any other to get their destination and get
a new cargo.

>Is it "most"?

Not even close.

>I don't know.  Is is "some"? Yes.

"Some" as in "more than zero", agreed. "Some" as in "more than very, very
few"... I think not.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1921
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 6 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1922



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Obsidian
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Hauling people
Re: Industrial capacity
THUDDD6 og SSDS
Re: Snub Pistols
Re: Starports
Question
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Spanish vs Mexica
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Re: Traveller Software
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Re: Traveller Software
Re: The March Harrier--M-Drive
re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:03:43 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Obsidian

> >> A friend of mine makes reproduction obsidian arrow points, and says the
> >> reason they penetrated the conquistadors mail was because they
shattered 
> > and drove small, very sharp pieces of glass through the rings. Evidently
the
> >> wounds tended to fester more readily than ordinarily.

Conquistadors didn't wear mail. They wore breastplates, and full plate (I
forget the technical terms.)
The spanish greatly feared only the Mexica slings, as the impact could dent
even the best spanish Morion. The Spaniards started wearing the padded
armour of the Mexica because of the incredible problems with heat the foot
troopers faced in the lowlands. The only damage the mexica maquahuital (sp?)
could do was blunt impact on the spanish steel.

Obsidian is very sharp. I took an anthropology class where a guest prof
knapped some tools. I asked for and got to keep the tools. I threw them out
a couple days later as I was tired of brushing the damn thing and slicing my
hands open. Just carrying them back to residence resulted in cuts that hurt
like paper cuts but were deeper and wider. But, if I had been wearing
butchers' chainmail, I would not have been harmed at all. The anth prof had
done that, and I gained one hell of a lot of respect for our stone age
ancestors. Either in their willingness to slash their hands to ribbons for a
fur coat or just sheer thickness of the skin on their hands

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

>David Stockman "The triumph of politics" p297. "When fully implemented the
><Reagan Administration> DOD plan would cost 7.5% of GDP. That was not too
>much. We had spent far more of our national defense, 8 to 10 percent, in
>the 1950s and 1960s". Dave Stockman was heading up OMB under Reagan, so I
>trust his numbers.

Yes, but what do the 50s and 60s and the Reagan 80s all have in common?
 There was a fully active cold war in effect.  Then the excesses of the
Reagan 80s came out, and then they dropped the military tax rate.  Same thing
post Vietnam I believe.

I will admit that in times of threat (and perceived threat) the tax rates
will be higher.

Besides, we in the U.S. _saw_ what the money was being spent on.  The average
person from the average planet is never even going to see the starships it
has been taxed for.

That is, under your "regime", 5% of someone's tax money is going down a black
hole.

>Now, the only place defense spending can come out of is taxes. You can levy
>em directly, indirectly or thru government ownership of means of
>production, but at the end of the day taxes is what they all are.

I don't disagree here.  People will put up with more taxation however with a
parade of "The Day After"s, "Red Dawn"s and "Rocky IV"s and whatever that
miniseries on the Soviet occupation of the U.S. was called, dancing in front
of their eyes.

Also, there is a second way of getting such money.  Loans, loans and more
loans.  And *surprise*, political discussions aside, look how much in debt
the Reagan 80s put the US!

>Also, if you check PE you get some pretty obscene rates of taxation with
>certain government types - I am thinking of civil service and impersonal
>bureaucracies.

I don't own PE at the moment so this point is moot.

>Yes, most people will have the same relationship to starships that most
>people had to aircraft in the twenties - we recognise their existance, but
>who can afford it when a jump-1 costs about a years income ?

I don't think "airplanes in the 1920s" is the proper analogy.  I don't think
we've even have an analogy in 20th c. America.  Hell, I don't think we have a
proper analogy period. 

>However, every world that came out of the Long Night will have cultural
>memories of pirates and reavers. Look at the number of old Indian forts in
>the Midwest, and look at when the military bases built there got
>decommissioned.

Yes, these things were tangible and nearby and real, which to the average 3rd
Imperial spaceships would NOT be.  This works both ways, pirates and reavers
probably did very few horrible things to the planetbound population.  EXCEPT
possibly have a base.  Ask the Carribean Islands about their cultural
memories of Pirates...  If you can't do that, I'll tell you :)  There are all
kinds of garish books about pirates, pirates, and more pirates.  The lives of
the pirates, the ships of the pirates, the flags of the pirates, hell, when I
was there I even bought a coffee mug with the histories of several pirates on
it.  So it depends, really.  On the other hand, these same worlds may have
cultural memories of the Third Imperium "nuking them from orbit" and seeding
the world with irradiated salts and doing all the good things they did to
_suspected_ pirate bases in the early 3rd Imperium.

>As to the majoity of people not seeing a spaceship, nope. No way. Space
>travel is at the heart of the Imperium. Just becasue you cant aford it
>doesnt mean you dont go to the starport and wave goodbye to Cousin Beth,
>who got accepted into the Marines and is shipping off to Boot Camp on a
>planet a whole 6 parsecs away ...

You say tomay-to, I say tomah-to.  I don't think that the Traveller character
generation tables are a fair and balanced view of careers in the far future.
 I don't think marines would be all that common...  As I already stated (in
response to you possibly?), most "foot soldiers" by far would be planetary
armies.

>In-system travel is also reasonably affordable, especially with TL11
>thruster plates linked up to the abomination known as Fusion Plus.

I said starships, not spaceships (there is a difference in Trav).  Besides,
the extended system generation tables very rarely give any place to travel
_to_ within a system.  Although it is affordable, it doesn't seem to be to
needed.  With the exception of a sojourn to the pleasure moons of Hieronymous
Alpha, I don't see the average Imperial citizen hitting the space lanes any
time soon.

>5% is *not* high tax rates.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this point.

>Nope. See above. As for army/navy shares, check the size of the Royal Navy
>vs the size of the British Army in the heyday of Empire. The British Empire
>didnt have an army, becasue with naval dominance it didnt need one. Same
>within Imperial space. I think it reasonable that the IN has as many ships
>of the line as the Imperial Marines have battallions.

I agree *surprise*.  You neglected to read what I was saying.  I don't think
the Imperium has a large army (I think I even stated that in that message).
 However, people will want to have a _local_ army.  A planetwide army "just
in case", and this will be fielded from the local populace.  It won't be very
large (under a percent of the world population probably), but it would be
there.

>*thinks* Australia is a TL7-8 country, 19 million people, and I think we
>have an army of four 700 men battallions, and I think twelve tanks. OK, our
>navy and air force are big by regional standards, but I dont see people
>demanding a bigger standing army.

Wet navy and air force are included in this "standing army".  I didn't mean
literally grunts and infantrymen.  In fact, I think I may have said "local
army, wet navy, and aerospace force" once or twice in my message.

>The base 10%, doubled for imported high-tech equipment as per Striker, and
>adding 10% to cover supporting all those well-connected drones at Sector
>HQ, contracting Famile Spofulam for R+D and doing ship maintainence three
>times as well as civilians do.
>
>The point of picking 30% was to take a ridiculous maintainence number and
>prove you can *still* have enough of a fleet to secure the subsector from
>one hi-pop, moderate tech world.

No, I was just wondering why you were bandying around this number, and if it
was from a real source.  Does anyone happen to know the costs of maintenance
and support/logistics in the United States military?  I would think that it
would be somewhat high (once you add in all of the administration that is).

>History is full of weapon systems that were essentially useless, but kept
>for various reasons. Andy Fishers comment on the RN's Reserve Fleet ("A
>miser's hoard of useless junk ... a modern armoured cruiser would lap them
>up like an armadillo on an anthill") comes to mind.

CT, however, is not one of these.  Not only did they have fighters, they had
many ship designs in use that utilized them to great effect.  Sorry.

Semo

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:19:10 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Hauling people

I've been trying to see how cheaply you can move people from one world to
another, and even when I bundle them into bunks it comes out as quite
expensive. But even a bunk takes up 14 cubic meters, which made me wonder:

Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local government
regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved 
without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How many
people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
(access space included)?

Question 2: Same question, but this time assume that instead of surviving
for 10 days the passengers have to survive a long trip with the ship --
perhaps as long as a year. How many do you think you can get into a
displacement ton then (You can feed and excercise them in shifts, but I
guess you would have to supply _some_ recreational facilities to keep
them alive).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:27:46 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

I write:
>Shipyard utilization:
> 	New construction: 2.5% of 3,000 million tons = 75 million tons.
> 	Maintenance: 3,000 million tons/45 =           67 million tons
>  
>Total 142 million tons out of 158 million tons, leaving 16 million
>tons unaccounted for. That's about 10% off and in the right direction.
>Seems to dovetail quite nicely.

Unfortunately annual maintenance takes two weeks, not one, so maintenance
would account for quite a bit more. I'm going to assume a tighter sceduling
of ships for maintenance and divide by 25 rather than 22.5. That would give:

Shipyard utilization:
 	New construction: 2.5% of 3,000 million tons =  75 million tons.
 	Maintenance: 3,000 million tons/25 =           120 million tons
	Excess capacity:			       158 million tons

for a final result of 353 million tons.
	 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:00:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: THUDDD6 og SSDS

What the H*** is up with SSDS and power consumption. I'm going through
the entries and two of the SSDS buildt ones are severly underpowered

Scenic View by R&G

Power Plant      2.500 Mw

HEPlaR drive     1.400 Mw
Sensors             82 Mw
PA-Gun           1.125 Mw 

These numbers are lifted from the QSDS and the PA-Gun in QSDS is slightly
worse than the one in the entry. Is there really such a difference in QSDS
and SSDS

Another entry is the Argenaugh class SDB by Goodenuf Construction Company

Power Plant      1.760 Mw

Thruster         1.050 Mw
PA-Gun           1.125 Mw

There really seems to be a problem with the PA-Gun. The QSDS really seems
to suck much more power that the SSDS version.

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: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:17:19 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Snub Pistols

Nick Munn wrote:

>
>> Conclusion -
>> 	1) Snub Pistols are more dangerous in T4 than they were in MT.
>> 	2) Burst fire is very nasty (possibly 10D damage with a snub!)
>> 	3) Initiative is critical in T4
>> 	4) I like the combat system - it is fast and potentially very lethal.
>> 	5) Once you get into burst fire and 5D base damage, called shots
>> aren't that necessary!
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
>One comment: never start a firefight in a hydrogen refinery with Dom
>as referee, *especially* with snub pistols.  Darned right the things
>are lethal.


	Firefight?  Hydrogen refinery?  <whimper>

	How many thousands of civilians died in the fireball?


>
>Nick
>
>P.S. Anyone ever built a .75 inch recoilless pistol, as (mis)used by
>the Stainless Steel Rat.  (Isn't it Hengabar Spofulam's birthday
>soon?)


	Hm.  Thought hadn't occurred to me.  Probably, a smoothbore barrel
would be neccessary, and then rather than futz around with scaling down
rockets, just come up with a few handwaved figures for what % of the
propellant charge gets burned per meter.  You'd just have to calculate the
recoil based on what percentage was burned in-barrel.  The ModBlen number
would be ignored.

	Calculating damage would also be be interesting and would vary
depending on range; initial damage at close range would be low, but
unarmoured targets would still take a real beating from the combustion of
the remaining propellant in-target.  I'd suggest using the round's
effective energy plus 50% of joules' worth of unburnt propellant in
calculating soft-target damage until propellant is burned out, then going
with straight effective energy.

	I suspect that these things would be wildly inaccurate, unless you
wanted to handwave cost&mass figures for smart ammo.

	It's too bad I've got an exam Wednesday; otherwise I'd whomp one up
right now.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:23:03 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Starports

This is a long answer.  Let us start with my guesses (these are not 
"canon") for ground (downport) facilities:

A port = 60 square miles, 1200 berths, 5 billion Cr
...
E port = 0.5 square miles, 6 berths, 15 million Cr

This is the cost that a "property developer" would pay for a civilian 
starport; it does not include the expenses incured by shopkeepers in 
stocking shelves, nor the installation of the LSP ship construction 
equipment.  It does include the infrastructure, within the starport, to 
encourage bussinesses to set up.

If berthing fees were the only way to repay starports, it would require 
1000 years (at least).  The Imperium allow the operators to have fuel 
prices of around 500 Cr/T, as this allows the starport to repay its 
investment over a reasonable period without imposing "import taxes" on 
freight and cargo.

See end of message for suggested "sterile area" around the main 
starport.
===========

Now onto the long discussion:

Pocket Empires gives costs for starports - but these are very high.  
However, upgrading your starport is very useful for HiPop worlds in 
Pocket Empires, due to the way the economic model works.

X to E   free
E to D   6 billion Cr
...
B to A   12,000 billion Cr, spread over 30 years

I try to rationalise these enormous costs by noting that Pocket Empires 
is looking at the cost to the economy as a whole, including those 
shopkeepers, customs officers, ship building facilities, but I still 
come up with a fraction of this number.  However, if the PE "starport" 
also represents the subsidised merchant fleet, SDB and other huge costs, 
then 10 trillion credits for a class A starport seems reasonable.  These 
costs are repayed by the increased trade the world sees (which includes 
repayment of starship loans, attracting trade from other worlds do to 
efficient anti-piracy partols with those SBD's and so on).  Because I 
like to explain all Traveller material in "hard(ish) science" terms, 
this interpretation has become my own personal version of "canon".


Leroy W Gautney (of the TML) had an article in the Journal of the 
Travellers Aid Society, issue 22, about estimating the number of berths 
at a starport, which boils down to:

(Pop - portDM)D6

portDM = 0 for A, 1 for B, ..., 4 for E

In addition each D6 has a -1 DM for Starport D and E or a +1 DM for A.

Example: pop 9, port A rolls 9D6 + 9 for berths
Example: pop 7, port B rolls 6D6
Example: pop 4, port D rolls 1D6 - 1


World Builders Handbook seems likely to have a rule for starport berths 
(the Excel spreadsheet version I downloaded from the web does, at 
least), but these seem very low to me ... around 20 berths at an A 
class starport, with a similar number at any obital facility.


Andy Lilly (of CORE fame) keeps dropping hints about a "101" book about 
starports which will have these sorts of rules in.  I suggest we send 
begging e-mails to Andy to get this published :-) or for Andy to post 
his old "house rules" to the TML.


Another approach, for those with Pocket Empires and Trillion Credit 
Squadron (or similar), is to work out the likely trade of freight, 
cargo, ship building and ship maintenace to a given system.  The PE 
freight figures look as if they will be enormous for high-Pop worlds.  
This is on my long "to do" list, but has not yet risen near the top!  
For those who are interested, here is some of my background info and 
the calculations to support 1200 berths at an A-port.


If we consider Britain in 1880, a time of huge growth in steel ship 
building, was building 980 steam ships per year of an average 500 
displacment tons each, with a total (steam powered) merchant marine of 
2.7 million tons (i.e. 5x the shipyard capacity).  The wooden sailing 
ships were in strong decline at that time (but still being built ... I 
believe there was a little contre-temps in New England about tea 
Clippers a few years earlier!).  Over the next 50 years ship sizes rose 
to 5,000 tones (the first oil tankers) to 50,000 tons (including the 
early 80,000 ton passenger liners in the 1930's).  Shipbuilding 
workforce rose from 54,000 in 1880 (making 500,000 tons/year) to 
200,000 in 1913 with 580 berths (estimated capacity: over 2,000,000 
tons per year). 

Although Britain supplied the majority of the world's ships around 
1900, the situation could not last.  The British shipbuilding workforce 
was far too large - the ship markets were glutted with new ships and 
world recession coupled with overseas competition led to large numbers 
of unemployed, highly skilled, craftsmen ... the grim faces of the 
Jarrow marchers painted a picture of great hardship in 1935.  The 
186,000 tons of "scrap and build" subsidies given by the British 
Government in 1935 was less than 10% of the shipyard capacity.

Average ship size (new construction, excludes sail ships)
1880 -    500 tons
1890 -  1,600 tons
1930 -  5,000 tons (about the only size of ship built in that period)
1950 - 12,000 tons

Biggest ships
1886 - first 5,000 ton oil tanker
1913 - ??? first 15,000 ton oil tanker
1930s - 80,000 (Cunard's two huge liners, the Queen Mary and Queen 
Elizabeth, I believe)


If we compare the shipyard capacity of 1935 Britain (2,000,000 tons - 
say 4,000,000 m3 in Traveller terms, population of 40 million - 
roughly) we can see that the capacity (100 m3 per 1000 population) is 
much higer than the Traveller figure of 14 m3 per 1000 population.  
However, history shows that the 1935 capacity was unsustainable in the 
long term.

Let us say that the Traveller figure of 14 m3 (1 T) per 1000 pop is 
reflects the average figure for a stable Third Imperium economy, but 
that war-mongering Pocket Emperors with their pocket Battleships (:-) 
can have up to 10x this figure in the short term, with economic 
problems (unemployment) to follow when (if) the war stops.

Let us make another comparison, if shipyards build 4,000,000 m3 per 
year with an average starship life of 50 years, we will have an 
operational fleet size of 200 million m3 (15 million T) of ships - 
enough for 4 /Tigress/ BatRons or *lots* of Free Traders in the 
merchant fleet.  Mind you, 4 BatRons would cost 1.1 Trillion credits 
per year to maintain (eqivalent to the Naval tax on 2.3 billion 
people).  Now, 4,000,000 m3 of shipyard capacity "needs" a pop of 285 
million to support it, so our theortial world of 2.3 billion people 
will have a ship building capacity of 8x the Naval force they can 
afford, indicating that the merchant fleet is 7x larger than the naval 
fleet.  Now, a ratio of 7 between merchant and naval does not seem 
unreasonable to be (although I would have expected an even higher 
ratio), so I'm willing to accept that the Traveller numbers make rough 
sense.

If we further assume that merchant ships are, on average, 5x smaller 
than Navy ships, we have around 35 merchants for each Naval ship.  Now, 
if only 1/1000th of those are for piracy suppression then <aargh, wrong 
thread>.

Ok, back to starport size.  A HiPop world with an A starport will have 
around 15 x 7 = 105 million T of merchant ships registered at that 
world.  If we spread those ships over a (say) 36-world trading main, as 
one world in 36 is roughly right for A-port HiPop, then each ship in 
the merchant fleet will visit the world at roughly once every 72 weeks 
(one week in jump, one week in port, 36 worlds).  Some destinations are 
more favoured, so let us increase our main world visits to once every 
52 weeks.  So 105 million T per year visit the world for (say) one 
week, or arond 2 million T of ships in port at any given time.  How big 
is an "average" merchant ship - 5000 T? 200 T?

When we take into acount that many of the ships are local (non-jump) 
shuttles and the like we can adjust the starship berth requirements 
down by a factor of, perhaps, 3 to 10.

Case 1: 1000 T average size, 10% of traffic is starships =   200 berths
Case 2:  500 T average size, 30% of traffic is starships = 1,200 berths

Leroy's rules for a world with 2 billion pop and an A-class starport 
give an average of 45 berths.  WBH gives 20 berths.

How busy do you feel a starport should be - 1200 berths (possible 
spread over several locations) is one departure every 6 minutes of the 
day; 200 berths is one every 40 minutes; 45 berths is one every 4 
hours; 20 berths is only 3 per day.

I cannot imagine a HiPop world surviving on 3 interstellar departures 
each day; even 30 per day (200 berths) seems to me to represent 
relatively little trade.  100 to 200 departures per day (1200 berths) 
seems to fit my mental picture of a busy HiPop "economic powerhouse" 
and also seems to fit the Traveller economic model.

Using this sort of analysis, some of those Pop 5 or 6 backwater worlds 
will see 1 ship per week and probably only have 3 to 6 berths.  Real 
low-trade places, invariably targetted by rogue asteroids, will see one 
ship every month.  Thus, it is extremely likely (in an RPG) that the 
players will have the only ship capable of intercepting the 
aforementioned asteroid before it obliterates the Pop 5, starport E 
world just ahead.


Based on airport and motorway construction, I estimate construction 
costs for most of the starport will be around 50 million Cr per square 
mile, but this will vary depending on shup building costs, customs halls 
and so on.  There is likely to be a "no-go" band of one to five miles 
surronding the starport (say, Law Level/2 km??), which will need to be 
fenced and patrolled.  I have not included this "sterile" area in the 
area figures at the start of this message.

Simon

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:17:03 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Question

> obsidian-edged sword-clubs (Atlatl, wasn't it?).  

No, maquahuitl. An atlatl is a spear-thrower

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:30:41 -0400
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@pop.erols.com>
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

>I don't disagree here.  People will put up with more taxation however with a
>parade of "The Day After"s, "Red Dawn"s and "Rocky IV"s and whatever that
>miniseries on the Soviet occupation of the U.S. was called, dancing in front
>of their eyes.

Oh, yeah.  That's what did it for me.  It had nothing to do with the
brutality of the Soviet regime, the tanks lined up in the Fulda gap nor the
millions of tons of radioactive explosives pointed at my house.  It was the
TV.

I, like all Americans, have no actual decision-making ability of my own.
Now excuse me, the Beaver needs talking to.

Scott

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:29:03 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Spanish vs Mexica

Seeing a lot of stuff here on the TML re: above (Mexica is the real name for
the Aztecs, which is a term made up in the 19th century. It means roughly,
the people from Aztlan. This being the mysterious origin point of the Mexica
(pronounced mesh-ee-kuh))

This could lead to an interesting discussion on battles between tech levels.
Even a dif of a few, it makes victory against horrific numbers easier. The
Spanish were TL 3, the Mexica TL 0 (before I hear whining, they were stone
age, with some maths at a higher level, but the maths were not used for more
practical purposes than a really accurate calendar. They were also cleaner
than the spaniards of the time and had some degree of universal education,
but that did not really help them all that much now, did it?). Cortez did
have the Tlaxcallans on his side, but they were secondary to the spanish
troops, who had steel weapons (which, while they cannot get edges that are
virtually monomolecular, can pierce vital human organs nicely), armour and
most importantly, horses. The Spanish were frequently unable to use their
muskets due to humidity (they used crossbows) until they were in the
highlands but by then the powder had absorbed too much moisture and was
useless.
A band of a couple hundred men brought down an empire of about 15-20
million.

The USA (and coalition) vs Iraq. This was a TL 8 army battling aTL 6.5

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:27:57 -0400
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@pop.erols.com>
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

At 09:09 AM 10/6/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>David Stockman "The triumph of politics" p297. "When fully implemented the
>><Reagan Administration> DOD plan would cost 7.5% of GDP. That was not too
>>much. We had spent far more of our national defense, 8 to 10 percent, in
>>the 1950s and 1960s". Dave Stockman was heading up OMB under Reagan, so I
>>trust his numbers.

From 1776 to 1940, the U.S. averaged 2.2% of its GDP in defense spending,
with small blips during it's major wars, most notably 1861-1865 and
1917-1918.  Only after the development of Eisenhower's 'Military-Industrial
Complex' did the rate go up to an average of 5.7% for the period 1946-1991.
 Note that the Soviet Union spent somewhere between 6.5% (their public
figure) and 12.1% (CIA figure) during the same 45-year period.  Since 1988,
however, defense spending in both systems has dramatically been cut back,
and the expectation of several noted military affairs experts is that in
the U.S., it will trend back toward the historical figure, perhaps
levelling off at about 3%.

I really don't think that the U.S. is a decent indicator of Third Imperium
politics or spending, however, since the 3I is a fuedal aristocracy, with
financial power resting at the "local" level.  I think that the Imperial
budget would be constrained in ways that that of the U.S. is not, and would
expect significantly lower Imperium-wide expenditures and larger
concentrations on the sector and sub-sector navies, largely in the form of
defensive installations such as SDBs.



Scott

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:09:39 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller Software

Peter Brenton Wrote;
>>> Metator, Library (including 'C' source for sysgen) are at;
>>> http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/software
Rob Prior Wrote
>As far as I know the source code is not available.  At least, if it _is_
>available then it was put there without my permission and is in violation of
>copyright.

Sorry, bit of confusion there.   The 'C' code available is for *Sysgen*, Jo
Grant's predecessor to _Library_.  Source code for Metator is not at the
above site, nor is the source for Library, the final version of sysgen.

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 13:08:42 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

"Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net> writes:
>Joseph R. Dietrich writes:
>>>From a logistics point of view, I also think it would be difficult for
>>> someone watching the movie to tell the main character's suit from anyone
>>> else's (this wasn't a reason I heard, this is just my own observation).
>>Yeah, and then try convincing a bunch of actors to cover their faces from
>>the admiring eyes of the camera. ;)
>   Three words: clear face shields.  They use them in underwater movies
>(i.e. The Abyss) all the time with no problem.

  Two words:  Expensive & heat.  Too many actors in power armor means way
too much money spent on special effects and not enough on Verhoven's
salary. :-)
There is also the problem of heat exhaustion.  The film was made out in the
desert.  They had problems with actors and extras dropping as it was.  Now
put 'em in heavy plastic suits.

   There are several web sites out detailing the long rumor history on this
film.  They shouldn't be too hard to find.  If you have read the book,
don't expect to see much of in the film.

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

Date: 06 Oct 1997 17:25:05 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Re: Traveller Software

Peter H. Brenton,pbrenton@mit.edu,Internet writes:
Source code for Metator is not at the
above site

Good.

But I suspect that the software version is still out of date.

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

Date: 06 Oct 1997 17:28:13 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: The March Harrier--M-Drive

 You could stand at the back of the ship throwing out
vegetable peelings if you didn't mind going veeeerrrry slooooowly (and
getting arrested for littering).

Read "A Bicycle Built For Brew" by Poul Anderson, in which the plot device is
a small spaceship powered by beer.  The physics is correct, and the story's a
hoot.

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:49:00 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

The capability to overdrive maneuver drives isn't really canon any more 
in T4; DGP just added it to let 1-G ships take off on >1G worlds, without
thinking too much about consequences (why don't people use this to evade
during combat?). Thruster plates also only provide thrust in one direction
now. However, most ships have an auxilliary contragrav, which allows takeoff
even for 1-G ships. There are several different design combinations that will
get you off the ground these days:

(1) Airframe ships with a runway on a planet with atmosphere can take off/land
horizontally on the runway, pretty much no matter how little thrust
their engines provide. Even if the engine only provides 1G and the local
gravity is >1G, they can still climb like an airplane to very high
altitude and then (as they run out of air) accelerate into orbit or escape
(see below.)

(2) Any ship with contragrav thrusters producing more than the local gravity
can take off vertically. It can then use either the contragrav or its thrusters
to accelerate rapidly to orbital or escape velocity (it'll have to do this
before it reaches the 10-diameter limit and contragrav falls off, of course,
or use only its thrusters.)

(3) Any ship with thruster plates producing more than the local gravity
can also take off vertically - assuming it's oriented so that it's thruster
plates fire vertically, which a lot of ships aren't. (A classic scout,
for example, would have to be hoisted up until it's standing on its tail for
this approach to work.)

(2) is the most common approach. (1) requires an airframe hull and a long
runway, (2) and (3) only require a streamlined hull.

I should note that there's no need for your engines to keep firing all the 
way until you're out of the planets gravity. What matters is velocity; 
if you achieve escape velocity, and you're high enough up that there
isn't much atmosphere in the way, you'll escape from the planets gravity
even if you switch the engines off.

Consider the case (1) above. The ship might be able to climb up to 20,000 
meters and reach a velocity of 1-2 km/s with its wings providing lift. 
Imagine that the wings then retracted. The ship will start plummeting towards
the planet even as it's accelerating forwards. However, once it's accelerated
to 8km/s, it's in orbit, and won't fall any lower. That'll take 600 seconds 
or so at 1 G - during which it'll follow a sort of arching trajectory - 
and if this is done right it'll reach orbital velocity before it hits the
ground. (The actual trajectories are complicated, and of course the wings
provide some lift - my point is that if you're far enough away from the
ground you can reach orbit even with an engine that provides less thrust
than the local gravity.) 

Landing an airframe ship is even easier - the space shuttle manages to land
even though it has only a tiny amount of thrust from it's OMS to de-orbit
and no power for the landing. Airframe ships in orbit can slow down somewhat
with their thrusters and then land like the shuttle does - ballistic re-entry
most of the way down and then turning the engines back on and flying like an
airplane to a landing site. Ships with contra-grav or sufficiently powerful
thrusters can land using the reverse of (2) or (3) above.

Bruce

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1922
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 6 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1923



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Industrial capacity
Re: Snub Pistols
re: Burst fire is LETHAL
Re: T4.1 date gone back again
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative 
re:Tax rates
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Re: World Mapping Software
Spanish vs Mexica Hi.
Re: THUDDD Update
Re: Hauling people
Re: Starship Troopers  -  walking and man amplification
March Harrier Landings
Re: T4.1 date gone back again
Fantastic Sensor Rules?
Re:Questions about Traveller
X-TEK "Gravatorium" Opens; EV thoughts
re: Take off/Landing Thoughts
Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS
re: THUDDD6 og SSDS

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:32:20 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

Scott Ellsworth writes:

>Say, does a hard drive or computer system localized for Europe show a 1.2GB
>drive as a 1200MB drive?

G - giga- is an SI prefix (for 10^9)- so of course we use 1.2GB...

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:02:20 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Snub Pistols

Nick Munn wrote:

>One comment: never start a firefight in a hydrogen refinery with Dom
>as referee, *especially* with snub pistols.  Darned right the things
>are lethal.

<Snigger> The GM reaches for his nasty pills again.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:24:27 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: Burst fire is LETHAL

Hans wrote:

>I don't remember how it is in MT, but in CT Snub Pistols _are_ lethal, but
>only at close range. The trick is to make sure your opponent don't get to
>close range.

The combat was at close range in a building! ;-) Shot guns vs Snubs...

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:00:28 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 date gone back again

Marc wrote:
>In a message dated 97-10-05 09:53:15 EDT, you write:
<<  Just so long as it's right this time... >>
>Thanks for your support. I want it to be right as well.

Naturally I'm disappointed in the delay, but I like the way that T4 is, and
the way that the T4.1 beta's you've put out have been going, and I'm
willing to wait. ;-)

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:05:20 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative 

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>> I think that the difference is somewhat semantic, as you could roll a
>> second '1' in the second batch of 5D. However, I take your point. How do
>> you do armour?
>
>There *isn't* a "second batch of 5d". You double the results of the
>first 5d.

Slapped wrist! Naughty Dom. Bad Dom. ;-)

Hey, Eris, can I be a heretic now? <g>

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:13:12 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Tax rates

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> wrote:

>Actually, they aren't as horrble as you'd think. They can easily run into
>50% or more

Hmm, UK 1997. As a crude estimate, the base rate of Tax (including National
Insurance) must be somewhere around 30%, plus pension contributions at say
5%. (I just figured that I pay 32% out before I get paid). On top of this
you plus VAT (sales tax) at 17.5% on many purchases.

No doubt that some of our accountant friends could give a better breakdown.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:56:20 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote:

>SD Mooney wrote:
>> That's doubling the results of the first 5D thrown..
>
>So, you are saying that you allow a player to throw 10D?  Or you roll 5D
>and double the results?

That depends on if there's armour involved, but I'm tending more to roll
10D (!!!)if armour isn't involved.

>> I think that the difference is somewhat semantic, as you could roll a
>> second '1' in the second batch of 5D.
>
>It's not really semantic.  There's another difference you might not be
>considering, besides the "1" rolls.
>
>Let's say a weapon does 3D damage, and we are using autofire.  If you
>roll 6D, you could roll low enough for a character to survive and remain
>conscious (however unlikely) if his stats are high enough.
>
>Remember that each die comes off of one stat.

Okay, I get your point. All of the hits considered were first hits in
combat ie 5D x2 (or 10D) against a SINGLE stat in one large, nasty lump.

<snip of argument>

I hadn't considered second hits really, maybe as most gunfights don't seem
to get past the first hit for people. I concede the point. For first hits I
don't believe there is a real difference.

>In your case, with the same amount of damage, Fred stands and acts.  In
>my case, Fred is out for the count, possibly killed by a coup d' gras.

In my case Fred takes 12 points against a single stat in the first hit and
is unconsious...

>> However, I take your point. How do
>> you do armour?
>
>For autofire?  I read the rule like this:  You figure penetration first,
>then you double any damage that penetrates.

We're in agreement there.


>> I run initiative with the standard roll in the book, with a few mods. (D6 +
>> highest leadership + tactics pool if they want + brownie points if they
>> want(*) ).
>
>I allow tactics pool too, but I do the T4 version (optional rule) where
>once the tactics points are used, they are gone for the engagement.

Yep, that's the rule I'm talking about.

>> (*) taken from MT character generation. I use them to reward players for
>> good roleplaying or ideas, as I've tightened up on the experience
>> progression in skills. They are a one shot + or - 1 DM that the player can
>> apply as they see fit, not unlike Karma/Fate points in other games.
>
>Funny!  I use brownie points too, <snip>  Once they are gone,
>they are gone.

Same here, one shot mods. You can use a BP once.

I'll go back to rolling the dice then doubling now.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 19:16:50 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: World Mapping Software

Galactic (for DOS) has a fairly crude mapper.

There are some fractal world map generators i have downloaded from the 
web, but none that I thought were suitable for Traveller.

TravSuite has the best mapper, if only it did not crash!

Simon

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:18:37 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Spanish vs Mexica Hi.

> From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
   
> Cortez did have the Tlaxcallans on his side, but they were secondary
> to the spanish troops, who had steel weapons (which, while they cannot
> get edges that are virtually monomolecular, can pierce vital human
> organs nicely), armour and most importantly, horses. The Spanish were
> frequently unable to use their muskets due to humidity (they used
> crossbows) until they were in the highlands but by then the powder had
> absorbed too much moisture and was useless.
   
> A band of a couple hundred men brought down an empire of about 15-20
> million.
   
   I realize that this is the `official' history, but I have a hard time
   believing that Cortez's army of 200,000 angry locals played a military
   second to his 108 steel-armed Spaniards and 16 horses in the conquest
   of Mexico.  Obviously, Spanish technology made a big impression on the
   Aztec rulers and was an important motivator for the Tlaxcallan army,
   but that huge army was the driving force behind the Aztec surrender,
   not a tiny supply of steel arms and horses.
   
   -Rob

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: THUDDD Update

> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:36:24 +0100
> From: "Nick Munn" <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
> 
> Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>:
> 
> > An optional rule, hmmmm?  OK, provisional ruling:  no gcomp stacking
> > allowed for the THUDDD.  How would folks feel about that?
> 
> Very happy.

Cool; as this is the only response I've received on this, I'll presume
nobody has objections and Nick and I think it's a good idea, so it's in. 

> Also in a similar vein, CSC allows "magnetic shielding" of vehicle 
> hulls.  IIRC it handwaves that it can't be used against 
> starship-calibre weapons but can we have an official "no shields" 
> rule too if I'm wrong?

Ugh. :(  What's it (the "magnetic shielding") supposed to do?  In any
case, let's call it out.  In fact, here's a general rule of thumb for the
THUDDD, open for discussion:

  "Any 'canonical' design system may be used, specifically including
   FFS1, FFS2, QSDS1.5, and SSDS.  However, no technology not specified
   in FFS2 may be used; in other words, FFS2 specifies technological
   'canon' with respect to the THUDDD competition, even if another system
   is used to create the design."

Reactions?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 19:41:56 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Hauling people

We could ask the TMLers in Oz about the convict ships from Britain ... 
I think thay would be close to the maximum passenger density, and it 
was a long journey.  Then again, perhaps British slave ships were even 
more crowded, probably similar to the underground rail sytem in London 
at the moment!

Simon

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Ringrose <ringrose@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers  -  walking and man amplification

>>>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:15:38 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
Leonard> In mail you write:
> At 02:18 am 10/05/97 PST, you wrote:
>>At eight feet tall, you can not only build in cooling, you can build
>>the damn thing around one of the *real* GE prototypes! I seriously
>    HRMMM? More details, please!  I've been wanting to make a suit of powered
> armor for a Halloween costume for some time ...

Leonard> Anyway, back in the 60s GE was working on some "man amplifiers".
Leonard> Basicly along the lines of the cargo handler gizmo Ripley used to duel
Leonard> the Queen Alien.

Leonard> I don't think it'd be *that* hard to build something. It doesn't need
Leonard> the upper body strength. And anybody who has watched shows like Beyond
Leonard> 2000, has seen stuff like the *human*-powered leg extenions that let
Leonard> you run about 20 mph or hop like a kangaroo...

I don't know much about GE's other "man amplifiers", but the GE walking truck
did exist.  It had four legs, teleoperated by the driver's four limbs.  It
could climb a stack of railroad ties, and tow or flip over a jeep.

It did have some problems.  It was exhausting, physically and mentally.
Physically because of the feedback in the controls, and mentally because
controlling a four-legged walker like that is _hard_.  The operators could run
it for about 10 minutes before they were mentally exhausted.


There are two problems with man amplification: power and control.  Power's
solved in traveller with nifty fusion devices.  Control takes both more
engineering and more computer knowledge, for a teleoperated or amplifying
device.  For a device which can walk on its own, there's also the theory of
walking - basically, we don't know how to make something walk the way we do.
We can approximate it on, say, flat ground, but we can't make it react to
slipping, slopes, and other unexpected failures as we would.


Beyond 2000 has shown human-powered leg extensions (and other devices).
Basically, these extensions change the spring constant of your legs - when you
run, you bounce on your legs as though they were springs.  Changing the spring
constant can allow you to run faster by bouncing higher, giving you more time
to get your legs into position.  One year, a student made a similar device as a
project for the Legged Locomotion class we give here periodically.

Such devices will allow you to run faster, but the downsides are
(a) they're hard to get into and out of
(b) they're hard to start and stop
(c) you lose a lot of dexterity
(d) it's hard to deal with anything but flat terrain
(e) they break when you fall
(f) you fall further when you fall
(g) when you fall, your feet, which you use to catch yourself, are embedded in
a device which isn't good at catching you

In other words, because of liability and inconvenience they aren't commercially
viable, although they do work.


Honda has built a biped walking robot.  It looks like a man in a spacesuit,
walks on flat terrain, and can walk up a set of stairs - given knowledge of
where the stairs are and how far apart they are.  It can turn, walk forward,
walk backward, and so on as directed by an operator.  It's also considerably
heavier than a human being (although they claim to have built a lighter one).


The MIT Leg Lab has built externally-powered running robots (monopod, biped,
and quadruped).  They run on flat terrain, we're working on things which can
walk on rough terrain.  Within a year, we may have a self-contained robot which
can walk rapidly on somewhat rough terrain.



BUT the state of the art in legged locomotion, and power-assisted locomotion,
is not to the point where it can be used for the cast of Starship Troopers
(Yet).  If it were, the DOD would be using it already.


When would power-assisted devices exist in Traveller?
Reseach: this TL.
Commercial: next TL (possibly externally powered), for controlled
	circumstances.
Combat: next TL beyond that, for the computational advances necessary to
	make the suit know enough of the environment not to hamper its wearer.
	Possibly further.  Combat suits would require a small portable fusion
	plant - possibly imported from a higher TL to make it smaller.

Walking machines capable of traversing all terrain a car, or tank, can traverse
can be made at our current tech level IF there is a reason to do it.  They will
be slow, under about 10mph - faster on high-gravity worlds, slower on
low-gravity worlds (the fastest speed you can walk is a function of gravity).
If you go too fast, you become airborne and no longer have the options of
stopping and letting your slow computer figure out where to put your next foot,
or letting a human tell you where you can step.

To make them useful, they would have to be able to run, and that would take
(a) the ability to quickly analyze the terrain for footholds and obstacles.
(b) the ability to take that analyzed terrain and figure out the set of
footholds which will keep you going in the right direction, balanced, and clear
of obstacles.

Walking machines can be made now, if there's a reason to use them.  But to make
them "better than cars" or "as good as cars" would probably be 2 TLs down the
road.  Maybe 1 if you're willing to take some risks or limitations.


When would a walking machine be better than a car/tank?
. The legs of a walking machine can be completely sealed with a flexable
covering - protecting the components in a way which is impossible with wheels.
. Walking does far less damage to the environment.  The OSU hexapod walking
through a cornfield left some footprints, while a truck left a broad swath of
crushed plants.
. Large pads on feet will help prevent it from getting bogged down in sandy or
swampy environments.
. Properly designed, the legs would be able to get it to stand up again if it
fell over, even if it to land on its roof.
Then there are other considerations, like raising the cargo bay to the loading
bay's level, or dropping it all the way to the ground for easy load/unload.

Antigravity makes much of this moot, until you think about what a strong wind
could do to something which isn't being held down by gravity.  What if the
planet had near-perpetual sandstorms?  Antigrav gets blown away, and the sand
gets stuck in the wheels and tracks.  Vehicles get bogged down in dunes.  The
natives would probably develop walking cars pretty fast.


So, when would walking trucks exist in Traveller?
Commercial: this TL, IF there is a reason to want them.
	Next TL if there isn't.
Combat: When they can run on rough terrain (same TL as combat power-assisted 
	devices).  Again, figure out if they're needed - the change from wheels
	to legs is pretty drastic, and you're throwing away a lot of expertise
	to make it.


	- Robert Ringrose
	  ringrose@ai.mit.edu
	  MIT Leg Lab - http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/leglab/
	  MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


The largest walking machine is a piece of mining equipment.  It's probably
bigger than your house.

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:57:50 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: March Harrier Landings

Don't worry about being able to land or take off due to gravity - even
Jupiter only has a surface gravity of 2.66 IIRC. The atmospheric pressure,
on the other hand....


Martin

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 15:01:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 date gone back again

CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 97-10-05 09:53:15 EDT, you write:
> 
> <<
>  Just so long as it's right this time...
> 
>   >>
> Thanks for your support. I want it to be right as well.
> 
> Marc

I love this man.  I am so excited about T4.1.

I've got a good feeling that this is going to be well worth the wait,
and it will set the standard for all T4 products to come after it.

Move over DGP, Marc is back in town.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 15:19:12 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Fantastic Sensor Rules?

Who was it that created these fanstastic sensor rules I've been hearing
about?  Bruce Alan MacIntosh?

Where can I get them?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:26:10 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re:Questions about Traveller

Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:43:41 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen
<rancke@diku.dk>
>>Well, I thought we were past the pirates.  In any case, you depend
>>heavily on larger systems providing resrouces for smaller systems.
>>Patrolling places like the gas giants in their own system eats into
>>those resources.
>
>I don't think 'heavily' is the proper word. I rely on the larger systems
>providing 0.1% (or possibly 0.2%) of their resources for smaller systems.
>That's not heavily. I really think that the remaining 99.9 or 99.8% of
>their forces should be enough to cover most Gas Giants.

Well, the amount of resources required to stop piracy was in dispute,
as also was the method of acounting (since the percentage of your
resources it would take is irrelevant if the loses due to piracy
are even low).  However, to avoid recaping the whole thread,
the costs to patrol gas giants are relevant at every system
because you are using resources from the larger systems to
patrol the systems that don't have sufficient resources.

>True enough, but don't you think doing power dives into an Gas Giant
>atmosphere is apt to be a teeny bit more hazardous than a sedate trip
>down to a starport?

Well, dropping out the hyperbole (ie "power dive") the ships
are certainly designed to hand just that.  Sure things
can go wrong, they also can go wrong trying to land in
a built up area with traffic around.

>>Well, I might agree that there is a problem in not distinguishing
>>between what it costs to actualy split water as opposed to just
>>sperate hydrogen from other gases.

>The cracking can be done by the ship itself.

yeah but this is also true of the seperation.  That fact is that
if you crack water you _still_ also have to seperate out the
hydrogen, so, no matter how you cut it, water involves a
seperate, energy intensive, task.

>Wilderness refuelling involves
>setting down in a body of water and getting the fuel. That's something you
>can do even without a fuel purifier plant.

It is my understanding that you need a purifier for both water
and gas giant atmosphere.  If they don't require you to purify
water to use in a reactor but you do have to purify the atmosphere
of a gas giant (which is mostly hyrogen and doesn't contain
as many heavy element), then that just doesn't make sense.

>>Only if you assume the that merchant could reliably count on using
>>that time hauling cargo.  If he is not fully booked, thing are
>>different.

>Not really. Adding an avoidable delay to all the unavoidable ones can't
>help but decrease earnings in the long run.

Except that you aren't adding.  A gas giant is in range of radio
communications and a ship can wire ahead to a broker while refueling.

>>Well, even measly jump to ship can loose as little as about 8 hours.
>
>I can't parse that sentense. What do you mean?

Sorry, make that "jump 2".

>>(And I don't know that very few merchants will have fast ships, I agree
>>that the fixed cargo cost per jump is a problem here, but the setting 
>>does imply that they are not uncommon).  

 
>>In any case, we don't have "no" ships using gas giants, we have faster 
>>ships, 
>
>No. They lose correspondingly more.

OK, I was think about jump 6 ships being 6G's.  I hadn't though
about J6/1G ships.

>>ships not fully booked,
>
>No, they will be even more eager to get to their destination quickly and
>get some new bookings.

See above.

>>and ships passing through.

>No, they will be as eager as any other to get their destination and get
>a new cargo.

No, because, as I said, you still haven't established what
delays will occur waiting to get cleared to land, waiting
in line for fuel, and then getting cleared to take off.

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:23:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: X-TEK "Gravatorium" Opens; EV thoughts

(The following is EXTREAMLY IC:)

X-TEK News Release:  279-0020

X-TEK is proud to announce the opening of it's latest Promenade store,
The "Gravatorium"

This shop specializes in the production of gravatic vehicles and personal 
devices, some of which have been featured in the Emperor's Vehicle Catalog.

Whereas the EV catalog only gave you a conservative approach, the 
Gravatorium Database contains full origional specifications for its vehicles 
and devices, for the Solomani gearhead in all of us.

All gravatorium products comply with the new FFS-2 Imperial Technical 
Architecture Manual.

Stop by the Gravatorium while you are on Planet X, or request document code:

http://www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx/xtek/grav.htm

<END Press Release><OOC Mode on>

Ok gang!  I have decided to release the original documents, HTML-ized, to my 
website.  All were submitted to the FF&S2 beta group for the EV project.  No 
doubt what is in the book may be different to what is on my site.  Here you 
will find original, full gearheaded specs for the devices/vehicles I 
submitted.  Enjoy! :-)

What are my views of EV?  It's not bad.  Yes, It could have had a "TL" field 
and a more in depth descrip of the weapons, but this book appears to have 
been designed for the non-gearhead in mind.  It has just enough information 
that I can use in a game.  Most importantly it has the "SPEED!"  What else 
do you use these things for besides blowing other things up? To get 
somewhere, hopefully fast! :-)  EV fulfills my need for SPEED!

Also for the Trav newbie this is a good book to show them what imperial 
society is most likely to use to get around.  I was impressed by Sylean mass 
transit.  The Sylean Monorail does 500kph!  The interior artwork was well 
done I think, is that an X-TEK XTF-1A "Alpha-II" Fighter about to be fired 
upon in the Close Orbit Grav Fighter section?  Looks almost perfect to what 
I envisioned (Flying wing, dorsal turret laser)

It is nice to see that the designs I made are not seriously broken, the 
speeds, dimensions and basic equipment are there on the vehicle card.  Only 
error I caught was that the "Claus von Kringle Gravboard (another X-TEK 
Original!) was WAY overpriced.  I think the editor got confused as it is the 
only device under 1Kcr!  The correct price is 22.2cr, it's a kids toy after 
all! :-).  Also the bombers were a little vague at first, a bomber armed 
with only a gauss cannon, then I saw the "cargo" field, UHvy+.  After 
checking the tables I found that the thing could hold 20tons (thats 
20,000kg, not displacement tons) of ordinanace in its hold.  Impressive!

All in all EV is not bad.  Could stand for a little more clairity, but 
IMNSHO it's a good book, and very useable in any campain.

 ----------------------------------------
\\  //  "New Technologies for the New Imperium"
T E K   Military and Civilian Contractor
//  \\  Contact cmdrx@magicnet.net or bprankard@theiia.org

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:30:54 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

> I should note that there's no need for your engines to keep firing all the 
> way until you're out of the planets gravity. What matters is velocity; 
> if you achieve escape velocity, and you're high enough up that there
> isn't much atmosphere in the way, you'll escape from the planets gravity
> even if you switch the engines off.

Actually, you don't need escape velocity, you just need to
get to orbit.  (Or a velocity where you 1G drive can make
up the difference)
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:58:12 -0400
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS

Tommy Grav wrote:
>What the H*** is up with SSDS and power consumption. I'm going through
>the entries and two of the SSDS buildt ones are severly underpowered
<A bit of snippage>
>There really seems to be a problem with the PA-Gun. The QSDS really seems
>to suck much more power that the SSDS version.
>

I believe the difference come from QSDS weapons being designed with ROFs of
100 and SSDS weapons having a base ROF of 10.

Chris Cox
"Investment banking galley slave in New York City"
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:18:48 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: THUDDD6 og SSDS

>There really seems to be a problem with the PA-Gun. The QSDS really seems
>to suck much more power that the SSDS version.

I've never seen anyone admit this for certain, but I believe that a 
"normal" weapon in QSDS has a ROF of 50 shots (per 30-minute old BL turn),
with lower ROF's getting worse ratings for a given energy and bonus to higher
ROFs, while in SSDS the normal ROF is assumed to be 10 shots - so the same
laser at (say) ROF10 would get a penalty in QSDS but not SSDS.

Bruce

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1923
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 6 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1924



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Re: Snub Pistols
Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Hauling people
Re: Hauling People
Re: WTB CT Books
Re: Spanish vs Mexica Hi.
Re: Spanish vs Mexica   Hi.
Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts
Re: Books & Andre Norton
Re: Moving People
Re: Questions about Traveller
Take off/Landing Thoughts
Spanish vs Mexica
Re: TML: Physicists
Hauling people

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS

Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no> said:
> What the H*** is up with SSDS and power consumption. I'm going through
> the entries and two of the SSDS buildt ones are severly underpowered
<snip> 
> There really seems to be a problem with the PA-Gun. The QSDS really seems
> to suck much more power that the SSDS version.

	IIRC, all QSDS weapons are built to ROF 100 while SSDS weapons may 
be ROF 50 or even ROF 10.  The higher ROF would account for the higher 
power consumption.  ROF 50 weapons should be at a -1 FC and ROF 10 weapons 
at a -2 FC.

- -JM

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 18:11:22 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

SD Mooney wrote:

> I hadn't considered second hits really, maybe as most gunfights don't seem
> to get past the first hit for people. I concede the point. For first hits I
> don't believe there is a real difference.

I don't use the first hit rule in my game.  I like the idea behind it,
but I think it is unrealistic to use that rule for every first hit and
never again in the combat.

My Ken's Tweaks rule on this is to allow the T4 first hit rule (taking
all hits off of one stat) only on spectacular successes.

This keeps PC's alive longer, and you have the added benefit the
possibility that this can happen anytime during the combat (as opposed
to counting on it happening on the first hit).

Since SS is easier to roll the closer you are (and, thus, having a an
easier task throw), this happening in a combat is not unlikely--it just
won't happen the first hit all the time.

Also, this gives a benefit to rolling SS, where in T4, there is no real
benefit to rolling SS in combat.

And, as a last note, in KBv2.0, SS is tied to a character's skill level
(it is easier for a Level 4 skilled person to roll SS than it is for a
Level 1 person on the same exact shot).  So, the better you are, the
more likely it is that you will roll SS, the more likely it is you will
take all of your damage off of one stat.


> >In your case, with the same amount of damage, Fred stands and acts.  In
> >my case, Fred is out for the count, possibly killed by a coup d' gras.
> 
> In my case Fred takes 12 points against a single stat in the first hit and
> is unconsious...

Gotcha.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:09:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

 
SemoFetus@aol.com said:
 > Besides, we in the U.S. _saw_ what the money was being spent on.  The average
> person from the average planet is never even going to see the starships it
> has been taxed for.
> 
> That is, under your "regime", 5% of someone's tax money is going down a black
> hole.

	I don't think this distinction stands.  I'm from a coastal state
and I _never_ saw a naval vessel growing up.  The only time I have since
then was when I went to visit a friend, who happened to be an Ensign at
Norfolk.  Think about all the people who don't even live on a coast!  How
are they supposed to _see_ where their money is going?
	For that matter, a lot of what we paid for during the Cold War was 
to station troops in places like Germany and Korea, certainly very few 
civillians ever _saw_ that defense spending.

	The level of threat certainly was higher in the Cold War US than it is 
in the Imperium, but I don't think the populace had any better ability to 
_see_ its Navy in the US than it would in the Imperium.
 
> Also, there is a second way of getting such money.  Loans, loans and more
> loans.  And *surprise*, political discussions aside, look how much in debt
> the Reagan 80s put the US!

	No, loans aren't any different from taxes in the final analysis 
because the loans have to be paid back with taxes.  I'm not suggesting 
that we're ever going to pay back our national debt, but as much of our 
taxes goes to paying the _interest_ on that debt as currently goes to our 
entire military.  Loans are just a way to borrow against future tax income.
  
> >Yes, most people will have the same relationship to starships that most
> >people had to aircraft in the twenties - we recognise their existance, but
> >who can afford it when a jump-1 costs about a years income ?
> 
> I don't think "airplanes in the 1920s" is the proper analogy.  I don't think
> we've even have an analogy in 20th c. America.  Hell, I don't think we have a
> proper analogy period. 

	How about _military_ aircraft?  Unless you go to an airshow 
you're unlikely to ever see military aircraft in this country.  Or 
submarines for that matter.  But people see these things all the time on 
TV and in movies.
	Atomic weapons are an even better example.  How many people in the
Western world have ever actually seen a nuclear weapon?  Very few.  And
yet everyone believes they exist and likely has opinions on whether we
should build more, dismantle the ones we have, or build SDI to defend
against them. The threat of nukes was and is totally intangible, but the
passion they inspired from activists on both sides _was_ very tangible. 
People don't have to be able to see a threat with their own eyes to be
persuaded to spend money to defend themselves from it. 
	I agree that 5% of GDP just for the Navy is excessive, but I 
don't think ground forces will take up much of the total millitary 
spending unless the world is balkanized.

- -JM

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:20:46 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Snub Pistols

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:

> 
> Nick Munn wrote:
> 
> >One comment: never start a firefight in a hydrogen refinery with Dom
> >as referee, *especially* with snub pistols.  Darned right the things
> >are lethal.
> 
> 
> 	Firefight?  Hydrogen refinery?  <whimper>
> 
> 	How many thousands of civilians died in the fireball?

Someone posted, a long time ago, in a "stupid things out PC's have
done and still survived" thread about a party that blew up an entire
starport that way...they just missed blowing up their own ship (they were
hauling ass out of the starship at the time) I pictured something like Air
Force One flying out of Washington in "Independence Day".

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:20:30 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors(Andre Norton)

At 08:11 AM 10/5/97 -0500, Roderick wore his Karnck turban and wrote:

>	Betcha a share in FSY that the plotline at some point is going to
>turn into landing on some desert planet, slogging through endless wastes
>being followed by an enemy whose home turf it is, and then a long battle
>scene as waves of expendable bad guy charge a small fort, ending in pyrrhic
>victory for the good guys.  The crazed commander with waxed moustache,
>monocle, and bad hollywood French accent may not make it in, but something
>resembling him will be.
>
>	Beau Geste, I tell you.  Think Beau Geste.

You're good.

The film does feature a mobile fortress that the humans do fight from
against overwhelming odds, with the battle set on the enemy's home planet,
which is a desert.

I'm impressed... BTW: who's going to take the World Series? please respond
before wednsday, that's when the office pool closes...
- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 19:48:51 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Mark Urbin writes:

>>   Three words: clear face shields.  They use them in underwater movies
>>(i.e. The Abyss) all the time with no problem.
>
>  Two words:  Expensive & heat.  Too many actors in power armor means way
>too much money spent on special effects and not enough on Verhoven's
>salary. :-)

   Well now we finally get down to the *real* problem.  :-)

   Space Above & Beyond had people in what would be the Traveller
equivalent of combat environment suits (more or less).  They wore
helmets with clear face shields.  Everything worked very nicely.

>There is also the problem of heat exhaustion.  The film was made out in the
>desert.

   Ah, there's the rub.  S:AAB was filmed in a variety of locations,
sometimes on studio sets, sometimes outside.  I recall some of the
episodes were obviously filmed out in California's desert country (well
I say obvious having seen the Mojave personally), but they certainly
weren't the majority.

   One example I don't recall being mentioned to this point is Star
Wars.  There were most definately guys in plastic suits (stormtroopers)
running around in the desert (of Tatooine) in that film.

>  They had problems with actors and extras dropping as it was.  Now
>put 'em in heavy plastic suits.

   So do a lot of night filming for God sake.  In the desert at night
you would *beg* to be put in one of those hot plastic armor suits.

   Is there no one left in Hollywood that has a Lillian Gish-like
dedication to art!?! <semi-sarcastic>

>   There are several web sites out detailing the long rumor history on this
>film.  They shouldn't be too hard to find.  If you have read the book,
>don't expect to see much of in the film.

   This may end up being one of those films that you would be much
better off if you never read the book, or could somehow manage to forget
that you did.  Failing that, just pretend that those are not the
characters in the book on screen, those are guys fighting in another
sector that have similar names.  :-)

   Has there been any mention of who is doing the soundtrack for the
film?  Please let it be John Williams...

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Hauling people

> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:19:10 +0200 (METDST)
> From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
> 
> Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local government
> regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved 
> without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
> and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
> may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How many
> people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
> (access space included)?

Well, as anyone who's been hospitalized for a while realizes, you can
survive just fine entirely in a bed for over a week.  As you mention, you
won't be happy, or especially clean, but you'll be alive.  Add in half an
hour's exercise per day (running around in narrow accessways, in shifts,
during the 'day') and you'll do still better.

So:  Assume the classic 3.5 m deck spacing, with 3 m floor-to-ceiling
space.  We'll stack bunks 3-high, at 1 m intervals -- hard on
claustrophobes, but equivalent to what WW2 subs offered.

Given the maximum typical height of humans, we'll want beds at least 2.3 m
long.  A width of 1.5 m is about right.  To cram the most of these in per
shared access corridor, they'll be end-on to the corridor, so crawling in
will be like climbing into a narrow, deep cave.  0.3 m of long-axis space
is devoted to the corridor itself, which paired with the opposite set of
bunks gives a 0.6 m passage...certainly not roomy, but adequate for
getting in and out. 

If this is *really* an absolute pack-em-to-the-gills,
last-boat-before-the-nova situation, you *might* be able to get two people
per bunk in this design...but they'd better be good friends going in, and
I wouldn't vouch for them staying that way by the end of the trip.

So, to summarize, I get a density of 3 people per dt, or 6 if you're truly
desperate.

> Question 2: Same question, but this time assume that instead of surviving
> for 10 days the passengers have to survive a long trip with the ship --
> perhaps as long as a year. How many do you think you can get into a
> displacement ton then (You can feed and excercise them in shifts, but I
> guess you would have to supply _some_ recreational facilities to keep
> them alive).

For this I'd guess 1 per dt is about right, or 2 at maximum.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hauling People

  Seems to me low berths would be best bet here - while you can't pack
them in real tight, no need to provide space for folks to move around.  If
you assume the space listed in the design specs includes the access
corridors (as it does for staterooms), then a real dense pack could be
done (perhaps double) if one assumes some sort of module that is prepack
with peple and then loaded into the cargo bay (with a power cord to the
ship, I presume).

  For even denser pack, the emergency low berths would work, though I'm
not sure you could get me into one unless there was a real emergency.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:36:09 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: WTB CT Books

At 10:16 AM 10/5/97 -0400, you wrote:

>What system is most compatable with the Classic Traveller system? Is anythign
>still available for purchase in stores, mailorder, internet, etc? Or just
>this new T4 game? 

T4 is by far the most compatible with Classic.  If you want to buy old
stuff, best haunt the used section of your FLGS and the local conventions.
- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:13:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Stark <stark@glacier.nrlssc.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Spanish vs Mexica Hi.

> 
> Subject: Spanish vs Mexica Hi.
> 
> > From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
> > A band of a couple hundred men brought down an empire of about 15-20
> > million.
>    
>    I realize that this is the `official' history, but I have a hard time
>    believing that Cortez's army of 200,000 angry locals played a military
>    second to his 108 steel-armed Spaniards and 16 horses in the conquest
>    of Mexico.  Obviously, Spanish technology made a big impression on the
>    Aztec rulers and was an important motivator for the Tlaxcallan army,
>    but that huge army was the driving force behind the Aztec surrender,
>    not a tiny supply of steel arms and horses.
>    
>    -Rob

Guys,
it really isn't fair to look at this as a tech 3 vs. tech 0+ military
issue. There were a number of additional factors that some historians
suggest were crucial in the defeat of the Aztecs.

1. Spanish brought with them small pox, which the locals had NO resistance. 
Think of the psychological impact that disease would have under those 
conditions.

2. Centralized government -- Take out Mexico city and you have the empire.

3. Various sociological issues that led the Aztecs to trust the Spaniards.

These factors in addition to Rob's point pretty much did the job for the
Spaniards.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                |                                   |
Don Stark                       |           ,/7_                    |
                                |          /   _`,                  |
Naval Research Lab, Code 7322   |         (.)\) \|_                 |
Bay St. Louis, MS 39529         |          0    /^~'                |
- --------------------------------|                                   |
e-mail: stark@nrlssc.navy.mil   |                                   |
- --------------------------------|                                   |
Phone: (601) 688-4151 work      |              ' )( `               |
       (601) 688-4759 fax       |   ~~~~~~~~~~~''  ``~~~~~~~~~~~~   |
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 09:28:23 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Spanish vs Mexica   Hi.

>> A band of a couple hundred men brought down an empire of about 15-20
>> million.
>   
>   I realize that this is the `official' history, but I have a hard time
>   believing that Cortez's army of 200,000 angry locals played a military
>   second to his 108 steel-armed Spaniards and 16 horses in the conquest
>   of Mexico.  Obviously, Spanish technology made a big impression on the
>   Aztec rulers and was an important motivator for the Tlaxcallan army,
>   but that huge army was the driving force behind the Aztec surrender,
>   not a tiny supply of steel arms and horses.
>   
>   -Rob
>
>
I wonder what part small-pox etc. played in all this?

                Colin

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:40:34 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

In mail you write:

> players are about my speed, and one is totally clueless.  He didn't even
> know what "bow" and "aft" meant before we started playing this game.

You mean "bow & stern" or "fore & aft". The first pair are *locations*.
The second pair are *directions*.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:29:33 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Books & Andre Norton

In mail you write:

> Umm, well she's no spring chicken, you know. I read a lot of her stuff back
> in the 60's, and it was old then.

Not *that* old. Check the copyright dates. She started writing SF in
the 50s.

> One thing I've always wanted to know, and never tried to dig out...what's
> her real name?

Alice Norton. Possibly Alice Mary Norton, but I may be getting that
confused with another author. But I'm *sure* about the "Alice" part.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Moving People

  Just did a quick design of a bulk people transport/emergency evacuation
ship using QSDS.  A TL12 2,000 ton airframe slab fitted to J2 M2 with
minimal controls costs about 628 MCr after discount.  Crew of ten, in
small staterooms except for the captain in a large.  There is enough room
for about 600 emergency low berths, or 3,600 people.

  Now, this is a very spartan design.  One would probably want more
medical personel (I included only one for the crew), a sickbay, and
perhaps some other equipment.

  On the other hand, I was thinking more emergency evacuation ship, which
accounts for the drive and manuever numbers.  A J1 M1 ship would be even
cheaper and hold more - about 4,100 in emergency low berths, just
eyeballing it (I didn't run the numbers, so I may be off by a few
hundred).

  This packs folks in at 1 per 0.5 tons - pretty much the limit, I think.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:56:47 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

David P. Summers writes:
>Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:43:41 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen
>>
>>                                         ...I rely on the larger systems
>>providing 0.1% (or possibly 0.2%) of their resources for smaller systems.
>>That's not heavily. I really think that the remaining 99.9 or 99.8% of
>>their forces should be enough to cover most Gas Giants.
> 
>Well, the amount of resources required to stop piracy was in dispute,

So how about telling us how many and what size ships you think would be
necessary?

>as also was the method of acounting (since the percentage of your
>resources it would take is irrelevant if the loses due to piracy
>are even low).  

It is my belief that losses due to piracy and brigandage is acceptable to an
orderly society only if they have no choice about the matter (ie. that in
order to deal with it effectively it has to cut down on something else that
it considers important). So if the Imperium does, indeed, have the assets to
deal effectively with piracy, then they will do so. And if they have
anything even remotely like what TCS indicates that they should have, then
they do have the assets to do so.
 
>However, to avoid recaping the whole thread,

Right. Let's move on with the thread instead. How about you tell me how
you think a pirate would operate and how he actually catches his prey 
and avoid being hunted down by the navy.

>>Wilderness refuelling involves
>>setting down in a body of water and getting the fuel. That's something you
>>can do even without a fuel purifier plant.
> 
>It is my understanding that you need a purifier for both water
>and gas giant atmosphere.  

Then you understand wrong. Any ship can get unrefined fuel by wilderness
refuelling. What you can't do without a fuel purifier plant for is to
refine the fuel.

>If they don't require you to purify water to use in a reactor but you do
>have to purify the atmosphere of a gas giant (which is mostly hyrogen and
>doesn't contain as many heavy element), then that just doesn't make sense.

You take water, run electricity through it, and collect the hydrogen. That
is your fuel. Apparently hydrogen gotten this way contains impurities. Or
you collect hydrogen from a Gas Giant. Such hydrogen is also impure. Running
the hydrogen through a fuel purifier plant apparently gets you refined fuel.

>>Not really. Adding an avoidable delay to all the unavoidable ones can't
>>help but decrease earnings in the long run.
> 
>Except that you aren't adding.  A gas giant is in range of radio
>communications and a ship can wire ahead to a broker while refueling.

Wait a minute. I thought we had disposed of the side trip to a Gas Giant
when you want to go to the main world of the same system and was down to
those ships that is just passing through on their way to the next system.
If you're back to visiting both the main world and a Gas Giant then you
are back to wasting days instead of hours.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:33:30 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Take off/Landing Thoughts

Moin Kenneth Bearden,

> I was trying to let them know with an explanation they would
> understand--lowest common denominator approach.

	A reactionless drive is directly converting the force of
	hand waving travellers to provide thurst to an imaginary
	starship we use for this !!!GAME!!!.

	As computers dont have hands to wave TNElers have to use HEPlaR,
	which can be calculated without violating the law of conservation
	of momentum.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:14:29 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Spanish vs Mexica

Moin Robert Flammang,

> > From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
> > A band of a couple hundred men brought down an empire of about 15-20
> > million.
>    
>    I realize that this is the `official' history, but I have a hard time
>    believing that Cortez's army of 200,000 angry locals played a military
>    second to his 108 steel-armed Spaniards and 16 horses in the conquest
>    of Mexico.  Obviously, Spanish technology made a big impression on the
>    Aztec rulers and was an important motivator for the Tlaxcallan army,
>    but that huge army was the driving force behind the Aztec surrender,
>    not a tiny supply of steel arms and horses.

	I would rather think that european military tradition was
	something the Aztecs did'nt think about. Their tradition was
	not to conquer and kill, but more like an anual sports event,
	where young man meet on a field between two cities to fight.
	Goal was not to kill the oponent, or of conquer land, but only
	to show own warriorship and to "invite" one or two of the other
	side for the next celebration. This tradition showed the same
	consequence (femicide) to population control as normal european
	war does.

	So the success was more based on the suprise of the a new tactic
	"conquer and kill" than on real military advantages. The Zulus
	on the other hand where better prepared so the managed to withstand
	english machine guns much longer. Shakas "Imperium" was also based
	on "rape/murder/slavery" so he knowed how to fight a war.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:08:32 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

Moin Peter Newman,

> > > Jump drives do improve in fuel efficency (in MT) but not until TL 17.
> > > This implies three things to me:
> > 
> >         of course they improve in MT and TNE, while they dont improve
> >         in CT/T4. The MT/TNE formular is (N+1)*5%*(P/N) where N is jump
> >         drives number, and P the number of parsecs.
> 
> Jump Drives do _not_ improve in fuel efficency in MT until TL 17.  MT
> states (Referee's Manual pg 64) Fuel Volume per jump unit (ie
> displacement ton of jump drive) "Fuel Volume at TL 9 to 16: x5 (67.5 kl
> per jump unit"  In MT jump drives between TL 9 and 16 use 5 times the
> drive volume in fuel.  Jump drives do not reduce in volume in MT at any
> TL (Ref's Manual pg 64).

	But as you can "stack" more jump-units on a higher techlevel
	you can improve fuel efficency by the same formular as TNE
	used. And you stack them 2,3,4,5,6,7 for jump 1-6, so you have
	the improvement, which is posible because of better HPGs
	installed and several other minor improvements.

> This rule means that a ship which is capable of a higher jump will use
> less fuel for a jump of the same distance as a less capable ship. 
> However this has nothing to do with Tech level.  A TL 16 TNE Jump 1 ship
> will use exactly the same ammount of fuel for a jump 1 as a TL 9 jump 1
> ship will. A TL 11 jump 2 ship of the same size will use less fuel for a
> 1 parsec jump than this TL 16 jump 1 ship will.

	But Tl16 planets are not building jump 1 drives as they cant
	compete in the marked with Tl9-10 worlds. Imho it would be even
	posible to construct a smaler jump drive on higher techlevels
	(a jump 1 drive for a tl12 scout should be 1.66 and not 2dt)
	as HPG banks improve over the time. This smaller drived would
	still use 10dt fuel for jump 1, and is not stackable to 3 units
	to alow that only 6.6dt fuel per parsec will be used when MT/TNE
	jump drives are asumed.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:56:26 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Hauling people

Moin Hans Rancke-Madsen,

> I've been trying to see how cheaply you can move people from one world to
> another, and even when I bundle them into bunks it comes out as quite
> expensive. But even a bunk takes up 14 cubic meters, which made me wonder:

	if you have enough life support systems you can bunk people
	up like cows. My Gushemege has a special "Meat-Container" for
	their container freigters standart containers 40dt brutto and
	525mq (10*7.5*7) floodable (with colapsible tanks) netto.
	The container has life support for up to 150 human sized
	meat and 4 weeks on 2 floors. Official configuration is 80
	humans and up to 7 weeks. The Gus600 can jump with 5 containers
	(a sixt one has to become flooded to have in system fuel on the
	other side) 4 parsec or with (9/3,16/2,28/2) configurations. 

	Price : 400.924 MCr (Tl13) excluding computers sensors, and
	similar stuff. Holographic systems are not ownable in the FDR.
	The FDR is also called the Gushemege Vampire, so the computers
	are the FDR.

	" The other main operation was the 3rd and 4th citizen import
	in 1175 (Aslan) and 1182 (Zho). " both operations had 30 Gus600
	in 16 containers 2 parsec configuration. As one container in this
	configuration was repair dock for the 720 escort Roaches and a
	other carried in system fuel. A poplevel of 4 with a popcode
	of 3 was moved. 3 runs would move a poplevel of 5, 30 runs
	of 6 and so on. As its more difficult to move people, than to
	show them a glooryous future for their kid, we decided to import
	every race only once. Motivation: call it a zoo, if you dislike
	vampires. To motivate the Zho was difficult, but it was diplomatic
	possible to convince a Zho noble, that its better to move to
	Gushemege than to wait for the Wave to arive in 30 years, or
	the next "zhoslayer-strain" likely before the Wave arives.
	Of course he came with his "familly" of about 20 thousends 
	prolls, and a stuff of several hundred lower nobles.  The Aslans
	motivation where much easier, more room.  We even had a "symbolic
	fight" when we gave them a planet, just to make the male cats proud. 

	Perhaps it should be said that the nobles of course where'nt
	carried in "viehcontainers" but had large staterooms. 

> Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local government
> regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved 
> without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
> and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
> may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How many
> people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
> (access space included)?

	down to 3qm per human. current freighters in civil war areas
	often pack higher.

> Question 2: Same question, but this time assume that instead of surviving
> for 10 days the passengers have to survive a long trip with the ship --
> perhaps as long as a year. How many do you think you can get into a
> displacement ton then (You can feed and excercise them in shifts, but I
> guess you would have to supply _some_ recreational facilities to keep
> them alive).

	Just multiply life support system is to easy. I asumed that
	2/3 of the life support is static while the rest is replaceable.
	So a double size life support gives you 4 weeks and a 4 times
	sized life support 7 weeks. Its certain that the trip will take
	a bit longer as expected as is better to pack them, make 3 or 5
	jumps unpack them on a planet, jump back, take the next and so
	on. People where left on the planet for 3 weeks to become taken
	by the next group of liners just an other 3 to 5 parsecs away.

	The other posibility is the asteroid jump ship, big enough to
	carry a lot of people with "aceptable" comfort. That how the
	Loeskalth a now distinct minor race from Gushemege moved to
	the Far Frontiers to avoid becomining nuked by the vilanies
	about -4500ti.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1924
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, October 7 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1925



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Starports
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Re: THUDDD update
Re: Industrial capacity
Re: Hauling people
Re: Starship Troopers
Reasonable NPAWS Barbette?
Question for Bruce Macintosh
Bruce:  Sensor Question
Trav Stuff 4 Sale
Emperor's Vehicles
Current  T4 Supplements
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Jump Projectors
Re: T4.1 date gone back again

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:41:38 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Starports

Simon Early writes:
>Subject: Re: Starports

Thanks for a very interesting post, Simon. I'm going to take it home and
study it in depth. In the meantime, here are a few points I noticed right
away:

>If we compare the shipyard capacity of 1935 Britain (2,000,000 tons - 
>say 4,000,000 m3 in Traveller terms, population of 40 million - 
>roughly) we can see that the capacity (100 m3 per 1000 population) is 
>much higer than the Traveller figure of 14 m3 per 1000 population.  

Remember that the TCS figure for shipyard capacity is what is available
for naval construction over and above replacements and maintenance and
that it dosen't include civilian construction at all. If the calculations
I've just posted about the Spinward Marches are representative, then
naval shipyard capacity is actually more than twice the 14 m3 and still
dosen't say anything about civilian shipyards. 

>Let us make another comparison, if shipyards build 4,000,000 m3 per 
>year with an average starship life of 50 years, we will have an 
>operational fleet size of 200 million m3 (15 million T) of ships - 
>enough for 4 /Tigress/ BatRons or *lots* of Free Traders in the 
>merchant fleet.

That all depends on just what you are building. If you are actually
building Tigresses then each ship takes 4 and a half year to build,
cutting down your production drastically. In fact, in order to have
a ship finished in a year you have to restrict yourself to Gazelles.

>Mind you, 4 BatRons would cost 1.1 Trillion credits per year to maintain 
>(eqivalent to the Naval tax on 2.3 billion people).

Tigresses are fairly expensive per T. The same amount of _Ghalalk_ class
Armored Cruisers would only cost 77% of that. (50,000 Gazelles would be
32% _more_ expensive, though).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 97 21:40:20 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

On 10/06/97 at 07:05 PM,  SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com> said:

>>> I think that the difference is somewhat semantic, as you could roll a
>>> second '1' in the second batch of 5D. However, I take your point. How do
>>> you do armour?

>>There *isn't* a "second batch of 5d". You double the results of the
>>first 5d.

>Slapped wrist! Naughty Dom. Bad Dom. ;-)

>Hey, Eris, can I be a heretic now? <g>

Only if you are willing to go through the initiation. ;->

"Damage to the primary target is doubled, after any subtraction for armor
and/or cover, and the maximum damage is doubled as well.  For example, a
damage rating of 3D versus a rigid armor rating of 1 would result in 4D to
the target -- 3 minus 1 is 2; 2 doubled is 4.  Targets adjacent to the
primary target take normal damage if hit.", p 56

Guys, my reading of the rule agrees with Dom. From the example, it looks
like the *number* of dice are doubled (not their value) and the number of
damage dice (the 3D blowthrough rule) is doubled as well.  I had missed
this until I reread the rules.  This seems to mean that a 5D Snub Pistol
would do double damage after subracting armor/cover and would produce up to
6D worth of damage to a primary target.

Example:  5D versus rigid armor of 1

 5D-1 = 4Dx2 = 8 (1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5), but only *6* dice are applied as
               damage (5,5,4,4,3,3)
               
Damage like that will put almost *any* character down quite fast!


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

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:04:30 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: THUDDD update

At 10:36 AM 10/6/97 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>:
>
>> An optional rule, hmmmm?  OK, provisional ruling:  no gcomp stacking
>> allowed for the THUDDD.  How would folks feel about that?
>
>Very happy.
>
>Also in a similar vein, CSC allows "magnetic shielding" of vehicle 
>hulls.  IIRC it handwaves that it can't be used against 
>starship-calibre weapons but can we have an official "no shields" 
>rule too if I'm wrong?

Nick,

The CSC mag shield is only good against kenetic rounds, and plasmas. Lasers
are not affected by it. Net result nothing in starship combats using
lasers, and nuke lasers.



- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 05:13:58 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

Colin Hutchinson writes:

> <Which means that if a TL 15 world want to invest in some patrol ships they
> <can buy the drives from a TL 12 world and get them 15% cheaper...
> 
> including the cost of importation?

Lessee... jump drives costs MCr4.2 per displacement T. Buying them from a
TL 12 world with TL 15 credits (in both cases worlds with a Class A
starport) is 15% cheaper. A saving of Cr630,000 per dT. Transportation
costs are Cr1000 per parsec (actually quite a bit less, but let's not
get into that). So if there is a suitable world within the sector you
can save about Cr600,000 per dT. For a 400 T patrol cruiser that is a
saving of MCr 9.6. I don't know what such a ship costs in T4, but in MT
it costs MCr164, which would make it a saving of about 6%. 
 
>BTW  I think I recall reading somewhere that GNP in the imperium spent on
>military was only 1%, (though I cannot remember where)  this might help
>reduce still further the budget.

I did some calculations once that seemed to make the Imperium use (30% 
of) Cr170 per citizen, but that was based on quite a few unsupported
assumptions. I don't recall seeing any official statements about
Imperial spending.
 
>Tricky issue.

Indeed. But fascinating. 


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 21:06:41 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Hauling people

At 04:40 pm 10/06/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-10-06 09:21:48 EDT, you write:
>
><< Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local
>government
> regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved 
> without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
> and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
> may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How many
> people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
> (access space included)?

>Answer #1).  maybe around 6 bunks in a DT, but they're probably going to need
>to stay in the bunks all the time (and of course there's no sanitation
>facilities in this case, or galley or etc...)

	Note that the 14m3 for a "standard" bunk includes more than actually just
the bunk; otherwise it would be ridiculously large. It also includes the
actual access space around the bunk, as well as the ventilation, plumbing,
etc. portions of life support, and lighting, and etc., and etc. and a tiny
smidgeon o'common space, which really only comes into play when you've got
a bunch of bunks. Most things in FF&S2 actually contain more than what
they're labelled (so you don't have to worry about the specific details of
interior partitions, doors, iris valve mechanisms, glove box lights, etc.,
etc.)

	Yet another item we ran out of time for inclusion in FF&S2 was different
levels of crowding (so you could design a spacious luxury liner, or a
sardine-can tramp).
- -- 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: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>Well, I'd not be surprised to find that the "wrong" movement was
>*right*, but not what the director wanted. After all, someone in
>powered armor should "bounce around" like the astronauts on the moon,
>only faster.

Well at this point you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
 You've made up your mind that its an abomination (don't get me wrong, you
may be right).

At any rate, I just reported the news as I heard it when it was being filmed.
 To be honest, I don't really care too much about the whole deal.  I liked
the book, chances are I'll like the movie for completely different reasons,
and most of my friends will bitch about it afterwards.

The world is big enough to contain both (the Director also did "Total
Recall", and I liked that movie, so I'll at the very least give it a chance).

Semo

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:40:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Reasonable NPAWS Barbette?

So I have a little spare time on hand, and decide to play with my brand
spankin' new copy of FF&S II.  And, inspired by my recent purchase of
Journal #4, in which the Gazelle Close Escort originally appeared, I
figure, "How 'bout one of them thar' particle accelerator barbettes?"

The problem is, of course, that I've been away GURPSing for so long and
the Traveller starship rules have been in such a state of flux, that I
don't know what the reasonable values are for starship components (a
condition which also hampers my willingness to leap into THUDDD again).

Yes, I recall that FF&S II had to be left deliberately vague since no
starship combat system worth spitting over existed/exists.  But do we
really only have the logarithmic scales from Table 126 (Planetary and Far
Orbit look like the only two usual possibilities for most space battles?),
or should we be planning for weapon uses in a hex-delimited system a la
what I recall of Brilliant Lances (with hexes how big? 50,000 km?)?  How
large a damage value is "reasonable" from FF&S-II-designed weapons?

For what it's worth, I include my current take on a TL14 NPAWS barbette
intended for mounting in pairs on Gazelle-class ships.  I've changed it
from the CT five tons to the more recently "canonical" six, and, no, I
haven't yet designed the ship around it -- thought I'd see if this works
first.  I welcome comments showing errors in my understanding of the
design sequence or the "scale" of space combat: I honestly have no idea if
it's a terror of the spaceways or a laughable hatpin launcher.  And I
apologize that it's too small to even merit a mention in the Famille
Spofulam Kids' Catalog.... :-)

Gazelle Toroidal NPAW Barbette (TL14)

Torus Radius (R)                 2.10
Path Length (L)                 13.19  <-- Presumably has to be 2*PI*R?
Tunnel Diameter (D)              1.65
Energy per Lap (Elap)          172.70
Number of Laps (N)               7.00

Tunnel Area (A)                  0.68
Effective Length (Leff)          6.60
Effective Focal Area (Af)        2.72
Damage Modifier (DM)             1.00

Theoretical Effective Range  17961.27  <-- Wimpy or acceptable?
Effective Discharge Energy     456.92

Short Range (50,000 km)      50000.00
Continental Range (5,000 km)
  Intensity                   5896.24
  Damage                       384.24
Planetary Range (50,000 km)
  Intensity                     58.96
  Damage                        38.42  <-- See above?
Far Orbit Range (500,000km)
  Intensity                      0.59
  Damage                         3.84

Rate of Fire                     3.00
Input Energy per Shot        12089.00
Power Required                 274.86

Tunnel Volume                   56.43
Tunnel Mass                     42.32
Tunnel Cost (MCr)                5.64

Crew Requirement                 0.14  <-- presumes top-of-the-line TL14 comp

Accumulator Volume (m3)         10.99
Accumulator Mass (tons)         21.99
Accumulator Price (MCr)          0.11

84m3 socket has 75.94m3 usable volume, 15.98m2 area, 4.51 m dia, 0.84MW

Total Volume of NPAW (m3)       75.22 <-- includes tunnel, accumulators,
                                          beam pointer, workstation

Note that I'm also subscribed to gdw-beta, if this would be better
discussed there.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:40:11 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Question for Bruce Macintosh

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
 Thruster plates also only provide thrust in one direction
> now. 

This doesn't make sense to me.  It seem like thrust needs to go in
different directions to allow for maneuvering.  The DGP rule of 25% to
the sides and 10% reverse seemed about right.

If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?  Certainly not with
orientation jet-thrusters?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:44:05 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Bruce:  Sensor Question

I've got a sensors question for ya.

Let's say a ship is bee-bopping the 4 hours or so down to a jump point. 
There is another ship in range of the sensors.

How does a ship find another using sensor in the first place if the
sensor operator is not actively doing a sensor sweep?

Do ships automatically leave passive sensors on all the time?

If so, how does a ref handle this in a game--not wanting to tip off the
players if the sensor sweep roll fails?  Should I roll the sensor tech's
task throw behind my screen without letting the players know what I'm
doing?

What's the best way to handle this?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:50:45 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Trav Stuff 4 Sale

At my local game shop tonight, I spied two TNE supplements for sale.  
There's a copy of Aliens of the Rim Vol. 1 which details the Hivers and
the Ithklur.  I think they were asking $9 for it.

Also, I saw a copy of The Regency Sourcebook which describes the Domain
of Deneb (Spinward Marches, Deneb, Trojan Reach, and Reft sectors)
during the TNE era.

I find this book useful no matter what milieu I play in.  There's world
data and maps for all four sectors, and the data is listed twice--once
for the TNE milieu and once for the M1100 era.  

I didn't see what they wanted for the Regency Sourcebook, but if anybody
is interested in either of these, e-mail me in private.  I'll go down,
get them, and mail them to you.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 20:59:58 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Emperor's Vehicles

I saw the EV tonight at my local gamestore.  I didn't buy it yet,
because I don't yet need it for my campaign.  But, I do plan on getting
it later.

I wrote this review for my players, and I am posting it here for anybody
that is interested.

Kenneth.



(the following was copied from a post I sent to my players)

Emperor's Vehicles

I looked at this tonight, and it looks to be pretty good.  Although I
didn't buy it yet, I'm planning on getting it.

I'd heard some bad things (and some good things) about it on the TML,
and I wanted to check it out first.  I was pleasantly surprised with
what I found.

One thing that I didn't like about the book was that I had heard on the
TML that TL's were not included for the vehicles.  I'm disappointed to
find out that this is true.  But, I can easily assign TL's to the
vehicles as we use them.

The whole book is nothing but a huge number of vehicles--I'm talking
about eight vehicles per two pages!  Each two-page spread includes some
good art work of a selected vehicle (not that crappy stuff that was in
the main book) and a discussion of that particular vehicle group.

Then, the opposite page from this picture and description is eight
vehicle examples, complete with stats.  Like I said, the only thing
missing seems to be the TL.

Just the sheer number of vehicles in the book makes it worth the money,
but I like the added extra--extended game rules for using vehicles.  In
the back of the book, there are rules for handling vehicles and
operating them.

It looks like a decent supplement, and the breath of vehicles it covers
is amazing--from animal mounts to orbital vehicles.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:09:41 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Current  T4 Supplements

I've put together a list of all current T4 supplements for my players. 
I'm reposting it here for any newbies to the list who are unfamiliar
with all of the T4 products out to date.

Kenneth.

(the following is copied from my player e-mail)



Just to keep you up to date, here is a list of all of the current
supplements now out for T4.


Book 1:  Main Rule Book.
A revision of this, written by Marc Miller himself, is coming out soon. 
It's been pushed back to December from what I've heard.  From what I've
seen from the small sections that Marc has put on the TML, it's going to
be well worth the wait.  

We need a main rule book that is more detailed than the basic book we
now have.  This new book looks like it is going to fill that need
perfectly.  I'm excited about it.



Book 2:  Starships
Includes several starships, stats, and deckplans.  One half of the book
is devoted to the SSDS, the Standard Starship Design System for creating
your own starships.

I've got it.



Book 3:  Central Supply Catalog
Just about every piece of equipment ever published for Traveller is in
this book.  There's new rules mixed within for different pieces of
equipment that is really neat.  About half of this book is a vehicle
design system for designing your own vehicles, and from what I've seen
of it, it looks like a good system.  There's also a quick and dirty
robot design system included.  And,there's some good commentary of being
a merchant in Imperial space.

I've got it.  All players should have a copy of this book.



Book 4:  Aliens Archive
This book introduces 12 new aliens to the Traveller universe.  We
haven't used this book much yet, but we will as we deal with these
particular aliens.  Game rules for running these aliens as PCs are
included.

I've got it.



Book 5:  Milieu 0
This book is a campaign sourcebook for those running games set in the
year 0.  Since our game is set in the 1100's, we have little need for
this and I haven't cracked it much.  But, from what I've seen of it, I
might transplant some of the ideas in it into our campaign.  There's a
map of the Core sector included.

I've got it.



Book 6:  First Survey
This book contains maps and world information on the Core sector and the
eight sectors around it.  The world UWPs are set for the M0 campaign
background, and I haven't found this book that useful for our game.  It
is useful, though, to have this info and maps for sectors that I don't
have.

I've got it.



Book 7:  Emperor's Arsenal
This incredible book contains tons of weapons for the game, sorted by
TL.  There's also tons of game rules interspersed therein.  It's a must
have.

I've got it, and so should you.  I'd like every player to have a copy.



Book 8:  Pocket Empires
This book gives you game rules for running your own planet or even small
empire outside the Imperium.  I've got plans for this book...and your
characters are really going to move up the ladder as our campaing moves
on.  This book also includes two new chargen systems for two new T4
character types--Diplomats and Bureaucrats.

I've got it.



Book 9:  Anomalies
This is a book of small adventures, many of which are related in
campaign fashion.  We're going to be playing some of these sooner than
you think.

I've got it.



Book A:  Psionic Institutes
This book covers training institutes for psionics in the year 0.  With a
little coversion, I'm going to use some of this info in our game when we
introduce psionics--again sooner than you think.  This book also
contains several psionic related adventures.



Book B:  Fire Fusion and Steel
This book contains design systems for designing your own starships and
weapons.

I've got it.



Book C:  Emperor's Vehicles
I don't have this one yet, but it contains several game ready vehicles,
from animal mounts to orbital vehicles, complete with stats.

I will get it.



Adventures:

The Long Way Home
It's an adventure set in the year 0, which I'm going to transplant into
our game.  This is a long, campaign style adventure like the one we are
currently playing, The Traveller Adventure.

I've got it.



Gateway
This is part two of adventure started in The Long Way Home.  I don't
have it yet, but I'll get it when it comes time.



Magazines:

Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society #25
This magazine picks up where it left off back in the early 80's.  During
the CT edition of this game, this magazine came out quarterly,
containing all types of fan inspired info for gaming in the Traveller
universe.  The last issue was number 24.  This magazine picks up with
issue number 25 for the T4 game.

I've got it.



Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society #26
This is the second issue of the T4 version of this gaming magazine. 
Issue #27 is due out soon.

I've got it.



Miscellaneous:

T4 Gamemaster's Screen
I hide behind this screen during every game.  I find it useful,
especially have the reaction table right in front of me.  I also like to
hide my die throws.  It comes with a short adventure written by Marc
Miller that we will be playing.

I've got it.



Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:07:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

>Oh, yeah.  That's what did it for me.  It had nothing to do with the
>brutality of the Soviet regime, the tanks lined up in the Fulda gap nor the
>millions of tons of radioactive explosives pointed at my house.  It was the
>TV.

Yes TV, and don't forget the films.

>I, like all Americans, have no actual decision-making ability of my own.
>Now excuse me, the Beaver needs talking to.

Truth be told, film, television and other media have a massive impact and
influence on people.  Sorry if you disagree, but its completely true.  Ask
the average American where the Fulda gap is and they will not know.  Truth be
told.  To be honest, I don't know where the Fulda gap is.

The brutality of the Soviet regime?  How much of this was colored by American
media and press, television, media and film.  And how much American brutality
was in fact thinly covered up so we could sleep well at night.

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm not going to say that the soviets didn't cover
up brutality.  And I'm not trying to say that the Soviet regime was
absolutely right or correct.  Truth be told, your average American citizen
got more fired up by Ivan Drago in Rocky IV then tanks in the Fulda gap.
 Sorry.

If you honestly believe that such films didn't influence Joe Beercan out
there then I am truly astonished.  I as an American have surprisingly little
faith in the American public and their ability to make decisions.  That's
something that you have to put up with however, the good and the bad.

Oh, and I forgot the influence of the great WWF villain Nikolai Volkov.

Truth be told, I can't figure out why you took such as massive amount of
offense to that statement.

Semo

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:31:14 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

>REGULAR PASSENGER LINER OR FREIGHTER TRAVELLING FROM SURFACE TO SURFACE
>(35 jumps per year):
>
>           Steerage    Low    Economy    Mid     High    1 dT of  1 dT per
>           Passage   Passage  Passage  Passage  Passage  freight   parsec*
>Jump-1:     1,200     1,400    2,800    4,800    6,200      840      840
>Jump-2:     1,500     1,800    3,800    6,600    8,400    1,170      585
>Jump-3:     2,100     2,200    5,100    9,000   11,400    1,660      555
>Jump-4:                                13,400             2,400      600
>Jump-5:                                19,800             3,660      735
>Jump-6:                                35,000             6,370    1,065
>
>*Assuming the route is an exact multiple of the jump rating.

Hans, this is one of the most useful posts I have seen lately. I would like
to see how you determined cost for passage. It's not that I don't trust
your numbers, I just wanted to know what you base your calculations on.
Also, what is "steerage"? If it is safer than a 17% chance if instant death
no one would ever use low passage.

In my campaign a middle passenger gets a full stateroom (otherwise there is
no way a high passenger would ever bump one, and anyway even a full
stateroom is pretty small). I assume "economy" passage is a small stateroom.

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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:17:03 -0500
From: "Linda Baxter" <Baxter@midusa.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Projectors

> From: Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com>
> I note that the list of books in the front lists "Redline the Stars"
> (again by Norton and Griffin) and I seem to vaguely recall that title
> from an old article as being a Solar Queen story that never got
> written. I may have to try ordeing it!

It was written and it is about the Solar Queen. That's the last book
she wrote about the Solar Queen IIRC. :-)
  I don't recall Brother to Shadows, though. I did read Firehand.

Baxter@midusa.net

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 05:44:31 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4.1 date gone back again

On Sun, 5 Oct 1997 02:18:33 +0100, SD Mooney wrote:

> Anyone noticed that the IG web page says that the T4.1 release date is now
> back to December 97, not November? ;-(
> 
> Just so long as it's right this time...

I agree.  This is definitely a GOOD THING.



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

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1925
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, October 7 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1926



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Re: Questions about Traveller
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts
Re: Hauling people
TravSuite Worldmapper
Re: TML: Physicists
Another FF&S Errata?
Piracy 
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1922
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1924
Re: March Harrier Landings
Interesting thought on TL
Re: Conquistadors
Re: Obsidian
Re: Starports
Re: Hauling people

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:38:20 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> 
> In mail you write:
> 
> > players are about my speed, and one is totally clueless.  He didn't even
> > know what "bow" and "aft" meant before we started playing this game.
> 
> You mean "bow & stern" or "fore & aft". The first pair are *locations*.
> The second pair are *directions*.

Yes, I know that.  I was letting you know that he didn't know either. 
He didn't know what "dorsal" and "ventral" meant either.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 05:44:28 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

On Mon, 06 Oct 1997 02:48:33 -0400, Harold D. Hale wrote:

> Joseph R. Dietrich writes:
> 
> >>From a logistics point of view, I also think it would be difficult for
> >> someone watching the movie to tell the main character's suit from anyone
> >> else's (this wasn't a reason I heard, this is just my own observation).
> >
> >Yeah, and then try convincing a bunch of actors to cover their faces from
> >the admiring eyes of the camera. ;)
> 
>    Three words: clear face shields.  They use them in underwater movies
> (i.e. The Abyss) all the time with no problem.

Just like Stalone in "Judge Dredd".  Those familiar with the comic book
knew that Dredd was like Wilson on Home Improvement-- nobody ever saw his
face.  But put an actor with a salary of $20 million in the role and the
producers wanna be damned sure that s/he gets maximum visibility.



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

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 05:44:29 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

On Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:07:12 -0500, Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:

> 
> Eris wrote:
> 
> >
> >>> Skip this one out of respect for Virginia.
> >
> >>With *this* point I'm in utter agreement!
> >
> >Yeah, I am too.  And the fact that this movie is likely to be a stinker
> >doesn't hurt either. ;->
> 
> 
> 	The trailers that I've seen, with the troops marching around in
> deserts, defending very primitive-looking forts, and so forth, makes me
> think that ST the movie is gonna come out looking like Aliens meets The
> Last Remake Of Beau Geste.
> 
> 	Which in and of itself is not neccessarily a bad thing if you're
> looking for mindless violent action flicks with big guns and alien ooze
> flying everywhere, but calling it ST and linking it to Heinlein seems to be
> misleading advertising.

IIRC, Heinlein's wife fought the studio to remove her husband's name from
the motion picture, based on what she saw of some early footage.
Originally launched as "Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers", it is now
being billed simply as "Starship Troopers".  So the link to Heinlein is
out, AFAIK.



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

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:50:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

Eris Reddoch wrote:

> "Damage to the primary target is doubled, after any subtraction for armor
> and/or cover, and the maximum damage is doubled as well.  For example, a
> damage rating of 3D versus a rigid armor rating of 1 would result in 4D to
> the target -- 3 minus 1 is 2; 2 doubled is 4.  Targets adjacent to the
> primary target take normal damage if hit.", p 56
> 
> Guys, my reading of the rule agrees with Dom. From the example, it looks
> like the *number* of dice are doubled (not their value) and the number of
> damage dice (the 3D blowthrough rule) is doubled as well.  I had missed
> this until I reread the rules.  This seems to mean that a 5D Snub Pistol
> would do double damage after subracting armor/cover and would produce up to
> 6D worth of damage to a primary target.

Well, damn, Eris!  I think you are right!

So, for most KE autofire weapons, the maximum damage it can inflict on a
character is 6D.

> Example:  5D versus rigid armor of 1
> 
>  5D-1 = 4Dx2 = 8 (1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5), but only *6* dice are applied as
>                damage (5,5,4,4,3,3)


But I disagree with you here.  Your example is right until you get to
the first set of 8D rolled.  I read the rule like this:

    5D-1 = 4Dx2 = 8

    BUT Max damage rule states a max of 6D can be applied to a character
from      autofire.

    Given this, 8 dice are never thrown, because you can only throw 6
maximum.  Taking     the first six values from your example above,
damage would be (1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4)     total.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:20:34 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:56:47 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>So how about telling us how many and what size ships you think would be
>necessary?

We have been over this.  I told you how many ships I thought
a world would need, how many worlds would be needed, the size
of ships that were appropriate, and I responded to how your
analysis point by point.  You have already responded to it
once already.  I don't really want to repeat it
all again so we can hash it all over yet again....


>It is my belief that losses due to piracy and brigandage is acceptable to an
>orderly society only if they have no choice about the matter (ie. that in
>order to deal with it effectively it has to cut down on something else that
>it considers important).

Well, I don't agree, we already tolerate crimes in the US because
the cost of eliminating them is too high.  Further more, the Imperium
is, to me at least, not the concerned with the individual.  One
could have a different view, but that would their own take on the
issue, not a point that invalidates other takes.  I feel that
any idea that the Imperium will do what it would take,
regarless of cost, to start piracy is not a sufficent basis.

>>However, to avoid recaping the whole thread,

>Right. Let's move on with the thread instead. How about you tell me how
>you think a pirate would operate and how he actually catches his prey
>and avoid being hunted down by the navy.

We already covered pirates operating out of bases vs pirates
posing as merchants taking targets of opportunity.

>>It is my understanding that you need a purifier for both water
>>and gas giant atmosphere.
>
>Then you understand wrong. Any ship can get unrefined fuel by wilderness
>refuelling. What you can't do without a fuel purifier plant for is to
>refine the fuel.

Exactly what I meant, you need a purifier for both kinds of fuel.
But it is the same cost and speed to purify water and gas giant
atmosphere.  But water requires more steps than purification
of gas giant atmospheres.

>You take water, run electricity through it, and collect the hydrogen. That
>is your fuel. Apparently hydrogen gotten this way contains impurities. Or
>you collect hydrogen from a Gas Giant. Such hydrogen is also impure. Running
>the hydrogen through a fuel purifier plant apparently gets you refined fuel.

Right so water involves the extra step.  You have to split it, and then
purify it.  Gas Giant atmophere only requires purification.

>>Except that you aren't adding.  A gas giant is in range of radio
>>communications and a ship can wire ahead to a broker while refueling.
>
>Wait a minute. I thought we had disposed of the side trip to a Gas Giant
>when you want to go to the main world of the same system and was down to
>those ships that is just passing through on their way to the next system.

No, that was something else you weren't considering.  There was also
interplanetary travel as a third source.

>If you're back to visiting both the main world and a Gas Giant then you
>are back to wasting days instead of hours.

Right, and if you radio ahead, they can well not be wasted.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 01:29:00 -0400
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@pop.erols.com>
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

>Truth be told, I can't figure out why you took such as massive amount of
>offense to that statement.

Exactly.

Scott

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:02:03 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote,
>> > A reactionless drive means that there is no reaction that takes
>> >place to produce thrust, like burning fuel in rockets.
[...]
>When you are trying to explain reactionless drives, my players will
>draw a blank.  They don't know what "reactionless" means.  A rocket is
>a "reaction" based drive, and everybody knows what a rocket is, so I
>used that as my example.

OK, I see what you are trying to do - and generally I'd say you're doing
it well.  Be warned, however, that saying something misleading can lead
to problems later.  In this case, I might rephrase it something like:

  A reactionless drive means that there is no reaction that takes place
  place to produce thrust.  Rockets are a good example of reaction
  drives.

This way, even if they associate reaction with burning fuel and make a
mistake as a result, they can't blame you for it...

On to take-off and landing from a high-gravity planet:
>I read it like this:  the M-Drive blasts the ship off planet out of the
>planet's gravitational pull.  The M-Drive also controls landings as the
>ship gets into the planet's grav field.
>
>Once the ship is within range to use its contra-grav lifters, which I
>read as units that push against the gravitational field of the planet,
>the planet's gravity is really no longer a factor.  The ship can land
>using the contra-grav lifters.

I do like this explanation!

>I'd wing this in a game if we came upon a very, very high-G planet.  If
>they were landing, I'd probably make some sort of roll for the PC's to
>maintain control of the vessel as the ship switches from the M-Drive to
>the contral grav lifters.  If they missed the roll, I'd make them go
>out of control, but I'd still give them another shot of regaining
>control, using the contra-grav lifters, before they smashed into the
>surface.

Seems fair.

>With taking off, I'd say it is not possible to take off from a world
>with a higher G rating than the ship's overdrived M-Drive.

Agreed.

>But, I could also see an argument stating that the ship's contra-grav
>lifters could push the ship away from the planet enough for the G field
>to weaken, allowing the PC's to engage the M-Drive and speed away.

I think that's pushing the cg lifters' abilities too far.

>I'd probably give them some sort of a roll on this if this happened in
>a game.
>
>What are your thoughts on this?

It depends. 8-)  In a cinematic game, I'd let the engineer roll to
"push" the lifters, then if the roll was close I'd give the pilot a roll
to save the day.  In a more realistic campaign, I'd say they're stuck
planetside.  As to what they can do about this - I don't know!  They'd
probably have to attach Very Expensive boosters to the ship to get it up
again.
 
John

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 23:26:12 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Hauling people

Craig Berry wrote

> >Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote
> > 
> > Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local government
> > regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved 
> > without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
> > and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
> > may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How many
> > people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
> > (access space included)?
> 
> Well, as anyone who's been hospitalized for a while realizes, you can
> survive just fine entirely in a bed for over a week.  As you mention, you
> won't be happy, or especially clean, but you'll be alive.  Add in half an
> hour's exercise per day (running around in narrow accessways, in shifts,
> during the 'day') and you'll do still better.
> 
> So:  Assume the classic 3.5 m deck spacing, with 3 m floor-to-ceiling
> space.  We'll stack bunks 3-high, at 1 m intervals -- hard on
> claustrophobes, but equivalent to what WW2 subs offered.

Why stack them in bunks at all ?  We have gravity control and can let
them float in the air.
> 
> Given the maximum typical height of humans, we'll want beds at least 2.3 m
> long.  A width of 1.5 m is about right.  To cram the most of these in per
> shared access corridor, they'll be end-on to the corridor, so crawling in
> will be like climbing into a narrow, deep cave.  0.3 m of long-axis space
> is devoted to the corridor itself, which paired with the opposite set of
> bunks gives a 0.6 m passage...certainly not roomy, but adequate for
> getting in and out. 
> 
> If this is *really* an absolute pack-em-to-the-gills,
> last-boat-before-the-nova situation, you *might* be able to get two people
> per bunk in this design...but they'd better be good friends going in, and
> I wouldn't vouch for them staying that way by the end of the trip.
> 
> So, to summarize, I get a density of 3 people per dt, or 6 if you're truly
> desperate.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. People have an average
mass of less than 100kg.  Most people have an average density slightly
less than that of water (which is why most people float).  Therefore you
should be able to get 10 people per cubic meter if you reduce them to
corpses and do not worry about breaking bones when you stack them.  At
14 cubic meters to a displacement ton you should be able to get 140
corpses per displacement ton. At an average mass of 60 kg (including
children) you could get over 200 corpse per displacement ton. (Ghouls
take note - people are mostly water & water contains hydrogen -
therefore passengers can be broken down to provide a small ammount of
fuel.)

The only question we have to answer is how much more loosly do we have
to pack them to let them live.  We might be able to find reasonable 
first guesses by looking at the shipping records of slave ships bringing
african slaves to the new world in the early 19th century.  However at
higher tech levels we should be able to pack people even more densly
than the slave ships did.

Under zero gravity conditions, with forced air jets for ventilation, no
food or hygeine, and water provided by gravitically controlled water
jet  into the mouth I think that slaves or prisoners could probably be
packed so they took up most of the space in the hull.  The use of
psychotropic drugs to ensure docility will aid in this effort.

Therefore I think you might be able to pack in 100 people per ton if you
had to in a specially designed slave ship.  Remember that by increasing
your slave load you can afford a higher rate of losses and still make
money on the trip, this was called dense packing by slave ship captains.
Casualties can be thrown overboard.

Obligatory disclamer:  I am not in favor of slavery & I hope that the
unpleasant realites of history I have discussed do not offend anyone.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 02:52:10 -0500
From: Alex Rebsch <grazzit@flash.net>
Subject: TravSuite Worldmapper

Since there are several people on this list that have this program, and are
having the same problems, I wanted to address it. First off are the CORE
members that wrote the program on this list? Has anybody figured away around
the GPF whenever dealing with saved .map files? Also is there anyway we can get
CORE to fix the problems with the software? I know I'd be more than willing to
pay an extra $10 or so to get a fixed version... If the software was working
without the gpfs I'd say its the best worldmapping software I've seen! 


Lets see if we can stimulate any response from core.




Alex Rebsch

<underline><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>grazzit@flash.net

Alex.Rebsch@wang.com</color></underline>

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 23:55:31 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists

Michael Koehne wrote

Moin Peter Newman,

> > > > Jump drives do improve in fuel efficency (in MT) but not until TL 17.

> > >         of course they improve in MT and TNE, while they dont improve
> > >         in CT/T4. The MT/TNE formular is (N+1)*5%*(P/N) where N is jump
> > >         drives number, and P the number of parsecs.
> > 
> > Jump Drives do _not_ improve in fuel efficency in MT until TL 17.  MT
> > states (Referee's Manual pg 64) Fuel Volume per jump unit (ie
> > displacement ton of jump drive) "Fuel Volume at TL 9 to 16: x5 (67.5 kl
> > per jump unit"  In MT jump drives between TL 9 and 16 use 5 times the
> > drive volume in fuel.  Jump drives do not reduce in volume in MT at any
> > TL (Ref's Manual pg 64).
> 
>         But as you can "stack" more jump-units on a higher techlevel
>         you can improve fuel efficency by the same formular as TNE
>         used. And you stack them 2,3,4,5,6,7 for jump 1-6, so you have
>         the improvement, which is posible because of better HPGs
>         installed and several other minor improvements.

You may have a drive that uses less fuel for a trip of the same duration
but all this means is that jump drives capable of longer jumps are more
fuel efficent than drives that are only capable of short jumps.

Look in the rules and you will see quite clearly that jump drives do
_not_ improve in volume, mass, price (except vis a vis exchange rates),
or fuel usage between TL's 9 and 16.  This is canon.  The reason I
choose to use to explain why this is so is that between TL's 9 and 16
there is no theoretical understanding of why jump drives operate as they
do.  (More evidence that they are crude interface devices for
Yaskodray's TL 30 or so marvel of jump space - but that is another
discussion.)

> > This rule means that a ship which is capable of a higher jump will use
> > less fuel for a jump of the same distance as a less capable ship. 
> > However this has nothing to do with Tech level.  A TL 16 TNE Jump 1 ship
> > will use exactly the same ammount of fuel for a jump 1 as a TL 9 jump 1
> > ship will. A TL 11 jump 2 ship of the same size will use less fuel for a
> > 1 parsec jump than this TL 16 jump 1 ship will.
> 
>         But Tl 16 planets are not building jump 1 drives as they can't
>         compete in the market with Tl9-10 worlds.

The MT rules include the stats for the TL 15 version of the jump 1 fat
trader.  If TL 15 worlds are building them I bet TL 16 worlds are too. 
Therefore we _know_ that they are being produced - it is our job to
figure out why.

> Imho it would be even
>         posible to construct a smaler jump drive on higher techlevels
>         (a jump 1 drive for a tl12 scout should be 1.66 and not 2dt)
>         as HPG banks improve over the time.

Maybe it should be - but under canon it is not possible.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 03:19:44 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Another FF&S Errata?

I might have just found another piece of errata for FF&S.

On page 73, left hand column, last line of the second full paragraph, it
states, "compare the result to the following table."

Yet, there is no table there, and further, there is no reference to a
table in the back of the book.  

Question #1:  Which table are they referring to here, or is this table
missing?

Also, immediately after that, there's an example using a Type S (Scout
ship I guess).  The example states that the ship is at 5,000,000 km from
it's target that it is trying to sense.  Looking on Table 194:  Range
Factors, 5,000,000 km corresponds to a range factor of 12, yet in the
example a range factor of 6 is used.  Looking back at Table 194, 6 is
not even an option on the talble.

Question #2:  Which is wrong, the range factor quoted in the example or
the entire range factor table (Table 194)?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:57:21 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Piracy 

I was wondering, since ANY fission/fusion power plants give off a rather
bright neutrino signature, how pirates could hid from ships scanning?

You'd have to stop any and all activity in the "pile" to reduce the
neutrino signature to zippo.  How easy can it be then to quickly
"cold-start" a power plant, especially when needing to get moving fast?
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 09:17:24 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1922

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:10:11 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:49:00 -0700
>From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
>Subject: re: Take off/Landing Thoughts
>

>(2) Any ship with contragrav thrusters producing more than the local gravity
>can take off vertically. It can then use either the contragrav or its thrusters
>to accelerate rapidly to orbital or escape velocity (it'll have to do this
>before it reaches the 10-diameter limit and contragrav falls off, of course,
>or use only its thrusters.)

Which, carried to logical conclusion, means that there is no *real* reason why a
ship needs to be AF or SL to land on a world with an atmosphere! Whoops, that's
almost as hot a topic as .1C Rocks as weapons. Be warned. Have the asbestos
underwear ready!

>(2) is the most common approach. (1) requires an airframe hull and a long
>runway, (2) and (3) only require a streamlined hull.

Well, do they? Why assume a high speed takeoff in (2) and (3). Assume that the
captain takes it up at a whopping 20 miles per hour (even Model T Fords could do
that, and they were definitely USL) ... he can make a high enough altitude to
forget about wind resistance in, what, half an hour or so? So who needs AF and
SL Hullforms *unless* you have a need for speed ... the military and
high-priority civilian craft. A fat, happy, Trader on a well established route
needs no such ability.

Well, that's the way your argument *can* lead ... remember what I said about the
0.1C Rock? Maybe you'll wish you've been hit by one when all this dies down!

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 09:26:44 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1924

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:33:34 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
>Subject: Re: Hauling people

>Given the maximum typical height of humans, we'll want beds at least 2.3 m
>long.  A width of 1.5 m is about right.  To cram the most of these in per
>shared access corridor, they'll be end-on to the corridor, so crawling in
>will be like climbing into a narrow, deep cave.  0.3 m of long-axis space
>is devoted to the corridor itself, which paired with the opposite set of
>bunks gives a 0.6 m passage...certainly not roomy, but adequate for
>getting in and out. 

What about a Japanese style "Coffin Hotel" ... they can be quite comfortable
inside one ... TV, Phone, Computer etc. all built in. Individual enviro controls
for heating/cooling. Of course, sanitary and eating facilities are usually
elsewhere. And, of course, the Japanese are more culturally able to handle
overcrowding than us westerners (or so I've always been told/read ... I'm
assuming that this isn't some pseudo-scientific racist crap!) ... still, you
could do it for "steerage" class.

>If this is *really* an absolute pack-em-to-the-gills,
>last-boat-before-the-nova situation, you *might* be able to get two people
>per bunk in this design...but they'd better be good friends going in, and
>I wouldn't vouch for them staying that way by the end of the trip.
>
>So, to summarize, I get a density of 3 people per dt, or 6 if you're truly
>desperate.

I think that you'd get around 6 of these Coffin cubicles to a dt -- but allowing
for rec/messing areas would mean that this would be effectively reduced. Perhaps
to the 3 per dt you suggest overall.

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:58:45 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: March Harrier Landings

In mail you write:

> Don't worry about being able to land or take off due to gravity - even
> Jupiter only has a surface gravity of 2.66 IIRC. The atmospheric pressure,
> on the other hand....

It's not the *gravity* that counts. It's the escape velocity. And
Jupiter has a *hellacious* escape velocity. Something like 200 km/sec.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:33:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Interesting thought on TL

I was thinking about some post-holocaust books (Norton's "Star Man's
Son" the Horseclans series, etc). Among other things, they are a
fertile ground for ideas on what planets might be like after the Long
Night. 

Then something occured to me.

Say you are the first ship to contact a planet. They seem to be late
medieval/early renaisance tech level. Then as you are walking through
the marketplace, you notice several vendors selling what is obviously
*aluminum* cookware. And it's obviously new. 

So, what tech level are the natives? :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:59:54 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Conquistadors

In mail you write:

> The conquistadores wore breastplates and helmets, but quickly discovered
> that cloth body protection was lighter and just as effective as metal
> against obsidian-edged sword-clubs (Atlatl, wasn't it?).  

Nope. An atlatl is the same as a woomera. They are both what is
generically termed "spear throwers". Basicly a long stick with a sort
of "hook" on one end and a groove to hold a spear. The hook fits into a
hollow at the base of the spear. The spear is pointing towards the end
that *doesn't* have a hook. You hold the hookless end and when you
swing your arm properly, the atlatl acts like an extension of your arm,
letting you throw the spear faster, harder, and farther.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:22:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Obsidian

In mail you write:

> Obsidian is very sharp. I took an anthropology class where a guest prof
> knapped some tools. I asked for and got to keep the tools. I threw them out
> a couple days later as I was tired of brushing the damn thing and slicing my
> hands open. Just carrying them back to residence resulted in cuts that hurt
> like paper cuts but were deeper and wider. But, if I had been wearing
> butchers' chainmail, I would not have been harmed at all. The anth prof had
> done that, and I gained one hell of a lot of respect for our stone age
> ancestors. Either in their willingness to slash their hands to ribbons for a
> fur coat or just sheer thickness of the skin on their hands

Try their greater experience at handling the tools so as not to get
cut. :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:41:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starports

In mail you write:

> Does anybody have any idea how much it costs to build a starport, or how
> big/how large thery are.  (Not in terms of traffic)?

I can't help with cost, but I can with size.

They have to be at least as big as the equivalent airport. So the
primitive frontier type is just a cleared hunk of bedrock. And the big
class A ports could be *miles* across.

One consideration for the *minimum* size is that ships are likely to be
*noisy*. At least some ships are going to be using reaction drives. And
being more efficient doesn't lessen the noise.

And even ships using thruster plates are going to be generating sonic
booms on take off or landing.

Next, you'll need ruunaways for the ships that do horizontal takeoffs
or landings. And for the ships that takeoff or land verticall, you'll
need landing areas (berths?) that are a fair ways apart so that if
someone screws up, he's not likely to crash into the ship at the next
berth. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:20:07 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hauling people

In mail you write:

> I've been trying to see how cheaply you can move people from one world to
> another, and even when I bundle them into bunks it comes out as quite
> expensive. But even a bunk takes up 14 cubic meters, which made me wonder:
>
> Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local government
> regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved 
> without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
> and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
> may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How many
> people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
> (access space included)?

Ok, you can cram a human onto a padded shelf (it doesn't deserve the
name "bunk") 2m long, 1m wide, and .5m tall. Assuming 2.5 meters floor
to ceiling, that gives you 5 layers. One DT is 14m^3. So 3 meters tall,
by 2 meters long, leaves 2 1/3rd meters of width. That means two sets
of bunks, with a 1/3rd meter passage between them. You can make the
passage wider and the bunks a bit narrower.

Anyway, this gives you 10 adults per DT. For a one week trip, the
passengers don't need food. Water can either be sipping tubes at
bunks, or drinking fountains in a common area (which also has the
toilets). 

Assuming that you have time to prepare folks before hauling them, you
could "clean them out" (with an enema) and then just supply water to
the bunks, and pipe away urine. This even lets you get rid of the
toilets (which otherwise eat into the space for bunks), and if you want
to get *really* extreme you eliminate the walkway. Narrow the bunks a
bit more and you get *15* people per DT. You'd have to load a "column"
of bunks, then shove in a new column to fill.

But if you *really* want to pack in people, check into the way the did
it on the ships that carried slaves from Africa. They packed them
"spoon fashion". That is, they had them lie on their side, and then
packed them in with the back of one person against the chest of the
previous one. I get around *30* people per DT for this. Maybe 40, if
you can get 4 layers in 3 meters.

You can clean them out first, or just do like the slavers did, and hose
out the decks every so often. I'm not sure if you'd get an acceptable
survival rate with no water for the whole week, though "super
hydrating" them first might help. And sedating them is just about
mandatory. 

This last option is obviously only viable for dire emergencies or slavers.

Duh! I just realized that "fast" drug or the like could solve the
problem neatly.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1926
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, October 7 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1927



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Starship Troopers  -  walking and man amplification
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question
Point-Counterpoint
Atlatl
Jupiter's escape velocity
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)
Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS
Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS
Initiative
TravSuite & CORE
Starship Troopers (and Battle Dress)
Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question
Re: Emperor's Vehicles

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:00:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers  -  walking and man amplification

In mail you write:

> I don't know much about GE's other "man amplifiers", but the GE
> walking truck did exist.  It had four legs, teleoperated by the
> driver's four limbs.  It could climb a stack of railroad ties, and
> tow or flip over a jeep.

> It did have some problems.  It was exhausting, physically and
> mentally.  Physically because of the feedback in the controls, and
> mentally because controlling a four-legged walker like that is
> _hard_.  The operators could run it for about 10 minutes before they
> were mentally exhausted.

> There are two problems with man amplification: power and control.
> Power's solved in traveller with nifty fusion devices.  Control takes
> both more engineering and more computer knowledge, for a teleoperated
> or amplifying device.  For a device which can walk on its own,
> there's also the theory of walking - basically, we don't know how to
> make something walk the way we do.  We can approximate it on, say,
> flat ground, but we can't make it react to slipping, slopes, and
> other unexpected failures as we would.

I think we are talking about different things. As Heinlein noted, the
suit should be providing proper feedback, and (once learned) your *own*
reflexes should handle things. Otherwise it's useless. You *have* to be
able to move without thinking about it. That means reflexes. 

The truck has problems because it has the user trying to be a
quadruped, with equal length front and back legs. Humans are lousy
quadrupeds, and our limbs aren't the same length. So the feedback
doesn't really match the operator.

> Honda has built a biped walking robot.  It looks like a man in a
> spacesuit, walks on flat terrain, and can walk up a set of stairs -
> given knowledge of where the stairs are and how far apart they are.
> It can turn, walk forward, walk backward, and so on as directed by an
> operator.  It's also considerably heavier than a human being
> (although they claim to have built a lighter one).

> The MIT Leg Lab has built externally-powered running robots (monopod,
> biped, and quadruped).  They run on flat terrain, we're working on
> things which can walk on rough terrain.  Within a year, we may have a
> self-contained robot which can walk rapidly on somewhat rough terrain.

Well, several places have "robots" that can walk on almost any terrain.
They are six legged, and are controlled by some incredibly *simple*
neural nets. They cheated, of course. The nets are copied from ants.
But they work.

> Walking machines capable of traversing all terrain a car, or tank,
> can traverse can be made at our current tech level IF there is a
> reason to do it.  They will be slow, under about 10mph - faster on
> high-gravity worlds, slower on low-gravity worlds (the fastest speed
> you can walk is a function of gravity).  If you go too fast, you
> become airborne and no longer have the options of stopping and
> letting your slow computer figure out where to put your next foot, or
> letting a human tell you where you can step.

Well, six-legged is actually a lot more stable than four-legged, so I
suspect that the insect neural nets, with perhaps some tweaking, will
do nicely.

> Antigravity makes much of this moot, until you think about what a
> strong wind could do to something which isn't being held down by
> gravity.

Don't forget that the object still has all of its normal inertia. So
while the wind will move it, it is trying to move a *heavy* object.
Think of a big weight on smooth ice. The wind will move it, but slowly.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:32:11 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

>If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
>then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?  Certainly not with
>orientation jet-thrusters?
>
>Kenneth.

Look at the (Keith?) painting of an aproaching SDB on one of the large
format Traveller Digests - it clearly has attitude thruster ports on the
nose edges.

I for one say something along the lines of "...T-plates can produce thrust
in all directions but with different efficiency and as most ships have 3 or
more T-plates any change of orientation can be made. The same goes with
gravthrusters as the mostly wingless gravvehicle designs would look kind of
silly if they'd have to brake by running with their hindquarters first.


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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:28:04 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question

>If so, how does a ref handle this in a game--not wanting to tip off the
>players if the sensor sweep roll fails?  Should I roll the sensor tech's
>task throw behind my screen without letting the players know what I'm
>doing?
>
>What's the best way to handle this?
>
>Kenneth.

Instead of rolling tasks based on effective signature (sensitivity + sig -
range). Roll a task every hour or so and if spectacular failure -1 on
effective signature, failure +-0, success +1 on signature and spectacular
sucess +2. Then use effective sig below 0 = not detected 1=indication (sig
and position but not vector), 2=sig, pos and vector and 3+ sig, pos, vector
and what type of tharget there is.

If the computer (being that dumb submoronic sensor op it is) is sweeping
use the sigs as they are (ie the same as when a sensor op fails his task).
Referee could also say that spectacular fails/sucesses must reroll every
gameturn while others may roll every shift, halfshift or whatever. A
similar ruling works very well for me. This rule also makes nice effects as
the PCs are playing poker in the common room when the computer blares
"Unidentified target detected 30 kiloclicks off the port bow". Gunners rush
to their turrets while the steward scoops up whatever cash is on the table
;)


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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:08:16 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Point-Counterpoint

In response....

>1. Spanish brought with them small pox, which the locals had NO resistance.

This is fair.

> 2. Centralized government -- Take out Mexico city and you have the empire.
That still sounds like someone making excuses for a VERY flawed social
system

>3. Various sociological issues that led the Aztecs to trust the Spaniards.
THEY ARE...not Aztecs. The Mexica did not trust the Spaniards and spent a
greatd eal of effort to try and convince them to go away. The severely
oppressed coastal cities hated the Mexica, and saw the Spanish as a way to
freedom from the excessive tribute required. 

>These factors in addition to Rob's point pretty much did the job for the
Spaniards.
The Tlaxcallans were on a steady but slow retreat (ie they were losing to
the Mexica). It came down a lot to morale, the foolishness (ie superstition)
of Moctezuma II and a lot of intelligence on the part of Cortes. But give
the man his due. To just slough this off and say it was all luck is to be a
bit foolish, n'est pas? The Mexica did nothing, all their wonderful stuff
(with the exception of some very clever stuff early on involving agriculture
(the chinampas), they took all their ideas, calendars and such from the only
real innovators in the region, the Toltecs (who were extinct by this point)

Now, back to Traveller.....
The Spaniards kicking the crap out of the numerically and socially (sort of)
superior Mexica and then using the disaffected client states as a base to
strike at their centre sounds very similiar to the interstellar wars (not
the start, just the way of the war later)

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:21:36 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Atlatl

Correcting me again, I see, Mr Shadow!

Yes. I managed to get a bit confused there - but thanks for reminding me
that I really knew what an atlatl was, and it wasn't what I'd decided (Gah.
Today's Idiot Award goes to... me.,).

Say... could you build a spring-loaded Atlatl, to propel your spear even
further? Sort of low-tech Spofulam?

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:17:45 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Jupiter's escape velocity

Shadow, you speak of reaching escape velocity - but with CG you don't have
to, do you? To escape from Jupiter, just set your CG to null grav at 2.66g,
and just use thrusters to ease you out at a snail's pace if you so choose.
Similarly, if I had an engine on my ship that could deliver, say, 1.2 G
constantly, I could climb at this constant thrust out of Earth's gravity
well without having to squish myself during a short period of high-G
acceleration. Or am I missing something?

My understanding is that Esacpe Velocity is that speed at which an object
will have more kinetic energy than Gravity can strip away during the climb
to orbit. If I have CG capable of overcoming gravity (or rather ignoring
it) then my escape velocity can be three feet per week.

I think.

Martin.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:42:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

>	I don't think this distinction stands.  I'm from a coastal state
>and I _never_ saw a naval vessel growing up.  The only time I have since
>then was when I went to visit a friend, who happened to be an Ensign at
>Norfolk.  Think about all the people who don't even live on a coast!  How
>are they supposed to _see_ where their money is going?
>	For that matter, a lot of what we paid for during the Cold War was 
>to station troops in places like Germany and Korea, certainly very few 
>civillians ever _saw_ that defense spending.

How much money was pumped into troops stationed in Korea and Germany vs.
total spending?  Was it nearly as much as nukes alone?  I would think not.
 What that means is the troops in Korea and Germany weren't a major siphon,
so people didn't notice them.  However, as I said in another statement the
cold war was a war.  People will put up with more when a state of war is in
effect.

>	The level of threat certainly was higher in the Cold War US than it is 
>in the Imperium, but I don't think the populace had any better ability to 
>_see_ its Navy in the US than it would in the Imperium.

I think they would have a better ability to see their navy in the U.S.  How
many military ships in Traveller are streamlined at all?  How many can land
on the surface of a planet?

>	No, loans aren't any different from taxes in the final analysis 
>because the loans have to be paid back with taxes.  I'm not suggesting 
>that we're ever going to pay back our national debt, but as much of our 
>taxes goes to paying the _interest_ on that debt as currently goes to our 
>entire military.  Loans are just a way to borrow against future tax income.

I'm going to stay out of this part of the discussion until I finish reading
the books on macroeconomics I got out from the library.  As far as I can
tell, however, loans are different than taxes in figuring GNP.

>	How about _military_ aircraft?  Unless you go to an airshow 
>you're unlikely to ever see military aircraft in this country.  Or 
>submarines for that matter.  But people see these things all the time on 
>TV and in movies.
>	Atomic weapons are an even better example.  How many people in the
>Western world have ever actually seen a nuclear weapon?  Very few.  And
>yet everyone believes they exist and likely has opinions on whether we
>should build more, dismantle the ones we have, or build SDI to defend
>against them. The threat of nukes was and is totally intangible, but the
>passion they inspired from activists on both sides _was_ very tangible. 
>People don't have to be able to see a threat with their own eyes to be
>persuaded to spend money to defend themselves from it. 

But people _do_ have to see a threat with their own eyes and _feel_ it with
their own hands to really perceive it as a threat and to pay 1/20th of their
yearly income to defend against it IN ADDITION to their own world's military
spending, and their own world's government spending and local community
taxes.

Somewhat pointed out that the Reagan era military spending was 7.5% of the
GNP.  This may have been true.  On the other hand, education was cut, aid
programs were cut and road programs were cut to do this and all worked at
decreased efficiency while the Reagan era military spending was up.

>	I agree that 5% of GDP just for the Navy is excessive, but I 
>don't think ground forces will take up much of the total millitary 
>spending unless the world is balkanized.

There are actual figures in Path of Tears (TNE supplement) that says on a
balkanized world, 1% of the world is in military service and on
non-balkanized worlds 0.1% of the population is.  Ground forces will be kept
"just in case" in my opinion.  I would think a world would feel naked without
its own local military.

Semo

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:59:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Defense Spending in the Imperium (long)

>>Truth be told, I can't figure out why you took such as massive amount of
>>offense to that statement.
>
>Exactly.

You have completely lost me here.  I say I can't understand why you got so
insulted and you say "Exactly".  I'm confused.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:12:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, John Macpherson wrote:

> Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no> said:
> > What the H*** is up with SSDS and power consumption. I'm going through
> > the entries and two of the SSDS buildt ones are severly underpowered
> <snip> 
> > There really seems to be a problem with the PA-Gun. The QSDS really seems
> > to suck much more power that the SSDS version.
> 
> 	IIRC, all QSDS weapons are built to ROF 100 while SSDS weapons may 
> be ROF 50 or even ROF 10.  The higher ROF would account for the higher 
> power consumption.  ROF 50 weapons should be at a -1 FC and ROF 10 weapons 
> at a -2 FC.

If this is true there really should be some comments on it in the THUDDD
as this is really going to effect the battle worthiness of the SSDS ships.

> 
> -JM
> 

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: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:10:54 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Chris Cox wrote:

> Tommy Grav wrote:
> >What the H*** is up with SSDS and power consumption. I'm going through
> >the entries and two of the SSDS buildt ones are severly underpowered
> <A bit of snippage>
> >There really seems to be a problem with the PA-Gun. The QSDS really seems
> >to suck much more power that the SSDS version.
> >
> 
> I believe the difference come from QSDS weapons being designed with ROFs of
> 100 and SSDS weapons having a base ROF of 10.

But this should have effect on the damage values, since you do not role
hits for each shot, but once for all shots in one turn together. The SSDS
weapons seems to me to be much more capable than the QSDS weaponry.

> 
> Chris Cox
> "Investment banking galley slave in New York City"
> (chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
> The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
> (http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)
> 
> 

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: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:08:05 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Initiative

I don't like initiative in Traveller, so I've done away with it.

Here's how:

1. Combat rounds are only 2 seconds long.

2. Everything happens at once, subject to common sense.

Common sense says that if I try to swing an axe at someone who's got a
pistol aimed at me., I'm in trouble. If he's got to draw or cock the
pistol, HE's in trouble. If someone specifically wants to beat another
character to the draw/shot, he can make an extra skill test at whatever
level I choose to impose to do it - I modify the difficulty according to
how silly the suggestion is. The other thing I try very hard to impose is
confusion - unless a character can see a particular baddie, he gets no
information - thus characters often get a funny idea about how many and
where the bad guys are. I could tell you how two yokels with single-barrel
shotguns kept the characters pinned for over an hour, convinced they'd run
into a whole platoon of snipers, by shooting and moving (at long range -
their weapons were totally useless at that range, but only I knew that.) By
the time the characters had figured out what was going on, the yokels were
long gone!

Let me tell you about a firefight we had:

The characters were trying to help out a low-tech farmsteader fight off a
horde of pony nomads. The setting was TNE, and the characters were armed
with non-military weapons (revolvers, shotguns and ONE assault rifle).
Locals were using percussion-cap revolvers and carbines, plus not a few
flintlocks 
and melee weapons.

Beans' character (I REALLY don't know Beansy's real name!) ran around the
side of the farmhouse as the frontal defence caved in. Some nomads had
crossed the courtyard under fire and were shooting into the farmhouse
kitchen at the trapped local family. Beans had four rounds left in his
revolver. Nomad One turned from the window, thumbcocking his single-action
revolver. Beans got a shot off 'free' while he was turning  - missed -
then both fired at once. Two misses. Behind nomad One, Nomad Two (with his
back to the fight and not knowing what was happening) scrambled through the
window and shot one of the defenders (who was firing out of another window)
dead. 

Beans' target dived aside while cocking his weapon, making Beans miss. The
nomad then decided to beat Beans to the shot. I gave him the roll, made it,
and got a shot off before Beans could act.

Unfortunately, I missed due to the penalty for rushing the shot. Beans
didn't.

Forgetting that his weapon was now empty, Beans piled into the farmhouse,
hell-bent on rescue. The nomad inside had also emptied  his weapon - into
the backs of the defenders, who'd failed to notice him in all the chaos of
a firefight. Beans shot the nomad down, or would have but for his empty
gun....

Ref: 'Click. You're empty. Try to keep track, huh?'
Beans: 'Oh deary me!' (or something like that)
Ref: (rolls for nomad - does he know his weapon is empty?) 'He thumbcocks
his pistol, shoves it out at your face and pulls the trigger. You see the
hammer start to fall....'
Beans: 'Aaargh! Can I duck?'
Ref: 'Truly staggeringly awesomely difficult Agility check?"
Beans: 'Guess what? I failed.'
Ref: 'Ah well... Click!'
Beans: 'Remind me to kill you sometime.'
Ref: 'He drops the pistol, dragging his fighting-hatchet from his belt.'
Beans: 'I'll reverse my pistol and club him!'
Ref: 'He's got to draw it.... does he beat you?'
(both make weapon skill tasks based upon Agility (Dex) - the Nomads is
hard, Beans' is normal - his weapon is already to hand. 
Unsurprisingly, Beans is successful and the nomad is not.
Beans: 'Ha!' (Thud) 'Hey, these make pretty good clubs....'

One nomad down. Beans reloads. Another nomad hurtles through the door,
waving a hatchet.

Beans: 'Ha! This time I'm loaded.'
Ref:'He's going to try to beat you.'
Beans: 'Over five feet? While I have a weapon drawn?'
Ref: 'Yup. Didn't say he had any chance.... (Rolls dice) err, Beans, can
you make a normal skill roll?'
Beans: 'Did it'
Ref: 'The nomad's entrance caught you slightly off-balance. During that
split second of hesitation, he lunges forward, swinging.... you shoot
simultaneously with his swing.'

In this case, both managed to hit one another quite severely. Beans then
emptied his pistol into the nomad, on the assumption that anyone that lucky
shouldn't be suffered to live.

The way this system works is this: A 2-second round allows a single blow,
shot or
burst. All shots are dealt with, then all blows, unless there are special
considerations
like drawing the weapon, turning, crossing ground or whatever. Anyone can
declare that they are going to try to beat their opponent to the shot. They
immediately make an extra skill check at whatever difficulty level seems
appropriate, against a check by their opponent at normal difficulty
(modified if the opponent wants to speed up HIS shot). It is quite possible

for several people to shoot one another more or less simultaneously.

The idea is to make combat more fluid. This method requires strict GM
control and common sense, such that it is practically impossible for the
three guys who have wandered around the corner with their rifles slung to
outdraw the hero waiting for them with his huge axe at the ready. 

People DO hesitate, though, and this system allows some chance for that to
happen. It makes combat less of a sure thing unless you stack the odds by
maneuver or good tactics (not Tactics skill). Otherwise, you get that
authentic 
Reservior Dogs feeling (I can shoot, but I'll probably die).

Anything that makes combat more anarchic is all right with me.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:21:40 +0100
From: Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus@lotus.com
Subject: TravSuite & CORE

Alex writes of alleged GPFs in TravSuite...
>are the CORE members that wrote the program on this list?
Yes. I wrote it. I've been here fore years, just a little more quiet
recently. What? You claim my software has bugs? Lets step outside...

But, seriously. Let me explain a little about how TravSuite came to be and
its current disposition.
If you put your mind back to Euro/GenCon last year. T4 was just out. Also
just out was the D&D CD-ROM. I have been writing gaming support software
for years (Library/Sysgen was the most noted in the Traveller field) but
had always bogged down before getting anything as encompassing as the D&D
Suite. When I realised when reviewing it was that they had gone for
simplicity. They had just implemented the 80% of features that 90% of
people use instead of the nifty, but seldom used, others.
With that revelation I could see that it could be quite easy for a similar
Traveller Suite to be done. To articulate this view I put together a
"Concept Prototype". A bunch of modules I either whipped up quickly or had
lying around from previous projects and bundled them together into a
demonstrable product. (You can still upload this from the web.)
At EuroGenCon I demonstrated this to Ken Whitman and a number of game
distributors. They were all reasonably keen on the subject. I was keen on
seeing it done, but I wasn't that keen on doing the work. Why? Well, it is
simple. I'm a software professional. I do it for work. Mixing your work and
hobby removes the fun from both. Secondly is the time factor. If I was to
spend the time to do a good job of it I'd either have no free time of my
own, or else it wouldn't get released till 1998. In my real job I'm the
technical lead on a team that produces tools used internally for testing
Lotus products. Consequently I know, intimately, the effort and care
required to produce quality software. I was not willing to spend that much
of my free time on it.
First they asked me what I thought of Campaign Cartographer. For those of
you not familiar with this, it is mapping software for doing flat-maps
(landscape, cities, dungeons) largely aimed at D&D. I said that I had
uploaded their demo. It was poor. It ran in DOS, was written in _assembler_
(which says to me "old and unmaintainable"), only supported 16 colours,
limited printers, had a non-intuitive (i.e. non-Windows) interface and was
generally a bitch to use. Quite expensive as well.
Then they asked me how I thought it did. I replied that it must be making
money hand over fist. They kept releasing new modules for high prices, they
had several pages worth of advertising in Dragon magazine each month, and
that doesn't come cheap.
So, they concluded, you don't need quality to sell well.
Sigh. I had been hooked. I'd like to say I was "conned" into doing it, but
I knew what I was getting into so I refuse to just blame it all on Ken
Whitman. So I set about to produce a series of Traveller modules, set a
schedule and began work.
So, within the time I had, I produced what I did. I was not happy with the
quality, but I knew I would never be. In the allotted testing time I
managed to kill all the major bugs, but the hardware I had to test on was
rather limited. It doesn't GPF on my machine, but Windows is not the most
consistent of operating systems and it is hardly surprising that it does on
others. I do wish I had time to test everywhere.
Getting release 1 out the door was tiring and adsorbed more of my time than
I would have liked. I decided to wait on doing release 2 & 3 until I could
see how they were going and what the reaction was.
Predictably, in such a limited market, sales were lukewarm. Predictably,
people complained about the quality. Predictably people hassled me about
Mac, Atari and ghod knows what other O/S versions. Not to mention irate
letters from people who didn't read the web-page, didn't ask for
clarification, didn't send an e-mail address, didn't send enough money and
didn't get a delivery. Conclusively, it wasn't worth continuing.
I hope this contextualisation at least brings some understanding of why it
is what it is. Yet Another Low Quality Traveller Product. The only defence
I can offer is that I deliberately argued a low price. Compared to $60 for
Campaign Cartographer, $10 for TravSuite isn't too bad.

>I know I'd be more than willing to pay an extra $10 or so to get a fixed
version...
So, where do we go from here. I'd much, much, rather that IG actually got
someone to do the job properly. This, however, is rather unlikely. I can't
see them up-fronting the money for a professional to do the effort. I'm
unwilling to do much more unless they gave me a contract. Frankly, the
income from it hasn't been worth the hassle and the embarrassment of having
my name on something that doesn't match my own quality standards.
In all likelihood, it will quietly disappear from the marketplace with the
upcoming CORE web page design. After a suitable period of grace, for those
who paid money for it, it might emerge as shareware. However computers will
probably have outstripped it in usefulness by then.
Now if you all hassled IG, they _might_ take it on properly. I'm happy to
pass on the code to someone they contract and wish them well with it. Ghod
knows, with the complexity of rules they are spewing out you _need_ a
computer to cope with it.

>If the software was working without the gpfs I'd say its the best
worldmapping software I've seen!
Actually, the best worldmapping software I've seen was my previous LIBRARY
software, still available for free. It did proper continents, oceans and
stuff according to the WBH. Unfortunately it was developed in the days of
DOS before memory spillage managers. It is currently wildly unstable. Even
I have difficulty using it.
Currently I am messing with Java. All my WBH routines (sans world mapping,
sadly) have been ported to Java (package ttg). Additionally I have created
an OO object storage mechanism (package ttg.io) which allows you determine
your own storage strategy. I've already drivers for straight file storage,
Galactic compatible storage, and want to write one for remote server
storage so it can be used on-line. Then I am building up a package of user
interface objects (ttg.ui) which will form fundamental building blocks for
applications. The first of which is a java version of a cross between Jim's
Galactic and my Library (ttg.gal). I'm calling it "Java Gal", cause you
type "java gal" on the command line to start it :-).
It is all Traveller Tools Group stuff and, generally, I have no intention
of charging for the libraries. They are up on
ftp://ftp.maths.tcd.ie/pub/jaymin/ttg. Those aren't the latest but it may
give you ideas. If you find what is there intriguing let me know and I'll
refresh them. JavaGal will probably be ready for testing in a few weeks.
There will be an announcement.

>Lets see if we can stimulate any response from core.
There you go. I'm quite responsive without stimulation. And the above has
been relayed to almost anyone who has written to me asking. I'm not sure it
helps any, but maybe someone else will see a wonderful way to do wonderful
things with the software.

Cheers,
Jo

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:31:28 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Starship Troopers (and Battle Dress)

We all know by now that Starship Troopers, the motion picture, is only
loosely based off of Heinlein's work. For some reason, the wonks in
movieland decided that his short novel wasn't interesting enough as it is
to put on the screen. It probably has to do with the conservatism that big
money breeds (i.e., use only proven formulas, in this case "Aliens").

I'm sure that a lot of extras in mock powersuits would be a logistical
problem for the filmmakers. To say that's why they dropped them might be
true, but that is besides the point. The thing is, if you were to do the
movie true to Heinlein's work, you wouldn't *need* a bunch of extras. The
troopers were usually out of direct line of sight from each other,
seperated by miles (or at least hundreds of meters). They kept formation
through telemetry information. For lone troopers, you could come up with a
workable mix of live action shots (troops in mock ups) and SFX stuff
(go-motion miniatures and CGI animation). The cases where you *do* have a
lot of troopers together in the book are pretty sedate, and you could
probably composite them without too much trouble. After all, I believe
almost all of the "arachnid horde action shots" (tm) are CGI compositions.

It seems to me that instead, it was just decided to remake a proven winner
on a bigger and "better" scale. Thus we have our Aliens-esque Starship
Troopers. Maybe this is some of the source of the friendly (?) competition
between the SFX teams of Starship Troopers and Alien: The Resurrection
noted in Millimeter magazine (which also opens soon).

It's interesting that a lot of the inspiration for Aliens was said to be
derived from Heinlein's book. That makes Starship Troopers a derivative of
a derivative with the name of the origninal! ;)

On to Traveller: While battle dress is not nearly as formidable as the
powersuits of the MI, do any of you think that some of the tactics might be
applicable? I am thinking of loose, fast moving formations, keeping track
of each other through the use of IFF transponders and the like. Battle
dress, being relatively small, would be able to make better use of a lot of
terrain advantages than larger vehicles, wouldn't it? At 300,000 Cr a suit
(MT) and armed with tac missiles, wouldn't these be pretty cost-effective
tank killers?

Also (for you lovable gearheads out there), *could* MI-like powersuits be
designed in the Traveller universe? Tac nukes, grenade racks, flamers and
all? Of course, the Imperium has some tech advantages that the Federal
government of the MI didn't have (grav belts, true HUDs, and so on). But
are MI-like powersuits truly technologically feasable, given the hard sf
nature of the Traveller universe? More importantly, would such a design be
economically feasable (assuming it was technologically possible)?

BTW, I have heard that in ST, the movie, there are giant Arachnids (called
tank bugs) that have the ability to emit plasma blasts from their abdomen
and shoot starships out of orbit. That's right folks, they are blasting
stuff out of orbit with a**-end emissions! If this rumor is true, I'm sure
the movie is going to be a winner! :-(

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:38:10 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Kenneth Bearden wrote:
 
> How does a ship find another using sensor in the first place if the
> sensor operator is not actively doing a sensor sweep?

I'm sure some sort of automated alarm system can be worked out, but in a
crowded system, it'll go off far too often, requiring constant manning of
the sensors. But that's why sensors require a whole crew member.

> Do ships automatically leave passive sensors on all the time?

Depends on the players...see below
 
> If so, how does a ref handle this in a game--not wanting to tip off the
> players if the sensor sweep roll fails?  Should I roll the sensor tech's
> task throw behind my screen without letting the players know what I'm
> doing?

Yes. What I do with any group of players is the first few sessions, be
really annoying about "Oh, but you didn't _say_ you turned on your
headlights...until they get the idea, and they come up with "This is our
SOP for XYZ" covering things like do we run with our passive sensors on or
what? Then I use that, and don't bug them. They learn in the
process...usually the first time or two when I hit them with something not
covered in the SOP, they change the SOP. 

Then, at random intervals, all the time, I roll dice behind my screen.
Most of the time they're meaningless noise, which helps keep the times
they're _supposed_ to be rolls the players don't know about much more
secret.

And _that's_ when I'm rolling their sensor scans, surprise rolls, etc.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

> 

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

Date: 07 Oct 1997 14:40:03 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles

Other than the tech level (and the _late_ mailing date), I found the following
items missing:

1) crew numbers, especially for the larger vessels

2) design system used (CSC probably, but not specified)

3) blank vehicle cards (the ones at the end of the book have overprinting)

4) rules for how to get the extra data mentioned on the cards (such as
handling value)

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1927
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, October 7 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1928



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?
Re: Interesting thought on TL
Re: Industrial capacity
re: Take off/Landing Thoughts
Spanish vs Mexica
Re:  Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re:  Bruce:  Sensor Question
Re: takeoff and landing
At Close Quarters Playtest
When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech
Re: Hauling people
Re: T4.1 date gone back again
Re: Snub Pistols
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question
Re: Piracy
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers
A Walk Through Sensors-0

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 10:49:42 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

SemoFetus@aol.com types:
>>Well, I'd not be surprised to find that the "wrong" movement was
>>*right*, but not what the director wanted. After all, someone in
>>powered armor should "bounce around" like the astronauts on the moon,
>>only faster.
>Well at this point you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
> You've made up your mind that its an abomination (don't get me wrong, you
>may be right).

   He's right.  I'll bet that I've known about Verhoven's 'Starship
Troopers' longer than most people on the list (my wife used to work at
Avid), and I haven't heard much that I like about the project *when
comparing it to the book!*.  As a SF shoot 'em up, it will probably be ok,
but don't expect RAH type polical messages.

>At any rate, I just reported the news as I heard it when it was being filmed.
> To be honest, I don't really care too much about the whole deal.  I liked
>the book, chances are I'll like the movie for completely different reasons,
>and most of my friends will bitch about it afterwards.
>The world is big enough to contain both (the Director also did "Total
>Recall", and I liked that movie, so I'll at the very least give it a chance).
   Remember that he also did "Basic Instinct" and "Showgirls."  Interesting
films.  BI was a very good thriller with some intense action scenes (that
did not involve Sharon Stone :-}).

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:17:42 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?

>Who was it that created these fanstastic sensor rules I've been hearing
>about?  Bruce Alan MacIntosh?

The basic rules (using logs etc) were laid down by (ahum) me and Bruce made
some very detailed real world calculations about reasonable ranges. Then
Bruce again wrote down some rules about rating ships and using the sensors.
I'm not shure who decided on the (to me) silly use of decimal sensitivity
ratings I don't know, simply multiply all FF&S II figures by 2 and
everything will be much easier. Also, ignore the silly rule for lidars
involving the multiplication by 2 for unknown reasons.


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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:07:31 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Interesting thought on TL

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> 
> Then something occured to me.
> 
> Say you are the first ship to contact a planet. They seem to be late
> medieval/early renaisance tech level. Then as you are walking through
> the marketplace, you notice several vendors selling what is obviously
> *aluminum* cookware. And it's obviously new. 
> 
> So, what tech level are the natives? :-)

Trick question, Leonard ;-)

Medieval, with access to a garbage dump from the past...only _smelting_
aluminum from bauxite takes electricity, recycling it takes a hot fire. An
old room-mate of mine showed me a sand cast aluminum pot made by people
who scavenged the city dump for aluminum cans, broken pots and other
aluminum sources, from where he was stationed by the Peace Corps. Looked
just like the cast iron one used to make the mold, except it was
considerably shinier.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:28:15 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Industrial capacity

>Unfortunately annual maintenance takes two weeks, not one, so maintenance
>would account for quite a bit more. I'm going to assume a tighter sceduling
>of ships for maintenance and divide by 25 rather than 22.5. That would give:
>
>Shipyard utilization:
>        New construction: 2.5% of 3,000 million tons =  75 million tons.
>        Maintenance: 3,000 million tons/25 =           120 million tons
>        Excess capacity:                               158 million tons
>
>for a final result of 353 million tons.

A bit off-topic but...

The 2 week annual maintenance in my Universe is divided into 1 week actual
maintenace at 0.1% of new ships price. This involves replacing parts,
fixing Lightly damaged components (which in my system costs .1%
incidentally) and then checking the ships components as you do with cars.
the other week consists of a single insystem testjump (actually they jump
from planet A directly back to planet A to save time) to verify the proper
functioning of the J-drive.

I've never had the Imperials misjump a PC ship yet but that is probably
because my players either have spanking nes ships (stolen) or ships so old
they never do annual maintenance except on their own.


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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:40:20 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

>(1) Airframe ships with a runway on a planet with atmosphere can take off/land
>horizontally on the runway, pretty much no matter how little thrust
>their engines provide. Even if the engine only provides 1G and the local
>gravity is >1G, they can still climb like an airplane to very high
>altitude and then (as they run out of air) accelerate into orbit or escape
>(see below.)

And that is probably why the standard subsidized merchant has wings. Its
contragrav cannot lift a fully loaded craft on high G planets.

>(3) Any ship with thruster plates producing more than the local gravity
>can also take off vertically - assuming it's oriented so that it's thruster
>plates fire vertically, which a lot of ships aren't. (A classic scout,
>for example, would have to be hoisted up until it's standing on its tail for
>this approach to work.)

There's a picture in one of the older Journals depicting a standard SDB
mounted vertically on some sort of raildriven launch gizmo.


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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:47:00 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Spanish vs Mexica

>
   
   Hi.
   
> From: Don Stark <stark@glacier.nrlssc.navy.mil>
   
> Guys,
> it really isn't fair to look at this as a tech 3 vs. tech 0+ military
> issue. There were a number of additional factors that some historians
> suggest were crucial in the defeat of the Aztecs.
   
> 1. Spanish brought with them small pox, which the locals had NO resistance. 
> Think of the psychological impact that disease would have under those 
> conditions.
   
> 2. Centralized government -- Take out Mexico city and you have the empire.
   
> 3. Various sociological issues that led the Aztecs to trust the Spaniards.
   
> These factors in addition to Rob's point pretty much did the job for the
> Spaniards.
   
   I am in total aggreement with your points 2 and 3.  Point 1, the
   plague, was not yet a player in Cortes's conquest.  It depleted the
   the population during the following colonization though.
   
> From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
> I wonder what part small-pox etc. played in all this?
   
   See my comment above.  It wasn't until the Franciscan missionaries
   began preaching to the indians and appealing to Europe for funds for
   hospitals that we have any records of plague outbreaks in Mexico.
   According to some theorists, 90% of the population disappeared during
   this time due to some mysterious reasons. (Plague, they say, can't
   account for it all.)  The disappearing population mystified the
   missionaries of that time, and still mystifies researchers today.
   
> From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
   
> 	I would rather think that european military tradition was
> 	something the Aztecs did'nt think about. Their tradition was
> 	not to conquer and kill, but more like an anual sports event,
> 	where young man meet on a field between two cities to fight.
> 	Goal was not to kill the oponent, or of conquer land, but only
> 	to show own warriorship and to "invite" one or two of the other
> 	side for the next celebration. This tradition showed the same
> 	consequence (femicide) to population control as normal european
> 	war does.
   
   This is an interesting point that was brought up the last time this
   thread came up on this list.  While such military scruples certainly
   confused the empire and gave Cortes some precious time, I have to
   doubt that they totally paralized the empire or were decisive in the
   conquest.
   
   I do not understand how your reference to femicide pertains to either
   European or Aztec warfare.
   
   ObTrav: The Spanish conquest of Mexico is the only historical event
   that I know of that in any way parallels the Solomani conquest of the
   first Imperium.  Lessons drawn from the one can be applied to the
   other.  My own personal feeling is that Vland fell to a military
   composed mostly of its own subjects led by Solomani officers.
   
   -Rob

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:13:06 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re:  Question for Bruce Macintosh

>If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
>then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?

My assumption is that there are indeed maneuvering thrusters subsumed in the
mass of the main thrusters - maybe about 10% of the thruster volume goes for
auxilliary thrusters at different orientations around the ship.

If you go with DGP's thrusters-work-sideways, you still have a problem for
HEPlaR ships - HEPlaR definitely can't fire sideways or in reverse...although
you could assume HEPlaR mass includes auxilliary manuevering thrusters while
T-plates don't. Still, it's not a big issue; allowing T-plates to work sideways
doesn't mess things up as much as allowing them to work at x4 or x10 overpower
some of the time does.

Bruce

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:23:57 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re:  Bruce:  Sensor Question

>How does a ship find another using sensor in the first place if the
>sensor operator is not actively doing a sensor sweep?

>Do ships automatically leave passive sensors on all the time?

That's a good question; it leads into the general "how automated are
Traveller ships" question. It seems to be part of canon that ships aren't
particularly automated - in which case sensors only work if there's someone
operating them. There may not be a full-time sensor operator, but there
should usually be *someone* on the bridge - that one person would presumably
be keeping an eye on the sensor readouts among other things. You'd use their
sensor skill for detection, maybe modified by -1 DM or so because they're
trying to do many things at once.

Alternatively, as an optional rule, you could say that sensors can be run in
an automatic scan-the-whole sky mode. In this mode they only detect targets
with a signature of +2 or more - and they detect those targets automatically.

Bruce

>If so, how does a ref handle this in a game--not wanting to tip off the
>players if the sensor sweep roll fails?  Should I roll the sensor tech's
>task throw behind my screen without letting the players know what I'm
>doing?

Definitely. Just like any spot-the-hidden-thing roll. In fact, when I'm
refereeing any sort of game I periodically make rolls behind the screen just
to mess with the player's tiny minds. (Asking questions like "What's the
pilot's sensor skill", "what's the pilot's engineering skill", or "what's the
lowers CON on the ship" help keep them suitably confused...)

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:39:34 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: takeoff and landing

>>(2) is the most common approach. (1) requires an airframe hull and a long
>>runway, (2) and (3) only require a streamlined hull.

>Well, do they? Why assume a high speed takeoff in (2) and (3). Assume that the
>captain takes it up at a whopping 20 miles per hour (even Model T Fords could do
>that, and they were definitely USL) ... he can make a high enough altitude to
>forget about wind resistance in, what, half an hour or so? So who needs AF and
>SL Hullforms *unless* you have a need for speed ...

It would probably take an hour or two - and during that hour you're a serious
menace to traffic, since you can't move with respect to the air at more than
20-30 mph, and the wind will move the air at 50-100 mph at altitude - thei
airspace over a starport full of unstreamlined spacecraft would be pretty
dangerous. I'd say it's safe to assume that reasonable safety precautions 
require all ships that land on a planet with atmosphere to be streamlined
(which doesn't actually cost that much, anyway.)

Bruce

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 09:55:54 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: At Close Quarters Playtest

I need some volunteers for the playtesting of the latest version of At
Close quarters, my advanced combat system for T4.

Anyone interested, please mail me.  The rules are currently avalible either
as a Word6 document of in .rtf, specify which you'd prefer.
- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Ringrose <ringrose@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

>>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:00:52 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

Leonard> I think we are talking about different things. As Heinlein noted, the
Leonard> suit should be providing proper feedback, and (once learned) your
Leonard> *own* reflexes should handle things. Otherwise it's useless. You
Leonard> *have* to be able to move without thinking about it. That means
Leonard> reflexes.

Reflexes are fine, but we haven't done enough research to figure out what
fidelity of input data, and fidelity of response, humans need to have their own
reflexes effectively triggered.

Assume a suit which _does_ permit your reflexes to be used effectively.  But
when you're wearing a suit which amplifies your every move, your reflexes may
be wrong.  Your center of mass is different.  Your strength (which affects how
fast your legs or arms move when not touching anything) is greater.  That
railing you grabbed to stop your fall?  You just tore it off, and you are still
falling.

There are two ways to address this: (1) re-learn your reflexes.  (2) construct
the suit so that it translates your motions to appropriate suit motions.
Re-learning your reflexes... I'm not convinced that they could be deeply enough
ingrained in a reasonable amount of time that they could be reliable enough in
a combat situation.  That's my own personal bias.

Hence, I would put reseach at this TL, something commercially usable in
controlled circumstances (where you learn the reflexes, but are not in
situations where time is critical) at the next TL, and something where reflexes
can be translated to appropriate suit motion at the TL after that.

Leonard> The truck has problems because it has the user trying to be a
Leonard> quadruped, with equal length front and back legs. Humans are lousy
Leonard> quadrupeds, and our limbs aren't the same length. So the feedback
Leonard> doesn't really match the operator.

My argument is that the truck is an extreme example of what the suit would do.
It is very unlike the way we locomote; however a strength-inducing exosuit is
also unlike the way we locomote (although closer than the truck).

Leonard> Well, several places have "robots" that can walk on almost any
Leonard> terrain.  They are six legged, and are controlled by some incredibly
Leonard> *simple* neural nets. They cheated, of course. The nets are copied
Leonard> from ants.  But they work.

Key word: walk.
Walking has a strictly limited forward speed, a function of leg length and
gravity.  For speed, you need to run.  That's a whole different bucket of
bolts.

Actually, you don't have to copy them from ants.  You can make them up with
finite state machines, it's not too hard.  Or you can copy the raw motion
patterns from existing creatures.  Been there, done that.  The problem
is when they fail, they fail.  They don't know enough about the world around
them to avoid failure.  They don't know not to bash their leg into that rock -
they just rely on the leg being stronger than that rock.  Nor do they know not
to bash their leg into that other walker's leg... which leg gives?  Someone's
machine just broke....

Anyway, I have a moral objection to copying a controller or motion pattern from
something else and saying "now we know how it works."  That's what Honda did.

> Walking machines capable of traversing all terrain a car, or tank, can
> traverse can be made at our current tech level IF there is a reason to do it.
> They will be slow, under about 10mph - faster on high-gravity worlds, slower
> on low-gravity worlds (the fastest speed you can walk is a function of
> gravity).  If you go too fast, you become airborne and no longer have the
> options of stopping and letting your slow computer figure out where to put
> your next foot, or letting a human tell you where you can step.

Leonard> Well, six-legged is actually a lot more stable than four-legged, so I
Leonard> suspect that the insect neural nets, with perhaps some tweaking, will
Leonard> do nicely.

Insects are klutzes.  A cockroach will run smack into a step, bump his head,
flail his legs around, hit his abdomen on the floor, and eventually get a
foothold to climb over the step.  This behavior is great for small things, but
does not scale up to larger sizes.  "Insect neural nets" with some tweaking
will result in a working small robot, but a broken large one.


How many legs you want on your robot... each leg you put on gives a bunch more
pieces to break or freeze in place.  You also need to coordinate them.  Each
leg you remove is less weight, less to coordinate, fewer items to build, and a
bigger control problem.

My guess is we'll end up with 4-legged walkers - if you run, you can run on
down toa single pair of legs if things break (or just one leg, depending on the
construction), and 4 legs gives a nice stable stopping position.  3 legs
doesn't have the option of statically stable walking.  6 legs is more repairs.


Six-legged vs four-legged is only more stable when doing statically stable
walking, which has speed limits too severe for cross-country use.

Case in point for speed limits:
Adaptive Suspension Vehicle
Dimensions:  17 feet length. 10 feet height. 8 foot track width.
Weight: 6000 pound dry weight.
Payload: 500 pound.
Speed: 5mph cruise speed.
Grade climb ability: 60% gradient.
Mobility:
	Ditch crossing: 6 feet.
	Vertical step crossing: 5.5 feet.
	Isolated wall crossing: 4.5 feet.
	Fording depth: 4 feet.

The 5mph cruise speed is not a typo, it's a result of the fact that it is
statically stable.

I challenge you to find me an existing _walking_ robot which can go above
10mph, on legs.


So you need to run.  And to run, you have to be able to analyze the ground in
front of you for footholds, and figure out which footholds to use.  Which means
you have to solve computer vision, or have approximately flat terrain.



> Antigravity makes much of this moot, until you think about what a strong wind
> could do to something which isn't being held down by gravity.

Leonard> Don't forget that the object still has all of its normal inertia. So
Leonard> while the wind will move it, it is trying to move a *heavy* object.
Leonard> Think of a big weight on smooth ice. The wind will move it, but
Leonard> slowly.

Think of a hovercraft, or an extremely low-draft boat.  The wind rotates it,
easily.  A huge hovercraft... well, you'd need hurricane force winds. :>

The point of that part of my post, however, was to try to come up with
situations where legs _would_ be useful.  Swamps, deserts, high winds.  Rough
terrain.  Then I needed an explaination why antigrav wouldn't be an easier way
to get there.  Sure, if you want, you can say antigrav can also provide it
horizontal motive power... but that's no fun.



	- Robert Ringrose
	  ringrose@ai.mit.edu
	  MIT Leg Lab
	  MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 18:05 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Hauling people

In-Reply-To: <199710061319.PAA06397@embla.diku.dk>

Hans,

> Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local government
> regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved 
> without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
> and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
> may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How many
> people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
> (access space included)?

6? 2 tripple-decker bunks.

> Question 2: Same question, but this time assume that instead of surviving
> for 10 days the passengers have to survive a long trip with the ship --
> perhaps as long as a year. How many do you think you can get into a
> displacement ton then (You can feed and excercise them in shifts, but I
> guess you would have to supply _some_ recreational facilities to keep
> them alive).

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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 18:07 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: T4.1 date gone back again

In-Reply-To: <l03020904b05ed71b5edc@[194.119.134.21]>

SD,

> Naturally I'm disappointed in the delay, but I like the way that T4 is, and
> the way that the T4.1 beta's you've put out have been going, and I'm
> willing to wait. ;-)

I don't care *how* late it is (well, almost) as long as it's *right*.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:46:14 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Snub Pistols

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca> wrote:

>Nick Munn wrote:
>>One comment: never start a firefight in a hydrogen refinery with Dom
>>as referee, *especially* with snub pistols.  Darned right the things
>>are lethal.
>	Firefight?  Hydrogen refinery?  <whimper>
>
>	How many thousands of civilians died in the fireball?

None, it was an orbital refinery at a gas giant (from the old white dwarf
scenario Sky Rig). All the players died in a big nasty explosion after they
attached 5 breaching charges to the big nasty monster sucked into one of
the fuel tanks.

That is, apart from the two who made it to a ramjet one-shot life raft and
got up to orbit.

And then died when the orbit decayed and they blew the three rolls they had
to get rescued.

Ahhh! Poetry!

A hydrogen refinery on a planet? In a city? Now that is an idea!

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 13:17:26 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

Anders Backman wrote:
> Look at the (Keith?) painting of an aproaching SDB on one of the large
> format Traveller Digests - it clearly has attitude thruster ports on the
> nose edges.

Yes, I've seen these.  But I took these to be for the backup
jet-thrusters used only for slow orientation if the M-Drive goes out (as
stated in the SOM).

> I for one say something along the lines of "...T-plates can produce thrust
> in all directions but with different efficiency and as most ships have 3 or
> more T-plates any change of orientation can be made. The same goes with
> gravthrusters as the mostly wingless gravvehicle designs would look kind of
> silly if they'd have to brake by running with their hindquarters first.

I agree.  That's why I'm questioning T4 Thrusters only providing thrust
in one direction as Bruce as mentioned.

In MT, Thruster plates produced most of their thrust in one direction,
100% of the G-Rating "to the rear".

But, the SOM for MT also specified that Thruster plates could provide
some thrust--a fraction of the thrust "to the rear"--in other
directions.

The SOM has it like this:

100% thrust "to the rear"
25% thrust "to the sides"
10% thrust "in reverse"

Using this model for thruster plates, you can maneuver with them too. 
You don't need to rely on backup jet thrusters.

This makes more sense to me than having T4 plates only produce thrust in
one direction.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 13:30:19 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> Alternatively, as an optional rule, you could say that sensors can be run in
> an automatic scan-the-whole sky mode. In this mode they only detect targets
> with a signature of +2 or more - and they detect those targets automatically.

You may consider working a definitive rule into the space combat system
if you are involved with it.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:30:10 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:57:21 -0700, "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>

>I was wondering, since ANY fission/fusion power plants give off a rather
>bright neutrino signature, how pirates could hid from ships scanning?

Well, we can talk about how bright the signature is, whether the
sensor (and the abilities of it are right there in the rules)
is good enough to reliably detect a ship so you can always get
away.  However, we don't have to.  Becuase the answer is "they don't".

Pirates are, by definition, operating in a area with significant
commercial traffic and nothing in their signature certainly
isn't coded to say "pirate".

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 13:26:41 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:

> If you go with DGP's thrusters-work-sideways, you still have a problem for
> HEPlaR ships - HEPlaR definitely can't fire sideways or in reverse...although
> you could assume HEPlaR mass includes auxilliary manuevering thrusters while
> T-plates don't.

Sounds fair.


 Still, it's not a big issue; allowing T-plates to work sideways
> doesn't mess things up as much as allowing them to work at x4 or x10 overpower
> some of the time does.

Curious.  As Denzel Washington said in Philidelphia, "Can you explain it
to me like I was a 3 year old?"

I'm not sure I follow how the DGP overdrive capability messes things
up.  Care to elaborate, oh, thruster-guru?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:07:08 +0100
From: Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus@lotus.com
Subject: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

>Also *could* MI-like powersuits be designed in the Traveller universe?
>...More importantly, would such a design be economically feasable
I'm not even sure that the existing BattleDress is economically feasable.
300,000Cr buys a lot of conventional equipment. Also, like fighter pilots,
the cost of training necessary for someone in Battle Dress far outstrips
the cost of the hardware making them even more expensive.
I generally rationalise battle dress in one of a number of ways:
1) It is an arms race thing. If one side has battle dress and the other
doesn't they have a distinct advantage. But, if one side has _more_ battle
dress thant he other, it isn't as much of an advantage. Thus competing
polities invest in one elite squad of battle dress troops but stop there.
They also almost never use them in action. Their use is as a threat of
force, not a force itself (a bit like nukes today).
2) It is for show. Battle Dress is impressive. I've always assumed that the
Imperial troops keep a certain number of Battle Dress squads to "fly the
flag", flank the Emporer, stand in front of the Imperial Embassy to
encourage rioters to disperse, etc, etc.
3) Was at the Met in New York the weekend before last. Lots of amazingly
impressive armour. However almost every suit was owned by a high noble of
some such. The historical reason they were so impressive was they were
either for court duty, or, if some damn noble was going to risk his life
jousting, he damn better have the best armour possible. Analogously, Battle
Dress is almost exclusively owned by Nobles so they can lead their levied
troops in battle and not get their arse shot off.

>The thing is, if you were to do the movie true to Heinlein's work,
>you wouldn't *need* a bunch of extras.
But it wouldn't be any where near as visually exciting. One bozo buzzing
around talking over his walkie talkie to other bozos flying out of sight
just doesn't cut it.
It is like the Enterprise shouldn't go "wooosh" as it passes in the credits
because there is no sound in space. But when they filmed it that way it
just didn't fly (so to speak).
I have a fair amount of experience of medieval fighting. Films like
Braveheart come close, but are still lacking in accuracy in a large number
of details. But, if they had done it to the strict accuracy of my
experience, it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting. So I don't
complain. Much.
Films are entertainment. (Role-playing is reality! :-)

Cheers,
Jo

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 14:51:23 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: A Walk Through Sensors-0

Me and my players are learning Bruce's Definitive Sensor Rules for T4.

We are completeing this via e-mail before our next game in two weeks. 
Last game, they were hauling ass away from Pysadi, in a hurry  to get
their missing crewman from a Pysadian jail on the other side of the
planet.

The starport was tracking them to orbit, and they were going to leave
starport sensor range, then swing around (the TL 4) planet, land at the
city where the crewman is being held, and break him out before
high-tailing it to jump point.

Well, what they don't know is that the Pysadian government, albeit they
are TL 4, has hired a merchant vessel as a sort of security arm against
just this type of action.

The Pysadians my be rag-heads, but they are not stupid.  There's an
order that's just gone out to the city where the crewmember is being
held to transfer the prisoner to the maximum security facility in Sadi,
the planet's capital.

Of course, this is going to take about 4 days, so that's the window my
players have to deal witht he hired ship in orbit and rescue their
shipmate.

We're playing the Traveller Adventure if you haven't guessed.  This is
the first time in our game that sensors have become important--the
starport is tracking them to make sure they don't double back, their is
a potentially hostile ship in orbit, and they need to get back down to
the planet, covertly if possible, and break out the incarcerated
shipmate.

In between games, we are all learning to use the new sensor rules from
FF&S2 and Bruce's post on Definitive Sensor rules.

I thought it might be helpful if I posted these posts up for other
players interested.  If you are already using Bruce's sensor rules, or
don't care to, these posts will be useless to you.  If you are learning
them, like I am, then you might find some use in them.

Some of this might even spark discussion on the TML, which is always
good for the learning process.

Kenneth.




(the following is re-posted material from my game e-mails to my players)

We are learning these new T4 sensor rules together.

I down loaded Bruce's Definitive Sensor Rules last night, and I read the
first section detailing Basic sensor operation.

This post is designed to help you learn the sensor rules.  We'll look at
each of the three sections (Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced) together.

BEFORE you read through this post, you should have done two things.

1)  You should have re-read the section on sensors in the SOM Chapter 5
mailout, and you should have read the recent e-mail posts I sent you
yesterday.

If you haven't done this yet, then do it before you continue with this
post.  What this will do is put us all on the same page as far as
definitions go.  These readings will teach you what a passive sensor is,
what an active sensor is, and the different types of sensors.

The Harrier has one passive EMS package and one active EMS package.  You
should know (from the SOM) what the EMS sensors are.  You should also
know about scanners and trackers (from my posts)--that scanners are used
for scanning wide areas whereas trackers are used for sensor locks for
fire control.

So, do you know what an active sensor is?  A passive sensor?  A
scanner?  A tracker?  A EMS sensor?  If so, continue.  If not, go back
and reread Chapter 5 of the SOM and myu recent posts.

2)  The second thing you should have done is downloaded the T4 sensor
rules by Bruce Alan Macintosh from that web site I forwarded to you. 
You should have read through them once, but understanding them clearly
is not necessary at this point.

Understanding sensors is the goal of this series of inbetween-game
posts.

Get those two things done.  In the next post, we'll go through basic
sensor procedures together.

Kenneth.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1928
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Tuesday, October 7 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1929



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Lucky find at Barnes and Nobles
Re: [noise]
A Walk Through Sensors-1
Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech
Re: TravSuite Worldmapper
The March Harrier--Hull Addendum
Re: Starports
Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS
Re: takeoff and landing
Games Convention
Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?
Re: Piracy
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Starship Troopers (and Battle Dress)
Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers
Jupiter's escape velocity
Reasonable NPAWS Barbette? (fwd)
TravSuite & CORE
Re: TML: Physicists (fwd)

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 97 16:01:00 EDT
From: Glenn Myers <gem188@ansyspo.ansys.com>
Subject: Lucky find at Barnes and Nobles

Hi all,

I just wanted to pass on a bit of good fortune. I was browsing my local 
Barnes and Noble and I found several copies of Michael Whelan's $60 
hardcover art book "The Art of Michael Whelan" for $20 on the bargain table.

Check out http://www.glassonion.com/artbooks.htm for the contents. I was 
amazed at the color quality of the printed page. The web page doesn't do it 
justice. Lots of good Travelleresque science fiction paper back covers are 
included like Piper's Fuzzy series, Cherryh's Chanurs series and some Niven.

I wouldn't have paid $60 but $20 is a good deal.

Bye,

Glenn
______________________________________________________
Glenn E. Myers
ANSYS Inc.                Email: glenn.myers@ansys.com
275 Technology Drive      Phone: (412) 514-2913
Canonsburg, PA 15317      Fax:   (412) 514-3118
______________________________________________________

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: Re: [noise]

>  > This does help quite a bit. But have you calculated the size of the army
> > you'll get with that kind of a budget? Mora, for example, will have an
> > army budget of Cr370 per citizen, or MCr3,700,000. You can keep quite a
> > lot of people in uniform with 3,7 trillion credits, even if you have to
> > equip them too.
> 
> Millions in battle dress. MILLIONS! WOO HOOOO!!!! BWAHHAHHAHAHAHAA!

Fine...  All of them are on your home planet.  Now, try moving them to 
the target planet-- *AFTER* having spent *ALL* of your money!  :-P~ 

Franklin

"We come in peace!...(Set phasers on 'obliterate.')"

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 15:37:40 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: A Walk Through Sensors-1

This is the second part of my walk through with my players on the new
sensor rules.

Kenneth.
- --------------------

(the following is re-posted material from my game)



The March Harrier

Sensors are used for two main purposes--for detecting objects that you
didn't know was there and for obtaining a fire-control lock (or a sensor
lock for more detailed information about the object).

The March Harrier has two sensor packages--one active EMS package and
one passive EMS package.  Both of these packages contain both scanner
and tracker type sensors, so they are both considered combination sensor
packages.

     Active EMS Sensor package (contains scanners and trackers)

     Passive EMS Sensor package (contains scanners and trackers)



March Harrier Game Stats

     Active EMS Sensor package:  Sensitivity Rating 12
     Passive EMS Sensor package:  Sensitivity Rating 14

     Signature vs. Active Sensors:  Active Signature Rating +0.5
     Infrared Signature vs. Passive Sensors:  Emitted Signature Rating
0*
     Visible Signature vs. Passive Sensors:  Reflected Signature Rating
- -0.5  



*Note:  You can change the Emitted Passive Signature rating by reducing
power to the ship's systems.  Since the March Harrier's Emitted Sig.
rating is 0, you can lower this to a negative number by reducing power
(or completely shutting off power) from the power plant.  If this is
done, look at the table in Part 3 of the Definitive Sensor Rules to look
up the new Emitted Sig rating.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:51:43 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Robert Ringrose wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:00:52 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:
> 
> Leonard> I think we are talking about different things. As Heinlein noted, the
> Leonard> suit should be providing proper feedback, and (once learned) your
> Leonard> *own* reflexes should handle things. Otherwise it's useless. You
> Leonard> *have* to be able to move without thinking about it. That means
> Leonard> reflexes.
> 
> Reflexes are fine, but we haven't done enough research to figure out what
> fidelity of input data, and fidelity of response, humans need to have their own
> reflexes effectively triggered.
> 
> Assume a suit which _does_ permit your reflexes to be used effectively.  But
> when you're wearing a suit which amplifies your every move, your reflexes may
> be wrong.  Your center of mass is different.  Your strength (which affects how
> fast your legs or arms move when not touching anything) is greater.  That
> railing you grabbed to stop your fall?  You just tore it off, and you are still
> falling.
> 
> There are two ways to address this: (1) re-learn your reflexes.  (2) construct
> the suit so that it translates your motions to appropriate suit motions.
> Re-learning your reflexes... I'm not convinced that they could be deeply enough
> ingrained in a reasonable amount of time that they could be reliable enough in
> a combat situation.  That's my own personal bias.

RAH covered this part well in his suit training bits...this was where they
lost the greatest number of recruits to death and disables, during suit
training. He makes exactly the point that your reflexes have to be
retrained. Also, he makes the explicit point that the systems in the suit
are optimized to working _with_ you not against you.

As for deeply ingraining reflexes...there are _lots_ of instances where
relying on untrained reflexes while using machinery can be fatal...flying
combat maneuvers in an F-16, for instance, or operating a crane. That's
why pilots train, train, and train some more, and then train for good
measure. 

The MI in ST are considered elite troops, like fighter pilots today, and I
assume that their training is equally intensive.

Besides, have you ever ridden a bike? Driven a car? Can you handle one in
an emergency? Do you consiously think about each step? Congratulations,
you've gotten 'deeply ingrained reflexes' completely contrary to those
required for walking or any other natural human motion, and I'm sure you
learned them in a reasonable amount of time. 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:14:41 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: TravSuite Worldmapper

I think Jo Grant (who wrote WorldMapper) is working in the US at the 
moment, and probably has less time than usual to update TravSuite.

Simon

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 16:23:40 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Hull Addendum

If you've been following the March Harrier posts, in which we are
detailing the various component of an average merchant vessel, I have
discovered a topic I omitted from the very first article on the ship's
hull.

Consider this post an addendum to the first part of this series.

Kenneth.

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

CHAMELEON HULL

The March Harrier's hull incorporates a chemeleon circuit.

This is pretty standard on higher tech spacecraft.  You can look it up
to find out the specifics of a chameleon hull in Chapter 7 of the SOM: 
Hull and Environment.

Here's what the SOM says about chameleon hulls:

"All hulls incorporate within them a series of thermal radiator strips
which permit the vessel to dissiate excess heat which might be hazardous
to the crew of the ship.

"At times of extreme energy production (such as during the preparation
for jump) these strips can grow visibly hot as they shed unwanted heat.

"The chameleon circuit used on many higher-tech starships allows them to
alter their appearance.  The hull circuit alters the frequency of
elctromagnetic energy (usually limited to the IR, visible light, and UV
segments of the spectrum) reflected or emitted by the ship.

"A series of refinements in material science, gravitics, and nuclear
damper technology allows altering the hull surface so that it absorbs
more or less light.  By selecting different frequencies, the apearance
of the craft can be altered to our eyes and even to sensors."

GENERAL INFORMATION ON USING CHAMELEON HULLS

"The chameleon circuit in many starship hulls allows the ship to do a
number of interesting things.  In addition to altering the ship's
external color, this technology can be used to disguise the ship if it
has landed in the wilderness, for example.  The reverse is also
possible, of course:  crashed or disabled starships with chameleon hulls
can be turned fluorescent orange to make its location obvious to search
teams.

"Exacting computer control over the circuit which manifests this
function even allows patterns to be created on the hull, hearalds to be
displayed, or names to become lettered as desired.  

"Nearly all starships make use of this device to customize the ship in
some way on a portion of the hull.  Solomani traditionally decorate the
nose of a craft, while Zhodani color the tail sections, and the Vilani
stylize the underside of the ship.  

"Other races often employ their own unique methods of customization.

"Pirates and privateers often make use of chemeleon hulls to strike
terror into the hearts of potential victims.  A pirate ship will often
close on another craft using false transponder identification and then
suddenly turn jet black as it comes within visual range.  


"A touch sometimes seen among Solomani pirates is the display of a great
white skull and crossbones on the exterior of the hull.  Vilani pirates
often make use of their traditional flaming eye in a similar manner."

In combat situations, it is normal for a starship to darken its hull to
be as black as possible.  This will lower the ship's reflected signature
when passive sensors are being used to detect it.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:14:38 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Starports

> Remember that the TCS figure for shipyard capacity is what is available
> for naval construction over and above replacements and maintenance and
> that it dosen't include civilian construction at all. 

I agree with your other points about construction time and Tigress costs 
(deliberate simplifications on my part), but I do not agree with this.  
Page 33 of TCS states:

"Each planet's shipyards have a maximum capacity expressed in the number of 
tons of ships they may work on at a time (including repair and refit 
operation)"

I can find no mention in TCS (or elsewhere) that this capacity is only for 
military vessels, and based on the real world I do not believe that a 
stable economy (such as the Imperium) would need naval ship-building 
facilities capable of building a fleet 8x larger than their naval budget 
can support.

Based on my earlier analysis and my limited knowledge of current (very 
little) military ship building I would say that the TCS ship building 
capacity is definitely for civilian as well as naval use ... in time of 
tension (or war) a much larger fraction of the shipyards will be given to 
naval work (new and refits).

There is some scope for arguement, as TCS has a "Government Modifier" that 
is different for peace and war, but for the common Gov types associated 
with Pop 9+ worlds, the variation is small and can be explained as 
increased workforce (shift working, longer hours) just as easily as 
assuming additional civilian yards are commandeered.


I think that my most significant point is worth making again: I do not 
believe that a stable economy (such as the Imperium) would need naval 
ship-building facilities capable of building a fleet 8x larger than their 
naval budget can support.

Simon

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 97 17:31:52 -0400
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: THUDDD6 og SSDS

Tommary grav wrote:
>But this should have effect on the damage values, since you do not role
>hits for each shot, but once for all shots in one turn together. The SSDS
>weapons seems to me to be much more capable than the QSDS weaponry.

SSDS does account for ROF, if you have a ROF =50 you get +1 to damage,
if you have ROF=100 you get +2, etc. (Note the exact bonuses may be
off, I can't remember for sure)  You can't do more than double the
damage of the weapon, no 1 Mw lasers at ROF=10000. :)

 
Lewis Roberts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------    
Q:Why did the fish cross the ocean?                    
A:To get to the other tide.  
 
lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 16:36:25 -0500
From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pen.net>
Subject: Re: takeoff and landing

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> 
> >>(2) is the most common approach. (1) requires an airframe hull and a long
> >>runway, (2) and (3) only require a streamlined hull.
> 
> >Well, do they? Why assume a high speed takeoff in (2) and (3). Assume that the
> >captain takes it up at a whopping 20 miles per hour (even Model T Fords could do
> >that, and they were definitely USL) ... he can make a high enough altitude to
> >forget about wind resistance in, what, half an hour or so? So who needs AF and
> >SL Hullforms *unless* you have a need for speed ...
 
> It would probably take an hour or two - and during that hour you're a serious
> menace to traffic, since you can't move with respect to the air at more than
> 20-30 mph, and the wind will move the air at 50-100 mph at altitude -

A *little* effort on most unstreamlined hulls would allow it to travel
through an atmosphere at 100 to 200 kph. Sensor arrays, antenna,
external hooks and grapples could be designed to be retracted and
covered, for instance.  As a general rule, SL/AF hulls would be be
preferred, and could lift/land without negative DM's. USL hulls should
be allowed to do so with increased difficulty, chances of minor (or
major) damage, and if it's a planned thing only in out of the way places
(like over an ocean).

In my fictons, ships >100 tons are designed to routinely land and lift
from bodies of water, oceans, seas, lakes, or man-made basins for that
matter.  Only if they *have* to will they put down on land. The water
provides bouyance when the CG's are shut down.  Lifting involves using
the CG/AG units to lift the ship out of the water and accelerate it
above the atmosphere where the stutterjump drives can be brought on
line. 

Eris

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:50:45 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Games Convention

Coming in May 98
Orion
at the CNE (in Toronto)

http://www.interlog.com/~pixell/orion.html

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:35:51 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?

Anders writes

>The basic rules (using logs etc) were laid down by (ahum) me
Anders deserves much credit.

>I'm not shure who decided on the (to me) silly use of decimal sensitivity
>ratings

I was trying to match what I was told the T4.1 range bands would be.
In hindsight, this may have been a mistake...would people rather have to
deal with adding fractions together (sensitivities like 10.5 + range 9.5 +
signature -0.5 = 19.5) or with doubling the T4 ranges? (
sensitivity 21, range=9*2=18)

>Also, ignore the silly rule for lidars
>involving the multiplication by 2 for unknown reasons.

There's a statement in there that "Lidar signature = visible (reflected)
signature *divided* by 2", which should stay...

Bruce

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:39:07 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Piracy

Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:57:21 -0700, "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>

>I was wondering, since ANY fission/fusion power plants give off a rather
>bright neutrino signature, how pirates could hid from ships scanning?

Neutrino signatures are damn hard to detect - certainly nearly impossible
at useful ranges with TL-8 equipment. My addenda to FFS2 have more advanced
neutrino sensors, but they're still pretty short ranged (if nothing else, 
they have to deal with the background neutrino signal from the local star...)

On the other hand, big planetary-defence IR/radar/visible sensors can track
ships halfway across the solar system.

On the final hand, as someone says, pirates don't have to hide - just look
innocent until they get into weapons range.

Bruce

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:43:04 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

>I'm not sure I follow how the DGP overdrive capability messes things
>up.  Care to elaborate, oh, thruster-guru?

It opens various cans of larvae. Why don't ships use this overdrive
capacity (which DGP implied was as high as a factor of 10!) in combat
while evading? Why don't missiles use it all the time? (Who cares if the
missile's drive burns out in 10 minutes if it can manuever at 100G for those
ten minutes...) Can you last longer at overdrive if you maintain and tune
your drive better? If that's the case, why don't well-tuned thruster plates
generally have a higher efficiency? Why don't thurster plates get better 
with TL? What, precisely, *is* it that burns out when you're overdriving,
given that thurster plates have no moving parts? If it's an overheating thing
why not just have better cooling? Why don't thruster plates require 10x more
power when producing 10x more thrust? 

See? Lots of hard questions that we don't have rules for.

Including CG on most ships is now cannon (I think it's even built into 
some QSDS or SSDS hulls...) so overdriven thruster plates are no longer
required.

Bruce

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 15:43:09 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers (and Battle Dress)

At 09:31 AM 10/7/97 -0500, you wrote:

>On to Traveller: While battle dress is not nearly as formidable as the
>powersuits of the MI, do any of you think that some of the tactics might be
>applicable? I am thinking of loose, fast moving formations, keeping track
>of each other through the use of IFF transponders and the like. Battle
>dress, being relatively small, would be able to make better use of a lot of
>terrain advantages than larger vehicles, wouldn't it? At 300,000 Cr a suit
>(MT) and armed with tac missiles, wouldn't these be pretty cost-effective
>tank killers?

Battle Dress equipped troops really have only one use: Raiders.  They lack
the endurance to take part in real foot-slogging battles, and the waste
heat they generate will, after a time, make them targets for IR-homing
munitions.

Just as a modern MBT is dead if it stands still, A Marine will need to keep
moving to survive.  I can design a TL8 Light Antiarmor Missile that will
shred both the armor and the body inside it.

BD's big advantage is it's small size and manuverability.  A grav tank will
blow up a building.  A Marine will kick in the door, chase you downstairs,
and slap you unconscious.

IMTU Marines make great use of IFF beacons and loose formations.  Since
each mission will have a clearly phrased objective for each unit (seize the
control tower; capture the command staff in bunker "G"; destroy the
munitions store) each trooper will know his/her job in the mission, as well
as having cues displayed on the HUD.

>Also (for you lovable gearheads out there), *could* MI-like powersuits be
>designed in the Traveller universe? Tac nukes, grenade racks, flamers and
>all? Of course, the Imperium has some tech advantages that the Federal
>government of the MI didn't have (grav belts, true HUDs, and so on). But
>are MI-like powersuits truly technologically feasable, given the hard sf
>nature of the Traveller universe? More importantly, would such a design be
>economically feasable (assuming it was technologically possible)?

I'll take a stab at the grenade launcher this afternoon.  Since Traveller
has grav belts, making MI-like jumps wopuld be easier for the average
Imperial Marine than it was for Juan Rico.  I imagine Marine
Sergeants-Instructor take great care to keep their charges from spending
more than two or three seconds airborne at any time, to avoid attracting AA
fire.

>BTW, I have heard that in ST, the movie, there are giant Arachnids (called
>tank bugs) that have the ability to emit plasma blasts from their abdomen
>and shoot starships out of orbit. That's right folks, they are blasting
>stuff out of orbit with a**-end emissions! If this rumor is true, I'm sure
>the movie is going to be a winner! :-(

What ARE they feeding the poor things?


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 15:30:35 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

At 08:07 PM 10/7/97 +0100, you wrote:

>I'm not even sure that the existing BattleDress is economically feasable.
>300,000Cr buys a lot of conventional equipment. Also, like fighter pilots,
>the cost of training necessary for someone in Battle Dress far outstrips
>the cost of the hardware making them even more expensive.

I've always held that BattleDress is fairly worthless on a conventional
battlefield, simply because it is an attractive target and a relatively
easy kill.  Not enough armor to really stand up to an infantry anti-armor
rocket, and not enough weaponry to compete with armored vehicles.  It is at
best a specialty piece of equipment for certain, narrowly defined missions.

>I generally rationalise battle dress in one of a number of ways:
>1) It is an arms race thing. If one side has battle dress and the other
>doesn't they have a distinct advantage. But, if one side has _more_ battle
>dress thant he other, it isn't as much of an advantage. Thus competing
>polities invest in one elite squad of battle dress troops but stop there.
>They also almost never use them in action. Their use is as a threat of
>force, not a force itself (a bit like nukes today).

A better example would be the Infantry Fighting Vehicles.  The Russkis had
infantry carries that could also shoot and fire missiles and were generally
cooler than our little M-113s that just hauled a dozen troops and all of
their equipment while running on anything more reactive than urine.  So we
had to replace them with the Bradley, which costs twice as much, carries
half as many troops, and requires special training to drive.

(Sorry, sore point with me, I was in the unit that tested the Bradley, and
I still hate the damn things.)

>2) It is for show. Battle Dress is impressive. I've always assumed that the
>Imperial troops keep a certain number of Battle Dress squads to "fly the
>flag", flank the Emporer, stand in front of the Imperial Embassy to
>encourage rioters to disperse, etc, etc.

If you count the platoon of Imperial Marines reducing your Naval HQ to a
collection of fine pebbles and office shards a demonstration, you're on the
right track.  I imagine that a big part of "Fleet Week" or whatever on
local worlds will be the Marines demonstrating their toys to the locals.
As I was told in the Army that airshows and the like are important to show
the people what they've paid for, and that it works.  Having two Marines in
BD visit the local high-school equivilants could do wonders for the
recruiting office's numbers.

>3) Was at the Met in New York the weekend before last. Lots of amazingly
>impressive armour. However almost every suit was owned by a high noble of
>some such. The historical reason they were so impressive was they were
>either for court duty, or, if some damn noble was going to risk his life
>jousting, he damn better have the best armour possible. Analogously, Battle
>Dress is almost exclusively owned by Nobles so they can lead their levied
>troops in battle and not get their arse shot off.

If BD had to be manufactured by hand using TL2 technology, I could see
this.  How ever, somewhere on sylea there is a factory that does nothing
but assemble Mk-38 Personal Protection System (Augmented) kits for the
Imperium.

What's interesting is the special orders they'd recieve.. ("He wants
WHAT???  ABD that looks like *jousting armor*!!!")


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:49:56 +0100
From: "Nicholas Wright" <xgr52@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Jupiter's escape velocity

>Shadow, you speak of reaching escape velocity - but with CG you don't have
>to, do you? To escape from Jupiter, just set your CG to null grav at
2.66g,
>and just use thrusters to ease you out at a snail's pace if you so choose.
>Similarly, if I had an engine on my ship that could deliver, say, 1.2 G
>constantly, I could climb at this constant thrust out of Earth's gravity
>well without having to squish myself during a short period of high-G
>acceleration. Or am I missing something?

You are mixing up velocity and acceleration

>My understanding is that Esacpe Velocity is that speed at which an object
>will have more kinetic energy than Gravity can strip away during the climb
>to orbit. If I have CG capable of overcoming gravity (or rather ignoring
>it) then my escape velocity can be three feet per week.

Escape velocity is the velocity you will be going when you break free of
the planets gravity. The usual problem is carrying enough fuel to get you,
and the fuel, going at the escape velocity.  The usual solution is that of
the Shuttle or the Saturn V.  A big powerful engine that blasts you to the
escape velocity as quick as possible before the fuel runs out.  If you can
get a very powerful fuel ie one which has an enormous power to weight ratio
you do not have to have the brutal acceleration and all that cheek
wobbling.

This latter case is the one for the CG/plates if you can go at 1.001G you
will eventally reach orbit if your fuel lasts; it will just take a long
time. If you can get up 6Gs you will get to orbit that liitle bit quicker.
When you both reach orbit you will both be going at the escape velocity.

Nick

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:08:47 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Reasonable NPAWS Barbette? (fwd)

Moin Joseph "Chepe" Lockett,

> Gazelle Toroidal NPAW Barbette (TL14)

	hm torus accelleration :-(

	" for military purposes, curved particle accellerators are
	  inefficient because of the need to keep the particles moving
	  in a circular path " FFS pg 112

	If you call a 6dt weapon a barbette here is the maximum 6dt PA
	based on FFS1 and Tl-E.

		Tech-Level      :  14
		Discharge       : 216.1 Mj
		Length          :  14.7 m
		Diameter        :   1.8 m
		Short Range     :   2.0 clicks
		Effective Range :   2.6 clicks
		Power Input     :   6.0 MW (rof 10)
		Tunnel Volume   :  39.0 m3 3898.2 kCr
		HPG   Volume    :  43.2 m3 432.2 kCr
		BeamP Volume    :   1.2 m3 120.0 kCr
		Displacement    :  83.4 m3   6.0 dt
		Mass            : 116.9 t
		Price           :   4.5 MCr
		Damage          : 2:74 4:48 8:24 16:12 


- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:59:19 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: TravSuite & CORE

Moin Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus@lotus.com,

	First of all: I share the opinion of rms@gnu that anybody who
	sells software without source code should be called a criminal.
	And I manage to live well as a free lance programer, with this
	princip. My bigest customer who accepted GPL was Daimler/Bremen,
	but they gave me additional money I have to give back, when I
	disclose the source, so its not "pure GPL".

> >I know I'd be more than willing to pay an extra $10 or so to get a fixed

	If software is GPLed you can fix it on your own ;-)

> This, however, is rather unlikely. I can't see them up-fronting the money
> for a professional to do the effort.

	That true. A full grown programs get in the range of several
	man year very fast. If I asume the classical Brooks "surgical
	team" of 10 people, practical for smaller projects, one year of
	work will cost about a million $. I think nobody is willing
	to pay that proforma.

> I'm calling it "Java Gal", cause you type "java gal" on the command
> line to start it :-).

	Funny GAL23 was also the start of my project. You can see it
	at http://traveller.is-bremen.de/3rd-survey. Its under GPL as
	usual, so source is availabe as http:/pub/3rd-survey.*.tgz.
		
> It is all Traveller Tools Group stuff and, generally, I have no intention
> of charging for the libraries.

	Sounds like public domain ;-( Do you know the University Ingres story.
	Public domain is neither good for authors nor for the project.

> They are up on ftp://ftp.maths.tcd.ie/pub/jaymin/ttg.

	Do you have standart makefiles, so I could try to compile
	them with guavac.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:21:05 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: TML: Physicists (fwd)

Moin Peter Newman,

> Look in the rules ...

	I have the rules (MT&TNE) I think that my FFS has a wear value
	of about 7 while some MT stuff is not in better condition.

	The (n+1)% size is the MT/TNE size for a jump drive,
	multiplied by 5 for fuel for n parsecs, or (n+1)*5/n
	for 1 parsec. So fuel used more efficient by a larger
	drives possible at higher techlevels.

	The (n+1)% size is the CT/T4 is the same size for a jump drive
	but fuel efficency does not increase but sticks with 10% per
	parsec.

> This is canon.

	This canon leads directy to useless CT-Gazelles, while the
	TNE/MT Gazelle is a nice ship. Of course you can call CT-TAS
	drop tanks canon. In my universe they produce 2d20 damage
	in jump drive and power plant, because of HPG overcharge.

> Maybe it should be - but under canon it is not possible.

	think about the following situation :

	You have a Tl10 200dt Yacht. The engineer tells you that
	the HPG of your jump drive is broken, and can not be repaired.
	Fortunately you are on a Tl12 world and HPGs are available,
	the chief looks into the Jumpdrives manual and deceided that
	you need 230 MJ of HPG, as this was the old value. After some
	days of work he removed the old HPG (18qm) and you order the
	new one (cost is only 115 Sylean KCr converted to 130 Kaneshi KCr)
	the new HPG is delivered and after installation there is 6qm
	open space. The discussion arise what to make with the 6qm?
	An additional locker, or if its better just to purchase addional
	110 MJ HPGs as the HPGs are mechanical and having a bigger
	backup is allways better. Lets imagine if this situation happens
	in the wilds, its certainly better to have a backup. Do you remeber
	we only managed to continue jump because I've stripped the laser
	HPG. Come give this additional 65KCr to make the HPG banks full.

	about math (for a 100dt ship) :

	Tech level
	   Jump number
	     HPG efficency
	            HPG size in m3
	                 MJ per pulse
	                        MJoule per 30 minutes
	                                    MW consumption during jump
	                                         Special
	 9 1 0.100   9.3   93.3   21000.0   11.7 0.73
	10 1 0.080   9.3  116.7   29166.7   16.2 1.01
	11 2 0.060  14.0  233.3   64166.7   35.6 0.99
	12 3 0.050  18.7  373.3  112000.0   62.2 0.97
	13 4 0.045  23.3  518.5  168518.5   93.6 0.94
	14 5 0.040  28.0  700.0  245000.0  136.1 0.95
	15 6 0.035  32.7  933.3  350000.0  194.4 0.99
	16 6 0.030  32.7 1088.9  435555.6  242.0 1.23
	17 6 0.025  32.7 1306.7  555333.3  308.5 1.26
	18 6 0.020  32.7 1633.3  735000.0  408.3 1.25
	19 6 0.015  32.7 2177.8 1034444.4  574.7 1.17
	20 6 0.010  32.7 3266.7 1633333.3  907.4 0.93
	21 6 0.005  32.7 6533.3 3430000.0 1905.6 0.97

	about rules : FFS page 60

	" 35 percent of the volume of a jump drive consists of capacitator
	  HPG banks. "

	My second asumption is a house rule which limits lasers
	to 50*Tl Mjoule and HPGs to 25*Tl Mjoule, to avoid "uncanon"
	constructions like the 2000Mjoule XRay laser, or that all
	lasers in a ship sharing a single HPG round robin. I hope
	that at least the first house rule found its way to FFS2.

	The "Special" columne is purely handwaving of

		MTJumpFuelVolume*MW/(20*(Jump+1)^2).

	Call it the ancient jump drive constant ;-)

	Using this ancient knowledge of how a jump drive works, it should
	be posible to produce better jump drives on moderate techlevels,
	than the early 3I did. I think that discovery of ancient papers
	in the late 3I leads to better drives. Compare fuel efficency of
	the old CT drives to the MT drives, and think about what scenarios
	where played in between. Further improvements lead to then
	conclusion that the human race (including solmani and vilani) has
	to be called minor, as the only jump drive improvements came from
	artifacts, or AI calculations (jump torpedos).
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1929
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 8 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1930



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Vehicles Page Updated
Wanax Aerial Yacht (TL10)
WRT: Starship Troopers
Re: Thermonuclear fusion question...
Re: Thermonuclear fusion question...
Re: Piracy
Looking for FF&S (TNE) aircraft design house rules...
Re: Population
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Interesting thought on TL
Re: Piracy 
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Another FF&S Errata?
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1922
Re: At Close Quarters Playtest
5th Dimension
A Walk Through Sensors--2
Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers
Re: Piracy
Re: At Close Quarters Playtest
Re: Starship Troopers (and Battle Dress)

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

Date: 07 Oct 1997 22:58:51 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Vehicles Page Updated

I have updated the vehicles on the DMCI site:

http://www.interlog.com/~dmci104/GamingClub/Traveller/vehicles.html

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

Date: 07 Oct 1997 22:57:31 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Wanax Aerial Yacht (TL10)

Wanax Aerial Yacht (TL10)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     5.00 displacement ton disk streamlined;  11.3 tonnes;  kCr 300
Chassis:
     70.0 kL disk streamlined (7.7 m long x 7.7 m wide x 1.5 m high); 
Structure: 1.10 tonnes of crystaliron, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.010 cm thick,
sealed to 1 atm, 1 armour rating
     
Performance:
     2.16 MW TL10 Fusion Plus power plant;  Fuel: 539 L of enriched water
(539 kg), 500 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 1.50 MW contragrav with orbital thrusters;  Maximum
Speed: 1372 km/h;  Range: 683519 km;  Agility: -8DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: pilot, 4 stewards;  5 crew stations;  12 roomy passenger
seats
     Standard life support, waste handling and shower facilities; Hatches: 3
power; Grav Compensation (1G), Whole vehicle compensated
Communications:
     Orbital Radio (10.00 kW, TL10, SmVcl)
Sensors:
     Active Regional Radar (1.00 kW)  Resolution: 5.0 mm per km of range
Other:
     Options: automatic sunroof, entertainment centre, recreation space, wet
bar, kitchen for 12 simultaneous meals
     Safety Features: anti-hijack system, anti-theft system, Roadgrid
     4.48 kL of cargo space


Designed with CSC (software (c) Robert Prior, 1997)

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
Subject: WRT: Starship Troopers

One of the pair of writers who worked on the original screenplay for
Puppetmasters has a web site, in which he describes in excrutiating detail
how their scene-by-scene, perfect reproduction of  the book was butchered by
various forces beyond their control into the final result. The only way a
writer can be sure of getting a script shot exactly as written is to produce
& direct the film him/herself.

Loren Wiseman 

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:31:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear fusion question...

I have a question that is not exactly on topic here, but close...does anyone
out there have any idea what the effective discharge energies would be for
the various sizes of nuclear warheads?  This is simply to calculate damage
and PV for my campaign.

Thanks very much,
Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@ aol.com)

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:30:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Thermonuclear fusion question...

I have a question that is not exactly on topic here, but close...does anyone
out there have any idea what the effective discharge energies would be for
the various sizes of nuclear warheads?  This is simply to calculate damage
and PV for my campaign.

Thanks very much,
Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@ aol.com)

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 16:23:27 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

At 11:30 AM 10/7/97 -0700, David Summers wrote:
>Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:57:21 -0700, "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
>>I was wondering, since ANY fission/fusion power plants give off a rather
>>bright neutrino signature, how pirates could hid from ships scanning?
>
>However, we don't have to.  Becuase the answer is "they don't".
>
>Pirates are, by definition, operating in a area with significant
>commercial traffic and nothing in their signature certainly
>isn't coded to say "pirate".

This depends greatly on how big the area is, and how many ships/scanners
are needed to patrol it.  Even if you assume that people will be scooting
about in system, which the rules as stated do not encourage, you stand a
good chance of being identified.

Given that an Aricebo-style dish is sufficient to scan the entire system
(and a system a few parsecs away for active sensors), I suspect traffic
control knows  everyone within 100 diameters of the destinations in the
system, and probably has good ideas about just about everyone in the system
period.

You might well be able to hit a target by surprise, but you cannot do it
twice in the same system, and since traffic control can probably ID you as
soon as they find out about the piracy, they know who you are.  Once you
are known as a pirate, you can be found.

The new senor rules make it very hard to hide in a way that will not bite
you if you intend to be taken for normal commercial traffic later.

Scott

Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:40:01 -0600
From: "Christopher E. Webb" <cwebb@ctos.com>
Subject: Looking for FF&S (TNE) aircraft design house rules...

I'm playing around again with the aircraft design system in TNE/FF&S.  I'm
wondering what house rules people are using with this system.  I've revised a
couple of the turbofan engines, and I've tweaked the airframe mass/price to take
into account various construction materials, but I want to see what other people
have done, too.

Thanks,
Christopher Webb
cwebb@ctos.com

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:12:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Population

As regards the population question...In the MT/TNE book Survival Margin, the
book list a possible casualty rate (from both the Rebellion and Collapse) as
being as high as 15 Trillion individuals.

As regards the 3rd Imperium size...it is the 11,000 worlds, not 1100.  Simple
typo in your sources most likely.

Hope this doesnt come across as condescending...still trying to learn how to
do all this.

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:45:55 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

At 10:40 pm 10/06/97 +0000, you wrote:
>If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
>then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?  Certainly not with
>orientation jet-thrusters?

	Why not?
- -- 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: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 18:08:42 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Interesting thought on TL

At 08:07 am 10/07/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Medieval, with access to a garbage dump from the past...only _smelting_
>aluminum from bauxite takes electricity, recycling it takes a hot fire. An

	I'm obviously not a materials guy--why does smelting aluminum require
electricity?
- -- 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: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:44:55 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy 

At 02:57 pm 10/06/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I was wondering, since ANY fission/fusion power plants give off a rather
>bright neutrino signature, how pirates could hid from ships scanning?

	Not all fusion reactions give off neutrinos. In particular, I was rather
fond of the HIWG document describing, in great roleplaying detail, how a
CNO cycle reactor would work, and wanted to get permission to include it in
the "color" text for FF&S2. 

- -- 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: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 18:01:48 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

At 01:26 pm 10/07/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
>
>> If you go with DGP's thrusters-work-sideways, you still have a problem for
>> HEPlaR ships - HEPlaR definitely can't fire sideways or in reverse...although
>> you could assume HEPlaR mass includes auxilliary manuevering thrusters while
>> T-plates don't.
>
>Sounds fair.

	And what about thrust vectoring (for either HEPlaR or thruster plates) ...
- -- 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: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:49:46 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Another FF&S Errata?

At 03:19 am 10/07/97 +0000, you wrote:
>I might have just found another piece of errata for FF&S.
>
>On page 73, left hand column, last line of the second full paragraph, it
>states, "compare the result to the following table."
>
>Yet, there is no table there, and further, there is no reference to a
>table in the back of the book.  

	I'd ignore the sensor rules as published, and get hold of Bruce's finished
version (of which the FF&S2 rules were a draft ... just like the rest of
the book).

- -- 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: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 18:00:55 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

At 01:17 pm 10/07/97 +0000, you wrote:

>> I for one say something along the lines of "...T-plates can produce thrust
>> in all directions but with different efficiency and as most ships have 3 or
>> more T-plates any change of orientation can be made. The same goes with
>> gravthrusters as the mostly wingless gravvehicle designs would look kind of
>> silly if they'd have to brake by running with their hindquarters first.
>
>I agree.  That's why I'm questioning T4 Thrusters only providing thrust
>in one direction as Bruce as mentioned.

	Where'd this come from? I envisioned FF&S thrusters functioning pretty
much the same as in MT, although I didn't get that bit of color written
into the text... I suppose we could ask Marc for a "canon" ruling if it
really matters. But not now--let the man work on T4.1...

- -- 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: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:58:26 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1922

At 09:17 am 10/07/97 GMT, Phillip McGregor wrote:
>Well, do they? Why assume a high speed takeoff in (2) and (3). Assume that the
>captain takes it up at a whopping 20 miles per hour (even Model T Fords could do
>that, and they were definitely USL) ... he can make a high enough altitude to
>forget about wind resistance in, what, half an hour or so? So who needs AF and
>SL Hullforms *unless* you have a need for speed ... the military and
>high-priority civilian craft. A fat, happy, Trader on a well established route
>needs no such ability.


	While I'm firmly on the side that USL ships can _try_ to land on worlds
with atmospheres, it's not as simple as just slowly drifting up under CG
.... high altitude winds and gust can seriously damage an unstreamlined ship
by snapping off antennas, or even more significant portions of the ship if
it's dispersed, as well as causing serious control problems. Yes, you can
match your speed to the local airspeed to avoid the problems from
steady-state winds (for example, here on earth, the jet stream runs around
200mph); avoid that, and you still have to deal with unpredictable,
surprise gusts of 50-100mph.

- -- 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: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:01:15 -0500
From: "Pat Connaughton" <pconn@simm.net>
Subject: Re: At Close Quarters Playtest

Yes, please quite interested
Thanks


- ----------
> From: Douglas E. Berry <dberry@hooked.net>
> To: traveller@NS.MPGN.COM
> Subject: At Close Quarters Playtest
> Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:55 AM
> 
> I need some volunteers for the playtesting of the latest version of At
> Close quarters, my advanced combat system for T4.
> 
> Anyone interested, please mail me.  The rules are currently avalible
either
> as a Word6 document of in .rtf, specify which you'd prefer.
> --
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> |   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
> |          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
> |          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
> |*************************************************|
> |"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
> |  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
> |  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
> |  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
> |                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
> +-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 20:02:12 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: 5th Dimension

I'm reading this facinating book called The Bible Code where this
mathematician in Israel has proven that the Bible contains predictions
in it prediciting events in modern times--and they do it pretty
convincingly, I might add.

But, this is not what this post is about.  

In this book, there is talk of the 5th dimension, and since this is
somewhat Traveller related, I thought all of you might be interested in
this.

The author of the book, a reporter formally with the Washington Post and
Wall Street Journal, found reference to a "5th dimension" in the Bible
Code.

He says in his notes to chapter one:

"The code's suggestion that there is a 'fifth dimension' led me to meet
with the chairman of Harvard's physics department, Sidney Coleman, and
one of the leading experts on the origin of the universe, M.I.T.
physicist Alan Guth.  Both told me, in separate interviews, that most
physicists now agree that there is a fifth dimension, but that no one
can yet define what it is.  Both, however, stated an apparent
paradox--that the fifth dimension is smaller than the nucleus of an
atom, but that we, our whole universe, are inside it."

Now, what do you TML physicists think of that?

To wax spiritual on you, I'll continue the quote.

"The ancient religious text cited by Rips in The Book of Creation (Sefer
Yetzirah), which according to legend was first written by the patriarch
Abraham, a thousand years before Moses received the Bible on Mt. Sinai. 
The Book of Creation states that we exist in a five-dimensional world,
three dimensions of space, a fourth dimension of time, and a fifth
spiritual dimension.  Modern science confirms the first four, and has no
definition of the fifth.

"Chapter One, verse five of The Book of Creation defines the five
dimensions this way:  'A depth of beginning/A depth of end, A depth of
good/A depth of evil, A depth of above/A depth of below, A depth of
east/A depth of west, A depth of north/A depth of south.'  The Book of
Creation, translated by Aryeh Kaplan (samuel Weiser, 1990), p. 44.

"Rips, in citing this ancient definition of the 'fifth dimension', noted
that every dimension is defined by a system of measurment, and that the
fifth dimension may contain all the others because it is defined by the
distance between good and evil, and that, said Rips, 'is the greatest
distance in the world.'

Facinating, facinating stuff.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:28:56 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: A Walk Through Sensors--2

Here's part three of the post series in which I am teaching my players
the T4 Definitive Sensor Rules.

Kenneth.
==========================================================

(the following is copied from a post I sent to my players)


In this post, we walk through the basic rules for sensors listed in the
Definitive Sensor Rules.

Follow me (with your copy of the Definitive Sensor Rules) as we go
through that first section of rules.  I think you'll find it is easier
than it looks.  We are looking at the section titled "Part 2:  Basic
Rules".
- --------------------

BASIC SENSOR RULES

The basic sensor rules are really a two step process.  First you figure
how strong the signal is to the target ship you are trying to detect,
and then you look up that signal strength on a table given in the rules
to find the difficulty of the sensor task throw for the person operating
the sensors.

That's not very difficult.

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

STEP ONE:  FIGURING SIGNAL
To detect another starship or object using your sensors, you need to
calculate the signal.

     Signal = Sensitivity - Range + Signature + Modifiers



STEP TWO:  FINDING THE SENSOR TASK THROW
It's simple, really.  We plug numbers into the equation above to find
the signal strength.  Then we simply look up that signal strength on the
signal difficulty table to find the task throw the sensor operator needs
to make to detect the ship.

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

Let's go through step one and figure a signal.

FIGURING SENSITIVITY
In the last post, I told you that the March Harrier had two sensor
packages, and active EMS package and a passive EMS package.  Sensitivity
for those two packages on the Harrier were listed at:

     Active EMS sensitivity rating 12
     Passive EMS sensitivity rating 14

Pick which sensor you want to use, and use that sensitivity rating in
the equation.



FIGURING RANGE
To find the range number used in the signal calculation, simply look at
the map board or ask you GM what the range to the target is.  Then, look
up the range on the table in the rules to find the range factor.



FIGURING SIGNATURE
Each ship has a signature.  Remember last post I told you what the March
Harrier's signatures were:

      Signature vs active sensors:  Sig rating +0.5
      Signature vs passive sensors:  Emitted Sig rating 0
      Signature vs passive sensors:  Reflected Sig rating -0.5

The signature you use in the signal calculation is the signature rating
of the ship you are trying to detect.  Just like the March Harrier, this
ship will have different signatures based on which sensors you are
using.



FIGURING MODIFIERS
The ship being detected can do a lot of things to alter its signal.  It
can not move, lowering its signal. It can shut down all power, lowering
its signal.  It can use its active sensors, raising its signal.  

Also, other factors might change the signal, like if the ship is
surprised by your ship, if the ship is close to a planet or asteroid, if
the ship is in an atmosphere, or if the ship has landed--these all can
effect the ship's signal.

Each of these conditions has a modifier to the signal.  Simply check the
table in the rules for the modifiers used based on the situations that
apply.

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

Let's move through an example now.

The March Harrier tries to detect a ship 50,000,000 km.  Praygor or
Gvoudzon (the ship's captain or sensor operator) decides to use the
Harrier's passive EMS sensors.  We see that the Harrier's passive
sensors have a senstivity rating of 14.  The target ship's emitted
signature vs. passive sensors is 0.

We look up 50,000,000 km on the range table in the rules.  We see that
his corresponds to a range factor of 13.  The target ship is not moving,
so we look on the modifiers table to see that non-maneuvering
corresponds to a modifier of -0.5 for passive sensors.

Now we have all we need to figure a sensor task throw for Gvoudzon, the
Harrier's sensor operator.

Signal = Sensitivity - Range + Signature + Modifiers
  0.5  =     14      -   13  +     0     +   -0.5

Our signal is 0.5.  We look this up on the signal difficulty table in
the rules, and we see that Gvoudzon has to roll a Staggering sensor task
roll to detect this ship.

Now, that's pretty doggone easy (the figuring, not the task roll) isn't
it?

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

What do you get if you make the task roll?

The referee informs the players of the signature of the vessel (up until
now, they didn't know).  The counter is placed, upside down, on the map
to let you know the vessel's location.  

After one turn of detection, the referee gives the players more info on
the detected ship (Gvoudzon has had time to collect and analyze more
data).  You are now told the tonnage and basic configuration of the
target.  After two turns of detection, you are told more specifics, like
the ship's class.

Remember, turns in starship combat are 30 minutes long.

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

Firing Weapons

A casual sensor scan, like the one we've been talking about, does not
provide enough (specific enough) information for a weapons lock.  A
weapons lock is necessary in order to fire the ship's weapons.

"Captain!  They're locking weapons!"

In order to make a weapons lock, you follow the same procedure as
detailed above, except with a modifier of -1.5.  Firing on a target is
much more difficult than merely detecting it.

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

Firing Weapons Without a Weapons Lock

You can just take your best guess and fire at a target with the
information you have.  If you do this, figure the task difficulty just
like you would if you had a weapon's lock, but increase the gunner's
task difficulty to fire by 3 levels.



And...that's it for the basic rules.  E-mail me if you have any
questions.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 21:22:52 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus@lotus.com wrote:
> 
> >Also *could* MI-like powersuits be designed in the Traveller universe?
> >...More importantly, would such a design be economically feasable

> I'm not even sure that the existing BattleDress is economically feasable.
> 300,000Cr buys a lot of conventional equipment. Also, like fighter pilots,
> the cost of training necessary for someone in Battle Dress far outstrips
> the cost of the hardware making them even more expensive.

I'm not sure if I agree with this.  I like the thinking behind Jo's
statement, but Traveller allows people with Vac Suit skill to operate
BattleDress.

I'm sure Vac Suit is a much more common skill--with merchants needing to
do EVA repair jobs from time to time, asteroid miners hulking about,
common emergency training for crews on luxury lines and such.

Now, if BattleDress skill didn't default to Vac Suit, I could see Jo's
statement more clearly.  BattleDress skill is hard to obtain.

But, it is clear that anybody that can operate a vac suit can also
operate BattleDress.

What do you think, Jo?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 08:33:42 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Piracy

David P. Summers wrote:
> 
> Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:57:21 -0700, "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
> 
> >I was wondering, since ANY fission/fusion power plants give off a rather
> >bright neutrino signature, how pirates could hid from ships scanning?
> 
> Well, we can talk about how bright the signature is, whether the
> sensor (and the abilities of it are right there in the rules)
> is good enough to reliably detect a ship so you can always get
> away.  However, we don't have to.  Becuase the answer is "they don't".
> 
> Pirates are, by definition, operating in a area with significant
> commercial traffic and nothing in their signature certainly
> isn't coded to say "pirate".
> 
> ____________________________
> Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

Ok, are you saying Pirates can pretend to be "just one of the boys" in a
crowded shipping lane, before pouncing like a shark?  I'd think Pirates
would operate in remote areas or try to catch ships alone.

- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:55:59 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: At Close Quarters Playtest

At 09:55 AM 10/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I need some volunteers for the playtesting of the latest version of At
>Close quarters, my advanced combat system for T4.
>
>Anyone interested, please mail me.  The rules are currently avalible either
>as a Word6 document of in .rtf, specify which you'd prefer.

I can use Word 6.0 as long as it is not greater than 2,000,000 bytes in
size. That is max file size a can get in my 10 meg mailbox. ISP logic not
mine.

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 21:59:33 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers (and Battle Dress)

At 03:43 pm 10/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>BD's big advantage is it's small size and manuverability.  A grav tank will
>blow up a building.  A Marine will kick in the door, chase you downstairs,
>and slap you unconscious.

	Or go in and capture all the left-handed redheads in the area ...

>>BTW, I have heard that in ST, the movie, there are giant Arachnids (called
>>tank bugs) that have the ability to emit plasma blasts from their abdomen
>>and shoot starships out of orbit. That's right folks, they are blasting
>>stuff out of orbit with a**-end emissions! If this rumor is true, I'm sure
>>the movie is going to be a winner! :-(
>
>What ARE they feeding the poor things?

	Same thing we get at the base cafeteria, probably. And given that it's 20
miles to the nearest sign of civilization ...
- -- 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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1930
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 8 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1931



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Starship Troopers
Merrick Trawler (TL5)
Bombat Mixed Cargo Ship (TL4)
Melrod Aircar (TL12)
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers
Bruce
Re: Piracy
Gas Giants
Re: Piracy
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts
Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question
Re: Hauling people
Re: Jupiter's escape velocity
Re: Interesting thought on TL
Re: Missile Rules
Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?
Imperium...

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:11:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Quoth James Lindsay:
> Originally launched as "Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers", it is now
> being billed simply as "Starship Troopers".  So the link to Heinlein is
> out, AFAIK.

Though the small print in the lobby displays still claims "based on a book
by Robert A. Heinlein."  Which, I guess, in a far-fetched way, it is.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: 08 Oct 1997 03:57:31 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Merrick Trawler (TL5)

Merrick Trawler (TL5)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     3.00 displacement ton wedge;  24.4 tonnes;  kCr 80.9
Chassis:
     42.0 kL wedge (10 m long x 4.3 m wide x 2.8 m high);  Structure: 1.75
tonnes of soft steel, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.02 cm thick, 1 armour rating
     
Performance:
     1.00 MW TL4 Internal Combustion power plant, water-cooled;  Fuel: 6.01
kL of hydrocarbons (6.01 tonnes), 60 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 1.00 MW watercraft;  Maximum Speed: 11 km/h;  Range:
664 km;  Agility: +3DM
Crew:
     Crew roster: helmsman, 5 deckhands;  6 crew stations
Communications:
     Regional Radio (10 W, TL5, SmVcl, DirAnt, DirFnd)
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     Fishing Equipment: winch can lift 5.00 tonnes
     21.8 kL of cargo space


Designed with CSC (software (c) Robert Prior, 1997)

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

Date: 08 Oct 1997 03:57:00 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Bombat Mixed Cargo Ship (TL4)

Bombat Mixed Cargo Ship (TL4)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     100.00 displacement ton box;  1735 tonnes;  MCr 3.53
Chassis:
     1400 kL box (17 m long x 9.0 m wide x 9.0 m high);  Structure: 14.5
tonnes of soft steel, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.02 cm thick, 1 armour rating
     
Performance:
     50.0 MW TL4 Steam power plant, water-cooled;  Fuel: 450 kL of coal (900
tonnes), 240 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 50.0 MW watercraft;  Maximum Speed: 9 km/h;  Range:
2389 km;  Agility: +3DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: helmsman, 5 engineers, 3 deckhands, steward;  10 crew
stations;  20 roomy passenger seats
Communications:
     No communicators installed.
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     Options: recreation space, kitchen for 10 simultaneous meals
     Construction Equipment: crane can lift 8.00 tonnes
     558 kL of cargo space


Designed with CSC (software (c) Robert Prior, 1997)

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

Date: 08 Oct 1997 03:56:21 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Melrod Aircar (TL12)

Melrod Aircar (TL12)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     2.00 displacement ton box streamlined;  5.67 tonnes;  kCr 61.10
Chassis:
     28.0 kL box streamlined (4.7 m long x 2.4 m wide x 2.4 m high); 
Structure: 178 kg of structurecomp, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.04 cm thick,
sealed to 1 atm, 1 armour rating
     
Performance:
     1.09 MW TL12 Fusion Plus power plant;  Fuel: 34.2 L of enriched water
(34.2 kg), 100 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 1.00 MW contragrav with orbital thrusters;  Maximum
Speed: 4813 km/h;  Range: 479380 km;  Agility: -27DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: pilot;  1 crew station;  5 roomy passenger seats
     Standard life support; Hatches: 4 power; Grav Compensation (1G), Only
seating compensated
Communications:
     Orbital Radio (10.00 kW, TL12, SmVcl)
Sensors:
     Active Subregional Radar (100 W)  Resolution: 0.200 mm per km of range
Other:
     Options: entertainment centre, recreation space, wet bar
     Safety Features: anti-theft system, Roadgrid
     3.74 kL of cargo space


Designed with CSC (software (c) Robert Prior, 1997)

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 00:41:23 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

David J. Golden wrote:
> >I agree.  That's why I'm questioning T4 Thrusters only providing thrust
> >in one direction as Bruce as mentioned.
> 
>         Where'd this come from? 

 Bruce said it in his first reply to me, (parapharasing) "Thrusters are
not like the ones in DGP's SOM.  Now they only produce thrust in one
direction."

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 00:38:09 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

David J. Golden wrote:
> 
> At 10:40 pm 10/06/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
> >then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?  Certainly not with
> >orientation jet-thrusters?
> 
>         Why not?

Fuel for one thing.  Jet thrusters are a reaction drive, no?  Or does it
just push air out--something that it can steal from other areas of the
ship?

Also, I don't see jet-thrusters producing thrust equivalent to thruster
plates.  It seems that jet thrusters are last ditch systems that you use
when you M-Drive goes out.  In space combat, I'll let a ship orient
itself with the jet-thrusters, but its effective speed is zero.  I don't
see a space ship pulling 1 G with these little orientation
jet-thrusters.

It would like trying to steer the Queen Elizabeth with one paddle.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 05:48:14 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

On Tue, 07 Oct 1997 21:22:52 +0000, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> Now, if BattleDress skill didn't default to Vac Suit, I could see Jo's
> statement more clearly.  BattleDress skill is hard to obtain.
> 
> But, it is clear that anybody that can operate a vac suit can also
> operate BattleDress.

Non-augmented BD... maybe.  ABD... definately not.



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

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 01:22:50 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Bruce

Bruce,  

I've got a request for you--something that will probably just take you a
second.

I'd like to have a better guideline as to what a referee can tell his
player when they obtain a sensor target or sensor lock.  You hinted at
this at the end of the Basic Rules section of your Definitive Sensor
Rules.  I'm imagining something like...

Active EMS Scan:  1st turn--signal strength and target location.
                  2nd turn--tonnage, basic configuration, and power
plant rating (or                             MW currently put out by the
power plant if ref's want to                             determine
that).
                  3rd turn--class.



Active EMS Lock:  1st turn--all the information listed above for all
three turns.



Passive EMS Scan:  1st turn--?


See what I'm getting at here?  It would be nice to see some
differentation between the sensors.  The difference between an Active
EMS Scan and an Active EMS Lock is that you get all the information with
a lock whereas the Active EMS Scan gives you the information slowly in
three turns.

How will the information retrieval on the target be different from
Passive EMS scans and locks?

What type of information do you get if you use a neutrino sensor?  What
about a densitometer?

What type of sensor is best for detecting weapons on the target craft?

What type of scan and sensor is best for detecting if they are locking
weapons on your ship?

Would it be to hard to add a rules section to your Definitive Sensor
Rules, detailing each of the types of sensors available in Traveller and
the types of information that those sensors will give you?

I think this will be an invaluable role playing aid.

Bam.  The players have located a target...but that's all they know.  A
round goes by.  Bam, they find out the tonnage and configuration.

"What type of weapons do they have?" says the Captain.

"I'm looking!"  the sensor tech replies.

What do you think, Bruce?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:30:55 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>>Pirates are, by definition, operating in a area with significant
>>commercial traffic and nothing in their signature certainly
>>isn't coded to say "pirate".

>This depends greatly on how big the area is, and how many ships/scanners
>are needed to patrol it.  Even if you assume that people will be scooting
>about in system, which the rules as stated do not encourage, you stand a
>good chance of being identified.

As what?  You can look at the neutrino signature all you want, but
nothing in it is going to say "pirate".  It will say "ship" and
give you general idea of how big, but that won't tell what his
intentions are.

>You might well be able to hit a target by surprise, but you cannot do it
>twice in the same system, and since traffic control can probably ID you as
>soon as they find out about the piracy, they know who you are.  Once you
>are known as a pirate, you can be found.

Well, I don't think it's that certain, but it doesn't matter.  You
just don't hit the same system again.

>The new senor rules make it very hard to hide in a way that will not bite
>you if you intend to be taken for normal commercial traffic later.

Unless you just take a moment to change your ships signature.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Woden2014@aol.com
Subject: Gas Giants

One thing to consider about GG's is even though there will be minimal
interstellar traffic to and from a GG, there  *can* be a large amount of
intrastellar traffic.

Why?

Because the hydrographic content of the main world is  *Nonrenewable*!  If
you send starship after starship full of precious water (or evenrefined
hydrogen) you are going to do great damage to the biosphere.

Now on low tech, and/or low pop. worlds with infrequent visits by starships,
and limited use of spaceships, this wouldn't be much of a problem as the
damage wouldn't show up for decades or centuries. (maybe even being so
gradual it is never really noticed.  one day you wake up as a 4 hydro. world
instead of a 5) So these worlds probably would never use their GG. (or
patrol? Why patrol something you never use. If someone is out there they
can't threaten the main world from there, so why bother? [read as
Isolationist or Financial conservative])

But the higher tech/pop worlds are going to have a greater amount of traffic
in both intra- and interstellar ships.  They are going to already be aware of
the dangers of major planetary refueling, or they may have already reached a
crisis point on the main world.  The solution to this is (drum roll...) *Gas
Giant Mining*!(is someone humming a _Midnight Oil_ song, or are the voices
back?)  This would create a lot of traffic to and from the GG.  Of course, if
there was an Ice loaded asteroid belt nearer than the GG then there would be
heavy traffic there instead.

So, IMHO, while there would be practicaly no Starships using most GG's.
(Exepting,of course, those few poor Far Trader's who barely have the next
port fees, let alone credits for fuel) But there could be large amounts of
local traffic using GG's.  Mostly in the larger worlds, but you might find
them on any worlds looking to their future.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:43:16 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Tue, 07 Oct 1997 08:33:42 -0700, "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
>> Pirates are, by definition, operating in a area with significant
>> commercial traffic and nothing in their signature certainly
>> isn't coded to say "pirate".

>Ok, are you saying Pirates can pretend to be "just one of the boys" in a
>crowded shipping lane, before pouncing like a shark?  I'd think Pirates
>would operate in remote areas or try to catch ships alone.

"Significant" was intended to mean "enough that there was a decent
chance of finding ships", not "crowded shiping lane".  I'm saying
that a pirate can pretend to be one of the boys in a shipping lane
with "significant" traffic before pouncing.  (Actually he could do
it in a crowded lane, but with all the people to see you "pouncing"
it probably isn't a good idea).

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:58:19 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

In mail you write:

> If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
> then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?  Certainly not with
> orientation jet-thrusters?

Orientation jets are actually pretty efficient and they don't use that
much fuel. Or you can have small thrust plates mounted instead of jets.
They'd work the same way.

After all, you get *much* better leverage from small units working with
a big lever arm (ie well out from the center of mass) than you do with
a big unit practically on the centerline. Also, you get better
performance from "paired" steering units than from singletons.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:28:09 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Take off/Landing Thoughts

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson wrote:
>> 
>> In mail you write:
>> 
>> > players are about my speed, and one is totally clueless.  He didn't even
>> > know what "bow" and "aft" meant before we started playing this game.
>> 
>> You mean "bow & stern" or "fore & aft". The first pair are *locations*.
>> The second pair are *directions*.
>
> Yes, I know that.  I was letting you know that he didn't know either. 
> He didn't know what "dorsal" and "ventral" meant either.

A *lot* of people have never heard those terms. And I used to have
trouble remembering which was which. Then someone pointed out that a
fish has a dorsal fin and that it's "vent" (asshole) is on the ventral
side. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:47:30 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question

In mail you write:

> I've got a sensors question for ya.
>
> Let's say a ship is bee-bopping the 4 hours or so down to a jump point. 
> There is another ship in range of the sensors.
>
> How does a ship find another using sensor in the first place if the
> sensor operator is not actively doing a sensor sweep?
>
> Do ships automatically leave passive sensors on all the time?

Look at it this way. In a civilized system, both Space Traffic Control
*and* the ships will be *actively* using sensors. Just like air traffic
control and airliners now.

In uncivilized systems or during wartime, only a fool *wouldn't* have
passive sensors running. Not only to look for pirates, but there's also
the possibility of space junk, or even another trader. And a collision
could ruin your whole day.

> If so, how does a ref handle this in a game--not wanting to tip off the
> players if the sensor sweep roll fails?  Should I roll the sensor tech's
> task throw behind my screen without letting the players know what I'm
> doing?

Best way is to have copies of the players character sheets, so you can
look up what their stats are without asking them. Then you have the
appropriate person roll a die or dice. Don't tell them what it's for.
If you make a habit of asking for "mystery rolls" every so often,
whether you need them or not, they won't know that it's anything
special.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:21:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hauling people

In mail you write:

>> So:  Assume the classic 3.5 m deck spacing, with 3 m floor-to-ceiling
>> space.  We'll stack bunks 3-high, at 1 m intervals -- hard on
>> claustrophobes, but equivalent to what WW2 subs offered.
>
> Why stack them in bunks at all ?  We have gravity control and can let
> them float in the air.

There are several problems with this. They'll bump into each other,
they won't have even the pretense of privacy that a bunk with a curtain
gives. And finally, given the tight quarters, just think of the mess if
someone pukes, or excretes before getting to the sanitary arrangements.
That just about guarantees casualties. Inhaling that sort of thing is
*not* good for you.

> The only question we have to answer is how much more loosly do we have
> to pack them to let them live.  We might be able to find reasonable 
> first guesses by looking at the shipping records of slave ships bringing
> african slaves to the new world in the early 19th century.  However at
> higher tech levels we should be able to pack people even more densly
> than the slave ships did.

Nope. The slave ships packed them as closely as they'd fit. High tech
won't help. 

> Under zero gravity conditions, with forced air jets for ventilation, no
> food or hygeine, and water provided by gravitically controlled water
> jet  into the mouth I think that slaves or prisoners could probably be
> packed so they took up most of the space in the hull. 

That's essentially the way the slavers packed them. They'd pull them
out of the "decks (18 inches tall!) one deck at a time to hose them
off, and feed them some gruel. Meanwhile they'd hose out the deck a bit.
Then back they went. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:10:41 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jupiter's escape velocity

In mail you write:

> Shadow, you speak of reaching escape velocity - but with CG you don't have
> to, do you? To escape from Jupiter, just set your CG to null grav at 2.66g,
> and just use thrusters to ease you out at a snail's pace if you so choose.
> Similarly, if I had an engine on my ship that could deliver, say, 1.2 G
> constantly, I could climb at this constant thrust out of Earth's gravity
> well without having to squish myself during a short period of high-G
> acceleration. Or am I missing something?

Sure, with the 1.2 g drive you could climb out of earth's gravity well.
You'd be effectively accelerating at .2 g.

But note that your thrust *exceeds* gravity. The original post seemed
to be about getting away from planets with drives that are *weaker*
than local gravity.

> My understanding is that Esacpe Velocity is that speed at which an object
> will have more kinetic energy than Gravity can strip away during the climb
> to orbit. If I have CG capable of overcoming gravity (or rather ignoring
> it) then my escape velocity can be three feet per week.

Escape velocity is the inverse of potential energy. It's the velocity
you'd have at that altitude if you'd fallen under the influence of
gravity from an infinite distance. Likewise, it's the velocity that you
need to reach an "infinite" distance. Anything less, and you'd
eventually fall back.

With CG, you *still* have to worry about this. If the CG goes off, you
fall like a rock. So you'd need to be moving *away* from the planet
pretty fast if you don't want to hit it.

Also, CG drops off as you get away from the planet. So if you use
*just* CG, it can only lift you so far. Then you'd just sit there. 
Think of it as being like "floating" in water. Unless you build up a
lot of upward velocity, you won't get very far out of the water before
you fall back.

Another thing escape velocity is good for is figuring how "big" a
planet's gravity well is. Jupiter may have a "surface" gravity of only
2.6 g, but its gravity reaches *way* out there. the "surface" gravity
is so low only because Jupiter is *big* (large radius).

As an example, one of Jupiter's moons is at the same distance as
Earth's moon. Our moon takes about 29 days to make an orbit. The Jovian
one takes about 2.9 days. That means that the gravitational effects are
*ten* times as great as at the equivalent distance from Earth.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:33:05 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Interesting thought on TL

In mail you write:

> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:
>
>> Then something occured to me.
>> 
>> Say you are the first ship to contact a planet. They seem to be late
>> medieval/early renaisance tech level. Then as you are walking through
>> the marketplace, you notice several vendors selling what is obviously
>> *aluminum* cookware. And it's obviously new. 
>> 
>> So, what tech level are the natives? :-)
>
> Trick question, Leonard ;-)
>
> Medieval, with access to a garbage dump from the past...only _smelting_
> aluminum from bauxite takes electricity, recycling it takes a hot fire. An
> old room-mate of mine showed me a sand cast aluminum pot made by people
> who scavenged the city dump for aluminum cans, broken pots and other
> aluminum sources, from where he was stationed by the Peace Corps. Looked
> just like the cast iron one used to make the mold, except it was
> considerably shinier.

I was first exposed to this "trick" in a film that showed North
Vietnamese villagers "recycling" downed American aircraft. The troops
running the AA batteries would down a plane, the villagers would tell
them where the wreck was, and technicians would be sent out to strip
anything of interest, and dispose of the ordinance. Then the villagers
got to keep what was left. They'd hack it into pieces, melt them down
and cast things out the aluminum. 

BTW, melting aluminum doesn't take all that hot a fire. Lead melts
easier, but brass and copper take higher temps. Iron takes *much*
higher temps.

But seriously, this does point out just how complex "tech level" is.
And it also suggests some trading possibilities that might otherwise
get overlooked.

A lot of "high tech" materials can be used, or even "worked" with much
lower tech. So I can see aluminum and even zinc (which is hard to smelt
unless you know the trick) being sold to lower tech planets. Oh yeah,
there's a "bronze" that's an aluminum/copper alloy. I'm not sure that
it can be *made* at low tech levels, but it should be quite usable once
created.

ps. a nasty trick I learned from a jeweler friend backwhen I played
D&D. There are some rather interesting alloys out there. Want a
*purple* metal? How about a *red* one (not "orange" like copper, but
*red*). Also green and brown are available. These aren't coatings. If
you slice a chunk of the stuff in half, the color is there on the cut
surface. 

Great way to make players think they have something "new".

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:59:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Missile Rules

In mail you write:

> I'm in the process of trying to build some large warships using ffs2 and
> I have run into a bit of a wall regarding missiles. Basically since the
> disappearance of EAPlAC, it's impossibile to build a decent missile. I
> saw alot of discussion go back and forth here about possible solutions,
> but I can't seem to find any resolution.  What is the official position,
> if any?  I am having a hell of a time making a missile boat w/o knowing
> about the missiles.

Well, here's a posting from rec.arts.sf.science that has an interesting
idea. Anybody here able to figure out the ISP of this thing?

From: nyrath@clark.net (Nyrath the nearly wise)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: "Fizzer" rockets
Date: 23 Sep 1997 00:26:29 GMT
Organization: the Praeternatural Tower

In some of my old (pre-1969) notes, I ran across a reference
to one of the silliest methods of rocket propulsion I have
ever seen.  Get a load of this:


  Take a long rod of fissionable material ( plutonium will do nicely ).
Shape it so it is almost at critical mass.  Before it explodes,
clad it in a neutron poison material ( cadmium or something like
that ).  Now imbed this like a pencil led in a wooden pencil
inside a cylinder of some solid material that will serve as
reaction mass.

  Place on the launch pad.  Put the payload on top.  Get into
a deep, dark, radiation shielded hole, and yank off the
bottom segment of cadmium.

  The rocket goes skyward like a radioactive sparkler from hell.
As the unclad segment of plutonium vaporizes itself (and the
surrounding reaction mass), it also vaporizes the adjacent
segment of cadmium, thus freeing the next segment of plutonium
to start reacting.

  Adds new life to the old adage about rockets being
"disintegrating totem poles".

 What sort of drugs were these rocket scientists thinking
when they dreamed up this sort of thing?  With all the
whoopla over the alledged dangers of the few miserable
pounds of plutonium in the Cassini probe, just imagine
the protest over the fizzer.  At least the Cassini is
designed to *contain* it's plutonium.

      * A B S I T * I N V I D I A * V E R B O ** I D E M * S O N A N S *      
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG                   http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise                                    nyrath@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
|  /_\  | Monotheism is a gift from the gods                                 |
| <(*)> |                                                                    |
|/_/|\_\|                                                                    |
| //|\\ |                                                                    |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:06:46 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?

>>Also, ignore the silly rule for lidars
>>involving the multiplication by 2 for unknown reasons.
>
>There's a statement in there that "Lidar signature = visible (reflected)
>signature *divided* by 2", which should stay...
>
>Bruce

Sorry for overusing the word "silly" when it might just as well be applied
to me. Why do you divide the visible (reflected) by two for Lidar?
Lidar drops off as 1/r^4 and should simply use

sensitivity + reflectedsig - 2 * rangefactor

Just like radars but with visible reflected instead (right?)
Am I missing something here?


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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 00:30:30 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Imperium...

Hello,
>   other.  My own personal feeling is that Vland fell to a military
>   composed mostly of its own subjects led by Solomani officers.

  For what it's worth, "Imperium" gives the Vilani 1 RU per friendly
world, while the Terrans get 6 RU for any Vilani worlds that happen
to switch sides (rare, but covered in the rules). Obviously the scale
for such happenings increases drastically once the Terrans break out
from Dingir sub-sector. OC, the rules don't cover that period.

        Steven Hudson

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1931
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 8 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1932



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Bruce
Re: Piracy
Re: Starports
Re: Hauling people
Re: Hauling people
Re: Questions about Traveller
Ticket prices and freight rates
Re: [noise]
Armoured Suits
How automated are Traveller ships?
Re: Piracy
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1930
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers
Re: Jupiter's escape velocity
Re: Piracy

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 03:28:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

James Lindsay wrote:

> Non-augmented BD... maybe.  ABD... definately not.

Hmm.  This is how it was before, in CT and MT, but I don't see it
specified in T4.

I like it better that BattleDress is a special skill.  Maybe I'll change
this in my campaign.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:01:59 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

>And what about thrust vectoring (for either HEPlaR or thruster plates)
Thrust vectoring as done by the Harrier will be a tad hard for Heplar as
the exhaust is pretty hot and ought to melt the plates (but then Dave
Nilsen has said that the exhaust is nice and kuddly to allow for Heplar
gravvehicles).
TPlates doesn't exhaust anything so thrustvectoring there.
If by thrustvectoring you mean som sort of gimbal mounting for the drive
then surely it could be done both for Heplar and TPlates - especially
TPlates.


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

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:10:44 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Bruce

>See what I'm getting at here?  It would be nice to see some
>differentation between the sensors.  The difference between an Active
>EMS Scan and an Active EMS Lock is that you get all the information with
>a lock whereas the Active EMS Scan gives you the information slowly in
>three turns.
>
>How will the information retrieval on the target be different from
>Passive EMS scans and locks?

As timelags are in seconds and gameturns are about 30 minutes these rules
albeit neat seem quite unrealistic. Suggestion:
Passives: Sensitivity + Signature - Rangefactor = Signal
Actives: Sensitivity + Signature - 2*Rangefactor = Signal
Signal -1 or less: No indication or anything
Signal 0-1: Position and signature but not vector.
Signal 2-3: Position, signature and vector. Minimum for firing at the target.
Signal 4+: Position, signature, vector and identity of target.
Sensor op: Spec succ. Sensitivity + 2
Sensor op: Succ. Sensitivity + 1
Sensor op: Fail. No effect on sensitivity
Sensor op: Spec fail. Sensitivity - 1

Active sensors threat Signal 0-1 as 2-3 ie they always get vector and thus
a firing solution.

Sensors on auto treat sensitivity as is (ie the same as a failed sensor op
roll) but pewrhaps modify Sensitivity with - 1 for scanning the entire sky.


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

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:14:07 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy

David P. Summers writes:

>You can look at the neutrino signature all you want, but nothing in it is
>going to say "pirate".  It will say "ship" and give you general idea of 
>how big, but that won't tell what his intentions are.

Yes, but detecting the ship is enough, because the ship will be doing one
of three things in addition to just being there:

1) Broadcasting its true transponder code
2) Broadcasting a fake transponder code
3) Not broadcasting at all

In the first case it is hardly going to perform any acts of piracy. In the
second case it will not be able to do legitimate business in the system,
and may easily arouse suspicion (any naval commander will have a ship
registration list). In the third case it is in violation of regulations
and will be chased right away.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:41:37 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Starports

Simon Early writes:

>I wrote:
>>Remember that the TCS figure for shipyard capacity is what is available
>>for naval construction over and above replacements and maintenance and
>>that it dosen't include civilian construction at all. 
> 
>I agree with your other points about construction time and Tigress costs 
>(deliberate simplifications on my part), but I do not agree with this.  
>Page 33 of TCS states:
> 
>"Each planet's shipyards have a maximum capacity expressed in the number of 
>tons of ships they may work on at a time (including repair and refit 
>operation)"

Yes, but that's battle damage repair and extraordinary refits. Maintenance
of ships is acomplished just by paying for it, so if routine ship maintenance
requires shipyard capacity, then it must be there in addition. Likewise
replacement of worn-out ships are implicit rather than explicit (If you
ran a TCS campaign for 100 years without fighting anybody you'd still have
a fleet equivalent to your original one, without ever having paid for or
ordered new construction (And, yes, I realize that no one would ever do
so, but that's the way the rules have it.)).
 
>I can find no mention in TCS (or elsewhere) that this capacity is only for 
>military vessels, 

It's implied in the fact that all the capacity is available for your use
with no rules for smashing your planetary economy to smithereens if you
suddenly decide to use it all.

>...and based on the real world I do not believe that a stable economy (such
>as the Imperium) would need naval ship-building facilities capable of
>building a fleet 8x larger than their naval budget can support.

Try looking at it the other way. If you have shipyards doing about 1 T of
naval maintenance and replacement per 1000 people and other shipyards doing
1 or 2 T of civilian maintenance and repair, then it becomes more plausible
that you can expand your business by 50% or perhaps only 33% literally
overnight. In other words, the worlds dosen't have empty shipyards and
idle workers lying around waiting for a new ship to be laid down or
a shot-up one coming in for repairs. They have so-and-so much regular
business and that implies the capability of temporarily expanding by
so-and-so much and then cutting back again afterwards.
  
>I think that my most significant point is worth making again: I do not 
>believe that a stable economy (such as the Imperium) would need naval 
>ship-building facilities capable of building a fleet 8x larger than their 
>naval budget can support.

I agree in principle, but it won't be 8 times larger if you are building
ships larger than Gazelles. (Btw. the whole business of expressing yard
capacity in displacement tons seem inexact. I'm going to look into
converting it to RUs as per _Pocket Empires_).

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:33:13 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Hauling people

This is still true in the 1980's in US subs. When I went on patrol, my
berthing compartment had 93 enlisted personnel in a space exactley as
Doug describs it.

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
writes:

>So:  Assume the classic 3.5 m deck spacing, with 3 m floor-to-ceiling
>space.  We'll stack bunks 3-high, at 1 m intervals -- hard on
>claustrophobes, but equivalent to what WW2 subs offered.
>
>Given the maximum typical height of humans, we'll want beds at least 
>2.3 m
>long.  A width of 1.5 m is about right.  To cram the most of these in 
>per
>shared access corridor, they'll be end-on to the corridor, so crawling 
>in
>will be like climbing into a narrow, deep cave.  0.3 m of long-axis 
>space
>is devoted to the corridor itself, which paired with the opposite set 
>of
>bunks gives a 0.6 m passage...certainly not roomy, but adequate for
>getting in and out. 
>

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:35:32 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Hauling people

This is still the case in the 1980's. When I went on patrol, my berthing
compartment had about 100 enlisted personnel in a compartment like Craig
describes it.

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
writes:
>So:  Assume the classic 3.5 m deck spacing, with 3 m floor-to-ceiling
>space.  We'll stack bunks 3-high, at 1 m intervals -- hard on
>claustrophobes, but equivalent to what WW2 subs offered.
>
>Given the maximum typical height of humans, we'll want beds at least 
>2.3 m
>long.  A width of 1.5 m is about right.  To cram the most of these in 
>per
>shared access corridor, they'll be end-on to the corridor, so crawling 
>in
>will be like climbing into a narrow, deep cave.  0.3 m of long-axis 
>space
>is devoted to the corridor itself, which paired with the opposite set 
>of
>bunks gives a 0.6 m passage...certainly not roomy, but adequate for
>getting in and out. 
>

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:19:21 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

David P. Summers writes:

>Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:56:47 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>

>>It is my belief that losses due to piracy and brigandage is acceptable to an
>>orderly society only if they have no choice about the matter (ie. that in
>>order to deal with it effectively it has to cut down on something else that
>>it considers important).
> 
>Well, I don't agree, we already tolerate crimes in the US because
>the cost of eliminating them is too high.  

Sigh! I'm still not sure if you agree that the navy budgets canonically used
by Traveller governments will purchase enough assets to deal effectively
with pirates and you are claiming that the Imperium just wouldn't use those
assets even though they have them, or whether you think that Traveller
governments don't spend enough money to have enough assets to deal with
pirates. The example you quote above, and practically every historical
example that I know of where a government allowed piracy or brigandage
came as a result of not having the assets to deal with them. Likewise I
can't think of any historical example where a government had the ability
to deal with piracy and chose not to do it (Well, I shall have to qualify
that; there are examples of governments shielding pirates that didn't
attack their shipping, but that wouldn't apply to pirates inside the
Imperium, now would it?).

I can think of several example of governments, having suffered from piracy
for some time, got fed up and scraped together the assets to eradicate
them. But having enough ships to deal with them and chosing not to use
them? Can't think of a single example.

>Further more, the Imperium is, to me at least, not that concerned with the
>individual. One could have a different view, but that would their own take
>on the issue, not a point that invalidates other takes.  I feel that any
>idea that the Imperium will do what it would take, regardless of cost, to
>start piracy is not a sufficent basis.

Of course not regardless of cost. You seem to be reading what I write through
distorting spectacles. I've already said this several times and you have
failed to refute it: Since the Imperium pays for the ships anyway there's is 
no extra cost involved in dealing with pirates.

You're right. Further discussion is futile and in the future I will just
restrict myself to pointing out that you are wrong whenever you reiterate
your unsupported claims.

If anybody _else_ still disagrees with me, I'll be pleased to continue the
discussion.

>We already covered pirates operating out of bases vs pirates
>posing as merchants taking targets of opportunity.

Right. I've demonstrated that both types would be unable to make a living
in the face of the difficulties they would be up against.
 
>>You take water, run electricity through it, and collect the hydrogen. That
>>is your fuel. Apparently hydrogen gotten this way contains impurities. Or
>>you collect hydrogen from a Gas Giant. Such hydrogen is also impure. Running
>>the hydrogen through a fuel purifier plant apparently gets you refined fuel.
> 
>Right so water involves the extra step.  You have to split it, and then
>purify it.  Gas Giant atmophere only requires purification.

So what? Neither operation costs the ship any money, except the purifier
plant indirectly, since it  reduces the cargo space of the ship. 

>>If you're back to visiting both the main world and a Gas Giant then you
>>are back to wasting days instead of hours.
> 
>Right, and if you radio ahead, they can well not be wasted.

Sometimes, yes, but at other times you will miss the cargo that you would
have gotten if you had been available to take it immidiately. There's no
that requires you to sit on the tarmac for your full six days if you
happen to get a cargo on your first day. And the point is that you can't
know that when you aim for the Gas Giant.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
  "Free speech gives a man the right to talk about the
'psycology' of an amoeba, but I don't have to listen".
                  Elihu Nivens in 'The Puppet Masters'

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:30:06 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Ticket prices and freight rates

Richard Hough writes:

>>REGULAR PASSENGER LINER OR FREIGHTER TRAVELLING FROM SURFACE TO SURFACE
>>(35 jumps per year):
>>
>>           Steerage    Low    Economy    Mid     High    1 dT of  1 dT per
>>           Passage   Passage  Passage  Passage  Passage  freight   parsec*
>>Jump-1:     1,200     1,400    2,800    4,800    6,200      840      840
>>Jump-2:     1,500     1,800    3,800    6,600    8,400    1,170      585
>>Jump-3:     2,100     2,200    5,100    9,000   11,400    1,660      555
>>Jump-4:                                13,400             2,400      600
>>Jump-5:                                19,800             3,660      735
>>Jump-6:                                35,000             6,370    1,065
>>
>>*Assuming the route is an exact multiple of the jump rating.
> 
>Hans, this is one of the most useful posts I have seen lately.

Thanks.

>I would like to see how you determined cost for passage. It's not that I
>don't trust your numbers, 

Why not? I wouldn't trust my numbers ;-) I've just gone over my calculations
(in connection with filling out the empty spots) and found several mistakes.
Once I finish the whole table I'll repost the whole thing. In the meantime 
I'll e-mail you the old posting (complete with mistakes) so you can check it
out for yourself.

>I just wanted to know what you base your calculations on. Also, what is 
>"steerage"? If it is safer than a 17% chance if instant death no one would
>ever use low passage.

Who would use Low Passage if it had a 17% chance of death even if there were
no alternative? IMTU I use the rules that makes Low Passage safe as long as
there is a qualified medic to supervise the thawing.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:49:35 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: [noise]

Franklin wrote:

>
>>  > This does help quite a bit. But have you calculated the size of the army
>> > you'll get with that kind of a budget? Mora, for example, will have an
>> > army budget of Cr370 per citizen, or MCr3,700,000. You can keep quite a
>> > lot of people in uniform with 3,7 trillion credits, even if you have to
>> > equip them too.
>>
>> Millions in battle dress. MILLIONS! WOO HOOOO!!!! BWAHHAHHAHAHAHAA!
>
>Fine...  All of them are on your home planet.  Now, try moving them to
>the target planet-- *AFTER* having spent *ALL* of your money!  :-P~


	But why would one want to move them?  Can you imagine the sheer
spectacle of millions of troopers in battle dress and gaudy costumes doing
humomgous dance routines like a Busby Berkely musical on a totally
gargantuan scale?

	All you'd have to do would be export film of this as a musical and
nobody in their right mind would want to invade... for several reasons :).

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:19:02 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Armoured Suits

C. J. Cherryh did a good write-up of the difficulty of using a powered
armour suit in one of her books, to do with a spacer who's an ex-marine type
who drops out and hires on board a merchant ship, then has to fit up some
old armour towards the end of the book. Very fine adjustments to fit the
individual owner, long learning period so as not to over-react to the
armour's feedback (i.e. too fast a movement might damage you and anyone
around you). Fascinating read... if only I could remember the name of the
book...

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

Date: 08 Oct 1997 09:27 EDT
From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
Subject: How automated are Traveller ships?

A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
of a dangerous planet.

One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
range).

This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?

Rob

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:47:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy

>In the first case it is hardly going to perform any acts of piracy. In the
>second case it will not be able to do legitimate business in the system,
>and may easily arouse suspicion (any naval commander will have a ship
>registration list). In the third case it is in violation of regulations
>and will be chased right away.

So, if I go and buy a new ship and get to a system before my registration
code does, I would then be attacked as a pirate?

Any naval commander will have a ship registration list (which, of course
could be nightmarish in and of itself.  I hope its not on paper :-), but how
recent and updated will it be week to week?

In backwater worlds (off the Xboat courier routes) I can easily see a new
free trader getting to the system before its registration.

And who says you can't do business with a fake transponder code?  A fake code
could be someone else's stolen code, or a ship's that the pirate destroyed
and nobody knows about yet.  How would the Imperial Navy (or the local
starport) know that Senior Captain "Law-Abiding" Mullenhoff is _in fact_
Captain "Argh Matey!!!" Morgan, notorious pirate of the realm?

Semo

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:36:07 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

>Orientation jets are actually pretty efficient and they don't use that
>much fuel. Or you can have small thrust plates mounted instead of jets.
>They'd work the same way.

There are no small TPlates says I quoting from the canon scrolls.


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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:40:51 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

> One thing to consider about GG's is even though there will be minimal
> interstellar traffic to and from a GG, there  *can* be a large amount of
> intrastellar traffic.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the hydrographic content of the main world is  *Nonrenewable*!  If
> you send starship after starship full of precious water (or evenrefined
> hydrogen) you are going to do great damage to the biosphere.

Well, one might argue that it would take a long time to seriously
deplete the amount of water on a planet like Earth. But that
aside, inhabited, "garden-world" planets like Earth will have a
total ban on ocean/lake refueling for one simple reason.

Contamination.

The ship "Naughty Boy" lands on World A, fills fuel tanks with
water. Jumps to World B. "Naughty Boy" drops into a local ocean,
dumps its tanks and refuels. Except - guess what hitched a ride in 
the fuel tank? Any number of little critters that could run wild and
cause some serious havoc on the ocean ecology. Oops.

Things like this happen with alarming frequency today even, with
Zebra mussels being a rather good case-in-point. An aunt & uncle
of mine own a boat on the 1000 Islands/St. Lawrence Seaway and I
distinctly remember the water at their marina being thick, murky
and quite green when I was a kid. A few years ago when I went
back, the water was crystal clear. Zebra mussels had gotten into the
area and filtered every last molecule of organic matter out of the
water as they bred like mad. While this sounds nice (woah, instant
clean water) the mussels had a tendency to grow inside pipes which
terminated in open water, often clogging municipal water intakes or
sewage overflow pipes. Unpleasant to say the least.

I think ships may refuel based on local water supplies, depending 
on the availability of water, but they won't be plunking down and
just sucking it up if they know what's good for them.

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                   ehenry@magma.ca
http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:06:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>   One example I don't recall being mentioned to this point is Star
>Wars.  There were most definately guys in plastic suits (stormtroopers)
>running around in the desert (of Tatooine) in that film.

Well, look carefully and you'll find that there aren't alot of stormtroopers
actually 'running' in the desert.  They are basically walking on a desert
like backlot, or standing and mulling around in the desert for 5 seconds or
so.

A friend of mine lived in Florida all of his life before moving up here to
Philadelphia.  He lived in the Orlando area, so, as teenagers, everybody had
jobs at Disney World.  One of the jobs you could get was wearing the suits of
the various characters.  It was very common for people in these suits to
faint.  It was most common in the Jiminy Cricket suit, because alot of it was
hard plastic, it was terribly uncomfortable as well as hot (and for some
reason as my friend tells it, it actually got hotter than the rest of the
suits).

Semo

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:29:36 -0600
From: MWB <MWBROWN@USA.NET>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1930

Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> I'm reading this facinating book called The Bible Code where this
> mathematician in Israel has proven that the Bible contains predictions
> in it prediciting events in modern times--and they do it pretty
> convincingly, I might add.

In response to his many critics, Michael Drosnin (the author of the
_Bible Code_) said in the June 9, 1997 issue of _Newsweek_ "When my
critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister
encrypted in _Moby Dick_, I'll believe them."

A group of linguists in Australia, using the same methods as Drosnin,
have done just that. They have found passages detailing the
assassinations of Indira Ghandi,Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King, John
F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Yitzak Rabin, and the crash of Princess Di.
Does this mean that the collection of words that makes up _Moby Dick_ is
prophetic or divine in nature? Of course not. It means that any
sufficiently large collection of words can be manipulated by
pseudoscientific means. Something that is even easier to do in Hebrew
than English because of the flexibility of the vowels in Hebrew.

They have a webpage at HTTP://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html
describing these findings. It has not yet been reported whether or not
Drosnin has kept his promise and retracted the "discoveries" of his
money-making enterprise. I suspect that he is making too much money in
the millenial-induced spiritual unease in society today.

Kenneth, please do not take this as a personal attack. I too found the
book to be fascinating, in a sleight-of-hand sort of way. I just get
annoyed by the half-truths and deception I found in his work.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:03:14 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

This (the question on how automated Trav ships/vehicles are) is a pretty
big problem and basically boils down to:
Does ships require sensor ops on duty at all times?
  Yes: This makes it possible to bribe somebody to let you pass, attack the
  pirates while they're celebrating their latest victory etc. It also makes the
  PCs skills more directly influencing things.
  No: Any dimwitted contemporary PC can do it (even Intel/Win95 ones perhaps) so
  why not several TLs up?

Do you need a living astrogator to actually jump?
  Yes: That also makes life more interesting for PCs with their skills directly
  influencing things. If computers could astrogate then surely X-boats would
  be unmanned but canon dictates otherwise.
  No: Any calculation of trajectories, force poptentials, nonlinear diffs etc
  can be better performed by computers/robots than humans. If astrogation is
  basically psionic in nature (as in Dune) then it would be easier to argue
  that a living astrogator would be required but how does the Imperium then
  cope with the huge number of psiheads controlling the spacelanes?
Do the gunners sit inside the actual turret?
  Yes: That is because you can see those pesky enemy ships and thats the way
  it has been done ever since millenium falcon dammit.
  No: As the Imperium is slightly more advanced than WWII US who used remote
  turrets on their WWII bombers surely the Imperium would do it as well.

What I am saying is that technological realism aside it is generally more
fun to invent rules that let the PCs used their hardearned skills instead
of buying some expensive robotic stuff. Come to think about it; why aren't
there security robots that cannot miss at say 50 m or less with lasers? If
we could only make some software that could decide who are enemies and who
are not I bet we could make a contration today that fired a rifle and never
missed a human target within say 50 m.


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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:07:55 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> Now, if BattleDress skill didn't default to Vac Suit, I could see Jo's
> statement more clearly.  BattleDress skill is hard to obtain.
> 
> But, it is clear that anybody that can operate a vac suit can also
> operate BattleDress.

Although I don't have the books around to check it out, I've always
thought that Battledress skill can be used at -1 for Vac Suit skill, but
*not* the other way around.

In the same way, Pilot skill (-1) counts as Ship's Boat skill, but not
the reverse.

So, if I have Pilot-3, I can use Ship's Boat-2. If I've got Ship's Boat,
I can't drive the big ships. If I've got Vac Suit-5, that's not enough
to use Battledress.

I might be mistaken in the reading of the rules, but in any case, that's
the way I've always played it...

One *might* rule that any level of Vac Suit is good for basic
Battledress-0, and the same for Ship's Boat/Pilot skill.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 08:57:09 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Jupiter's escape velocity

At 11:49 PM 10/7/97 +0100, Nick wrote:
>You are mixing up velocity and acceleration
>
>>My understanding is that Esacpe Velocity is that speed at which an object
>>will have more kinetic energy than Gravity can strip away during the climb
>>to orbit. If I have CG capable of overcoming gravity (or rather ignoring
>>it) then my escape velocity can be three feet per week.

This is true in a sense, but what happens if your CG fails?

If CG nullifies gravity completely, then what just happened to the
potential energy?  I have not worked out the power needs yet, but I suspect
that CG is a free energy machine.  Consider - I could use CG to make a
heavy object have no weight, lift it up a ways, and then turn the CG off.
Would I get more out than I put in?

As a result, if you have a way of turning off most or all of the gravity,
then you have reduced the escape velocity, assuming it works by reducing
the gravitational potential.

>Escape velocity is the velocity you will be going when you break free of
>the planets gravity.

You might be happier phrasing that as "escape velocity is the velocity you
would need to have at the surface to reach infinite distance from that
gravitational field."

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:08:01 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

At 11:30 PM 10/7/97 -0700, David Summers wrote:
>Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>>>Pirates are, by definition, operating in a area with significant
>>>commercial traffic and nothing in their signature certainly
>>>isn't coded to say "pirate".
>
>>This depends greatly on how big the area is, and how many ships/scanners
>>are needed to patrol it.  Even if you assume that people will be scooting
>>about in system, which the rules as stated do not encourage, you stand a
>>good chance of being identified.
>
>As what?  You can look at the neutrino signature all you want, but
>nothing in it is going to say "pirate".  It will say "ship" and
>give you general idea of how big, but that won't tell what his
>intentions are.

It is quite true that you can almost certainly pounce on someone once, with
complete surprise.

Where life gets interesting is when you want to do it again.

Were I traffic control, I would be tremendously motivated to know
signatures on every ship in the system for just this reason.  It might be
true that I cannot get all of them, but I bet a minimal expense could get
every ship near something important, and once it knew a ship was present,
it could track it through the system with very little chance of loosing the
trail.

If traffic control knows who you are, and you then commit an act of piracy,
then they can tell anyone else out there who you are.  They will be
suspicious in general, because of your transponder readings, which better
be false.  They also might be very interested in knowing what you are up to
if they see a complete lack of transponder readings.

So, this means that the pirate looking for a target of opportunity must 1)
not be seen, and must 2) stay unidentified even after the action.

Once a raid happens, traffic control is going to find out.  Likely
immediately, unless they have a hijacker on board to silence the radios.

If the attack happens within a hundred diameters, it is a few hours to
combat range at the absolute worst, and likely significantly less.

Even if it happens outside a hundred diameters, which the current rules do
not really encourage, traffic control will look in the sensor records to
see if they can spot the combatants.  If nothing else, the ships going on
S&R will want to know if they are going to be attacked.

>>You might well be able to hit a target by surprise, but you cannot do it
>>twice in the same system, and since traffic control can probably ID you as
>>soon as they find out about the piracy, they know who you are.  Once you
>>are known as a pirate, you can be found.
>
>Well, I don't think it's that certain, but it doesn't matter.  You
>just don't hit the same system again.

Systems do talk, at least if they are wise, and it is not in the Imperial
interest for piracy to happen.  While you might argue that they would not
do anything to prevent it, and thus provoke acts of war outside the
Imperium, and rebellion inside it, it is not unreasonable to assume that
they are going to at least keep decent ship registry records and likely
offer sensor arrays cheaply, so that the planet can get a record of who is
doing what.  This lets outer planets acts as an early warning network.

It also allows the Imperium to know who is acting against their interests.

>>The new senor rules make it very hard to hide in a way that will not bite
>>you if you intend to be taken for normal commercial traffic later.
>
>Unless you just take a moment to change your ships signature.

Last time I talked to someone who knew sonar, it was very difficult to
change fundamental signature such that a modern day ocean ship was
unrecognizable.  This meant that a vessel being tracked by sonar would
usually stay the same, even through refits.  You might get surprise once or
twice, but it is quite nontrivial.  It might be instructive to find out how
much it would cost to change the signature of a vessel in the usual PEMS
bands.

Also, note that your signature must change regularly, as they can always
check records, so the signature you have when you do the illegal act better
be very different than the signature you had when they first spotted you,
and what they wrote down when you were last in port.  This would be the
equivalent of repainting your car every time you drove downtown, just on
the off chance that you could commit a robbery.  It is worth doing for a
planned objective, but not terribly cost effective for a target of
opportunity.

Again, the problem gets much different if you assume that ships can be
attacked in jump space.  I am considering moving to a hyper drive system
where ships can be attacked in hyper, but where many of the other Traveller
"facts" stay the same.  This opens up piracy, as then the Imperium could
not afford the number of ships needed to patrol.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1932
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 8 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1933



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: [noise]
Re: Gas Giants
re: burst fire etc.
re:TravSuite Worldmapper
Re: Bruce and the sensor question
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Re:  Bruce:  Sensor Question
Re: Piracy
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Hauling people
When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech (fwd)
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Spanish vs Mexica
Re: piracy
Re: Starship Troopers
Poppin' Hulls
Battle Dress and Vacc Suit
[none]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:20:11 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: [noise]

>        But why would one want to move them?  Can you imagine the sheer
>spectacle of millions of troopers in battle dress and gaudy costumes doing
>humomgous dance routines like a Busby Berkely musical on a totally
>gargantuan scale?

Note that they might have gravbelts in order to do Sther Willimas style
imitations of water ballet in the air. Spectacular!


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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

At 10:40 AM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> One thing to consider about GG's is even though there will be minimal
>> interstellar traffic to and from a GG, there  *can* be a large amount of
>> intrastellar traffic.
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> Because the hydrographic content of the main world is  *Nonrenewable*!  If
>> you send starship after starship full of precious water (or evenrefined
>> hydrogen) you are going to do great damage to the biosphere.
>
>Well, one might argue that it would take a long time to seriously
>deplete the amount of water on a planet like Earth. But that
>aside, inhabited, "garden-world" planets like Earth will have a
>total ban on ocean/lake refueling for one simple reason.
>
>Contamination.
>
>The ship "Naughty Boy" lands on World A, fills fuel tanks with
>water. Jumps to World B. "Naughty Boy" drops into a local ocean,
>dumps its tanks and refuels. Except - guess what hitched a ride in 
>the fuel tank? Any number of little critters that could run wild and
>cause some serious havoc on the ocean ecology. Oops.
>
>Things like this happen with alarming frequency today even, with
>Zebra mussels being a rather good case-in-point. An aunt & uncle
>of mine own a boat on the 1000 Islands/St. Lawrence Seaway and I
>distinctly remember the water at their marina being thick, murky
>and quite green when I was a kid. A few years ago when I went
>back, the water was crystal clear. Zebra mussels had gotten into the
>area and filtered every last molecule of organic matter out of the
>water as they bred like mad. While this sounds nice (woah, instant
>clean water) the mussels had a tendency to grow inside pipes which
>terminated in open water, often clogging municipal water intakes or
>sewage overflow pipes. Unpleasant to say the least.
>
>I think ships may refuel based on local water supplies, depending 
>on the availability of water, but they won't be plunking down and
>just sucking it up if they know what's good for them.
>
>Ethan
>--
>Ethan Henry                   ehenry@magma.ca
>http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry
>
        I suspect that a trip through the purification plant will substantially
        reduce the number of "little critters" in the fuel tank and I also
        suspect that any ship which attempts to jump from World A with a fuel
        tank full of water and "little critters" instead of LHyd may not reach
        World B anytime soon -- at least they're really unlikely to if I'm
running
        the game.

	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50% -- either a thing will happen or it won't.
		This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:11:50 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: burst fire etc.

Kenneth writes:

>    BUT Max damage rule states a max of 6D can be applied to a character
>from      autofire.
>
>    Given this, 8 dice are never thrown, because you can only throw 6
>maximum.  Taking     the first six values from your example above,
>damage would be (1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4)     total.

I always roll all the dice, then drop the lowest ones, so the damage
applied would be as Eris states. If it doesn't double off, I let armour
take out the highest n rolls, and then discard the lower dice to make the
3D limit. Thus players get maximum armour protection and maximum damage...

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:14:30 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:TravSuite Worldmapper

Alex Rebsch <grazzit@flash.net> wrote:

>Since there are several people on this list that have this program, and
>are having the same problems, I wanted to address it. First off are the
>CORE members that wrote the program on this list? Has anybody figured away
>around the GPF whenever dealing with saved .map files? Also is there
>anyway we can get CORE to fix the problems with the software? I know I'd
>be more than willing to pay an extra $10 or so to get a fixed version...
>If the software was working without the gpfs I'd say its the best
>worldmapping software I've seen!


I'm not part of CORE, but at EuroGenCon Andy Lilly was trying to find a C
(??) programmer to take up the development of this suite.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 12:06:24 -0500
From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pen.net>
Subject: Re: Bruce and the sensor question

> >See what I'm getting at here?  It would be nice to see some
> >differentation between the sensors.  The difference between an Active
> >EMS Scan and an Active EMS Lock is that you get all the information with
> >a lock whereas the Active EMS Scan gives you the information slowly in
> >three turns.

> >How will the information retrieval on the target be different from
> >Passive EMS scans and locks?
 
> As timelags are in seconds and gameturns are about 30 minutes these rules
> albeit neat seem quite unrealistic. 

Anders, if we were playing a *wargame* then I would agree with you, but
I believe Ken (and I know I am) playing contacts out in a *roleplaying* 
rather than a wargaming mode.  Turns in roleplaying mode shouldn't be 30
minutes long no matter what the wargame oriented rules might say! I'm
using 1 minute turns for the roleplaying, yes I know the ship-combat
rules all seem to favor longer periods and if it comes to actually
shooting combat then I'll probably have to abstract the play into these
longer periods. However, for the parts leading up to combat and during
combat where the PC's are *actually* involved I want to keep the action
"fast and furious" and that means short slam-bang turns.

As I see it, what Ken wants is not only reasonable it is the heart of
realistic for roleplaying. So, it comes as no surprise when I echo his
question...

Bruce, let's say we're talking about 1 to 3 minute scans rather than 30
minute ones. What does that do to what we can pick up with our sensors?
How do the scans improve in increments of 1 to 3 minutes? How do the
different sensor types do with short scan times?  Is the range at which
we can get good data decreased, and then increases over time to the
ranges you posted? Is it a linear progression, log, quadratic? Is there
an effect on how much of the sky can be considered scanned?  Could you
*please* give us some guidance in how to use your rules if we are using
short turns?

Eris

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:48:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

At 09:27 AM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
>be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
>of a dangerous planet.
>
>One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
>a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
>and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
>range).
>
>This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
>of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
>people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
>safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?
>
>Rob
>
        If you land on a world with life, exactly what do you want
        your sensors to tell you -- do you want to know if a chim-
        panzee jumps on top of the ship, if there's an orang utan
        passing by, or if there's a terrorist attaching a limpet mine?
        How sophisticated do your sensors have to be to discriminate
        between these events. What if the exotic biology of this planet
        has produced a melon-like fruit with a flesh similar (but not
        identical) to C4? If one falls on your ship, are you going to
        come roaring back across the planet to check out the situation?

        A few events of this nature could discourage overzealous sensor
        analysis. On the other hand, I can see some very frustrated PC's.
        This, of course, has its own charms.


	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:09:07 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re:  Bruce:  Sensor Question

>Definitely. Just like any spot-the-hidden-thing roll. In fact, when I'm
>refereeing any sort of game I periodically make rolls behind the screen= just
>to mess with the player's tiny minds. (Asking questions like "What's the
>pilot's sensor skill", "what's the pilot's engineering skill", or "what's= the
>lowers CON on the ship" help keep them suitably confused...)

I try to copy the players character sheets, or at least write down this kind
of material.

"Oh oh. The ref. just looked at the character sheets, and he rolled a few
dice. Worst of all, he smiled. What is going on around here?"

Most of the times I do this kind of stuff just to anoy the players. It keeps
them jaded, and when I do roll for something significant, they do not really
suspect it. In fact, they do not have a clue, as I didn't ask them anything.

Knowledge is power :-)

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

With a bit of a mind flip, you're into the time slip, and nothing can ever
be the same.

"Time warp", The Rocky horror picture show

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 11:07:02 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

At 09:47 AM 10/8/97 -0400, Semo wrote:
>>In the first case it is hardly going to perform any acts of piracy. In the
>>second case it will not be able to do legitimate business in the system,
>>and may easily arouse suspicion (any naval commander will have a ship
>>registration list). In the third case it is in violation of regulations
>>and will be chased right away.
>
>So, if I go and buy a new ship and get to a system before my registration
>code does, I would then be attacked as a pirate?

No, but you would be pulled over post haste, and asked to provide
particulars.  I suspect this would include lists and pictures of crew
members, distinguishing marks about the vessel, and so on.

I have used this as an adventure hook - the players were undercover
sneakies, and had a new ship registry.  Imagine their delight and surprise
when the navy got full dossiers on them.  (Someone screwed up - they should
have been issued a known code for their class of ship, but the person
organizing it missed that detail.)

Face it, you just acted suspicious in the eyes of the commander, and are
going to face the consequences.  Of course, those consequences might be
"Ah, big deal.  Looks new, and not worth the effort,"  but the commander
might be a suspicious sort.

>Any naval commander will have a ship registration list (which, of course
>could be nightmarish in and of itself.  I hope its not on paper :-), but how
>recent and updated will it be week to week?

As recent as the ship registries need it to be.  I suspect a report of
piracy and murder gets red flagged to all the garrisons, while new ship
construction might lag a bit.

>In backwater worlds (off the Xboat courier routes) I can easily see a new
>free trader getting to the system before its registration.

Yep.  And life gets interesting every time it happens.  Note that in those
backwater systems off the xboat links, the Navy is likely not going to be
as busy, and is going to be more concerned about pirates.

>And who says you can't do business with a fake transponder code?  A fake code
>could be someone else's stolen code, or a ship's that the pirate destroyed
>and nobody knows about yet.

As long as it matches the hull paint their sensors get, and the data
matches the ship class, they care not.  If you screwed up the match, then
your life is very interesting.  I made some players quite excited when they
upgraded the ship and power plant with some serious military grade
weaponry, which changed the signature enough that the transponder did not
quite match, until they had it checked out at a Naval yard.  They did not
figure out for months why every Navy ship in system got very interested
when they showed up.

>  How would the Imperial Navy (or the local
>starport) know that Senior Captain "Law-Abiding" Mullenhoff is _in fact_
>Captain "Argh Matey!!!" Morgan, notorious pirate of the realm?

They do not, unless the captain has been identified.  They would know,
though, that the ship, which is a rather expensive toy, and one of a fairly
small number, was spotted by Zircon Traffic Control during the famed
"Administrator Rand" piracy and looting.  (NB, fairly small means thousands
per world, or millions across the Imperium.  This is not an unreasonable
amount to keep in Traffic Control's database.)

There is room in here for something to be missed.  Traffic control might
not have a good sensor tech, or might not keep the data long enough if the
piracy is concealed. or they might not be on the ball.  You might get a
Naval commander who does not bother spending the few microseconds of
computer time, or the few minutes of sensor time to check that your
signature and your transponder match.

My point, though, is that it is fairly easy to track down pirates, unless
they have some serious help, or they have the ability to operate
unobserved.  If the only match the Navy has is that Morgan is on a free
trader, they are going to have a hell of a time getting him.

Seems to me that the real trick is operating outside of visual range, and
the only way to do that is to break the "everyone is safe in jump" rule
somehow.  I do not yet know if I want to do that, but I am considering.
Eris, you were using a stutterwarp concept to solve this - how does it work?

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:26:22 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

>Because the hydrographic content of the main world is  *Nonrenewable*!  If
>you send starship after starship full of precious water (or evenrefined
>hydrogen) you are going to do great damage to the biosphere.

Not mentioning the damage a lot of fish, weeds and whales do to the
refueling systems of your ship. :-)

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

With a bit of a mind flip, you're into the time slip, and nothing can ever
be the same.

"Time warp", The Rocky horror picture show

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:33:57 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Hauling people

At 15:19 1997-10-06 +0200, Hans Rancke wrote:
>I've been trying to see how cheaply you can move people from one world to
>another, and even when I bundle them into bunks it comes out as quite
>expensive. But even a bunk takes up 14 cubic meters, which made me wonder:

The 14 cubic meters probably include some kind of recreation facility,
something like a TV (movie showing machine). In addition, the person within
can probably store some luggage within the cabin, like a few books, a small
computer for work and recreation etc.

>Question: Assume that you're not restricted by Imperial or local government
>regulations at all. Assume that all you care about is to get people moved=
=20
>without actually dying on the trip. They don't have to enjoy the experience
>and they don't have to smell nice when they get there. Even a few bed sores
>may be acceptable. You do have to provide life support on the trip. How=
 many
>people do you think it would be possible to get into one displacement ton
>(access space included)?

Are you talking about slave ships here? You could fit people in on as little
as about two cubic meters (which would be a space akin to a coffin). You
would need to feed these 'passengers' through a small hatch or something.

Another thing that takes up space is access tunnels to these lodgings. This
space is not at all insignificant. I would say about four or five people
could fit inside these 14 cubic meters.

>Question 2: Same question, but this time assume that instead of surviving
>for 10 days the passengers have to survive a long trip with the ship --
>perhaps as long as a year. How many do you think you can get into a
>displacement ton then (You can feed and excercise them in shifts, but I
>guess you would have to supply _some_ recreational facilities to keep
>them alive).

You would need to add some kind of recreational hall. This would need to be
a fixed size regardless of the number of passengers, as not every passenger
is going to use it at the same time anyway.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

With a bit of a mind flip, you're into the time slip, and nothing can ever
be the same.

"Time warp", The Rocky horror picture show

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:27:16 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech (fwd)

Moin Robert Ringrose,

> Case in point for speed limits:
> Adaptive Suspension Vehicle
> Dimensions:  17 feet length. 10 feet height. 8 foot track width.
> Weight: 6000 pound dry weight.
> Payload: 500 pound.
> Speed: 5mph cruise speed.
> Grade climb ability: 60% gradient.
> Mobility:
> 	Ditch crossing: 6 feet.
> 	Vertical step crossing: 5.5 feet.
> 	Isolated wall crossing: 4.5 feet.
> 	Fording depth: 4 feet.

	impressive ;-)

> The point of that part of my post, however, was to try to come up with
> situations where legs _would_ be useful. 

	compared to antigrav vehicles ?

	- as a packing endoscelet like in Alien2.
	- as a booster like in battle dresses, or powered armor.
	- as battle mechs the 3I have when they show up on
	  low tech planets to force pax imperata like in starwars.
	- for cheap robots, or house hold human like robots.

	once we have the tech level to build them, sure there will
	be applications. many (1) of them are pragmatic, other (2) are
	effective, some (3) are just for show and the last (4) just for
	fun.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:36:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

At 09:27 1997-10-08 EDT, Rob wrote:
>A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
>be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface=20
>of a dangerous planet.
>
>One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
>a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
>and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
>range).
>
>This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
>of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
>people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
>safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?

I think this kind of extra equipment will be available ... for a price. It
would not need to be standard equipment, as not every ship would want (or
want to pay for) it, but the captains who fear burglars would be able to buy
it. If there is a demand, there is always a product (rule number one of a
capitalist society, which, after all, is what Traveller is).

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

With a bit of a mind flip, you're into the time slip, and nothing can ever
be the same.

"Time warp", The Rocky horror picture show

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:09:08 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Spanish vs Mexica

Moin Robert Flammang,

>    This is an interesting point that was brought up the last time this
>    thread came up on this list.  While such military scruples certainly
>    confused the empire and gave Cortes some precious time, I have to
>    doubt that they totally paralized the empire or were decisive in the
>    conquest.

	it allowed point 2 (the central government) to fall, because
	the aztec empire never thought about a "real" war, they have
	ritualisised their war with the same effect : Population control
	by femicide.

>    I do not understand how your reference to femicide pertains to either
>    European or Aztec warfare.

	Did'nt we have femicide discussion some weeks ago ?

	The main reason of war is population control, but as males
	fight wars and get killed, it seams that war is not effective
	for poplation control because woman will get the babies, until
	combined with femicide.

	Ok lets explain what femicide is, and where it came from.

	On Tl-0, where a woman has one child per time, because the
	child is on mamas arm all the time, drinking milk all the
	time, no need for population control arise and woman have
	a high value for the tribe.

	When Tl-1 is reached a woman can have more kids (one per
	year) the number of kids per woman is only limited by
	argricultural production.  History showed several cultures
	expanding fast when the reached Tl1 (last one where Iroquese)
	having a woman driven society, with argiculture and small cities.

	The value of women in this early Tl1 is extremly high, because
	their agricultural production is much higher than the hunting
	expeditions of the men.  The man are switching to extended war
	expeditions (the Iroquese where know down to Pueblo), to improve
	their value.  Next step (in Iroquese terms) are Squaws, stolen
	women, slaves outside tribal right, brought back to home after
	an war expedition. The French meet the Iroquese at this stage.

	These woman driven economies did never last for long (Humans
	are not Aslan - Aslan have no need to rape woman, as there
	are allways enough when the expedition was successfull ;-)
	Gilgamesh Epos, Guenevre, Rape of Jakobin, Greek Amazon.
	History shows a lot of examples of what happend next. 

	A tribe which is doing femicide will have a miliary advantage
	next generation, because women can be stolen, and there is no
	need to feed own woman. The higher the pressure the higher the
	value of man over women the more likely. The Vikings are a good
	example of such a warrior tribe.

	The Aztecs are interesting in this line, because they made a
	ritual around war. The war itself was unbloody, and goal was
	not to conquer/murder/rape but only to bring warriors of the
	other party to the own temple to eat them. Unlike europeans,
	africans or asians they did'nt had something like cows. Only
	dogs and birds, nobles toythings. So the anual war event,
	where any male was expected to join several times, was a
	ritual to remember the "good old times" when there was
	something to hunt for meat. This sports event like war,
	also increased the value of man over woman, like a real war
	does, so femicide was posible for population control. 

	Even if there are "better" types of poplation control posible
	at Tl6+, femicide is still the most comon one, because the
	value of man over women based on war tradition is still high.


- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

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

Date: 08 Oct 97 14:46:49 EDT
From: Jeffery.M.Miller@Dartmouth.EDU (Jeffery M. Miller)
Subject: Re: piracy

- --- Hans wrote:
 because the ship will be doing one
of three things in addition to just being there:

1) Broadcasting its true transponder code
2) Broadcasting a fake transponder code
3) Not broadcasting at all

In the first case it is hardly going to perform any acts of piracy. In the
second case it will not be able to do legitimate business in the system,
and may easily arouse suspicion (any naval commander will have a ship
registration list). 
- --- end of quote ---
just like in Star Wars:Return of the Muppets...uh, JEdi? remember the Shuttle
Tiberian scene? ;->

jus' a thought...

- -j

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:49:12 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >   One example I don't recall being mentioned to this point is Star
> >Wars.  There were most definately guys in plastic suits (stormtroopers)
> >running around in the desert (of Tatooine) in that film.
> 
> Well, look carefully and you'll find that there aren't alot of stormtroopers
> actually 'running' in the desert.  They are basically walking on a desert
> like backlot, or standing and mulling around in the desert for 5 seconds or
> so.

It is my understanding that the Stormtrooper armor is environmentally
contained.  They can wear it in space like a vac suit.

I'm sure those stormtroopers on Tatooine were experiencing a cool 72
degrees.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:46:39 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Poppin' Hulls

Robert Eaglestone wrote:
> 
> A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
> be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface
> of a dangerous planet.
> 
> One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
> a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
> and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
> range).
> 
> This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
> of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
> people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
> safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?

I've been contemplating this in my game too.  It seems to me that even
the airlocks, with no alarm or antihijack program, is sufficient to keep
most people out--like locking your door to your house before you leave.

Except, the door to a spaceship is like locking a safe.  The hull is
made out of superdense, so it's going to take a decent sized apparatus
to cut through it.  (I need to check out that entry cutter listed in the
CSC and see what that can do.)

I think it would be a major operation to break into a starship.  It
would definitely attract on lookers in the starport.

Sombody could also try to pick the lock and have the door open--but
again, you could use the rules in the CSC to this.

This brings us to a related question.  How easy is it for your
characters to space walk to a ship they've found, dead in space, and
open it from the outside?

Thougths anyone?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:58:57 +0100
From: Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus@lotus.com
Subject: Battle Dress and Vacc Suit

>but Traveller allows people with Vac Suit skill to operate
>BattleDress.
Well, rules aside, my interpretation is as follows.

If you have Vacc Suit skill, you can put on fully working, fitted, Battle
Dress and walk around it in minimal powered state fine. You can also, with
a roll, use the built in toilet.

If you want to tune battle dress not fitted to you (cf Cherryh's
RimRunners), perform minor maintenance and repair, fire integral or linked
weapons, use augmented power, run, stiff-brace for impact, coordinate
battle telemetry, active scan, link to heads up display, or empty the built
in toilet, you need the Battle Dress skill.

In other words, if you want to use any of the features that makes Battle
Dress any different from a Vacc Suit, you need the skill.

The cost of training was only a secondary point in my argument. Even if you
discount it, the cost of the battle dress still buys a lot of conventional
stuff.

Jo

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:12:37 -0500
From: "Joul, Christopher" <JOUC1@Aerial1.com>
Subject: [none]

Robert Eaglestone wrote:-
- ------------------------------
A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
of a dangerous planet.

One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
range).

This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?

Rob

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

I would say let their ship send a distress signal if anyone was breaking
in, it does not guarantee that his communicator is going to receive the
signal.  If I were going to break into a ship knowing this was common
practice I would use a signal jammer to block the signal until I was
inside and could dissable the transmitter, or get far enough away.

Just remember any intrusion countermeasure will probably have a counter
counter measure developed 1 or 2 TL's later...

Chris.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1933
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 8 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1934



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re:  Bible Code
Bible Code
Re: Battle Dress 
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Re: TravSuite & CORE
Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants)
Re: Starports
Looking for players
RE: Bruce:  Sensor Question
Re: Hauling people
Re: Questions about Traveller
Spanish vs Mexica
Re: Piracy

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:35:16 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re:  Bible Code

MWB wrote:
> They have a webpage at HTTP://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html
> describing these findings. It has not yet been reported whether or not
> Drosnin has kept his promise and retracted the "discoveries" of his
> money-making enterprise. I suspect that he is making too much money in
> the millenial-induced spiritual unease in society today.

I'm interested.  I'll check out the web site.

> Kenneth, please do not take this as a personal attack.

Heck no.  I'm still a skeptic.  I'm just fascinated with the book.

 I too found the
> book to be fascinating, in a sleight-of-hand sort of way. I just get
> annoyed by the half-truths and deception I found in his work.

I'm not seeing that yet.  The accuracy of the book is what is getting
me, but I'll check out the web page you mentioned.

Thanks for you post!

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:32:43 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Bible Code

MWB wrote:
> A group of linguists in Australia, using the same methods as Drosnin,
> have done just that. They have found passages detailing the
> assassinations of Indira Ghandi,Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King, John
> F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Yitzak Rabin, and the crash of Princess Di.
> Does this mean that the collection of words that makes up _Moby Dick_ is
> prophetic or divine in nature? Of course not. It means that any
> sufficiently large collection of words can be manipulated by
> pseudoscientific means. Something that is even easier to do in Hebrew
> than English because of the flexibility of the vowels in Hebrew.

Drosnin covers this topic in his book.  It is written in a very secular
style--the guy's a skeptic himself, but it is hard to ignore the proof
he has.

The author and Rips, the Israli mathematician who discovered the Bible
Code, tested other "large collections of words", like the Hebrew editon
of War and Peace, and they too found things about JFK, Ab Lincoln,
Rabin, and the others you cite.

This did not surprise them.  My name is Kenneth, and it is logical that
you can find my name in just about any book you pick up if you skip
enough letters.

What is facinating about the Bible code is that they have found NO OTHER
BOOK to conatin the detail that the Bible contains.

A year before the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, was
assinated, they found his name in the Bible.  Now, this isn't that
unusual--except that all of the detail that occurred in the same section
that his name was found.

Not only did they find his name, they found "assassin that will
assassinate" crossing through his name.  They found "name of assassin",
then a space, then "Amir" right above his name.  They found "Rabin
assassinatin", then a space, then "in 5756" next to his name.  They
found "Tel Aviv" next to his name.

Guess what.  5756, in the Hebrew callender, corresponds to the standard
year beginning in September 1995, ending in September 1996.

Yitzyak Rabin was assassinated on November 4th, 1995, in Tel Aviv, by
Yigal Amir--an assassin that said "God told me to do it."

Find that kind of detail in Moby Dick.

They've had the top mathematicians in the world look at this thing,
people from MIT, Harvard, Israli Mathematicians, and even a code breaker
from the National Security Agency in the US.  All of them have said that
the math in the Bible Code is sound, nobody has been able to find this
type of accurate information in any other book, and they are all stumped
because they know that the Bible was written 3,000 years ago.

If this Rabin thing was the only thing in the Bible Code, then it would
be one thing, but they continue to find more and more things.

Six months before Clinton was eleted, they typed in his name.  They
found it, and the word "president" crossed it.  

Three days before the Gulf War, they typed in Hussein.  They found it,
"Hussein picked a day".  Clost to that were the words "Saddam", "Enemy",
"War", "Missile", and "January 18, 1991."

Guess what, again.  The date that Hussein fired the first scud was
January 18, 1991, starting the Gulf War.

Find that in Mobey Dick.

They typed in Watergate, and they found it right next to "Who is he? 
President, but he was kicked out."

They typed in Economic Collapse, and they found "The Depression",
"1929", and "stocks" right next to it.

They typed in Man on the Moon, and crossing it was "spaceship".

They typed in the name of that comet that hit Jupiter back in '94,
Shoemaker-Levy.  Crossing it, they found "will pound Jupiter", and next
to it they found "July 16, 1994".

Yep, you guessed it.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy hit Jupiter on that exact
date, "July 16, 1994."

Hitler is always a good one.  They typed it in.  Next to it, they found
"Evil Man", "Nazi and Enemy", and "Slaughter" next to it. 

They searched for Shakespeare, and when they found it, next to it was
"presented on stage", "Macbeth", and "Hamlet".

They looked for Wright Brothers.  They found "airplane" next to it.

They typed in Edison.  Right next to it was "electricity" and "light
bulb".

Crossing the name Newton is "gravity".

Typing in Einstein, you get a jig saw puzzle of "Science", "he
overturned present reality", "they prophesied a brainy person", and "a
new and excellent understanding".

This is too much to be just pure coinincidence!  They fact that they
have not been able to locate this information with this type of detail
in any other source is amazing.

The book states that most mathematicians agree that if you find a
result, with the odds that the result will occur being 1 in 1000, then
it is not chance.

The Bible Code was held to this standard before it was published in
Statistical Science, a leading academic magazine.

The editors of Statitical Science require two independent studies to be
performed before they'll print anything.  The Bible Code had three, and
the odds for accuracy in the Code were calculated to 1 in 10
million--not 1 in 1000.

Incredible.  The paper was published in the August 1994 edition.

I'm telling you, this is no Mobey Dick.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:41:46 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Battle Dress 

Glenn Hoppe wrote:
> Although I don't have the books around to check it out, I've always
> thought that Battledress skill can be used at -1 for Vac Suit skill, but
> *not* the other way around.

Not in CT and MT.  If you read the skill in those editions, Vac Suit can
be used, as is, for BattleDress.

BattleDress, on the other hand, can be used as Vac Suit at one level
below your BDress skill.

T4 does not mention this either way.

> So, if I have Pilot-3, I can use Ship's Boat-2. If I've got Ship's Boat,
> I can't drive the big ships. If I've got Vac Suit-5, that's not enough
> to use Battledress.

Not according to CT and MT.  You can use Vac Suit interchangeably with
BattleDress.  I'm looking at the Traveller Book and MT Player's Manual
right now.

I like BattleDress being the other way around.  I like BattleDress being
this hard skill to get and learn.  Maybe T4 will make it that way.

I'd be interested to see how BattleDress and Vac Suit skills will read
in T4.1.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:52:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Ringrose <ringrose@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:36:49 +0200 (MET DST), "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se> said:
Jens> At 09:27 1997-10-08 EDT, Rob wrote:
>A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
>be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
>of a dangerous planet.
>
>This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
>of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
>people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
>safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?

Jens> price. It would not need to be standard equipment, as not every ship
Jens> would want (or want to pay for) it, but the captains who fear burglars
Jens> would be able to buy it. If there is a demand, there is always a product

Why would someone want to break into a ship?

a. to steal it.
b. to steal what's inside.
c. to damage/sabotage it.
d. to stow away.


I imagine civilized starports would have enough of a guard that anyone who took
a _long_ time doing the above would be noticed.  So, for most ships a (really
good) lock on the door might acutally suffice to stop (a), (b), and (d).  (c)
could be accomplished by a limpet mine - how do you expect that to be found?
Inspect the ship before takeoff, perhaps.

Many sci-fi books use computer access codes to lock down a ship - without the
codes you can't steal it, because the computer won't fire the engines.  The
access codes are one of the things which signify you _own_ the ship, and keep
mutiny from happening.


In uncivilized parts, if they value their trade the'll have guards with the
equivalent of AK-47s (my parents were on a dig in Turkey which was a major
source of income for the town, and at one point the villagers started pulling
out AK-47s and patrolling nearby.) to keep people from messing with your ship.


If they don't value the trade, what are you doing there?  Well, you should have
a better security system.  But the PCs should realize that _any_ security
system can be circumvented.  Guards can be overpowered, computers can be
hacked, motion detectors can be fooled, computers won't recognize that alien as
a human, nobody's going to see the guy with the antitank missile taking aim
from outside your perimeter.  Let's dig a tunnel which goes under the whole
sensor net, come up under the ship, and work from there.  Make sure the alarm
is set off every couple minutes by "natural" sources until the owners get
annoyed and turn it off.  Sci-fi is filled with low-tech people getting around
compelx high-tech stuff by being creative.



Park the spaceship in a sheltered area.  Mount a few motion detectors.  Rig it
to a comm alarm.  If your comms have video capability, add cameras and look at
whatever sets off the alarm.

If you have an advanced computer, have _it_ monitor the cameras for people.

Put a big sign on the door saying "Warning: automated lethal security system."
Who cares if you have the system, people don't really want to die.  They'll
pick another ship.

It won't be perfect, but you'll raise the difficulty to the point where, in
general, people won't even try.



But it's a game.  I expect that there'll be an understanding between me and my
players that as long as they take reasonable precautions, if I do something
like "steal the ship" there will be a chance to get it back.  In return, there
will be interesting plot hooks from when someone sneaks on board, or sabotages
this critical piece of machinery which requires the PCs to fix it, or stashes
cocaine in the landing gear, or or or....


	- Robert

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 20:57:42 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: TravSuite & CORE

Jo,

Would you be willing to make the source code (or algorithms) for world 
mapping (from TravSuite or Library) available to eager programmers and 
TMlers?  I've been contacted by two separate programmers who seem eager 
to write a Windows prog (delphi or VB) for world map generation ... I'd 
even do it myself when I finish my Galactic-like program.

I've previously e-mailed Andy Lilly about this (and related) issues, 
and was going to pass the request on to you.

Simon

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:02:15 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants)

Tim Connors wrote:
>        I suspect that a trip through the purification plant will substantially
>         reduce the number of "little critters" in the fuel tank and I also
>         suspect that any ship which attempts to jump from World A with a fuel
>         tank full of water and "little critters" instead of LHyd may not reach
>         World B anytime soon -- at least they're really unlikely to if I'm running
>         the game.

Well, depending on how tough you assume fuel purifiers are, running
little critters through the purifiers may have a pretty nasty effect
on the purifiers!

At any rate, ships might take on water for any number of reasons 
and it might not all get converted to LHyd. e.g. drinking/bathing
water, reaction mass, ballast, whatever. Heck, who says you
have to turn it into LHyd? If I'm not mistaken, purifiers turn
unrefined fuel into refined fuel. However, the rules do say that 
you can run on "pure unrefined" fuel, with an additional chance
of misjump (CT I think). So I think that eventually some critters
would get from World A to World B unless they were both pretty
fussy about where they let ships land and refuel.

They only had to bring a few rabbits into Australia and pretty
soon... *BOOM*. (If you've never seen the pictures, at one point
the rabbits were so thick that they completely covered the 
ground like a thick blanket of vegetation.) The miracles of
unchecked exponential growth.

- --
Ethan Henry                      ehenry@magma.ca

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 20:57:39 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Starports

> If you ran a TCS campaign for 100 years without fighting anybody you'd
> still have a fleet equivalent to your original one, without ever having
> paid for or ordered new construction.

Funnily enough, I feel this supports my argument ... the loss of military 
building during peaceful times will only need a 12.5% increase in civilian 
building.  During the war, the priorities shift and you can quickly build up 
your naval fleet at the expense of reduced new merchant building (and zero 
yacht building :-).

> It's implied in the fact that all the capacity is available for your use
> with no rules for smashing your planetary economy to smithereens if you
> suddenly decide to use it all.
 
Again, I disagree.  Based on the calculations in my earlier message, each 
year of lost production will only deprive the merchant fleet of its regular 
2% replacement ... hardly smithereen-causing.  If mercahnt losses are high 
due to war, I suspect that few people will complain about increased Naval 
building!

> I agree in principle, but it won't be 8 times larger if you are building
> ships larger than Gazelles.

I know that big ships like the Tigress take a long time to build (3.2 years, 
allowing for the 40% productivity bonus for standard designs - slightly 
longer if we use the 41 months given in Fighting Ships).  

Let us consider a 1,000,000 T yard, 50% spent on building a Tigress and 50% 
spent on building 200 T traders (both are standard designs and get a 40% 
productivity bonus).  After 3.2 + 0.5 years I will have:
1 Tigress (500,000 T) = 3.2 years
300 FH (15,000 T) = 0.5 years
14,000 Traders (2,800,000 T)

This is still a ratio of 5.4 x the tonnage of traders (and, at 14,000:301 
ship ratio the opportunities for piracy .... oops, nearly slipped again).

> Maintenance of ships is acomplished just by paying for it, so if routine
> ship maintenance requires shipyard capacity, then it must be there in
> addition. 

I could claim that the 19 Naval Depots mentioned in Rebellion (for 
MegaTraveller) are the source of repairs; or I could claim that ordinary 
starport space (not construction yard space) is all that is needed.  When 
was the last time your car was serviced by the original factory?  Naval 
Depots are the "repair shops" for the naval fleet; repair shops for "normal" 
people are much more common - A and B ports.


I did not start out with a fixed idea of the "right" model of Traveller ship 
building, but having now presented my analysis of seaship building and seen 
the merchant fleet / naval fleet size ratio and so on, I have persuaded 
myself that my interpretation (1 T per 1000 pop is total ship yard capacity) 
is reasonable.  I find it difficult, despite your excellent arguments, that 
a stable economy needs (or would choose to pay for) 1 T per 1000 pop just 
for Naval use.


Simon

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: GAHUNTER <Gahunter@cris.com>
Subject: Looking for players

Hello, 

I really dont know if this is the place to ask such questions, but alas I
shall ask anyways... Im getting an itch to run an PBEM game of Traveller
and was interested in knowing if there are any players out there seeking a
game to join...

I will let you know up front it is NON-CANON and will have some changes to
the general feel of the universe - however, most rules will be the base
set T4 (of course Im using a different task system)...

Anyone interested please contact me and let me know...

Guy Hunter
(gahunter@cris.com)

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:26:56 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Bruce:  Sensor Question

On Tuesday, 7 October 1997 11:44, Kenneth Bearden
[SMTP:dreamer@brokersys.com] wrote:
> I've got a sensors question for ya.

I'd like to butt in here as well if thats Okay :)

> Let's say a ship is bee-bopping the 4 hours or so down to a jump
point. 
> There is another ship in range of the sensors.

I think that this depends on whether the ship is departing a moderate
tech or above world.  After all these worlds could (should) easily have
total sensor coverage and would warn any ships about all other ships
that may be approaching - Much like air traffic control might.

However - In the frontier it might pay players to keep a very close eye
on their near space environment.  This could be a valuable learning
experience for them.

Heh Heh Heh

Brody Dunn

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:37:56 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Hauling people

Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> writes
>> Under zero gravity conditions, with forced air jets for ventilation, 
>> no food or hygeine, and water provided by gravitically controlled 
>> water jet  into the mouth I think that slaves or prisoners could 
>> probably be packed so they took up most of the space in the hull. 
>
>That's essentially the way the slavers packed them. They'd pull them
>out of the "decks (18 inches tall!) one deck at a time to hose them
>off, and feed them some gruel. Meanwhile they'd hose out the deck a 
>bit.
>Then back they went.

Did the dead ones get put back, or thrown overboard?

Which is my way of introducing another point - there was a certain 
level of "acceptable loss" for the "cargo", based purely on economic 
factors.  I believe the original poster was talking about bedsores 
being possibly acceptible - you are going to end up with a lot worse 
than that if you pack them in like the slave ships.  I think this 
would be true (though somewhat less extreme) even at TL12.
 
John G. Wood  |  john@elvw.demon.co.uk  |  Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:57:47 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Questions about Traveller

[OK, this is my last post on this.  It's a dead horse.  I'll
keep posting on threads that have spun off as long as they
stay fertile.]

Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:19:21 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>Well, I don't agree, we already tolerate crimes in the US because
>>the cost of eliminating them is too high.

>Sigh! I'm still not sure if you agree that the navy budgets canonically used
>by Traveller governments will purchase enough assets to deal effectively
>with pirates and you are claiming that the Imperium just wouldn't use those
>assets even though they have them

I'm claiming that those Navy budgets are aleady being used to
purchase ships that will be deployed to fight a war and if you
want to stop pirates you need ships that are deployed differently,
either by giving up their military mission or by buying new
ships.

Hans, this really is the third or fourth time I've said this.
All we are doing is rehashing points that we have covered
several times already.  Bringing it up all again won't
change our postions.

>The example you quote above, and practically every historical
>example that I know of where a government allowed piracy or brigandage
>came as a result of not having the assets to deal with them.

I already indicated that I don't agree.  From piracy that exists
in modern Asian waters, to piracy that existed and preyed upon
English, Roman, and Chinese empires, this is not true.  Every
society has had crime that it has tolerated because the costs
of eradication are too high.  But clearly we disagree on this
and going over it again isn't going to change that.

>(Well, I shall have to qualify
>that; there are examples of governments shielding pirates that didn't
>attack their shipping, but that wouldn't apply to pirates inside the
>Imperium, now would it?).

Well, it would.  Can you say Vargr?  In any case, piracy does
exist without the shield of hostile governments.

>I can think of several example of governments, having suffered from piracy
>for some time, got fed up and scraped together the assets to eradicate
>them.

Sure, I'll just concede that there are _some_ cases.  But if you
want to say that piracy _can't_ exist in the Imperium you have
to say that _all_ governments are unwilling to tolerate piracy
at any level of activity.  But, in fact, almost every sea
power has tolerated piracy when the costs of stamping it
out were less than the cost of the piracy.

>But having enough ships to deal with them and chosing not to use
>them? Can't think of a single example.

They are in use, on military missions.  And just as those historical
empires didn't want to pay the cost of pulling ships away from
military missions to stamp out piracy, so the Imperium probably
wouldn't.

>Of course not regardless of cost. You seem to be reading what I write through
>distorting spectacles

OK, in ever threa. I've already said this several times and you have
>failed to refute it: Since the Imperium pays for the ships anyway there's is
>no extra cost involved in dealing with pirates.

I'm sorry, I have.  I have explained that those ships are deployed
for _military_ purposes and that deployment is incompatible with
piracy deployment (one needs forces concentrated to stop large
fleets intent on seizing planets and that other needs a thin
covering everywhere).  I have done this multiple times in direct
answer to the assertion that those ships "are there anyway".
You have always tried to counter with the idea that it will
only take a small number of ships.  I don't agree that it
will take as few ships as you say (and no, I'm not going to
go over that all _yet again_) and, in any case, that doesn't
make the ships "free".  The cost of those ships needs to be
justified on what they are going to do.  They are not free.

When the thead gets to a point where points are being repeated
and one starts getting meassages that essentially claim that you
narrow minded, it is my experience that this is a sure sign that
the thread is dead.

>You're right. Further discussion is futile and in the future I will just
>restrict myself to pointing out that you are wrong whenever you reiterate
>your unsupported claims.

That's good.  But sticking "your unsupported claims" in
there is inconsitent with you claim of taking the high
ground.  What do you expect one to do?  Either agree that
one's points are unsupported or be goaded into posting
more in support?  This isn't a way to wrap up a thread
(at least no amicably).

I would suggest that the best way out is to ackowledge that
we _each_ find the other's position unsupported and must
agree to disagree.  I also assume this doesn't mean
that you expect that, when discussing things with other
people, you will jump in and explain how wrong I am while
I leave your messages alone, or without reviving the thread,
or whatever.  That isn't letting the thread die.  That is
expecting the other person to surrender.

>>We already covered pirates operating out of bases vs pirates
>>posing as merchants taking targets of opportunity.
>
>Right. I've demonstrated that both types would be unable to make a living
>in the face of the difficulties they would be up against.

And I have pointed out why I don't think that you have
demonstated what you claim to have.

>>Right so water involves the extra step.  You have to split it, and then
>>purify it.  Gas Giant atmophere only requires purification.
>
>So what? Neither operation costs the ship any money, except the purifier
>plant indirectly, since it  reduces the cargo space of the ship.

You "purifier" plant does both.  The problem is that it should
take more space, power, and time to split water and seperate
hydrogen than it takes to just seperate hydrogen.

>>Right, and if you radio ahead, they can well not be wasted.
>
>Sometimes, yes, but at other times you will miss the cargo that you would
>have gotten if you had been available to take it immidiately.  There's no
>that requires you to sit on the tarmac for your full six days if you
>happen to get a cargo on your first day. And the point is that you can't
>know that when you aim for the Gas Giant.

But something doesn't have to be a sure thing be to worthwhile.
So, if you are having trouble getting cargo quickly, or you
are entering a planet where you experience delays before, you make a
judgement.  If the odds that the only cargo you can will be
able to get can't possbily wait a few days (unlikely unless
you are in busy system, but then there will be other cargos),
times the cost of  that cargo, are compensated by the savings
then it might well be worth it.


_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:02:52 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Spanish vs Mexica

   
   Hi.
   
> From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
   
> Moin Robert Flammang,
>>    I do not understand how your reference to femicide pertains to either
>>    European or Aztec warfare.
> 	Did'nt we have femicide discussion some weeks ago ?
   
   Sorry, I wasn't on the list a few weeks ago.
   
> 	The main reason of war is population control, but as males
   [snip]
   
   I will concede this point for the sake of discussion, but I don't
   believe it.  IMHO, the `reasons' for war are avarice, fear, and
   revenge, but I am familiar with the war-as-reproductive-strategy
   theory.  Note, however, that paradoxically war usually results in a
   long-term population boom (as does famine and plague).
   
> 	Ok lets explain what femicide is, and where it came from.
   [snip]
> 	Even if there are "better" types of poplation control posible
> 	at Tl6+, femicide is still the most comon one, because the
> 	value of man over women based on war tradition is still high.
   
   Last I checked, the definition of femicide is the systematic murder of
   females preferentially to males.  While women do die in war, they do
   not die in larger numbers than do males.  (In fact the reverse is
   usually true.  Viricide?)  The killing (or eating) of males and the
   rape or kidnapping of females do not constitute femicide.  I have never
   heard of femicide in war, at TL1 or TL6+.  Today, femicide is practiced
   mostly in China, where poor parents prefer to have a son so they murder
   their daughters.
   
   What does this have to do with Traveller?  Well, I'm not sure really.
   I've never read allegations of femicide directed against the Vilani
   or Solomani, or anyone else in the Traveller universe for that matter.
   Perhaps future discussion should be taken off-line, unless you see a
   connection.
   
   -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:35:21 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:08:01 -0700, Scott Ellsworth
<Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>>As what?  You can look at the neutrino signature all you want, but
>>nothing in it is going to say "pirate".  It will say "ship" and
>>give you general idea of how big, but that won't tell what his
>>intentions are.

>It is quite true that you can almost certainly pounce on someone once, with
>complete surprise.

>Where life gets interesting is when you want to do it again.

Which is why you don't do it again in the same system until
you have changed your ships signature.  In any cast, since
commercial ships use standard reactor design, all ships of
the same type will have the same neutrino signature (and
pirates use the same types of ships as an armed merchant
or they use things like the omnipresent Type S scout).

[Note: The poster's point is also based on the premise that
one can track a ship's neutrino signature all the way out
at the 100 diam jump limit.  I don't know if it is possible,
I've seen other post in dispute, but I don't have time
to go into it myself so I will just assume it is possible
since it doesn't really matter.  In any case, this still
wouldn't cover places like the gas giants.]

>Once a raid happens, traffic control is going to find out.  Likely
>immediately, unless they have a hijacker on board to silence the radios.

Or the first shot takes out the comm system.

>>Well, I don't think it's that certain, but it doesn't matter.  You
>>just don't hit the same system again.

>Systems do talk, at least if they are wise

Unfortunately, even if you could distinguish signatures, systems
can only trade news as fast a ship travel.  Fringe
systems are going to have to wait for a ship to take a message
and even in a busy system there are delays while you get mixed
in with all the other high priority messages, they figure out
what systems the message needs to go to, what ships are available,
and wait for those ships.  The fact is that, unless a certain
type of news is so high priority that it is worth spending
big bucks on ships in every system waiting to take just
those kinds of messages, then even important messages have
to wait on scheduled departures.  That means it is possible
to stay ahead of news.  (And a pirate only has to do it long
enough to just retune the reactor and change his signature).

>and it is not in the Imperial
>interest for piracy to happen.

OTOH, it is not in Imperial interest to spend more money
preventing piracy than the piracy itself would cost.

>  While you might argue that they would not
>do anything to prevent it

I certainly wouldn't.  There will be no piracy at Regina,
where there is a lot of traffic concentrated in one, relatively
easy to patrol area.  They will look at how much piracy a
certain amount of money will prevent and spend the appropriate
ammount.  What this means is that piracy will be generally a
low level activity that is, at most, a minor problem (and
probably only nusance) that occurs in fringe area.

>>>The new senor rules make it very hard to hide in a way that will not bite
>>>you if you intend to be taken for normal commercial traffic later.
>>
>>Unless you just take a moment to change your ships signature.
>
>Last time I talked to someone who knew sonar, it was very difficult to
>change fundamental signature such that a modern day ocean ship was
>unrecognizable

It gives you the general type of ship, pirates us the same types
of ships that are being used for other purposes.

>Also, note that your signature must change regularly, as they can always
>check records, so the signature you have when you do the illegal act better
>be very different than the signature you had when they first spotted you,
>and what they wrote down when you were last in port.  This would be the
>equivalent of repainting your car every time you drove downtown, just on
>the off chance that you could commit a robbery.

Um no, it would be the equivalent of repainting the car only after
you commit a robbery (which happens).  If you commit a crime
you just have to change you identity _once_, changing you
identity again (unless you have committed a crime) is both
unecessary and pointless (you already have a new clean identity).

>Again, the problem gets much different if you assume that ships can be
>attacked in jump space.

Well, yeah, it might move piracy up from an occaison annoyance
to a major problem, perhaps requirign every ship to be armed
and/or escorted.

>  I am considering moving to a hyper drive system
>where ships can be attacked in hyper, but where many of the other Traveller
>"facts" stay the same.

Except this makes a major change in how war works.  Also, to
work the ships have to be able to detect each other in jump
space over interstellar distances, which is a big change.

>This opens up piracy, as then the Imperium could
>not afford the number of ships needed to patrol.

Well, IMO, they can't anyways.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1934
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 8 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1935



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

re:TravSuite Worldmapper
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1929
Re: Bruce and the sensor question
Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
re:Armoured Suits
Re: [noise]
re: 5th Dimension
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1930
Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?
Re: Bruce and the sensor question
1. Life Without Pirates may be Dull / 2. Automation
We sucked up WHAT refuelling?
Bible Code stuff
Re: Bible Code

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 22:45:18 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: re:TravSuite Worldmapper

> I'm not part of CORE, but at EuroGenCon Andy Lilly was trying to find a C
> (??) programmer to take up the development of this suite.

Wisely, Andy wants to see how good you are first - and I have not finished 
any of my Windows programs for Traveller.  Plus, I intend to use Delphi 
(pascal) and not C and probably Win 95/NT only (as so many things are much 
easier for the programmer in the 32-bit versions of Delphi).

Jo Grant has outlined, in a recent TML message, the hassles of writing the 
Dulinor Suite ... and I agree with him.  I write my programs for pleasure 
(strange, but true) which means that I follow my own timetable and not 
someone elses.  Andy probably wants someone a bit more malleable / proven!

I think I will e-mail Andy (with copies to programmers who have expressed 
interest in shared development) and see if I can get Andy to re-appraise his 
options.

Simon

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:46:45 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

At 06:03 PM 10/8/97 +0100, Anders wrote:
>This (the question on how automated Trav ships/vehicles are) is a pretty
>big problem:

The way I play it is that all ships have the following positions, and one
are optional, assuming the requisite systems are installed:

Full time usage for one or more people:
Pilot - determines exact settings, and reacts to real space and jump space
fluctuations.  What, exactly, is fluctuating is a maguffin, but the pilot
needs to see it happen, whatever it is, and react appropriately.  Good
decision support mechanisms can reduce this from a high stress experience
to a low stress one.

Astrogator - constantly reading sensor data and plotting it against charts
of the region to determine what, exactly, the pilot can expect to have to
react to.  A good plot reduces the pilot's stress.  Better computers make
much of this sensor analysis automatic, but the requirements go up with
tech level, and the demands go up as well.

Sensors - gets the sensor data, preprocesses it for the information the
Astrogator is interested in, and also looks for anything of concern, like
high velocity objects heading towards the vessel.  Here again, automatic
filters clear out much of the junk, leaving the human to decide whether to
wake the captain.

Engineer - drive tuning, so that when the pilot asks for an alteration in
how the drive is running, the requested alteration happens.  Better self
checks at higher TLs help this a lot.

Maintenance - scutwork, that is utterly needed.  Ships live and die by how
they are maintained.

Part time, or automatic, as long as no unusual circumstances occur:
Commo - if you do not need to communicate with anyone, this is superfluous.
Gunner - no guns means no gunner.  Gunners fix, maintain, and fire the
weapons.
Medic - ships without passengers and less than 50 crew often have a good
auto medic and a cold sleep berth.
Steward - people maintenance, cargo management, and general administrative
skills.

All of these would represent a rotating staff on duty every shift on a
military or merchant ship that is >5kt, but on a little ship, several jobs
may be done by one person.

For example, an X-boat jumps right near a tender which has already done the
preliminary jump plot and scanned nearby space.  Once jump begins, the poor
guy inside is very, very busy scanning everything in sight, crunching the
data, and tuning the drives to come out alive.  Very stressful, and only
possible with extremely good computers.  In my universe, the real reason
that no J6 xboats were every proposed is that the workload for a small
vessel would be just too high.

Note that skills are divided by two when splitting jobs, and that your
astrogator is often your sensor person, while your pilot is often your
common person.  You do not want them bumping into something they should not
because they were nattering to traffic control.

>Does ships require sensor ops on duty at all times?
>  Yes: ...
>  No: Any dimwitted contemporary PC can do it (even Intel/Win95 ones perhaps)
>  so why not several TLs up?

If we assume that very advanced computers are already doing reducing data
as much as possible, and that the human is there for the tough calls, then
this is less of a problem.

>Do you need a living astrogator to actually jump?
>  Yes: If computers could astrogate then surely X-boats would
>  be unmanned but canon dictates otherwise.
>  No: Any calculation of trajectories, force poptentials, nonlinear diffs etc
>  can be better performed by computers/robots than humans.

And the computers are welcome to it.  I assume that a "course plot" by a
human is actually a list of waypoints that the human wants to hit.  The
computer then builds a list of thrust vectors and a path that hits them all.

Where you need a human is: "Critical maguffin density approaching.  Scans
show plot points bearings 180 mark 29 and 101 mark 17, approaching fast.
Accept the plot point, or head into the maguffin?  <yes> <no>".

>Do the gunners sit inside the actual turret?
>  Yes: That is because you can see those pesky enemy ships and thats the way
>  it has been done ever since millenium falcon dammit.
>  No: As the Imperium is slightly more advanced than WWII US who used remote
>  turrets on their WWII bombers surely the Imperium would do it as well.

Nice image, but a bit too outre.  I rule that the gunner who fires the
weapons is in a nice, safe MFD on the bridge, in the center of the vessel.
The sot who sits near the turret is there in case the C3I link from the
bridge gets nailed, or the turret suffers a malfunction.

>What I am saying is that technological realism aside it is generally more
>fun to invent rules that let the PCs used their hardearned skills instead
>of buying some expensive robotic stuff.

I essentially start with the assumption that the humans are needed, and
that since computer support will ease the burden, we then get some idea of
what is needed.

In my universe:
Largest "fully automated" ship that can have a crew of:
	1	2	4
9	-	-	100
A	-	100	200
B	100	200	400
C	200	400	800
D	400	800	1600
E	800	1600	3200
F	1600	3200	6400
G	3200	6400	12800

Standard automation drops this by a factor of two, and minimal automation
by another factor of two.  Note also that certain tasks go up in difficulty
if you have less levels of automation, to represent the fact that you
likely need to interrupt one important task for another the longer a task
takes.

So, Sylea can have a Scout/Courier run by one person, with standard
automation, while the late 3I can run a destroyer the same way.  On the
other hand, the "auto destroyer" will happily fire on any civilian ship
that moves inside its no-fly zones with nary a hesitation when combat
begins, and it is unlikely that the very busy human running things would
even notice until he saw INN that evening.

> Come to think about it; why aren't
>there security robots that cannot miss at say 50 m or less with lasers? If
>we could only make some software that could decide who are enemies and who
>are not I bet we could make a contration today that fired a rifle and never
>missed a human target within say 50 m.

Yep.  The 3I made these kind of security bots illegal precisely because it
was hard to prevent massive lawsuits from the errors.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:02:05 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >   One example I don't recall being mentioned to this point is Star
> > >Wars.  There were most definately guys in plastic suits (stormtroopers)
> > >running around in the desert (of Tatooine) in that film.
> >
> > Well, look carefully and you'll find that there aren't alot of stormtroopers
> > actually 'running' in the desert.  They are basically walking on a desert
> > like backlot, or standing and mulling around in the desert for 5 seconds or
> > so.
> 
> It is my understanding that the Stormtrooper armor is environmentally
> contained.  They can wear it in space like a vac suit.
> 
> I'm sure those stormtroopers on Tatooine were experiencing a cool 72
> degrees.

Ken, I think you misunderstood the thread. Semo et. al are talking about
why *actors* aren't running around in _Starship Troopers_ in hot plastic
suits. And the stormtrooper thing got brought up as an example.

I'm sure even ILM won't pay to build AC into every Stormtrooper costume.
;-)

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:16:05 -0400
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1929

Michael Koehne wrote:
>Moin Joseph "Chepe" Lockett,
>
>> Gazelle Toroidal NPAW Barbette (TL14)
>
> hm torus accelleration :-(
>
> " for military purposes, curved particle accellerators are
>   inefficient because of the need to keep the particles moving
>   in a circular path " FFS pg 112
>
> If you call a 6dt weapon a barbette here is the maximum 6dt PA
> based on FFS1 and Tl-E.

<weapons design stats deleted>

It may be superior to Joseph's design in some ways but at 14.7 meters in
length it won't fit into a standard barbette (Dia4.51mxH5.26m).  This might
be the reason Joseph decided to use an "inefficient" circular PAW.

Chris Cox
"Investment banking galley slave in New York City"
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:22:31 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Bruce and the sensor question

Eris Reddoch wrote:
> Bruce, let's say we're talking about 1 to 3 minute scans rather than 30
> minute ones. What does that do to what we can pick up with our sensors?

Bruce hints at this in his Definitive Sensor rules--and he's using 30
minute space combat rounds.

He says:

"In the basic system, once a target is detected, the referee should
inform the sensor operator of the fact and the target's signature, and
place the ship's counter on the map (if you're using one)."

Then he goes on to say:

"After one turn of detection, the referee can inform the sensor operator
of the tonnage and basic configuration of the target;  after two turns,
the class."

I like what Bruce is saying here.  It does lead to great, interesting
role playing, and I've been wanting this ever since I cracked open MT
and tried to make sense of their sensor rules.

What I want is simple.  I'd like to see two things:

(1) A list of ever type of sensor available in Traveller (EMS, neutrino,
densitometer, etc).  The list needs to be broken up into active and
passive sensors, and each of those need to have scan (scanner) and lock
(tracker) modes.

Something like this:      Active EMS Scan
                          Active EMS Lock
                          Passive EMS Scan
                          Passive EMS Lock

                          ect.

(2)  Next to each sensor type, I'd like to see a description of the type
of information that the sensor scan will reveal--information that GMs
can give to players and the mystery of what the target is unfolds.

Taking Bruce's remarks that I quoted above from his Definitive Sensor
Rules, I could see the entry for Active EMS Scan looking like this--

       Active EMS Scan:  1st turn--target's signature and location
                         2nd turn--target's tonnage and basic
configuration
                         3rd turn--target's class

Maybe the Active EMS Lock will reveal information in this manner (I'm
just guessing here for the example)--

     Active EMS Lock:  1st turn--all the information under active EMS
scan, except                                   that it all comes in one
turn


Kenneth.

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

Date: 08 Oct 1997 18:51 EDT
From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
Subject: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
is the vote on

1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy

Hans has posted argument against occasional piracy as well
as career piracy.  Does everyone concur that these things
hardly exist at all in the Imperium?  Or are there some
hold-outs?  I ask just because my players may well get into
this discussion also, and if there are refutations I'd like
to hear them.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:28:51 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Bruce:  Sensor Question

Brody Dunn wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, 7 October 1997 11:44, Kenneth Bearden
> [SMTP:dreamer@brokersys.com] wrote:
> > I've got a sensors question for ya.
> 
> I'd like to butt in here as well if thats Okay :)
> 
> > Let's say a ship is bee-bopping the 4 hours or so down to a jump
> point.
> > There is another ship in range of the sensors.
> 
> I think that this depends on whether the ship is departing a moderate
> tech or above world.  After all these worlds could (should) easily have
> total sensor coverage and would warn any ships about all other ships
> that may be approaching - Much like air traffic control might.
> 
> However - In the frontier it might pay players to keep a very close eye
> on their near space environment.  This could be a valuable learning
> experience for them.

I would think that it is standard procedure to do the following:

1) emerge from jump
2) take passive scan of area looking for things of interest, like ships
3) start heading to main world
4) periodically repeat passive scans

If something is of interest, then its acceleration and direction
should be calculated and the interval between scans decreased. 
Naturally, it might also be a good idea to use active scans on the
object too.

So, if I'm in a system and detect no ships around, and it's four
hours to the main world, I might check back every fifteen minutes
with another passive scan. If there is a ship insystem but I calculate
that it's 18 hours away at 6G (I'll assume it can do that), then I
don't care about it. On the other hand, if it's 10 minutes away at
6G, I'll darn well check my sensors every minute or so.

Erwin

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 15:52:02 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

At 09:27 1997-10-08 EDT, Rob wrote:
>A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
>be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
>of a dangerous planet.
>
>One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
>a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
>and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
>range).

The ship will certainly do that, but it will be about as reliable (in a
larger set of circumstances) as a modern car alarm is.  Many of those will
happily page you, but you then have to decide whether this is really a
break in, or someone leaning on it.

Essentially, figure that the stock anti hijack system will keep most people
out, but an electronics roll higher than the floor for the alarm on the
ship would get them past the lock, a stealth roll would get them past the
alarm system, a commo roll would let them blanket the antenna, and so on.

Essentially, if you have talent on board, you are going to be safe from
opposing talent, whereas if you buy talent in a box, then you run the risk
that a pro is going to walk all over it.

Further, as someone else mentioned, you will have higher tech people out
there that might do you worlds of harm.

I usually figure that if the players act reasonably, then they get
reasonable results - ie, it is unlikely that anyone will break into their
ship while it is in the high tech port and under the protection of port
security, unless PS helps.  Parked in a TL9 parking lot with no outside
security is also pretty safe for a TL12 ship, unless someone with TL12
tools and the skill to use them wants in.

Careful planning by very bright TL9 chaps could probably defeat TL12
standard security eventually, but they would have to work at it.

For example, if they feel paranoid, they will get nuisance calls regularly,
and will annoy port security, who feel that the group does not trust them.
On the other hand, they will likely get warned when most people try to
break in.  A group that takes no extra precautions, but is reasonably
careful will likely stop anyone who is not determined, and a group that is
noticeably lackadaisical will have a hard time stopping anyone.

Scott

Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:08:41 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Armoured Suits

Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk> wrote:

>C. J. Cherryh did a good write-up of the difficulty of using a powered
>armour suit in one of her books, to do with a spacer who's an ex-marine type
>who drops out and hires on board a merchant ship, then has to fit up some
>old armour towards the end of the book. Very fine adjustments to fit the
>individual owner, long learning period so as not to over-react to the
>armour's feedback (i.e. too fast a movement might damage you and anyone
>around you). Fascinating read... if only I could remember the name of the
>book...

Rimrunner.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:26:07 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: [noise]

Anders wrote:

>
>>        But why would one want to move them?  Can you imagine the sheer
>>spectacle of millions of troopers in battle dress and gaudy costumes doing
>>humomgous dance routines like a Busby Berkely musical on a totally
>>gargantuan scale?
>
>Note that they might have gravbelts in order to do Sther Willimas style
>imitations of water ballet in the air. Spectacular!


	And what with their plasma guns and grenade launchers, they could
set off some pretty cool pyrotechnics too!

	This just gets better and better.  And wierder and wierder.  Which
are often one and the same thing :).

	Strangely enough, I can actually see something like this happening.
Militaries and drill being what they are, techniques that require a great
deal of training and skill to execute tend to be displayed for show; think
the Mounties and the Musical Ride, for example.  With something like BD,
where even moving take skill and can be quite dangerous, I'd imagine that
drill displays would be somewhat more than just marching around in step.
Presumably, there'd be a significant amount of coordinated _agility_
displayed in DB show drill...

	...SQUAAAAD!  CAAAAAMP IT UP!

:).

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:21:54 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: 5th Dimension

>Now, what do you TML physicists think of that?
Sounds like a misquote of various theories that try to unify the
forces (strong nuclear and electroweak) in a "geometric" fashion
similar to the way general relativity describes gravity in terms of what
can (sloppily) be thought of as fourth-dimensional geometry. These usually
end up with 10-15 extra "dimensions", all very sharply curved and hence
"small" in a hard-to-explain sense.

Certainly nothing special about the 5th vs the 11th in these theorries.

Don't even get me *started* on the Bible Code; a good lesson in large
number statistics/infinite-number-of-monkeys/finding patterns where none
exist. I believe there are a couple of nice web sites showing similar
"predictions" in Moby Dick, for example.

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:25:39 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1930

MWB wrote:


>Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>
>> I'm reading this facinating book called The Bible Code where this
>> mathematician in Israel has proven that the Bible contains predictions
>> in it prediciting events in modern times--and they do it pretty
>> convincingly, I might add.
>
>In response to his many critics, Michael Drosnin (the author of the
>_Bible Code_) said in the June 9, 1997 issue of _Newsweek_ "When my
>critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister
>encrypted in _Moby Dick_, I'll believe them."
[snip]
>Kenneth, please do not take this as a personal attack. I too found the
>book to be fascinating, in a sleight-of-hand sort of way. I just get
>annoyed by the half-truths and deception I found in his work.

	Does it do stock market predictions?  If it does stock picks, I'll
buy the book :)!  Or even better, the answers to bar exam questionaires!

	On an amusing related note, right now somebody on sci.astro.amateur
is raving on about how you can pick out "SETI messages" (presumably
messages from aliens) in Norman Schwarzkopf's memoirs...  The poor SOB is
clearly a paranoid schizophrenic; apparently his apartment has been broken
into over 2,000 times by government agents.

	ObTrav: There's almost certainly one for 101 Religions in there
somewhere.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:32:39 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?

Anders writes
>Sorry for overusing the word "silly" when it might just as well be applied
>to me. Why do you divide the visible (reflected) by two for Lidar?
>Lidar drops off as 1/r^4 and should simply use
>
>Just like radars but with visible reflected instead (right?)
>sensitivity + reflectedsig - 2 * rangefactor
>Am I missing something here?

I folded the 2*rangefactor into the sensor sensitivities and
signatures and the detection table instead, sot hat (a) players wouldn't have
to multiply, and (b) (more important) sensor sensitivities could be more
easily compared - an AEMS-14 has about the same range as a PEMS-14. 
That's why active sensors have to use a different detection table.

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:43:02 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Bruce and the sensor question

Eris Reddoch wrote:
> Bruce, let's say we're talking about 1 to 3 minute scans rather than 30
> minute ones. What does that do to what we can pick up with our sensors?

There's a table buried deep in the rules (somewher at the end, I think)
about how senosr sensitivity scales with scan duration (which is to say,
turn length); basically, if you're using really short turns you lose 0.5 or 1.0
points of sensitivity and if you use real long ones add a point or so.

As far as how long it takes you to ID a target...I'm working on it,
but don't currently have time to do the calculations in detail. Back-of-the-
envelope I'd say if the signal gets up to 2 or so you learn things like the
power output or hull size; around 3 you learn the class (if you've seen
the class before) or basic purpose of the ship; around 4 you can read the
name off the hull.

(But don't quote me.) Sensors are actually continously scanning all over
the sky with occasional longer glances at already-detected targets, 
so short turns wouldn't change this (escept for the sensitivity penalty I
mentioned already.)

Bruce

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

Date: 08 Oct 1997 19:50 EDT
From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
Subject: 1. Life Without Pirates may be Dull / 2. Automation

1. Life Without Pirates may be Dull

As someone mentioned towards my post about automated
starships, Traveller is primarily a game, rather than
a mirror of the Laws of Nature.

To me, privateering is an adventurous and romantic view
of Traveller, and permitting pirates to roam hungrily in
the weaker solar systems of the less-civilised parts 
of the Imperium adds flavor, danger, and caution to
the players' lives.  It may even give them direction,
as privateers under a letter of marque or just occasional
rogues looking for a quick chunk of revenue.

In the end, pirates are a useful game tool, a unique
obstacle to the players' survival.  And they don't have
to be justified by the referee... they can just exist
and ambush the players.

2. Automation

....and as far as starship automation goes, I say the less
the better.  Down with automation!  Let the characters use
their hard-earned skills.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:13:17 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: We sucked up WHAT refuelling?

Ethan Henry wrote:

>
>Well, depending on how tough you assume fuel purifiers are, running
>little critters through the purifiers may have a pretty nasty effect
>on the purifiers!

[snip]

	I just had this lovely vision...

Engineer: "Uh, guys, it looks like a local life form is stuck in the fuel
scoop..."

Whole crew: "Oh no, not again!"

Astrogator: "Well, there's no way I'm doing it; I did it the last time and
it took me weeks to scrub the smell off!"

Steward: "Uh huh, no way!  I'm not getting bit and poisoned like Fuurd was!"

Pilot: "Yeah, but you were a Marine; you're trained to deal with hostile
life forms.  Tell you what: I'll get a rifle and cover you while the
engineer tells you how to strip the plant down..."

Engineer: "...over the intercom of course..."

Steward: "But I'm phobic of tentacles!"

Captain: <begins pounding head against bulkhead>

	Curtain falls.

	Seriously, though, IMHO the Zebra mussel thread makes a lot of
sense.  I'd buy the argument that there would be a lot of common small
marine life forms in worlds that lie along mains that have been travelled
for millenia.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:15:32 -0800
From: Eric Evans <ebevans@fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: Bible Code stuff

TMLers,

I have to step in here. Mathematicians may have looked at the Bible Code,
but have any Semitic philologists? Remember that they're dealing with
Hebrew here, and Hebrew, like other Semitic languages, doesn't write its
vowels, relies on triconsononantal roots, and includes strong similarities
in meaning between words that share a root.

When the folks in the Bible Code camp say that they've found two words that
"cross" they've found the consonants in the words, not the vowels; vowels
will determine meaning. Also, Semitic languages' notion of tense is not at
all similar to Indo-European languages', so there's no reason why a
particular Indo-European tense should be used.

So "assassin will assassinate" would be something like "QTL QTL" (I only
know Arabic, but biblical Hebrew is pretty close), and those letters could
mean a bunch of other things, like "he killed a killer," "murder a
murderer," "he killed," "he will kill," etc. Unless there's a particle in
between (QTL SQTL) there's no way to determine tense. Also, letters can be
used as numbers, and that makes it easy to find dates.

English doesn't work this way, so not surprisingly, it's harder to find
similar patterns in texts written in English (though the folks who've
plowed through Shakespeare has done a pretty good job).

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:18:30 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

Ken Bearden wrote:
>
>MWB wrote:
>> A group of linguists in Australia, using the same methods as Drosnin,
>> have done just that. They have found passages detailing the
>> assassinations of Indira Ghandi,Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King, John
>> F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Yitzak Rabin, and the crash of Princess Di.
>> Does this mean that the collection of words that makes up _Moby Dick_ is
>> prophetic or divine in nature? Of course not. It means that any
>> sufficiently large collection of words can be manipulated by
>> pseudoscientific means. Something that is even easier to do in Hebrew
>> than English because of the flexibility of the vowels in Hebrew.
>
>Drosnin covers this topic in his book.  It is written in a very secular
>style--the guy's a skeptic himself, but it is hard to ignore the proof
>he has.
>
[snip]
>The editors of Statitical Science require two independent studies to be
>performed before they'll print anything.  The Bible Code had three, and
>the odds for accuracy in the Code were calculated to 1 in 10
>million--not 1 in 1000.
>
>Incredible.  The paper was published in the August 1994 edition.
>
>I'm telling you, this is no Mobey Dick.


	Just out of curiosity, does this dodge work with Latin versions of
the Bible?  Which version of the Bible does it work with best?  Does using
a pocket King James produce the same result as using a large illustrated
RSV?  How far back do the predictions run?  Did it predict that King James
of Scotland would hang Black Jock Armstrong?  What does it have to say
about the future of Tung Chee-Hwa as CE of the HK SAR?  Would it work with
a Japanese translation of the Bible written in Kanji?

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1935
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Wednesday, October 8 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1936



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Bible Code
Re: Interesting thought on TL
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Gazelle NPAWS Redux
RE: piracy
Snobolen Schoolbus (TL6)
Viper Aerospace Fighter (TL12)
Re: Bible Code
Re: [noise]
automation - the sensor operator's job
Re: Starship Troopers
..75 recoilless pistol design >:).
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: [noise]
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

On 8 Oct 1997, Robert Eaglestone wrote:

> Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
> I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
> is the vote on
> 
> 1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
> 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
> 3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
> 4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
> 5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy
> 
> Hans has posted argument against occasional piracy as well
> as career piracy.  Does everyone concur that these things
> hardly exist at all in the Imperium?  Or are there some
> hold-outs?  I ask just because my players may well get into
> this discussion also, and if there are refutations I'd like
> to hear them.
> 

Me! Me! I'm still a hold out!  I dropped out of the piracy arguement,
mostly due to lack of time to research the issue.  Hans is able to muster
an impressive array of data to bolster his arguments!  :)

Hans' position against piracy, as I understand his arguements, is based on
a policy of equal resource allocation, absolute zero tolerance, and
incredible force of will.  The Imperium that he proposes is very
organized, incredibly efficient, with a highly developed police force.

I, OTOH, believe that resources will be allocated according to political
power (Class A and B starports very well patrolled, Class C starports
adequately well patrolled, Class D and E starports get visits). I believe
that tolerance to piracy will exist, provided that it does not affect the
"powers that be" (ie. it doesn't affect the standard of living for the
majority of citizens, and doesn't make a dent in the bottom line of the
corporations serving the world) or the nobles administering the world, and
that counter-piracy measures will be put in place _in_reaction_to_ active
piracy, not as a standard feature of system defense.  I do, however, think
that it has mostly been stamped out in the core sectors, there does need
to be a 'frontier' to run for when things get too hot!   (but then, that's
why my campaign is based out in the Spins).

Transponders, by canon, are incredibly difficult to change.  Impossible.
I have modified that to a certain extent, in that I allow for multiple
transponders to be installed, with separate power switches.  I also have
my Imperial inspectors look for that!  I do not allow a single transponder
to have multiple identities, and it is _difficult_ to remove a transponder
from a victim, and successfully install it on a new ship.

GG refueling doesn't work for starship merchants on a schedule, unless the
mainworld is a satellite of the GG.  That doesn't mean it does not exist,
however.  Scouts, hunters, nobles, in-system merchants, and a variety of
others may take advantage of this.  Fuel supplies for starships could very
well be 'mined' from GGs, rather than taken from the system member worlds.

I've gone into pirate tactics and my views on anti-piracy tactics rather
at length in other posts.  Unless someone really wants to hear 'em again,
I'll skip these questions.

Admittably, my final defense for piracy tends to run to playability.  They
are fun to play, and add flavor to my campaign.  I tend pessimism I guess,
because I do believe that the structure of the Imperium is going to
include corruption, and that all the vices that we see on the Earth today
(including, I might add, piracy) will follow us to the stars...

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:50:16 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

The true test of all of this, of course, is to predict specific events that
haven't happened yet.

I do not think that this has been done, has it?

It is far, far too easy to have bias when it comes to probability. As a
species, we try to make sense of things, due to the particular nature of
cognition. We see patterns where none exist, make stories and connections
after the fact.

I don't suppose a theory has been advanced as to the method by which the
Biblical writers attained this knowledge, or why they saw fit to encrypt
it?

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:52:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: Interesting thought on TL

Quoth Leonard Erickson:
> ps. a nasty trick I learned from a jeweler friend backwhen I played
> D&D. There are some rather interesting alloys out there. Want a
> *purple* metal? How about a *red* one (not "orange" like copper, but
> *red*). Also green and brown are available. These aren't coatings. If
> you slice a chunk of the stuff in half, the color is there on the cut
> surface. 

So don't leave us hanging!  What are they?  :-)

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:01:27 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

At 09:27 AM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
>be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface
>of a dangerous planet.

>One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
>a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
>and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
>range).

Well, a ship will not have everything the "could" be put
into it.  It will have everything that the designer decided
to put into it.  If he felt that his clientel would be
parking the ship at ports and wouldn't be carrying around
communicators all the time, then he might not.

>This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
>of someone breaking into their starship.

Unless, of course, they disable the appropriate sensors
as they break in.  Training in bypassing security systems
will cover fooling people or machines.  And, unles the
ship is an AI, it will be easier to fool.  And you have
the right to annoy them with false alarms.

There is also roleplaying issue.  One of my players seems
to treat every issue regarding keeping watches, being
undermanned, etc. with the attitude "the ship will do it".
But if you let the ship get around the players challenges,
roleplaying is reduced one more step to simply an exercise
in surviving combat.  I think it detracts from the experience
important events are resolved by rolling for the ship without
player involvement and it isn't in the spirit of the original
Traveller.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:28:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Gazelle NPAWS Redux

Quoth Chris Cox:
> Michael Koehne wrote:
> > Moin Joseph "Chepe" Lockett,
> >> Gazelle Toroidal NPAW Barbette (TL14)
[here I gave design stats inspired by the CT Close Escort]
[here Michael gave his own FF&S1 (not 2) _linear_ weapon]
> 
> It may be superior to Joseph's design in some ways but at 14.7 meters in
> length it won't fit into a standard barbette (Dia4.51mxH5.26m).  This might
> be the reason Joseph decided to use an "inefficient" circular PAW.

Thanks, Chris.  That _is_ exactly why I designed it that way.  I suspect a
toroidal _spinal_mount_ scale weapon would be a terrible idea in terms of
damage control, battle worthiness, etc. -- but at small sizes like a
measly six-ton barbette, I don't see much difference in the resistance of
the weapon itself to starship-scale damage.

So, my question remains: is this weapon any good as it stands, in terms of
damage and reach, or would a laser be a better use of volume and energy? 
It's been too long since I dabbled in Traveller space combat.  I'd whip up
a few barbette-scale lasers myself for the comparison, but I'm about to
chaperone a bunch of seventh graders on a road trip to the Four Corners
region of Colorado. (Hm... Any TML folks in that neck of the woods?  :-) 
Maybe when I get back. 

(For those joining us late, I reprise the weapon under consideration:

Gazelle Toroidal NPAW Barbette (TL14)

Torus Radius (R)                 2.10
Path Length (L)                 13.19  <-- Presumably has to be 2*PI*R?
Tunnel Diameter (D)              1.65
Energy per Lap (Elap)          172.70
Number of Laps (N)               7.00

Tunnel Area (A)                  0.68
Effective Length (Leff)          6.60
Effective Focal Area (Af)        2.72
Damage Modifier (DM)             1.00

Theoretical Effective Range  17961.27  <-- Wimpy or acceptable?
Effective Discharge Energy     456.92

Short Range (50,000 km)      50000.00
Continental Range (5,000 km)
  Intensity                   5896.24
  Damage                       384.24
Planetary Range (50,000 km)
  Intensity                     58.96
  Damage                        38.42  <-- See above?
Far Orbit Range (500,000km)
  Intensity                      0.59
  Damage                         3.84

Rate of Fire                     3.00
Input Energy per Shot        12089.00
Power Required                 274.86

Tunnel Volume                   56.43
Tunnel Mass                     42.32
Tunnel Cost (MCr)                5.64

Crew Requirement                 0.14  <-- presumes top-of-the-line TL14 comp

Accumulator Volume (m3)         10.99
Accumulator Mass (tons)         21.99
Accumulator Price (MCr)          0.11

84m3 socket has 75.94m3 usable volume, 15.98m2 area, 4.51 m dia, 0.84MW

Total Volume of NPAW (m3)       75.22 <-- includes tunnel, accumulators,
                                          beam pointer, workstation

Note that I'm also subscribed to gdw-beta, if this would be better
discussed there.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:40:28 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: piracy

On Thursday, 9 October 1997 07:47, Jeffery.M.Miller@Dartmouth.EDU wrote

> just like in Star Wars:Return of the Muppets...uh, JEdi? remember the Shuttle
> Tiberian scene? ;->

Ahhh - But that was a trap by the Emperor was it not :)

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

Date: 09 Oct 1997 01:45:21 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Snobolen Schoolbus (TL6)

Snobolen Schoolbus (TL6)
Designed by Robert Prior

A bare-bones approach to dealing with students, the Snobolen Schoolbus can
transport an entire class for less money than ever before.

Summary:
     4.00 displacement ton box;  9.85 tonnes;  kCr 39.7
Chassis:
     56.0 kL box (5.9 m long x 3.1 m wide x 3.1 m high);  Structure: 1.70
tonnes of soft steel, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.02 cm thick, 1 armour rating
     
Performance:
     500 kW TL4 Internal Combustion power plant;  Fuel: 149 L of hydrocarbons
(149 kg), 3 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 500 kW wheels;  Maximum Speed: 45 km/h;  Range: 137
km;  Agility: +3DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: driver;  1 crew station;  52 cramped passenger seats
Communications:
     No communicators installed.
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     57.4 L of cargo space


Designed with CSC (software (c) Robert Prior, 1997)

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

Date: 09 Oct 1997 01:44:40 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Viper Aerospace Fighter (TL12)

Viper Aerospace Fighter (TL12)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     1.00 displacement ton wedge airframe;  26.7 tonnes;  MCr 11.7
Chassis:
     14.0 kL wedge airframe (7.5 m long x 2.10 m wide x 1.9 m high, wingspan
13 m);  Structure: 4.02 tonnes of superdense, rated for 7.0Gs, body 0.20 cm
thick, sealed to 1 atm, 6 armour rating
     
Performance:
     9.01 MW TL12 Fusion Plus power plant;  Fuel: 281 L of enriched water
(281 kg), 100 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 5.00 MW thruster;  Maximum Speed: 1271 km/h;  Range:
126622 km;  Agility: -5DM
Crew:
     Crew roster: pilot;  1 crew station
     Standard life support; Hatches: 1 manual; Grav Compensation (1G), Only
seating compensated
Armament:
     Weapon                          Damage    Range          Shots   
Reloads   Notes
     Plasma Cannon, Medium-12        50 (12 expSubregional            1      
  +6DM, remoteturret
     Laser, RF PD-12                 3         Short                  1      
  +6DM, remoteturret
Communications:
     Orbital Radio (1.00 MW, TL12, MilSpec, DirAnt)
Sensors:
     Active Orbital Radar (1.00 MW, MilSpec, DispArray)  Resolution: 0.050 mm
per km of range
     Active Orbital Jammer (1.00 MW, MilSpec)  Resolution: 0.200 mm per km of
range
     Active Orbital Lidar (1.00 MW, MilSpec)  Resolution: 0.050 mm per km of
range
Other:
     3.36 kL of cargo space


Designed with CSC (software (c) Robert Prior, 1997)

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:10:32 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

At 02:32 PM 10/8/97 +0000, you wrote:

>Three days before the Gulf War, they typed in Hussein.  They found it,
>"Hussein picked a day".  Clost to that were the words "Saddam", "Enemy",
>"War", "Missile", and "January 18, 1991."
>
>Guess what, again.  The date that Hussein fired the first scud was
>January 18, 1991, starting the Gulf War.

Really?  That must have been news to the Kuwaitis who assumed that the war
started on 2 August 1990, when six Iraqi divisions invade Kuwait and
conquor it.

The Coalition launched its massive air campaign.  In 24 hours, the
Coalition drooped more explosives on Iraq than dropped by the Germans
during the entire Battle of Britian, so I think the Iraqis might also
dispute the start of the being on 18 January.
- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 18:54:53 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: [noise]

At 07:26 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Anders wrote:

>>>        But why would one want to move them?  Can you imagine the sheer
>>>spectacle of millions of troopers in battle dress and gaudy costumes doing
>>>humomgous dance routines like a Busby Berkely musical on a totally
>>>gargantuan scale?

>>Note that they might have gravbelts in order to do Sther Willimas style
>>imitations of water ballet in the air. Spectacular!

>	And what with their plasma guns and grenade launchers, they could
>set off some pretty cool pyrotechnics too!
>
>	This just gets better and better.  And wierder and wierder.  Which
>are often one and the same thing :).
>
>	Strangely enough, I can actually see something like this happening.
>Militaries and drill being what they are, techniques that require a great
>deal of training and skill to execute tend to be displayed for show; think
>the Mounties and the Musical Ride, for example.  With something like BD,
>where even moving take skill and can be quite dangerous, I'd imagine that
>drill displays would be somewhat more than just marching around in step.
>Presumably, there'd be a significant amount of coordinated _agility_
>displayed in DB show drill...
>
>	...SQUAAAAD!  CAAAAAMP IT UP!

The image that springs to mind is the "Camelot" routine from Monty Python
and the Holy Grail...


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:26:32 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: automation - the sensor operator's job

I should note that the sensor operator's job isn't just to randomly
twiddle knobs and wipe the screen of the sensor display. Since sensors
have limited fields of view (for various reasons), the sensor operator
has some tradeoffs to make between sweeping the whole sky and hammering
away on particular segments where an enemy ship is thought to be more
likely to be. A sensible operator will probably split the time so a 
whole-sky scan happens every turn or so using perhaps 50% of the sensor time...
and spend the rest on particular regions...but the exact tradeoffs aren't
obvious, and depend a lot on the situation, particular sensor, likely
opposition, local environment, etc. It becomes even more complicated
if you're trying to get FC locks on previously-detected targets while
sweeping for new targets. There's also the question of deciding if the
2-sigma detection you got last sweep is real or not, and how to 
string together multiple 2-sigma detections of a probably-moving target.

All this *could* be automated, but it's not quite as trivial as one might
think. 

Actually, a sensor operator's job is a lot like an astronomers...

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:22:59 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 11:06 AM 10/8/97 -0400, Semo wrote:

>Well, look carefully and you'll find that there aren't alot of stormtroopers
>actually 'running' in the desert.  They are basically walking on a desert
>like backlot, or standing and mulling around in the desert for 5 seconds or
>so.

That "backlot" was Tunisia.  The Stormtroopers spent *hours* in costume,
and each suit had a small fan built in.  They also had a "cold tent" for
between-take cooling off.


- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:17:18 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).

	This week, somebody (I forgot who; I was studying at the time)
suggested that somebody (hints were dropped about Famille Spofulam) try to
design a .75 recoilless (i.e. rocket slug firing) pistol based on the
Stainless Steel Rat's sidearm of choice.  As I've now written the exam in
question (1 down 5 to go), I decided to design said pistol since I had
nothing better to do this evening (clear skies all week and the one night I
have the time to take the binocs out it clouds over).  For no apparent
reason I decided to do it at TL-11, but it could be done at TL's 10 or up
with no change.

	Here it is.  Boy is it ugly.  Optimal range is at at up to 3 meters
or so using HE rounds where damage from round kinetic energy, explosive
charge, and propellant burning inside of target will do a whopping 7.5 dice
of damage (I use 1/2 dice for damage in my camapigns).  Armour penetration
is weak at low ranges and reaches a maximum of 4.5, due to the low but
increasing velocity of the round.

	I've made a number of assumptions concerning propellant burn over
distance and other things; these are noted in the design notes, below.  I'd
appreciate commentary on these assumptions from anybody who knows more than
I do about guns, rocketry, and the health effects on human beings of rocket
propellant combusting in freshly inflicted bullet wounds.

	Recoil is indeed low; only 0.67 in FF&S terms for a single round;
derisory compared to some FS designs, and a gryoscopic or inertial recoil
compensator would drastically lower this; a gyro-comped version would be .5
kg heavier, 300 cr more, and have a single-shot recoil of 0.273 (!).

	Also, this might make an interesting test of the Bible Code; can
anybody find a prediction of me doing this design in there?  Try looking in
the juicier bits of Leviticus or the grumpier Poverbs :).

	Finally, Ross: I want to ditch the .47 automag and use this as
G=FC=FCstag's varmint pistol :)!


T4 stats:

Name: .75 DiGriz Special Recoilless pistol (TL-11)
Tech Level: 10
Damage: Special: damage and armour penetration varies depending on range:
	Damage at 4+ meters: Slug: 4.5, HE: 6.5
		Penetration vs armour at 4+ meters: 4.5
	Damage at 3 meters: Slug: 5.5, HE: 7.5
		Penetration vs armour at 3 meters: 4
	Damage at 2 meters: Slug: 5, HE: 7.5
		Penetration vs armour at 2 meters: 3
	Damage at 1 meter: Slug: 4.5, HE: 7.5
		Penetration vs armour at 1 meters: 2
	Damage at point-blank: Slug: 4, HE: 7.5
		Penetration vs armour at point-blank: 1
Range: Very Short
Shots: 8
Mass: 2.18 kg
Reloads: .36 kg
Price: 261 cr


=46F&S2 design notes:

Round:

Cal:			19mm
Rated energy:		2500 joules [what the heck :)]
Base area:		283.52 mm^2
Propellant volume:	2083.33 mm^3
Bullet length:		19mm
Min case length:	18.37
Round length:		40 mm (figured I'd round up; has nice ring to it)
Round Mass:		90.7 grams (yikes)
Ideal barrel length:	27.7 cm (assumes smoothbore barrel and use of
			normal explosive, non-rocket, round propulsion)
Round price:		3.63 cr/round ordinary (would suggest at least
			doubling to reflect wierdness).
Designation:		.75 SSR Recoilless

	I'm going to assume that the round burns 520.75 mm^3 of propellant
per meter travelled.  I realize that this is an average figure, so based on
the S.W.A.G. principle since I've never studied rocketry I'm going to
assume that 50% of propellant is burned in the first meter to reflect
acceleration from rest.  Making another S.W.A.G-based estimate, I'm going
to assume that 15% of the first 50% of propellant will be burned in-barrel,
for a total in-barrel burn of 187.5 joules worth of propellant.

	I have no idea how realistic these assumptions are and would
welcome input from anybody more educated than myself on these matters.


Barrel: 10 cm light smoothbore, TL-9 muzzle brake (+4 cm, modrecoil .75)

ModBlen:			-0.64
Mass:				0.2 kg
Barrel price:			20 cr
Actual Muzzle Energy:		1700 (this assumes normal propulsion and will
				be cheerfully ignored from now on)

Reciever: SA/FA light (since the round expends the vast majority of its
energy outside the gun I'm going to proceed with a light reciever; the
amount of blowback energy is only 187.5 joules).  I'm adding only a hollow
pistol grip; laser pointers etc probably wouldn't help with this sort of
round.

Min length (assuming low ME):	5.5 cm
Actual length: 			19 cm
Min mass:			0.23 kg
Actual mass:			0.89 kg
Reciever Price: 		237 cr

=46eed (8-round grip mag)

Mass (empty):	.363 kg
Mass (loaded):	1.088 kg
Price (empty):	3.63 cr

Weapon evaluation:

Length: 	33 cm
Bulk:		2
Mass (empty): 	1.453 kg
Mass (loaded):	2.18 kg
Price (empty):  260.63 cr

Basic Range (using normal assumptions): 4.64 m (Very Short)

Damage at 4+ meters: Slug: 4.5 (actually 4.76), HE: 6.5 (actually 6.7)
Damage at 3 meters: Slug: 5.5 (actually 4.12), HE: 7.5 (actually 6.27),
[includes 1.5 from remaining 25% of propellant burning inside target]
Damage at 2 meters: Slug: 5 (actually 3.36), HE: 7.5 (actually 5.8)
[includes 2 from remaining 50% of propellant burning inside target]
Damage at 1 meter: Slug: 4.5 (actually 2.38), HE: 7.5 (actually 5.9)
[includes 2.5 from remaining 50% of propellant burning inside target]
Damage at point-blank: Slug: 4 (actually 1.3), HE: 7.5 (actually 4.9)
[includes 3 from remaining 89.5% of propellant burning inside target]

Recoil: 0.67 (assuming 187.5 joules are burned in-barrel) single-shot, 1.675=
 FA

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 22:40:31 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:

>>   One example I don't recall being mentioned to this point is Star
>>Wars.  There were most definately guys in plastic suits (stormtroopers)
>>running around in the desert (of Tatooine) in that film.
>
>Well, look carefully and you'll find that there aren't alot of stormtroopers
>actually 'running' in the desert.  They are basically walking on a desert
>like backlot, or standing and mulling around in the desert for 5 seconds or
>so.

   Actually, IIRC some of the scenes were actually shot in the desert
(North Africa?).  But you are correct, it's not like you see them for 20
minutes straight.  On the other hand, who says we have to see the troops
in "Starship Troopers" in full gear for more than a few minutes at a
time anyway?  The movie is *suppose* to be about soldiers, not their
really neat gear.

>A friend of mine lived in Florida all of his life before moving up here to
>Philadelphia.  He lived in the Orlando area, so, as teenagers, everybody had
>jobs at Disney World.  One of the jobs you could get was wearing the suits of
>the various characters.  It was very common for people in these suits to
>faint.

<snip>

   It's worse than that.  If someone is wearing one of those suits
faints or even throws up (which has happened I understand), Disney rules
state that they must be taken out of public view before the head can be
removed.  Imagine the joy of seeing Goofy fall to the ground and start
to smell icky before some of his "associates" can carry him away.  No
wonder the characters travel in packs.

   Disney impresses me as a place I'd rather *not* work for...

   I'm not saying that it wouldn't be *extremely* demanding to have
people running around in faux battledress in a movie.  The director
would have to be willing to make certain sacrifices and rely on FX
technology to make it happen, however.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 20:09:06 -0700
From: "Brian A. Howard" <bruadh@southwest.net>
Subject: Re: [noise]

At 07:26 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Anders wrote:
>
>>
>
>	Strangely enough, I can actually see something like this happening.
>Militaries and drill being what they are, techniques that require a great
>deal of training and skill to execute tend to be displayed for show; think
>the Mounties and the Musical Ride, for example.  With something like BD,
>where even moving take skill and can be quite dangerous, I'd imagine that
>drill displays would be somewhat more than just marching around in step.
>Presumably, there'd be a significant amount of coordinated _agility_
>displayed in DB show drill...
>
>	...SQUAAAAD!  CAAAAAMP IT UP!
>
And leave us not forget to set the whole thing to 'the Blue Danube' Waltz!

Brian A. Howard

If you hear the sound of a Babel fish, run. 
For a Vogon constuctor fleet cannot be far behind.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:04:07 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

> Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
> I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
> is the vote on

Opinions? Hmm ...
 
> 1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium

Scarce to non-existent in a properly run, functioning Imperium. Sure, you
will have your individual cases of people "going for it," but I would
expect these to have the lifespan of a mayfly. There are far too many
easier ways to steal things, ways that do not involve multi-million credit
investments. If you managed to steal a ship, I have a hard time believing
that "It's a pirate's life for me!" would be the best way to capitalize on
it.

Imagine stealing a 747. What would you and your group of friends do with
it? 

> 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals

No comment.

> 3) the frequency of GG refueling visits

Not very.

> 4) T4 pirates' modus operandi

Get 'em planetside. It's easier and more profitable. That is, unless there
is a dancing army of millions of battle-dress-equipped troops with
chameleon option set to "Suave Mauve" to prevent fraud, embezzlement, grav
vehicle jacking, etc.

> 5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy

Pretty high. It has the technology, the ships (and ships and more ships!!!)
and the manpower. The space between worlds *is* the Imperium, with
intersteller commerce it's lifeblood. I cannot see complacency in this on
the part of the Imperial government.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1936
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 9 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1937



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1930
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Piracy
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Re: Bible Code
Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative
Starship Automation and Security
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Bible Code
Deep Space Nine
Vehicles Page Updated
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1928
Re: Bruce and the sensor question
Intrasystem Piracy.
Re: At Close Quarters Playtest
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
THUDDD 6 Results!!!
Re: [noise]
Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:42:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1930

>It has not yet been reported whether or not Drosnin has kept his promise and
>retracted the "discoveries" of his money-making enterprise. I suspect that
he is >making too much money in the millenial-induced spiritual unease in
society today.

Its on "bargain row" at my local Tower Books.  Cheap.  I almost considered
picking it up.

Semo

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 22:43:07 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

Glenn Hoppe wrote:
> Ken, I think you misunderstood the thread. Semo et. al are talking about
> why *actors* aren't running around in _Starship Troopers_ in hot plastic
> suits. And the stormtrooper thing got brought up as an example.

Oh, my mistake!  That's what I get for bopping into the middle of a
thread without know what everyone's talking about!

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy

>No, but you would be pulled over post haste, and asked to provide
>particulars.  I suspect this would include lists and pictures of crew
>members, distinguishing marks about the vessel, and so on.

Okay.  I'll buy that.  But pictures of crew members?  This part I'd doubt.
 The sheer amount of Traveller materials that just concern characters
becoming crew members, etc.  The number of people who are going to work their
way on a "work passage" to another system would seem to preclude any
organized database of crew members.

>I have used this as an adventure hook - the players were undercover
>sneakies, and had a new ship registry.  Imagine their delight and surprise
>when the navy got full dossiers on them.  (Someone screwed up - they should
>have been issued a known code for their class of ship, but the person
>organizing it missed that detail.)

Hah!  That's a pretty good one.

>As recent as the ship registries need it to be.  I suspect a report of
>piracy and murder gets red flagged to all the garrisons, while new ship
>construction might lag a bit.

Okay.  However, my take on the transponder thing is that when people will
pirate transponders, they will use legitimate codes either sold to them by
other traders, sold to them by corrupt starport workers, or corrupt naval
types.  Usually it would be safest for a group of pirates to use ships that
would be a good distance away.

Example, Senior Captain "Knuckles" Knickerson goes off to make his fortune on
the Coreward Vargr Chew Toy trade route.  He sells his registration and
transponder info to either a group of pirates, or an organized crime group
who "clones" transponders.

Another example, Ted "Average Starport Lout" hears that Knuckles is off to
the Vargr Chew Toy routes and sells his registration info to either of the
above.  Or, a minor naval officer makes a deal to sell info on ships that
haven't been in the local subsector, sector, or domain for a year or more.

I would think that transponders would be the weakest link in the chain of
piracy prevention.  They would serve as a deterrent to the "weekend" pirate,
but to anyone interested in piracy as a career it would be relatively minor.
 Once technology has existed for more than a few years, those who want to
break the law will.

>Yep.  And life gets interesting every time it happens.  Note that in those
>backwater systems off the xboat links, the Navy is likely not going to be
>as busy, and is going to be more concerned about pirates.

This is true, and something I had thought of after I had written the message
:)

>As long as it matches the hull paint their sensors get, and the data
>matches the ship class, they care not.  If you screwed up the match, then
>your life is very interesting.  I made some players quite excited when they
>upgraded the ship and power plant with some serious military grade
>weaponry, which changed the signature enough that the transponder did not
>quite match, until they had it checked out at a Naval yard.  They did not
>figure out for months why every Navy ship in system got very interested
>when they showed up.

Hah.  You have fun with the players' starships, eh? :)

>My point, though, is that it is fairly easy to track down pirates, unless
>they have some serious help, or they have the ability to operate
>unobserved.  If the only match the Navy has is that Morgan is on a free
>trader, they are going to have a hell of a time getting him.

Depends on what you mean by "serious help".  In my opinion, organized crime
would have a hand (and a stake) in helping (or _possibly_ sponsoring
pirates).  As a result, there would be many services and options for piracy
on many worlds throughout the Imperium.  And, for every new safeguard that
the Imperial navy, organized crime has ways (and $$$ reasons) to try and get
around.

Just some ideas.

Semo

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 22:47:16 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> The ship will certainly do that, but it will be about as reliable (in a
> larger set of circumstances) as a modern car alarm is.  Many of those will
> happily page you, but you then have to decide whether this is really a
> break in, or someone leaning on it.

You could use the anti-hijacking die roll from T4:  5- on 2D and the
alarm system doesn't work!

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 22:56:04 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:

>         Just out of curiosity, does this dodge work with Latin versions of
> the Bible?  Which version of the Bible does it work with best?  Does using
> a pocket King James produce the same result as using a large illustrated
> RSV?  How far back do the predictions run?  Did it predict that King James
> of Scotland would hang Black Jock Armstrong?  What does it have to say
> about the future of Tung Chee-Hwa as CE of the HK SAR?  Would it work with
> a Japanese translation of the Bible written in Kanji?

I never intended for this thread to become un-Traveller related. I only
wanted to bring up the 5th dimesion stuff.

But, since you asked, all of the ones you cite above are translations. 
The Bible Code works off of the ancient Hebrew, from which all of those
translations were translated from.

....and, I've only completed Chapter 1 (which is like three chapters
because there's notes on chapter one and notes on the illustrations in
chapter one that are quite long).

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 97 23:05:02 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Burst Fire & Tactical Mvt.& Initiative

On 10/07/97 at 12:50 AM,  Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> said:

>But I disagree with you here.  Your example is right until you get to the
>first set of 8D rolled.  I read the rule like this:

>    5D-1 = 4Dx2 = 8

>    BUT Max damage rule states a max of 6D can be applied to a character
>from      autofire.

>    Given this, 8 dice are never thrown, because you can only throw 6
>maximum.  Taking     the first six values from your example above, damage
>would be (1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4)     total.

According to the book, you're almost certainly correct.  I just prefer to
roll them all and expend the highest on on the armor and then take the next
"x" dice.

Eris

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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:00:18 -0700
From: Ken & Mary <ke-mar@pacbell.net>
Subject: Starship Automation and Security

Here is an example of automating shipboard function and security;
How many times was the "Enterprise" taken over by unfriendlies. This is
the most hi-tech equipped starship in the Federation. The FLAGSHIP of
Star Fleet Command. 
  As the potential for piracy goes; wasn't the ship hijacked several
times at major starports and planets. Also, if the pirates have an
ecomomic and political base to launch from that is as powerful or
greater than the local law enforcement(ie the mafia, drug smuggling, and
slavery.)they will exist. The comments and ideas on how to physically
how to stop them is valid and successful. There a few things that make
piracy thrive and hard to eliminate.
1: An item or service that has an obscenely, horrendous profit margin.
2: Blatant or subtle willingness of the population to look the other
way.
3. A political or economic structure which is able to respond to any
threat to its existance whether a government agency or a competitor.
As this is a game devloped and played by very intelligent people, this
post was not intended to denigrate thier ideas or persons. Sorry for the
length.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:15:19 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 04:02 PM 10/8/97 -0600, you wrote:

>Ken, I think you misunderstood the thread. Semo et. al are talking about
>why *actors* aren't running around in _Starship Troopers_ in hot plastic
>suits. And the stormtrooper thing got brought up as an example.
>
>I'm sure even ILM won't pay to build AC into every Stormtrooper costume.
>;-)

Why not Barney has a fan that he has placed in his mouth, but even then the
suite guy goes thru several large (liter sized)containers of Gatorade
during his performance?

It was very interesting to watch him get into the suite ie from the bottom,
the suite is suspended from above, and he crawls in underneath.
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:12:33 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

Joseph R. Dietrich wrote:
> 
> The true test of all of this, of course, is to predict specific events that
> haven't happened yet.
> 
> I do not think that this has been done, has it?

Uh, actually, yes it has.

This is how the author became a believer in the Bible Code in the first
place.

Yitzhak Rabin's name was found in September 1995.  The author contacted
Yitzhak Rabin through one of Rabin's life long friends to warn him that
his life was in danger.

Rabin, of course, was a skeptic, and didn't believe in this Bible Code
nonsense.  A month later, on November 4, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was dead
from an assassin's bullet.

Israli Intelligence was all of a sudden very interested in the Bible
Code's author, Michael Drosnin, and they interviewed him.

Before that, the Bible Code's discoverer, Eli Rips, had discovered the
Gulf War before it happened.

Rips found "Hussein picked a day", and close to this was encoded,
"January 18, 1991", "Saddam", "missile", "Enemy", and "war".

This was three weeks before the Gulf War started--by Hussein launching
his first scud missile attack.  That day was Jaunaury 18, 1991.

How's that for predicting things?

> I don't suppose a theory has been advanced as to the method by which the
> Biblical writers attained this knowledge, or why they saw fit to encrypt
> it?

Acutally, no.  The book is written from a very secular, skeptical point
of view.  It is very fact oriented.  The religious people interviewed in
the book say that God coded the book.  They cite that the original
Bible, handed down from God to Moses on Mount Sinai, was written with no
spaces between words as one long character stream--exactly what must be
done with the old manuscripts in order for the computer to decode the
Bible Code.

Other, more secular people intervied in the book do not theorize how the
Bible became encoded.  Some do not believe in God, so this is not an
option.  All agree (so far) that the Code is not a hoax, but they cannot
explain how the Bible became encoded.

The book (again, so far) is written so that you can draw your own
conclusions.  If you think the Bible is encoded by God, then more power
to you.  If you think Grandfather did it, then that's OK too.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:17:26 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Deep Space Nine

I'm betting a lot of you follow Star Trek, like I do, and I've just got
to say that tonight's episode was one of the best ever.

I can't believe what they are doing with the show--long story arcs,
people hanging themselves on the stations promenade, great battle
scenes, more space fight visuals due to computer graphics.

I think they are taking lessons from Babylon 5--the best sci-fi show
ever in my NSHO.

It's about time.  B5's been doing it for what's going on 5 years now.

Kenneth.

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

Date: 09 Oct 1997 03:35:43 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Vehicles Page Updated

I've updated the vehicles page at:

http://www.interlog.com/~dmci104/GamingClub/Traveller/vehicles.html



And yes, I know that the "Snobolen Schoolbus" is cramped, crowded, and poorly
designed.  Anyone following the antics of the Ontario Minister of Education,
who dropped out of high school, who believes that increasing the number of
students per teacher also increases the number of teachers per student, etc.
will understand where I'm coming from.

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 04:11:30 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1928

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:10:14 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:39:34 -0700
>From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
>Subject: Re: takeoff and landing
>
>>>(2) is the most common approach. (1) requires an airframe hull and a long
>>>runway, (2) and (3) only require a streamlined hull.
>
>>Well, do they? Why assume a high speed takeoff in (2) and (3). Assume that the
>>captain takes it up at a whopping 20 miles per hour (even Model T Fords could do
>>that, and they were definitely USL) ... he can make a high enough altitude to
>>forget about wind resistance in, what, half an hour or so? So who needs AF and
>>SL Hullforms *unless* you have a need for speed ...
>
>It would probably take an hour or two - and during that hour you're a serious
>menace to traffic, since you can't move with respect to the air at more than
>20-30 mph, and the wind will move the air at 50-100 mph at altitude - thei
>airspace over a starport full of unstreamlined spacecraft would be pretty
>dangerous. I'd say it's safe to assume that reasonable safety precautions 
>require all ships that land on a planet with atmosphere to be streamlined
>(which doesn't actually cost that much, anyway.)

OK. Consider the Stanley Steamer -- still holds (AFAIK) the world record for the
fastest steam car -- around 120 mph, IIRC. Now, look at pictures of the Stanley
- -- it is no more AF or SL than the Model "T". So it seems to me that there is no
reason why a USL hull couldn't handle even stratospheric/jet stream winds of at
least that speed. Which means that all the Starport approach control has to do
is to make sure the everyone takes off in one direction, with a good
height/distance separation and lands from another, also with a good
height/distance separation. If the SS can do 120 mph or so, I don't see why a
USL Spacecraft would have problems. Makes a Spaceport seem more Airport-like,
but so what? Perhaps you could even have two or more different Ports, one for
high speed landings and takeoffs and another, perhaps in a different hemisphere
if you really feel you need the separation, for slow landings/takeoffs by USL
vessels.

The problem is, of course, not the original blanket restriction on landing USL
spacecraft on worlds with an atmosphere -- because we had no idea *why* that was
the case (lots of mental handwaving), we could accept it as "fact". However,
later material has been too detailed and has explained how CG or Thrusters
"work" -- and once we have those facts, we can see that there is no reason why
USL ships *cannot* land as I have said. None whatsoever. Unless, of course,
someone *official* wants to come up with a logical explanation that adds to
rather than contradicts current knowledge/canon. Marc? You out there somewhere?

Personally, I don't see any problems with allowing USL ships to land -- it makes
a damn good adventure hook ... *because* they cannot land fast and take off fast
they cannot be involved in smuggling or make a fast getaway when needed. Even on
a Tech 7 world AAA fire would be a *real* threat on both landing and takeoff.
Now, considering that most of Trav has always been in the "wilds", this becomes
a *real* threat and limitation ... making it a design flaw for most PCs, though
there is no Naval Architecture reason why you can't do it!

Makes at least as much sense as anything else!

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 97 00:29:38 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Bruce and the sensor question

On 10/08/97 at 04:43 PM,  bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh) said:


>Eris Reddoch wrote:
>> Bruce, let's say we're talking about 1 to 3 minute scans rather than 30
>> minute ones. What does that do to what we can pick up with our sensors?

>There's a table buried deep in the rules (somewher at the end, I think)
>about how senosr sensitivity scales with scan duration (which is to say,
>turn length); basically, if you're using really short turns you lose 0.5
>or 1.0 points of sensitivity and if you use real long ones add a point or
>so.

<Snip lots of good stuff>

>(But don't quote me.) Sensors are actually continously scanning all over
>the sky with occasional longer glances at already-detected targets,  so
>short turns wouldn't change this (escept for the sensitivity penalty I
>mentioned already.)

Thanks, that's enough to get me started and hopefully I can abstract out
the details from there.  

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

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:25:28 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Intrasystem Piracy.

        A couple of thoughts.
        1.Considering the inhospitable nature of most planets outside the
Habitable zone (according to the world detailing systems in WTH or WBH)  I
doubt that there would be much in-system traffic with two exceptions:
        a)to a nearby GG, 
        b) If the main world is orbiting a GG, in which case There are
likely to be several other habitable worlds very close. (Albeit very easily
defended).
        2.Much of the discussion (IMHO)seems to be about whether The
Imperium has the ability to make piracy almost a dead issue.  I think that
whatever tweaks you employ, the Imperial Navy, could easily guard its
citizens from piracy, especially where system defences are inadequate.
After all this is part of the reason that they are in the imperium.
Capacity aside, it seems that the real issue will be what sort of imperium
you think we are dealing with.  Short of some sacred ruling, it seems
possible that in some campaigns the imperium cares more than in others about
its citizens, and this is probably the most useful guide as to the extent of
piracy.
 
                        Colin

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:53:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: At Close Quarters Playtest

I would truly be interested in playtesting your rules...

DustyLV769@aol.com

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

 
"Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca> said: 
> Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
> I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
> is the vote on

> 1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
	
	Certainly out of the way locations make better hunting grounds in 
terms of avoiding naval patrols, but they also mean that there will be 
less prey to be had.  Despite what some have said, I would think that the 
Spinward Marches would be a particularly _bad_ place for pirates because 
of the heavy military presence and the tensions that would make any 
suspicious ship the subject of a lot of attention.

> 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals

	This is likely to be as difficult as the Imperial authorities can 
make it.  It could also be backed up by using personal ID checks on the 
captain and crew to make sure that the captain-of-record is still in 
control of the ship.  This would also be crucial for the bank that made 
the starship loan.

> 3) the frequency of GG refueling visits

	Last resort.  These trips are uneconomical for merchants and 
inconvenient for everyone else.  Only scouts or military are likely to 
make much use of this technique.

> 4) T4 pirates' modus operandi

	This is the hard part.  I have trouble imagining how a pirate 
could make any money.  First of all, merchants will only be found in and 
around the 100-d limit of their destination.  If the destination has even 
_one_ SDB in orbit then the pirate has an extremely short time window to 
stop its target, seize the cargo, and get away.  If the destination has 
no SDBs but the target is armed, the pirate is still in trouble because 
any hits by the target are likely to be rather costly to repair.  
Furthermore, if pirates are only using armed merchantmen, then the target 
may be an almost even match.  Finally, even if the merchant is unarmed 
and there are no SDBs, the merchants first choice is going to be to run 
since letting a band of murderous thugs onto your ship has got to be a 
_very_ unappealing option.
	With all that going against pirates, I'd think that they'd have 
to be able to make more money as honest merchants.  Their only chance, 
IMHO, is if they can steal the target ship and resell it someplace.  But 
this makes their life so much harder in other ways that I won't go into it.

> 5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy

	Sine the Imperium rules the space between worlds, rather than the 
worlds themsevles, I would think that piracy would be seen as a threat to 
the Imperium's legitimacy.  What does the subsector Duke have to do 
besides keep the spacelanes safe for commerce?  The real clincher though 
is that it takes so little to make piracy almost impossible and this 
effort would be the same as used to stop other kinds of clandestine 
activity in space.  Having a few SDBs per system, something that very 
nearly all worlds will be able to afford themselves, would stop all kinds 
of piracy, Zho terrorism, or other funny business and would provide good 
peace-time exercises for the crew.

> Hans has posted argument against occasional piracy as well
> as career piracy.  Does everyone concur that these things
> hardly exist at all in the Imperium?

	Yes.  I think people have gotten too caught up in the details of 
Hans' numbers.  Even if you reduce naval spending to 1% of GDP it still 
only takes about 150,000 people to support an SDB.  That means your 
average American suburb could afford one.

- -JM

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:34:11 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

08 Oct 1997 18:51 EDT, "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
>Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
>I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
>is the vote on
>
>1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
>2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
>3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
>4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
>5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy
>
>Hans has posted argument against occasional piracy as well
>as career piracy.  Does everyone concur that these things
>hardly exist at all in the Imperium?  Or are there some
>hold-outs?  I ask just because my players may well get into
>this discussion also, and if there are refutations I'd like
>to hear them.

Well, you are better off actually reading the arguements and
making up your own mind.  However, if you want to know.  Obviously,
since I have been a major poster of counter arguements to Hans,
I don't agree with him.  I don't think that pirates need, or
would be using bases (which is what I assume #1 applies to).
As to transponders not only don't think they would a realiable
way of telling pirates, I have doubts the Imperium would even
bother with them.  I think Gas Giants would have "significant"
(somewhere between 20% and 80% of the traffic).  Pirates would
be also operating as smugglers and legit traders.  The Imperium
would have piracy relegated to fringe areas with less traffic.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: THUDDD 6 Results!!!

No time to format these tonight, but I thought folks would like to know
the results ASAP.  Look for a nicer-looking post and web-page update in
the next couple of days.

And...our big winner is...the Darkstar SDB, by John Macpherson (clap clap
clap)!  Taking first place in both Overall Design *and* every other
category except Closeness to Spec, the Darkstar clearly wowed the THUDDD
judges.  Congratulations, John!  And kudos also to other high-ranked
THUDDD designers, and indeed to all entrants, and all voters...we're
creating ships that will liven up scores of Traveller campaigns for years
to come.

Overall design:
1  3.12 - Darkstar
2  3.50 - Unicorn
3  3.71 - Kukri

Likely to use in a game:
1  2.37 - Darkstar
2t 3.14 - Kukri
2t 3.14 - Wraith
3  3.37 - Eman

Closeness to specs:
1  3.37 - Unicorn
2  3.62 - Type 88621-A
3  3.71 - Wraith
 [ 4.29 - Darkstar ]

Efficiency:
1  3.12 - Darkstar
2t 3.87 - Archer
2t 3.87 - Unicorn
3  4.00 - Kukri

Unusualness:
1  1.62 - Darkstar
2  2.75 - Archer
3  3.00 - Balboa

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:42:09 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: [noise]

Douglas E. Berry wrote
> Subject: 
> 
> At 07:26 PM 10/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >Anders wrote:
> 
> >>>        But why would one want to move them?  Can you imagine the sheer
> >>>spectacle of millions of troopers in battle dress and gaudy costumes doing
> >>>humomgous dance routines like a Busby Berkely musical on a totally
> >>>gargantuan scale?
> 
> >>Note that they might have gravbelts in order to do Sther Willimas style
> >>imitations of water ballet in the air. Spectacular!
> 
> >       And what with their plasma guns and grenade launchers, they could
> >set off some pretty cool pyrotechnics too!
> >
> >       This just gets better and better.  And wierder and wierder.  Which
> >are often one and the same thing :).
> >
> >       Strangely enough, I can actually see something like this happening.
> >Militaries and drill being what they are, techniques that require a great
> >deal of training and skill to execute tend to be displayed for show; think
> >the Mounties and the Musical Ride, for example.  With something like BD,
> >where even moving take skill and can be quite dangerous, I'd imagine that
> >drill displays would be somewhat more than just marching around in step.
> >Presumably, there'd be a significant amount of coordinated _agility_
> >displayed in DB show drill...
> >
> >       ...SQUAAAAD!  CAAAAAMP IT UP!
> 
> The image that springs to mind is the "Camelot" routine from Monty Python
> and the Holy Grail...

I should point out that the thread was origionally discussing the army
of Mora as being equipted with Battledress.  Mora is a matriarchy.  I
suspect that a gould portion of the Moran army, probably most of it,
will be female.  Somehow this spectacle would seem a lot campier in a
male army rather than in a female army; perhaps we need to be discussing
the army of a different planet. :)

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:35:35 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Battle Dress (and Starship Troopers

<HTML>

<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>Although I don't have the books around to check it out, I've always
thought that Battledress skill can be used at -1 for Vac Suit skill, but
*not* the other way around.

In the same way, Pilot skill (-1) counts as Ship's Boat skill, but not
the reverse.

So, if I have Pilot-3, I can use Ship's Boat-2. If I've got Ship's Boat,
I can't drive the big ships. If I've got Vac Suit-5, that's not enough
to use Battledress.

I might be mistaken in the reading of the rules, but in any case, that's
the way I've always played it...</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I totally agree with you, this is the way I've always understood it as
well.
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>--
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The J-Man
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
GOC Systems
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
j-man@iname.com
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1937
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 9 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1938



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Summarize this piracy thread and move on
Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).
Re: Bible code
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Jupiter's escape velocity
Re: takeoff and landing
Re: Hauling people
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Interesting thought on TL
Re: Gas Giants
Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:58:58 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Summarize this piracy thread and move on

Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:

>On 8 Oct 1997, Robert Eaglestone wrote:
> 
>>Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy, I'd like to see some
>>kind of summary posted.  What is the vote on
>> 
>>1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
>>2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
>>3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
>>4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
>>5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy
>> 
>>Hans has posted argument against occasional piracy as well as career
>>piracy.  Does everyone concur that these things hardly exist at all in
>the Imperium?  

Let me just repeat that I don't dispute the canonical existence of piracy
in the Imperium in the Traveller _background_. What I claim is that the
_rules_ makes the existence of pirates almost impossible as they stand.
In other words, I claim that there is an inconsistency. Whether this
inconsistency is best resolve by changing the rules or the background is
also clear to me: It would be much better to change the rules than the
background. Pirates are fun (as long as they are confined to RPGs, that
is). Unfortunately I also think that the rules changes necessary to make
pirates a viable career choice is big enough to smash the Traveller
universe in other ways, so the solution I myself employ is to _ignore_
the inconsistency. But that dosen't change the fact that I believe that
there is such an inconsistency. 

>Hans' position against piracy, as I understand his arguements, is based on
>a policy of equal resource allocation, 

It most certainly is not. It's based on a most unequal resource allocation.
0.2% of the standard naval budget used for piracy suppression.

>absolute zero tolerance, and incredible force of will.  The Imperium that
>he proposes is very organized, incredibly efficient, with a highly
>developed police force.

Not just the Imperium. Any interstellar state with less than a score of
planets per high-population planet.

The one rule that change things drastically from any historical example is
the one that allow a ship to get from point A to point B without passing
through the spots in between. Just imagine how tough Earth pirates would
have had it if ships could teleport from just outside one harbor to just
outside another! 
 
>I, OTOH, believe that resources will be allocated according to political
>power (Class A and B starports very well patrolled, Class C starports
>adequately well patrolled, Class D and E starports get visits).

You forget that the ships that would be lost if Class C, D, and E systems
weren't adequately patrolled mostly belongs to the powerful worlds. If
there weren't enough patrol ships to go around, I'd agree with you. I'm 
sure that given the unpalatable choice between defending their home world
and defending their trade, the powers that be would elect to defend the
home world. But what I claim is that they don't have to make that choice.

It's like saying that since the Sumatra Strait wasn't very important in
itself, John Company didn't care if the Royal Navy patrolled it or not.
The reason the RN didn't have a permanent patrol in the Sumatra Strait
wasn't that they didn't want to, it was that they didn't have enough
ships to do it.

>I believe that tolerance to piracy will exist, provided that it does not
>affect the "powers that be" (ie. it doesn't affect the standard of living
>for the majority of citizens, and doesn't make a dent in the bottom line
>of the corporations serving the world) or the nobles administering the
>world, and that counter-piracy measures will be put in place _in_reaction_
>to_ active piracy, not as a standard feature of system defense.

OK. You're the Admiral in charge of defending a Subsector. You have a fleet
worth MCr270,000,000. 70% of that is invested in system defenses for your
worlds. the remaining 81,000,000 is invested in your fleet. You can either
have 223 Tigress class battleships (or a mix of battleships and cruisers
equivalent to that) and distribute them among the 5 or six most important
worlds and leave the remaining 30 worlds uncovered. Or you can have 222
Tigresses (or the equivalent) plus 360 Kinunirs and put a dozen of each
in the remaining 30 systems as an early warning system. What would you
chose? (OK,OK, you'll take 221 Tigresses and make sure you have plenty of
couriers too).

>GG refueling doesn't work for starship merchants on a schedule, unless the
>mainworld is a satellite of the GG.  That doesn't mean it does not exist,
>however.  Scouts, hunters, nobles, in-system merchants, and a variety of
>others may take advantage of this.  Fuel supplies for starships could very
>well be 'mined' from GGs, rather than taken from the system member worlds.

The Gas Giant issue is a different one. The navy has plenty of patrol ships
to go round. If a Gas Giant is used for refuelling then it will be
patrolled, no problem.
 
>Admittably, my final defense for piracy tends to run to playability.  They
>are fun to play, and add flavor to my campaign.

Hey, I agree with you 100% on that. It just dosen't change my opinion
about the discrepancy between the background and the rules.

>I tend pessimism I guess, because I do believe that the structure of the
>Imperium is going to include corruption, and that all the vices that we
>see on the Earth today (including, I might add, piracy) will follow us
>to the stars...

If you can give me a historical example of a city that had 500 times as
many full-time militia-men as it had street corners and still allowed
muggers to work the streets, then I will take my opinion up to revision.
The difference isn't in human nature but in the number of places that
a Traveller navy needs to cover. If you want pirates to have a shot,
realistically, you either have to change from jump drive to warp drive
or change the ratio of high-population planets to other planets
drastically.
 
That isn't going to stop me from throwing a pirate at my players the next
time I feel like it, though.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:14:51 +0100
From: "Nick Munn" <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

> 	This week, somebody (I forgot who; I was studying at the time)
> suggested that somebody (hints were dropped about Famille Spofulam) try to
> design a .75 recoilless (i.e. rocket slug firing) pistol based on the
> Stainless Steel Rat's sidearm of choice.

Hehehehehe.  That was me.

> T4 stats:
> 
> Name: .75 DiGriz Special Recoilless pistol (TL-11)
> Tech Level: 10
> Damage: Special: damage and armour penetration varies depending on range:
> 	Damage at 4+ meters: Slug: 4.5, HE: 6.5
> 		Penetration vs armour at 4+ meters: 4.5

Hahahahaha.  What about a HEAP round? ;-)  (I won't ask about 
hollowpoints.)

I'm glad these don't exist, the temptation to misuse them on 
students would be incredible.  I've just been experiencing Fresher's 
Week again (vicariously) and my reactions are:

i) I wish I were 21 again and knew everything... [*]
ii) Can't I just kill *one* as an example to the others?

Actually, ii) would just prolong the mass hysteria.  Lucky escape 
there for someone.

[*] Minimum age for students at the college in question.  No better 
than 18, it seems.

ObTrav: DoeS aNyBody impose SAN checks on characters using this kind 
of stuff.

Nick

(who'll calm down any day now...)

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:54:32 +0100
From: "Nick Munn" <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Bible code

Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>

> I never intended for this thread to become un-Traveller related. I only
> wanted to bring up the 5th dimesion stuff.

Well, FWIW I have toyed with the idea of super-dimensions of the same 
form, possibly a "spiritual" dimension which has some links to the 
psionic, but only really in the context of Traveller/SF.  I forget 
who mentioned big/small dimensions (I think Leonard E., who's 
dangerously knowledgeable about physical science) but I agree: string 
theory postulates extra dimensions which can be badly explained in 
books on religion.

> But, since you asked, all of the ones you cite above are translations. 
> The Bible Code works off of the ancient Hebrew, from which all of those
> translations were translated from.

Which version? 8-)

There is no one "original" copy of any Biblical book, and (virtually) 
no two ancient sources which agree...

I ought to add to the voices shouting that ancient Hebrew (written 
without vowels) is very easy to make a huge variety of words from.  
This is probably true of modern Hebrew also.

However... ancient Hebrew had a very restricted vocabulary and is 
hard to translate into English at the best of times.  Modern Hebrew 
probably has a much larger vocabulary, which will make performing the 
same trick harder.  If this is so, then using the same method of 
"interpretation" on the bible and a modern Hebrew translation of 
(say) War and Peace will almost certainly give you more "significant" 
matches for the ancient Hebrew.

You also get the transliteration effect, whereby names in one 
alphabet can be spelled several ways in another, like Tsar/Czar from 
Cyrillic.  This makes it easier to find proper names in a Hebrew 
text.

ObTrav: I wonder if Old High Vilani can be treated in analagous ways?

Nick


Dr. Nick Munn, Dept. of Information Studies, University of Sheffield
Tel. (0)114 222 2673, email n.s.munn@sheffield.ac.uk

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:35:45 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

In mail you write:

> David J. Golden wrote:
>> 
>> At 10:40 pm 10/06/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
>> >then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?  Certainly not with
>> >orientation jet-thrusters?
>> 
>>         Why not?
>
> Fuel for one thing.  Jet thrusters are a reaction drive, no?  Or does it
> just push air out--something that it can steal from other areas of the
> ship?
>
> Also, I don't see jet-thrusters producing thrust equivalent to thruster
> plates.  It seems that jet thrusters are last ditch systems that you use
> when you M-Drive goes out.  In space combat, I'll let a ship orient
> itself with the jet-thrusters, but its effective speed is zero.  I don't
> see a space ship pulling 1 G with these little orientation
> jet-thrusters.

Don't forget that it doesn't take that much thrust to change the
direction the ship is pointing. And that's *all* you can do anyway. To
change the direction you are *moving* you have to use the main drive
anyway. Unless you feel like taking a few weeks.

Remember, unlike the QE2, or even an aircraft, the ship doesn't care
which way it is pointing, and except during landing/takeoff, the only
resistance top turning it is the ship's moment of inertia. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:55:29 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jupiter's escape velocity

In mail you write:

> At 11:49 PM 10/7/97 +0100, Nick wrote:
>>You are mixing up velocity and acceleration
>>
>>>My understanding is that Esacpe Velocity is that speed at which an object
>>>will have more kinetic energy than Gravity can strip away during the climb
>>>to orbit. If I have CG capable of overcoming gravity (or rather ignoring
>>>it) then my escape velocity can be three feet per week.
>
> This is true in a sense, but what happens if your CG fails?
>
> If CG nullifies gravity completely, then what just happened to the
> potential energy?  I have not worked out the power needs yet, but I suspect
> that CG is a free energy machine.  Consider - I could use CG to make a
> heavy object have no weight, lift it up a ways, and then turn the CG off.
> Would I get more out than I put in?

Escape velocity and potential energy are related. The potential energy
of an object in a gravity well is the kinetic energy it'd have at
escape velocity. 

But CG isn't neutralizing grvity that way. If it did, as you note,
you'd already have escaped the planet. Therefore, it isn't affecting
the potential energy. It's just providing a force that counterbalances
the force of gravity. So you still have to supply the energy required
to lift the ship.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:39:44 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: takeoff and landing

In mail you write:

>
>>>(2) is the most common approach. (1) requires an airframe hull and a long
>>>runway, (2) and (3) only require a streamlined hull.
>
>>Well, do they? Why assume a high speed takeoff in (2) and (3). Assume that 
> the
>>captain takes it up at a whopping 20 miles per hour (even Model T Fords 
> could do
>>that, and they were definitely USL) ... he can make a high enough altitude 
> to
>>forget about wind resistance in, what, half an hour or so? So who needs AF 
> and
>>SL Hullforms *unless* you have a need for speed ...
>
> It would probably take an hour or two - and during that hour you're a serious
> menace to traffic, since you can't move with respect to the air at more than
> 20-30 mph, and the wind will move the air at 50-100 mph at altitude - thei
> airspace over a starport full of unstreamlined spacecraft would be pretty
> dangerous. I'd say it's safe to assume that reasonable safety precautions 
> require all ships that land on a planet with atmosphere to be streamlined
> (which doesn't actually cost that much, anyway.)

Actually, at high altitudes, you get things like the jetstream (300
knots or better!), and at extrememly high altitudes, I understand you
can get some *really* fast winds. 

Worse, at high altitudes, the speed of sound is different. Depending on
altitude it can be a *lot* slower or faster. At 30 knots I think you
are safe from exceeding the limiting Mach number of the hull, but
someone is bound to try cheating...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:33:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hauling people

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> writes
>>> Under zero gravity conditions, with forced air jets for ventilation, 
>>> no food or hygeine, and water provided by gravitically controlled 
>>> water jet  into the mouth I think that slaves or prisoners could 
>>> probably be packed so they took up most of the space in the hull. 
>>
>>That's essentially the way the slavers packed them. They'd pull them
>>out of the "decks (18 inches tall!) one deck at a time to hose them
>>off, and feed them some gruel. Meanwhile they'd hose out the deck a 
>>bit.
>>Then back they went.
>
> Did the dead ones get put back, or thrown overboard?

Thrown overboard.

> Which is my way of introducing another point - there was a certain 
> level of "acceptable loss" for the "cargo", based purely on economic 
> factors.  I believe the original poster was talking about bedsores 
> being possibly acceptible - you are going to end up with a lot worse 
> than that if you pack them in like the slave ships.  I think this 
> would be true (though somewhat less extreme) even at TL12.

Sure. If you read my post, you'll also notice that this was given as a
"limiting case".

On the other hand, now that someone has posted that fast drug makes a
jump take 2.8 hours, I think it *would* work. In three or four hours,
not even a slaver's "dense pack" is going to result in any serious
physical problems. Though I suspect that a modest percentage of the
passengers would suffer from claustrophobia afterwards.

Of course, if it's possible to administer slow drug and then a good
sedative, they can sleep thru the whole trip!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:01:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

In mail you write:

> One thing to consider about GG's is even though there will be minimal
> interstellar traffic to and from a GG, there  *can* be a large amount of
> intrastellar traffic.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the hydrographic content of the main world is  *Nonrenewable*!  If
> you send starship after starship full of precious water (or evenrefined
> hydrogen) you are going to do great damage to the biosphere.

I suggest that you sit down and calculate just how much water (and
hence, hydrogen) a world *has* in it's oceans.

For example, let's take a world the size of Earth. Say 6000 km radius.
And let's say that there's enough water to cover the surface 1 meter
deep if it was spread evenly. 

Surface area is 4 * pi * r^2. R is 6,000,000 meters. So there are
4.5e14 m^3 of water. If they are shipping out a *billion* tons of water
a year it'll take 4.5e14/1e9 years. That's 452 *thousand* years. Call
it half a million years.

Now consider that Earth has enough water that if spread out evenly it'd
be over a *kilometer* deep. So that raises the figure to half a
*billion* years.

It's gonna take a *long* time to cause any significant effects on any
planet that has any sort of reasonable hydro figure.

Planets are *huge*. Yes, we've managed to cause some damage to this
one. But the only "lasting" damage so far are things that act like
*catalysts. It only takes a small amount of chlorine at the right
altitude to interfere with the ozone layer. And it only takes a little
pesticide in the surface layers of the ocean to reduce the number of
plankton. 

But trying to export enough water (seawater) to cause a noticable
effect would be a major project.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:38:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Interesting thought on TL

In mail you write:

> At 08:07 am 10/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Medieval, with access to a garbage dump from the past...only _smelting_
>>aluminum from bauxite takes electricity, recycling it takes a hot fire. An
>
>         I'm obviously not a materials guy--why does smelting aluminum require
> electricity?

Because of it's electronegativity. Basicly, what you are doing when you
smelt an ore is convincing the oxygen that is attached to the metal
atoms to attach to something else. But for this to work, the something
else must be something that oxygen likes better. This is measured in
terms of electronegativity. The more electronegative an element is, the
better oxygen (or other oxiders) likes it.

The problem with aluminum is that there's nothing that is more
electronegative that isn't *already* tied up with oxygen. So you can't
use the usual trick of "heat ore with reducing agent" to liberate it.

The only way is to use electricity to either produce the aluminum via
the Hall process, or to use electricity to produce something like
sodium or calcium (which are far more electronegative, but much easier
to produce electricall unless you know the Hall process). 

The early production of aluminum *was* by producing calcium or sodium,
then reacting them with alumina (aluminum oxide) in the absence of
oxygen. It worked, but was hideously expensive. So much so, that one of
the Napoleon's ate off am aluminum plate while others at the table had
to make do with mere gold. And it's why the capstone of the Washington
Monument is a pyramid of aluminum (bought by contributions of school
children all over the country, it was produced by *Tiffany's* and
displayed inder heavy guard before being placed on top))

If it wasn't for the fact that aluminum forms a *tough* oxide coat
(sapphire is a form of aluminum oxide!) it'd react with *water*. In
fact, strong alkali solutions don't affect alumin but they *do*
dissolve the oxide coat. Thus the bare metal is exposed to the water,
causing it to take oxygen from it, releasing hydrogen. This forms a new
layer of oxide which almost immediately dissolves in the alkali...
repeat until you run out of water or aluminum.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:15:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

In mail you write:

> Well, one might argue that it would take a long time to seriously
> deplete the amount of water on a planet like Earth. But that
> aside, inhabited, "garden-world" planets like Earth will have a
> total ban on ocean/lake refueling for one simple reason.
>
> Contamination.
>
> The ship "Naughty Boy" lands on World A, fills fuel tanks with
> water. Jumps to World B. "Naughty Boy" drops into a local ocean,
> dumps its tanks and refuels. Except - guess what hitched a ride in 
> the fuel tank? Any number of little critters that could run wild and
> cause some serious havoc on the ocean ecology. Oops.

Only thing is, you *don't* fill the tanks with water. Given what you
*have* to do to extract the hydrogen, nothing bigger than a virus is
likely to get into the purifier (you'd use ceramic filters such as are
used in survival gear) and even those won't survive the extraction of
the hydrogen. You'd either electrolyze the water, which tends to be
exceedingly unhealthy for anything in it and doesn't let any viruses
travel with the gas anyway. Or you'd "thermally crack" the water. This
involves heating it to a few thousand degrees (hot enough that the
water breaks down into free oxygen and free hydrogen) and that'll be
the best sterilization routine you ever saw. :-)

And since what you have in your fuel tanks when you land to refill is
liquid hydrogen (at less than -253 C), you certainly aren't going to be
*dumping* it. 

The same goes for drinking water. You went to a lot of trouble to
obtain and purify it. You won't dump it, and you'll be *damn* sure to
sterilize any you pick up from a "natural" source.

That leave things attaching to the hull, and sewage. Between vacuum,
rentry, and solar radiation in space while running to and from jump
points, nothing is going to live on the hull that can live on a planet.

And while you could dump your sewage, that's probably been processed by
life supoort to reduce bulk. Given the supply of "free" heat from the
fusion reactor, the sewage has probably been "baked" to extract the
water and turn the remainder into a dry powder. And in the process,
sterilized. This is actually a good idea, as it's much simpler to store
the powder (compressed into blocks?) and the water extracted from it.

Sure folks *might* be unwilling to drink or wash with the extracted
water (though I doubt it). But even so, it's *much* simpler to store
and pump pure water than sewage. And I'm sure that folks would rather
have a holding tank full of water, than one of sewage. If it springs a
leak, it's much easier to deal with.

Any other avenues for contamination are likely going to be present even
if the ship lands in the port.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:46:28 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

In mail you write:

>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:00:52 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard 
> Erickson) said:
>
> Leonard> I think we are talking about different things. As Heinlein
> Leonard> noted, the suit should be providing proper feedback, and
> Leonard> (once learned) your *own* reflexes should handle things.
> Leonard> Otherwise it's useless. You *have* to be able to move
> Leonard> without thinking about it. That means reflexes.

> Reflexes are fine, but we haven't done enough research to figure out
> what fidelity of input data, and fidelity of response, humans need to
> have their own reflexes effectively triggered.

> Assume a suit which _does_ permit your reflexes to be used
> effectively.  But when you're wearing a suit which amplifies your
> every move, your reflexes may be wrong.  Your center of mass is
> different.

Not if the suit is designed intelligently! That would almost *have* to
be a design criterion for exactly the reason you cite.

> Your strength (which affects how fast your legs or arms move when not
> touching anything) is greater.  That railing you grabbed to stop your
> fall?  You just tore it off, and you are still falling.

In what way is learning to move in a powered suit different from
learning to move on a low g planet? In both cases, your muscles and
reflexes are way out of synch with the way you *now* move. 

The one real difference is that you might have more time to react in
low g.

> There are two ways to address this: (1) re-learn your reflexes.  (2)
> construct the suit so that it translates your motions to appropriate
> suit motions.  Re-learning your reflexes... I'm not convinced that
> they could be deeply enough ingrained in a reasonable amount of time
> that they could be reliable enough in a combat situation.  That's my
> own personal bias.

Then by the same reasoning, you can't use off-world troops in combat.
And the human brain is *very* flexible. Consider the experiments with
things like reversing glasses (they either swap what you see right for
left or top for bottom). At first the volunteers had to be led around.
But within *days* they were handling things ok, and within a few weeks
their brains "swapped" the images and they started seeing things
"normally". Then when the glasses were removed, they had a much shorter
period of re-adjusting to seeing things without the glasses.

I'm biased against the "suit makes the appropriate move" because if
nothing else there's the fact that unless you make the suit *huge* (big
enough that the operator fits entirely within the torso, with some room
to spare) the operator's limbs *have* to move in sequence with the
limbs of the suit. And since I can just about guarantee that the period
of swing for arm and leg motions will be *different* for the suit than
for an unarmored person, you'd have the operator's leg swinging forward
at a moment when the suit's leg needs to swing backwards, Or vice-versa.
And that's flat out *impossible* if the wearer's leg is in the suit's
legs. Ditto for the arms.

You can do that sort of thing for a *remotely* operated unit. But even
then, the feedback would be helaciously complex. How do you deal with
the suit's toe hitting an obstruction as it moves forward (just passing
the bottom of the swing) as the operator's foot is swinging *backwards.
Feedback just won't make any *sense* in that sort of situation.

BTW, I can't see that learning to operate the suit is harder than
learning to ride a bike... Ok, a unicycle... :-)

> Leonard> The truck has problems because it has the user trying to be
> Leonard> a quadruped, with equal length front and back legs. Humans
> Leonard> are lousy quadrupeds, and our limbs aren't the same length.
> Leonard> So the feedback doesn't really match the operator.

> My argument is that the truck is an extreme example of what the suit
> would do.  It is very unlike the way we locomote; however a
> strength-inducing exosuit is also unlike the way we locomote
> (although closer than the truck).

But as I noted, the suit is *not* that different from operating under
lower gravity (aside from issues involving the fragility of your
surroundings). So if a person can't learn the reflexes to operate the
suit, he can't learn the reflexes to walk on the moon.

> Leonard> Well, several places have "robots" that can walk on almost
> Leonard> any terrain.  They are six legged, and are controlled by
> Leonard> some incredibly *simple* neural nets. They cheated, of
> Leonard> course. The nets are copied from ants.  But they work.

> Key word: walk.
> Walking has a strictly limited forward speed, a function of leg
> length and gravity.  For speed, you need to run.  That's a whole
> different bucket of bolts.

> Actually, you don't have to copy them from ants.  You can make them
> up with finite state machines, it's not too hard.  Or you can copy
> the raw motion patterns from existing creatures.  Been there, done
> that.  The problem is when they fail, they fail.  They don't know
> enough about the world around them to avoid failure.  They don't know
> not to bash their leg into that rock - they just rely on the leg
> being stronger than that rock.  Nor do they know not to bash their
> leg into that other walker's leg... which leg gives?  Someone's
> machine just broke....

I thought that the analysis of the ant neural nets showed that one of
the "reflexes" involved was "I just contacted something, draw back and
try moving thru a different arc"?

> Anyway, I have a moral objection to copying a controller or motion
> pattern from something else and saying "now we know how it works."
> That's what Honda did.

Well, given that from what I read (don't recall where), they either
created a set of "reflexes" and found that they were sufficient, or
they "reverse engineered" the neural net of the real ants to determine
what "reflexes" were present.

>> Walking machines capable of traversing all terrain a car, or tank,
>> can traverse can be made at our current tech level IF there is a
>> reason to do it.  They will be slow, under about 10mph - faster on
>> high-gravity worlds, slower on low-gravity worlds (the fastest speed
>> you can walk is a function of gravity).  If you go too fast, you
>> become airborne and no longer have the options of stopping and
>> letting your slow computer figure out where to put your next foot,
>> or letting a human tell you where you can step.

> Leonard> Well, six-legged is actually a lot more stable than
> Leonard> four-legged, so I suspect that the insect neural nets, with
> Leonard> perhaps some tweaking, will do nicely.

> Insects are klutzes.  A cockroach will run smack into a step, bump
> his head, flail his legs around, hit his abdomen on the floor, and
> eventually get a foothold to climb over the step.  This behavior is
> great for small things, but does not scale up to larger sizes.
> "Insect neural nets" with some tweaking will result in a working
> small robot, but a broken large one.

Ok, but surely we can learn *something* from them.

> How many legs you want on your robot... each leg you put on gives a
> bunch more pieces to break or freeze in place.  You also need to
> coordinate them.  Each leg you remove is less weight, less to
> coordinate, fewer items to build, and a bigger control problem.

In the other hand, with six legs you have a simpler problem to solve.
You can *always* have a stable tripod of three legs, and thus that much
more time to figure out where to put the other three. You even have a
"fallback" position if the new position doesn't work, because you can
shift your weight back to the three not-moved legs if things go wrong.

With four legs, you shift a leg, then start to shift others, but you
are far more "committed" to the move than with six legs.

> My guess is we'll end up with 4-legged walkers - if you run, you can
> run on down toa single pair of legs if things break (or just one leg,
> depending on the construction), and 4 legs gives a nice stable
> stopping position.  3 legs doesn't have the option of statically
> stable walking.  6 legs is more repairs.

> Six-legged vs four-legged is only more stable when doing statically stable
> walking, which has speed limits too severe for cross-country use.

I don't know. I suspect that at least in the early stages, that static
stability would be *worth* the slower speed. *Especially* in rough
terrain. 


> So you need to run.  And to run, you have to be able to analyze the
> ground in front of you for footholds, and figure out which footholds
> to use.  Which means you have to solve computer vision, or have
> approximately flat terrain.

Well, please recall that we started out talking about powered armor. In
that case the human is doing all the computationaly intensive stuff.
All the suit is doing is providing muscle.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1938
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 9 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1939



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Ship alarms
re: Bible Code
Re: Bruce and the sensor question
Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?
Re: automation - the sensor operator's job
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Bible Code
Fuel purification
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech
Re: Intrasystem Piracy.
Traveller Naval Doctrine [was Question On Traveller]
Re: Summarize this piracy thread and move on

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:32:27 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

In mail you write:

> A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
> be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
> of a dangerous planet.
>
> One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
> a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
> and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
> range).
>
> This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
> of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
> people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
> safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?

Just remember. Any alarm system can be bypassed. And on something as
valuable as a ship (and it's cargo) it's generally worth the trouble to
*someone*.

So having an alarm will make it *harder* to break in. But not
impossible. And there's always someone who sees an extra fancy alarm
system and figures that it means there's something worth stealing! :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:40:26 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Ship alarms

In mail you write:

> Robert Eaglestone wrote:-
> ------------------------------
> A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
> be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
> of a dangerous planet.
>
> One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
> a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
> and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
> range).
>
> This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
> of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
> people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
> safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?
>
> Rob
>
> ------------------------------
>
> I would say let their ship send a distress signal if anyone was breaking
> in, it does not guarantee that his communicator is going to receive the
> signal.  If I were going to break into a ship knowing this was common
> practice I would use a signal jammer to block the signal until I was
> inside and could dissable the transmitter, or get far enough away.
>
> Just remember any intrusion countermeasure will probably have a counter
> counter measure developed 1 or 2 TL's later...

It just occured to me that you'd need a license for that transmitter.
And for best results on planet, it'd be operating on wavelengths that
might be set aside for "local use" (ie regulating and licensing them
may be up to planetary authorities)

On the other hand, jammers are not going to go un-noticed. *Especially*
in a starport. They announce themselves to every receiver in range.
Blocking the transmission by disabling the antenna is far more likely
(and practical).

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:54:46 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: re: Bible Code

>I don't suppose a theory has been advanced as to the method by which the
> Biblical writers attained this knowledge, or why they saw fit to encrypt
it?

Or how they could get this right, and refer to a bat as being a bird?
As someone said, it is easy to apply the past and say "look, there it was"
Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters will script the future as well. And
a whole whack of people looking for patterns where there are none will
always find one. 
(BTW, this text contains the gold prices index for November, figure it out
and make a lot of money!)

Have these people go through the Imperial proclamation and see whether it
predicts the Rebellion or Virus.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:29:34 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Bruce and the sensor question

>Bruce, let's say we're talking about 1 to 3 minute scans rather than 30
>minute ones. What does that do to what we can pick up with our sensors?
>How do the scans improve in increments of 1 to 3 minutes? How do the
>different sensor types do with short scan times?  Is the range at which
>we can get good data decreased, and then increases over time to the
>ranges you posted? Is it a linear progression, log, quadratic? Is there
>an effect on how much of the sky can be considered scanned?  Could you
>*please* give us some guidance in how to use your rules if we are using
>short turns?
>
>Eris

(I use 5 min gameturns, 1000 km squares and MUCH less sensitive sensors)
Say Bruces figures are based on 30 min turns. You want 1 minute scans:
Simply reduce sensitivity for all sensors by log(SQRT(1/30)). Thats it.

I'd say one hexside is (1/6)^2 compared to the entire sphere as space
combat is really 3D. Lets say the coverage you want is 1/3 the angular
"area" of the sphere then your sensitivity goes up by log(SQRT(3/1)).

Finally: I know we're not playing a wargame but if you've talked your
players into believing that they only get sensordata at the end of each
gameturn increment instead of continously then you should perhaps pay a
little nore attention to the roleplaying aspects instead of turnlengths and
other wargamish aspects:
Captain "Do we have a firing solution to bogey aplha-bravo-002 yet?"
Sensor op "No Sir, we're still integrating and well below background noise"
Captain "Blast the noise! Give me a goddamned predicted course so we can
blow that so called noise anomaly into the next sector"
Sensor op "I'll see what I can do Sir"


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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:40:46 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Fantastic Sensor Rules?

>I folded the 2*rangefactor into the sensor sensitivities and
>signatures and the detection table instead, sot hat (a) players wouldn't have
>to multiply, and (b) (more important) sensor sensitivities could be more
>easily compared - an AEMS-14 has about the same range as a PEMS-14.
>That's why active sensors have to use a different detection table.
>
>Bruce

That was what I was afraid of. Either you could have two range tables, one
for passives and one for actives or go with multiplication.

What exactly does "an AEMS-14 has about the same range as a PEMS-14" mean?


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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:50:30 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: automation - the sensor operator's job

>Actually, a sensor operator's job is a lot like an astronomers...
>
>Bruce

Are you saying Traveller have automatic astronomers :)

My take on what sensor ops do is decide on what part of the sky to scan for
how long, what diabolical noise reduction algorithms will be used (most
good rely on certain supposed facts about the signal and that input will
shurely take some experience to master) etc.

The same goes with gunners: They're arent frantically tracking their
targets with green crosshairs screaming as they go. They will try to
predict what the target will do during timelag which involves lots of
psionics or lots of skill. I have some problems with Space gunnery being a
separate skill from Sensor op. Space gunners will definately be special
case sensor ops and splitting the skills is akin to having Rifle and Aim as
separate skills.


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

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:56:19 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> Only thing is, you *don't* fill the tanks with water. Given what you
> *have* to do to extract the hydrogen, nothing bigger than a virus is
> likely to get into the purifier (you'd use ceramic filters such as are
> used in survival gear) and even those won't survive the extraction of
> the hydrogen. You'd either electrolyze the water, which tends to be
> exceedingly unhealthy for anything in it and doesn't let any viruses
> travel with the gas anyway. Or you'd "thermally crack" the water. This
> involves heating it to a few thousand degrees (hot enough that the
> water breaks down into free oxygen and free hydrogen) and that'll be
> the best sterilization routine you ever saw. :-)

OK, true, it's easy to just make sure you don't store "raw" water
in the tanks. Purification will kill a lot of stuff - ok, it'll
kill everything. 

However, I still think it might be a bad idea to just land in an
ocean and start sucking. I have one of those ceramic water filters
and it's great, yeah, a 1 micron filter (and iodine for the 
smaller stuff) but it's also got an intake hose that's less than 1 
cm in diameter. With that kinda hose, you'll be waiting a long time
to refuel you ship's tanks (not to mention that you can only move water 
through a 1 micron filter so fast... personally, I wouldn't to try
doing 14 m^3 of it). A starship's intake valves are going to be pretty
big and there's a good chance that (as Rod described) something
organic is going to get sucked in. A bunch of plankton, shrimp
or a couple of seagulls will gum up that 1 micron filter pretty 
quick. Or, if you just suck 'em in and electrolyse the water,
you may end up getting unplesant "buildup" on the electrodes.
Thermal cracking would probably be the easiest way to deal with 
stuff in the water though.

As for stuff getting "baked in space" on the trip, sure, I'd agree
that almost everything will be DOA, but there might be a few
single-celled critters that manage to make it, sttuck in some 
crack in one of the scoops... apparently there's bacteria inside the
lens of that camera that was left on the moon that would come back to
life quite fine if it was returned to Earth. The chances of something
like this happening are pretty small, but any world that has a lot
of space traffic will have laws to make sure that the chance is zero.
i.e. don't land in the water, please.

Also, although I have not yet had the time to verify it, I believe
it's "canon" that you can live with unrefined fuel. You don't have
to have a fuel purification plant just because you have fuel scoops.
It's stupid, sure, but if you were in a hurry (and who isn't ?)
you might be tempted to just fill'er up and jump. It only
takes one tank of bad water to ruin your ecosystem.

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                     ehenry@magma.ca

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 07:55:06 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

At 11:12 PM 10/8/97 +0000, you wrote:

>Rips found "Hussein picked a day", and close to this was encoded,
>"January 18, 1991", "Saddam", "missile", "Enemy", and "war".
>
>This was three weeks before the Gulf War started--by Hussein launching
>his first scud missile attack.  That day was Jaunaury 18, 1991.

The Coalition air attack began a day earlier, January 17.  Also, US Marines
had engaged probing Iraqi recon units a Khafjie in December.

>How's that for predicting things?

Not too good.  It's like claiming that World War II didn't start until 7
December, 1941.. it ignores all everything that happened in Europe.

The Gulf War started on August 2nd, 1990, with the invasion of Kuwait.

- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry     dberry@hooked.net |
|    http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|----------------------------------------|
|      I am trying to find myself.       |
| If I should return before I come back, |
|        please ask me to wait.          |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

  

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:14:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Fuel purification

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Ethan Henry wrote:

> 
> OK, true, it's easy to just make sure you don't store "raw" water
> in the tanks. Purification will kill a lot of stuff - ok, it'll
> kill everything. 

But you'll have to store raw water in the tanks or there will be no point
in having fuel scoops larger than what your purification plant can
process. I mean what does a ship do with the 100 dton scooped while it
waits for it to be purified at a rate of 3 dtons per hour. 

Another qusetion is then that the ship has to do several gas giant runs 
to fill up the tanks, or stay in the giants atmosphere for 33 hours in the
example over? It seems to me that this is often forgotten. Most just see
the ship scoops the fuel and purifies it the way to the jump point. That
isn't possible.

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: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:21:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

At 18:51 1997-10-08 EDT, Robert Eaglestone wrote:
>Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
>I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
>is the vote on
>
>1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
>2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
>3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
>4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
>5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy
>
>Hans has posted argument against occasional piracy as well
>as career piracy.  Does everyone concur that these things
>hardly exist at all in the Imperium?  Or are there some
>hold-outs?  I ask just because my players may well get into
>this discussion also, and if there are refutations I'd like
>to hear them.

I think that if you think completely rational, there would be virtually no
piracy. Merchants probably would not risk travelling to unprotected systems,
and pirates would not risk travelling to protected systems. But this is not
my vote.

Since Traveller is a game of fiction, I would prefer to have pirates in it
(I will, regardless of what ya all say, mateys. Arrrh !).

Ship transponder signals could probably be changed if you are good at
electronics, or obtain illegal transmitters from some kind of black market.

Only desperate merchants would want to refuel at gas giants, since there is
a significant risk of pirate activity there. But, on many worlds, refueling
in the oceans is prohibited. So, the captain would have to buy fuel or risk
a trip to the gas giant.

Pirates modus operandi would be something like "stike fast, if that fails,
dissappear" in patrolled systems. In other systems larger ships, or even
small fleets, would be utilized (corsairs carrying a few small fighters).
The freighter ship would probably be carried, and the licence codes and such
would be aquired from the captain in order to sell the ship "legally".

It is in the Imperiums best interest to prevent as much piracy as possible.
They cannot monitor everything, however, so there is always room for a few
luck-seekers :-)

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

With a bit of a mind flip, you're into the time slip, and nothing can ever
be the same.

"Time warp", The Rocky horror picture show

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:08:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Ringrose <ringrose@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

We are restating our positions, much like the piracy thread, without
introducing any new data or changing our minds.  This is the last post I will
make on the topic unless new data appears, or someone _else_ asks a question.



>>>>> On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:46:28 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> Assume a suit which _does_ permit your reflexes to be used
> effectively.  But when you're wearing a suit which amplifies your
> every move, your reflexes may be wrong.  Your center of mass is
> different.

Leonard> Not if the suit is designed intelligently! That would almost *have* to
Leonard> be a design criterion for exactly the reason you cite.

You claim that if the suit is "designed intelligently" it will act as if it
wasn't there.  Yet it'll allow you to do things you can't do without it, like
jump high and use extra strength.  You don't get it both ways.  If you stomp
your foot into the ground, is it going to push hard enough to knock you over or
not?  If you want it to require lots of training and concentration to use, the
answer is "yes".  If you don't, the answer is "it figures out you don't really
want to fall over and 'does the right thing'".  But you don't get it both ways.

Leonard> In what way is learning to move in a powered suit different from
Leonard> learning to move on a low g planet? In both cases, your muscles and
Leonard> reflexes are way out of synch with the way you *now* move.

The difference is in the fidelity of response.  As I said before,

> Reflexes are fine, but we haven't done enough research to figure out
> what fidelity of input data, and fidelity of response, humans need to
> have their own reflexes effectively triggered.

I don't think it is (quite) within our tech to get that fidelity, especially on
something which is supposed to be rugged.  I've worked on robots, actuators,
and sensors and think I know what I'm talking about.


I'm just going to snip a lot of stuff about re-learning reflexes, and summarize
it as follows:

I believe a suit which cannot "guess" what you're trying to do will be
extremely hard to learn to use, and hard to develop reflexes which are integral
enough for combat use.  The reasons are a combination of mental difficulty and
the difficulty of constructing the actual suit with the required force-feedback
response fidelity.  Therefore, I put usable exoskeletons one TL from now, with
combat-usable exoskeletons two TL from now.

You disagree on the issue of how hard it is to retrain reflexes, but haven't
stated any position on getting the required force-feedback fidelity or what TL
the suits _will_ exist, relative to "now".  You've just consistently stated
that I'm wrong.  Fine.  We disagree.




Leonard> I'm biased against the "suit makes the appropriate move" because if
Leonard> nothing else there's the fact that unless you make the suit *huge*
Leonard> (big enough that the operator fits entirely within the torso, with
Leonard> some room to spare) the operator's limbs *have* to move in sequence
Leonard> with the limbs of the suit. And since I can just about guarantee that
Leonard> the period of swing for arm and leg motions will be *different* for
Leonard> the suit than for an unarmored person, you'd have the operator's leg
Leonard> swinging forward at a moment when the suit's leg needs to swing
Leonard> backwards, Or vice-versa.  And that's flat out *impossible* if the
Leonard> wearer's leg is in the suit's legs. Ditto for the arms.

Let's take an example which is not "walking".  How about "keeping your
balance while standing".  You keep your balance by applying force to the ground
with your feet.  You can keep your balance the hard way: mimc the leg movements
_precisely_.  Er, um, you don't actually move your legs much when you're
standing there - you just change the force.  OK, you can balance the hard way:
mimic the force pattern of your feet on the sensors in the suit.

OR, you can keep your balance the easy.  Put a couple of gyroscopes in the
suit.  Now, these could do a _lot_ to make it easy to keep your balance, but
you have no obvious method for the human to control them.  So, for them to be
useful the "suit makes the appropriate" use of the gyroscopes.

This is a single example.  I could construct more. ("how much force to apply" -
grabbing as opposed to crushing an object, for example).



A suit which can interpret what you're trying to do and do appropriate things,
within the constraints of it being on you, will be _much_ easier to use.  I
don't think it'll be combat-capable until it is that easy to use, but you
obviously disagree.  Fine.  We disagree.




> Actually, you don't have to copy them from ants.  You can make them up with
> finite state machines, it's not too hard.  Or you can copy the raw motion
> patterns from existing creatures.  Been there, done that.  The problem is
> when they fail, they fail.  They don't know enough about the world around
> them to avoid failure.  They don't know not to bash their leg into that rock
> - they just rely on the leg being stronger than that rock.  Nor do they know
> not to bash their leg into that other walker's leg... which leg gives?
> Someone's machine just broke....

> Insects are klutzes.  A cockroach will run smack into a step, bump his head,
> flail his legs around, hit his abdomen on the floor, and eventually get a
> foothold to climb over the step.  This behavior is great for small things,
> but does not scale up to larger sizes.  "Insect neural nets" with some
> tweaking will result in a working small robot, but a broken large one.

Leonard> I thought that the analysis of the ant neural nets showed that one of
Leonard> the "reflexes" involved was "I just contacted something, draw back and
Leonard> try moving thru a different arc"?

I'm not familiar with the analysis of ant neural nets you repeatedly refer to.
However, I am familiar with the set of reflexes obtained from studying a
cockroach which has a similar result.  The above behavior (smashing into
things, scrambling over them, etc.) is the result.  I have videotape of it,
source from when I made a physically realistic simulation of a cockroach for
Bob Full (professor at UC Berkeley).



> My guess is we'll end up with 4-legged walkers - if you run, you can run on
> down toa single pair of legs if things break (or just one leg, depending on
> the construction), and 4 legs gives a nice stable stopping position.  3 legs
> doesn't have the option of statically stable walking.  6 legs is more
> repairs.

> Six-legged vs four-legged is only more stable when doing statically stable
> walking, which has speed limits too severe for cross-country use.

Leonard> I don't know. I suspect that at least in the early stages, that static
Leonard> stability would be *worth* the slower speed. *Especially* in rough
Leonard> terrain.

"We'll end up with" is not early stages.  Yes, in the early stages, walking
robots were 6 legged.  Look at the literature.

Form follows function.  If you want _unstable_ terrain locomotion, you want 6
legs.  Maybe even more.  If you want stable terrain locomotion, statically
stable walking, such as around a house, spaceport, or factory, four legs.  My
experience tells me that they won't slip often enough to be a problem.

If you want real rough terrain locomotion, you'll be running, which means you
probably want to reduce to four or even two legs, depending on how hard it is
to find footholds.  Running allows you to get over obstacles a statically
stable walker would never be able to manage.



Leonard> Well, please recall that we started out talking about powered
Leonard> armor. In that case the human is doing all the computationaly
Leonard> intensive stuff.  All the suit is doing is providing muscle.

Please look at the subject line, which I changed when _we_ (not just I) started
getting off-topic.



My belief, and I still haven't seen data which changes my mind:

When would power-assisted suits exist in Traveller?
Reseach: this TL.
Commercial: next TL (possibly externally powered), for controlled
	circumstances.
Combat: next TL beyond that, for the computational advances necessary to
	make the suit know enough of the environment not to hamper its wearer.
	Possibly further.  Combat suits would require a small portable fusion
	plant - possibly imported from a higher TL to make it smaller.

So, when would walking trucks exist in Traveller?
Commercial: this TL, IF there is a reason to want them.
	Next TL if there isn't.  They would walk slowly, 10mph or less, until
	computers can see well enough to find footholds.
Combat: When they can run on rough terrain (same TL as combat power-assisted 
	devices).  Figure out if they're needed - the change from wheels
	to legs is pretty drastic, and you're throwing away a lot of expertise
	to make it.


You game may vary.


	- Robert Ringrose
	  ringrose@ai.mit.edu
	  MIT Leg Lab - http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/leglab/
	  MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Intrasystem Piracy.

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Colin Hutchinson wrote:

>         A couple of thoughts.
>         1.Considering the inhospitable nature of most planets outside the
> Habitable zone (according to the world detailing systems in WTH or WBH)  I
> doubt that there would be much in-system traffic with two exceptions:

I disagree.  Considering the inhospitable nature of most planets outside
the H zone, and considering that the extended system generation system
can give you substantial populations on these worlds, there must be quite
a bit of intra-system traffic from the mainworld to support these worlds!
Also, binary and trinary systems can have a 2nd and 3rd habitable zone...

[snip]

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:48:47 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Traveller Naval Doctrine [was Question On Traveller]

At 01:57 PM 10/8/97 -0700, Dave Summers wrote:
>Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:19:21 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>>Well, I don't agree, we already tolerate crimes in the US because
>>>the cost of eliminating them is too high.
>
>>Sigh! I'm still not sure if you agree that the navy budgets canonically used
>>by Traveller governments will purchase enough assets to deal effectively
>>with pirates and you are claiming that the Imperium just wouldn't use those
>>assets even though they have them
>
>I'm claiming that those Navy budgets are aleady being used to
>purchase ships that will be deployed to fight a war and if you
>want to stop pirates you need ships that are deployed differently,
>either by giving up their military mission or by buying new
>ships.

One side issue that might be fertile - Traveller Naval doctrine.

What is the difference between a ship designed and deployed for anti piracy
and one designed and deployed for a war that has not yet happened?

Let us assume the usual state of tense peace, in which capital ships are
needed for possible war, but is doing nothing more than showing the flag, a
bit of petty threatening, and so on.

The way my universe's doctrine works is:

A fleet will not be taking the usual jumps, so they will need scouts to
survey the path and to find possible enemies.  These range from a few
hundred tons up to a few thousand, because it is generally better to have
two scouts, than one larger scout.

They will need pickets - it is very convenient to be able to say with
certainty that there is nobody within a light second of a certain point.
In real combat, these vessels run, as they are quite fragile.  Typically,
one uses fighters or other short duration craft for this, though they also
might range up to a few hundred tons.  They are likely to be optimized for
a mission, and also likely to be easy to customize by changing weapons
loadouts or crewing.  Put two sensor guys in, and it is a sensor platform,
while with two commo guys, it is a spy, and with two gunners, it is a small
weapons platform.

They will need light vessels which can screen the heavy vessels, add EW
capabilities, and prevent gazillions of fighters or missiles from harassing
the larger vessels.  They are not much good against a decent warship, but
so far outclass any civilian, fighter, or SDB that they are good screening
elements.  These are the destroyers of the world, 5kt-15kt, a crew that
covers all the bases, and fast enough to build that they are the most
common vessel out there.

They will need medium sized vessels which can pin down forces, and which
can keep small fry from entering the fray in a dangerous way.  In addition,
this is the vessel used for force projection in peacetime.  It is not as
expensive to run as a battleship, and is quite capable of taking on many
lower tech foes, as it is a warship.  It is meant to operate without
support in peacetime, or as a "large picket" in wartime.  This is the
domain of the cruiser.  These are in the 20-50 kt range, and have decent
spinal mounts, and has a complete crew.  Any task which needs to be
accomplished can generally be accomplished by a cruiser without special
loadouts and crews.

They will need heavy vessels which can deliver the required punch, and
which can smash the equivalents from the other side.  These are what you
send against a fortified world.  They are fantastically big, and
fantastically dangerous.  They take a long time to build, and tend to be
both the hammer and the anvil.  Their spinal mounts are amazing, and the
fire control capabilities are unmatched, as a ship like this can easily
afford a dedicated individual for any conceivable task, and a whole staff
of them for any important task.

The weakness - they are very expensive and time consuming to build, so the
fleets will want to keep them safe when they are not needed.  Further, they
will protect them well, so that the enemy cannot hit them hard.

In my world, this is taken care of on several levels.  Because it takes a
long time to build BB and CA vessels, the navy concentrates on destroyers
during peacetime, while leaving the BB class vessels mostly docked at a
depot waiting for hostilities to begin.  Moving a CA somewhere is often
seen as a diplomatic maneuver, while a DD is ubiquitous.

To most players, DDs are the Navy.  In many ways, they are to the Navy as
well.  Where else can you give your young officers potential combat
experience, training, and command/planning experience without actual warfare?

Given the ease of construction and the cost, I would bet that there are an
awful lot of destroyers steaming about that can settle the hash of most
people making trouble of any kind.

This can be fixed, BTW, by simply making combat possible in jumpspace, or
boosting the drive capabilities such that combat happens far away.  A dozen
ships can patrol the 100d limit of a typical size 9 world, because the
sensors can spot any hostiles, and weapons work at very long ranges.  If
the limit were a thousand diameters, then there would be a thousand times
as much space to cover, and hundreds of ships would be needed.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Summarize this piracy thread and move on

Oh no!  Hans and Douglas are going at it again!!  :)

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> >Hans' position against piracy, as I understand his arguements, is based on
> >a policy of equal resource allocation, 
> 
> It most certainly is not. It's based on a most unequal resource allocation.
> 0.2% of the standard naval budget used for piracy suppression.

Yes it is.  You may only allocate .2% of the total budget, but you _apply_
it equally everywhere.  You contend that a Starport E, Pop-3, TL-5 world
will be just as secure for a merchant as a Starport A, Pop-A, TL-F world.

[snip]

> 
> You forget that the ships that would be lost if Class C, D, and E systems
> weren't adequately patrolled mostly belongs to the powerful worlds. If
> there weren't enough patrol ships to go around, I'd agree with you. I'm 
> sure that given the unpalatable choice between defending their home world
> and defending their trade, the powers that be would elect to defend the
> home world. But what I claim is that they don't have to make that choice.

I've never said that independant pirates go after corporate ships, tho'
corporate raiders may. That would be suicidal.  You may get one Tukera
Liner, but then what?  Sooner or later they will get you.  Scout ships,
OTOH, disappear all the time.  200-500 ton merchant ships, independant or
subbies, don't have that kind of protection.  

> 
> It's like saying that since the Sumatra Strait wasn't very important in
> itself, John Company didn't care if the Royal Navy patrolled it or not.
> The reason the RN didn't have a permanent patrol in the Sumatra Strait
> wasn't that they didn't want to, it was that they didn't have enough
> ships to do it.

The most powerful Navy (of the time) didn't have the (gasp) resources to
protect it's merchant fleet?  Or rather, they were not willing to disperse
the resources and leave themselves vulnerable?

Why who would have thought of that...  ;)

> 
> >I believe that tolerance to piracy will exist, provided that it does not
> >affect the "powers that be" (ie. it doesn't affect the standard of living
> >for the majority of citizens, and doesn't make a dent in the bottom line
> >of the corporations serving the world) or the nobles administering the
> >world, and that counter-piracy measures will be put in place _in_reaction_
> >to_ active piracy, not as a standard feature of system defense.
> 
> OK. You're the Admiral in charge of defending a Subsector. You have a fleet
> worth MCr270,000,000. 70% of that is invested in system defenses for your
> worlds. the remaining 81,000,000 is invested in your fleet. You can either
> have 223 Tigress class battleships (or a mix of battleships and cruisers
> equivalent to that) and distribute them among the 5 or six most important
> worlds and leave the remaining 30 worlds uncovered. Or you can have 222
> Tigresses (or the equivalent) plus 360 Kinunirs and put a dozen of each
> in the remaining 30 systems as an early warning system. What would you
> chose? (OK,OK, you'll take 221 Tigresses and make sure you have plenty of
> couriers too).

I'm going to concentrate my fleet, because there ain't no way in hell that
I'll have that many ships unless the opposition has a formidable fleet as
well.  If I split them to cover the worlds, I invite defeat by detail.
That means I'll lose the subsector.  

I'll have pickets out and running, but the bulk of those pickets will be
silent, and far out from the mainworld.  If something does happen, I don't
want my picket to be caught in a gravity well.  It just has to be able to
monitor system traffic, and run if necessary.

So, by straight numbers, you are correct.  But, in Traveller we are trying
to bring more than straight numbers to bear.  By straight numbers, the
U.S. can field an incredible military force.  We have demonstrated the
ability to crank out ships and put a significant portion of our population
in uniform and on the field.  In reality, it is very difficult to justify
that kind of expense going to defense, unless there is a real and
compelling reason.  (For us, it usually means someone is shooting at us,
RIGHT NOW.  Even then, there are those who chose to argue...)

I don't think that is very different anywhere in the world, is it?

So why will the Imperium be different?  So what if the numbers say that
they can produce 222 Tigresses, how many capital ships are necessary to
defend against a Zho invasion.  Well, not defend, hold until
reinforcements can arrive? (the psuedo history of the frontier wars seems
to support this as the defensive policy for the Spinward Marches...) How
many are needed to defend against an Aslan invasion.  Oh, they are our
friends aren't they...don't plan for that.  How many to hold the Sword
Worlds...with their _one_ Class A starport, they aren't much of a threat.
How about the Vargr?  That's easy, just keep them fighting among
themselves...

So the _numbers_ say yes, it is possible.  The implied threat, the
motivating force behind a massive military buildup, just isn't (IMHO)
there.

I guess what I am saying is that TCS is a great system for playing
interstellar war.  But it is optimized for fleet production for war, not
for long term play.  I'm not sure that the numbers there work particularly
well for Traveller as a whole.  (Oh, that's going to open a can of
worms...where did I put the flame-proof suit??)

> 
> >GG refueling doesn't work for starship merchants on a schedule, unless the
> >mainworld is a satellite of the GG.  That doesn't mean it does not exist,
> >however.  Scouts, hunters, nobles, in-system merchants, and a variety of
> >others may take advantage of this.  Fuel supplies for starships could very
> >well be 'mined' from GGs, rather than taken from the system member worlds.
> 
> The Gas Giant issue is a different one. The navy has plenty of patrol ships
> to go round. If a Gas Giant is used for refuelling then it will be
> patrolled, no problem.

Agreed.  Response time may lag a bit tho'...

[snip]

> If you can give me a historical example of a city that had 500 times as
> many full-time militia-men as it had street corners and still allowed
> muggers to work the streets, then I will take my opinion up to revision.
> The difference isn't in human nature but in the number of places that
> a Traveller navy needs to cover. If you want pirates to have a shot,
> realistically, you either have to change from jump drive to warp drive
> or change the ratio of high-population planets to other planets
> drastically.

First you give me a historical example of a city that was able to support
500 times as many full-time militia-men as it has street corners for any
length of time.


- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1939
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 9 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1940



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
BattleDress vs Vac Suit
Resources of Large Organizations (Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On)
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Piracy
Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Bible code
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Landing Heavy Ships
Re: automation - the Gunner's job
Re: Starship Automation and Security
Re: Bible Code
Re: Summarize this piracy thread and move on

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, John Macpherson wrote:

>  
> "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca> said: 
> > Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
> > I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
> > is the vote on
> 
> > 1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
> 	
> 	Certainly out of the way locations make better hunting grounds in 
> terms of avoiding naval patrols, but they also mean that there will be 
> less prey to be had.  Despite what some have said, I would think that the 
> Spinward Marches would be a particularly _bad_ place for pirates because 
> of the heavy military presence and the tensions that would make any 
> suspicious ship the subject of a lot of attention.

But the very presence of all those borders make it a very _good_ place!

> 
> > 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
> 
> 	This is likely to be as difficult as the Imperial authorities can 
> make it.  It could also be backed up by using personal ID checks on the 
> captain and crew to make sure that the captain-of-record is still in 
> control of the ship.  This would also be crucial for the bank that made 
> the starship loan.

When it takes weeks, even months, to communicate to the loan source and
get an answer, how do you keep the record current?  If I fire the captain
of my Subbie, am I not allowed to keep her moving with a new Captain?
Even in my campaign, where all ship's records are kept at the S/Sector
capitol, it still takes 2-6 weeks to get a courier there and back,
assuming that the record has been transferred there if the ship is working
out-of-subsector.  And how about ships with Sword World registries?

> 
> > 3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
> 
> 	Last resort.  These trips are uneconomical for merchants and 
> inconvenient for everyone else.  Only scouts or military are likely to 
> make much use of this technique.
> 
> > 4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
> 
> 	This is the hard part.  I have trouble imagining how a pirate 
> could make any money.  First of all, merchants will only be found in and 
> around the 100-d limit of their destination.  If the destination has even 
> _one_ SDB in orbit then the pirate has an extremely short time window to 
> stop its target, seize the cargo, and get away.  If the destination has 
> no SDBs but the target is armed, the pirate is still in trouble because 
> any hits by the target are likely to be rather costly to repair.  
> Furthermore, if pirates are only using armed merchantmen, then the target 
> may be an almost even match.  Finally, even if the merchant is unarmed 
> and there are no SDBs, the merchants first choice is going to be to run 
> since letting a band of murderous thugs onto your ship has got to be a 
> _very_ unappealing option.
> 	With all that going against pirates, I'd think that they'd have 
> to be able to make more money as honest merchants.  Their only chance, 
> IMHO, is if they can steal the target ship and resell it someplace.  But 
> this makes their life so much harder in other ways that I won't go into it.

(sigh) let me give you a few ideas...
1) Make a 'friend' in traffic control (large sums of credit will buy you
very, very good friends...)  He/she/it can slip you flight plans (which,
when properly examined will give you a close approximation of jump and
break out points).

2) Get a crewman with good computer skill and have him reverse engineer
the 'generate' program.  Use this to determine likely breakout points
given specific jump points.

3) Pose as a trader and identify a particularly rich cargo.  Keep tabs on
that cargo and find out who buys it, and where they plan to transship it.
Use (2) to determine the most likely ambush site...

4) Call a likely target ship and inquire as to where they are going, and
if they have cargo/passenger space.  

5) Read the starport news and find out what ships are advertising for what
planets, figure out which would be the most likely target.

6) Hire a ship to carry cargo, booby trap the cargo.  (I _liked_ the robot
in the crate story...)

7) Put insiders on the victim (either passengers or 'working passage',
ready to assist at the right time...

And these are just the 'jump ship' tactics...

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:10:41 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: BattleDress vs Vac Suit

Jory M. Earl wrote:
> 
>      Although I don't have the books around to check it out, I've always
>      thought that Battledress skill can be used at -1 for Vac Suit skill, but
>      *not* the other way around.
> 
>      In the same way, Pilot skill (-1) counts as Ship's Boat skill, but not
>      the reverse.
> 
>      So, if I have Pilot-3, I can use Ship's Boat-2. If I've got Ship's Boat,
>      I can't drive the big ships. If I've got Vac Suit-5, that's not enough
>      to use Battledress.
> 
>      I might be mistaken in the reading of the rules, but in any case, that's
>      the way I've always played it...
> 
> I totally agree with you, this is the way I've always understood it as
> well.

Not if you are looking at CT or MT rules.  Go and read the Vacc Suit
defintion in those editions.  It states that BattleDress is just an
armored form of Vac Suit, and your skill in Vac Suit can be used as
BattleDress with no penalty.

Check the Traveller Book.  Check the MT Player's Manual.

BattleDress, on the other hand, can be used as Vac Suit at a -1 penalty,
thus if you have Vac Suit-3, you've also got BattleDress-3;  but, if
you've got BattleDress-3, you've got Vac Suit-2.

I'm not kidding.  Check it out.

Kenneth.

>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:33:05 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Resources of Large Organizations (Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On)

Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:50:28 -0400 (EDT). John Macpherson
<john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
[Stuff I disagree with, but that has been hased over before...]
>> 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
>
>	This is likely to be as difficult as the Imperial authorities can
>make it.  It could also be backed up by using personal ID checks on the
>captain and crew to make sure that the captain-of-record is still in
>control of the ship.

Leaving aside the issue of wether the Imperium _can_ make transponders
effective (and I have grave doubts), I think there is broader
issue that keeps arising that needs to be addressed...

What I see as one of the most common mistakes on this list is that
assumption that if anything the Imperium gains any benefit from
will be done.  This is not how the real world works.  Every
large organization has a vast array of useful things and they
are always forced to pick and choose.

Thus, it is not sufficient to show that the Imperium "could" do
something if one payed no attention to costs.  The first step
needs to be that what one proposes is cheaper than the alternatives,
ie the benefits of transponders have to exceed their cost _and_
exceed the benefits of anything else that might be done with those
resources.  You can't simply look at one issue in isolation and
come up with a difinative answer, this, IMO, leads to a view of
an Imperium that is nigh omnipotent and omniscient.  The fact
is that, if you have an Empire that spans communication times
of over year it is going to have be a distant government, not
a government that is easily commiting resources to solve every
problem in every corner of the Empire regardless of the cost.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:58:50 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

At 06:51 PM 10/8/97 EDT, R.E. wrote:
>1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium

Under canon rules, nowhere that the Navy has any power at all.  This leaves
places where a Naval commander has taken a bribe, or been driven away.
Because of the tremendous number of ships out there, it is unlikely that
piracy would happen.

To fix this, come up with more places for pirates to lurk, and Navy ships
to go.  Alternatively, make Navy ships ten or a hundred times as expensive
as merchant ships, as then there are fewer of them.

>2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals

Canon - difficult.  Reality - it could not be that difficult, but you can
make it so by doing **this** which is countered by **that** which is...

I play it that a transponder is very hard to duplicate, simply because of
the small number of ships out there to track.  If a few ships can cover a
world, then the 350 ships a pop A world can produce out of pocket change is
a enough to stop piracy cold.  On the other hand, 350,000 hull paints and
signatures covers the entire registry, and is well within the capacity of a
high end database server today, assuming a megabyte of data per ship.

>3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
Canon - lots.  Reality check on canon - never for merchants, common for
scouts and military.

My universe - fairly common, since ships will be in quasi-normal space anyway.

>4) T4 pirates' modus operandi

Canon - wait and lurk.  Reality - see #1.  My universe  - wait and lurk.

>5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy

Canon - high, but insufficient.  Reality applied to canon - easily
sufficient with almost no effort.  (< 1% of the naval budget prevents it
cold, and stations a dozen really big ship per piddly world)

My universe - high but insufficient.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:47:17 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

At 11:43 PM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>No, but you would be pulled over post haste, and asked to provide
>>particulars.  I suspect this would include lists and pictures of crew
>>members, distinguishing marks about the vessel, and so on.
>
>Okay.  I'll buy that.  But pictures of crew members?  This part I'd doubt.
> The sheer amount of Traveller materials that just concern characters
>becoming crew members, etc.  The number of people who are going to work their
>way on a "work passage" to another system would seem to preclude any
>organized database of crew members.

I suspect that the ship registry includes a picture and bio data on the
current captain.  If the locals have any reason to be suspicious of them,
then they would go to greater efforts, which might include a complete crew
roster.

...

>>As recent as the ship registries need it to be.  I suspect a report of
>>piracy and murder gets red flagged to all the garrisons, while new ship
>>construction might lag a bit.
>
>Okay.  However, my take on the transponder thing is that when people will
>pirate transponders, they will use legitimate codes either sold to them by
>other traders, sold to them by corrupt starport workers, or corrupt naval
>types.  Usually it would be safest for a group of pirates to use ships that
>would be a good distance away.

Your transponder also includes a hull paint scan return.  This can be faked
if your ship is a similar class, and you take the time to obscure it, but
it can be rather difficult and expensive to do.  Further, a signature
change will get the Navy's attention, so you would run as one, then as
another after a noticeable downtime.  This is worth doing after a hit, but
not something you can change on dropping into a system.

If you have support of powerful people, they can assign you a brand new
registry number with a very similar signature to your own.  If you turn
pirate, people will start to wonder, and may well fall upon the original
person like a ton of bricks.  So again, it is not impossible, but it is
difficult.


...

>I would think that transponders would be the weakest link in the chain of
>piracy prevention.  They would serve as a deterrent to the "weekend" pirate,
>but to anyone interested in piracy as a career it would be relatively minor.

Agreed.  The hull paint sensor return and the emissions signature is the
tough one, and one that is a constant cat and mouse game between the
pirates with the money, and the Navies with the training.  Even if you know
what to change, which the pirates would, it is difficult and expensive.

>>As long as it matches the hull paint their sensors get, and the data
>>matches the ship class, they care not.  If you screwed up the match, then
>>your life is very interesting.  I made some players quite excited when they
>>upgraded the ship and power plant with some serious military grade
>>weaponry, which changed the signature enough that the transponder did not
>>quite match, until they had it checked out at a Naval yard.  They did not
>>figure out for months why every Navy ship in system got very interested
>>when they showed up.
>
>Hah.  You have fun with the players' starships, eh? :)

Oh, yes.  While Marc feels that the adventure begins and ends at a
starport, I feel it begins and ends on a ship.  Different emphasis, I believe.

>>My point, though, is that it is fairly easy to track down pirates, unless
>>they have some serious help, or they have the ability to operate
>>unobserved.  If the only match the Navy has is that Morgan is on a free
>>trader, they are going to have a hell of a time getting him.
>
>Depends on what you mean by "serious help".  In my opinion, organized crime
>would have a hand (and a stake) in helping (or _possibly_ sponsoring
>pirates).  As a result, there would be many services and options for piracy
>on many worlds throughout the Imperium.  And, for every new safeguard that
>the Imperial navy, organized crime has ways (and $$$ reasons) to try and get
>around.

True enough, when combined with incompetent or sleazy officials.  It is
still very, very hard to pirate if they can see you do it, so I have been
trying to find a good way to make it possible for people to come upon the
wreckage without getting a view of the combat itself.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 11:23:19 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)

At 02:35 PM 10/8/97 -0700, Dave Summers wrote:
>Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:08:01 -0700, Scott Ellsworth
><Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>>>As what?  You can look at the neutrino signature all you want, but
>>>nothing in it is going to say "pirate".  It will say "ship" and
>>>give you general idea of how big, but that won't tell what his
>>>intentions are.
>
>>It is quite true that you can almost certainly pounce on someone once, with
>>complete surprise.
>
>>Where life gets interesting is when you want to do it again.
>
>Which is why you don't do it again in the same system until
>you have changed your ships signature.

This is very, very difficult to do in present day surface craft.

>  In any cast, since
>commercial ships use standard reactor design, all ships of
>the same type will have the same neutrino signature

Why limit yourself to the neutrino signature?  I believe the primary ID
used in Bruce's system is IR.  You can fiddle with the IR to some extent,
but significant changes in signature involve significant changes in hardware.

>[Note: The poster's point is also based on the premise that
>one can track a ship's neutrino signature all the way out
>at the 100 diam jump limit.

More correctly, my point is based on two premises:  One, you can track and
ID a ship successfully standard sensors of the type traffic control will
have, including neutrino, IR, radio, microwave, and visible, out to the
hundred diameter limit.  Two, the signature is very hard to change, based
on our experiences with sonar and submarine.  Admittedly, this may be
completely irrelevant, but the EMS sensors we have today are very
sensitive, we have good filtering algorithms to find unique points, and
even if some parts of the signature can be changed, there will likely be
sample variations that are not going to be easy to alter in a convincing way.

>...In any case, this still wouldn't cover places like the gas giants.

Agreed.  If there are places the defenders and their cameras are not, then
this objection goes away.

>>Once a raid happens, traffic control is going to find out.  Likely
>>immediately, unless they have a hijacker on board to silence the radios.
>
>Or the first shot takes out the comm system.

Possible, but how much of a radio does it take to send a "Signal GK?"  Note
also that you cannot easily jam if you are in easy sensor range, as then
traffic control will see you.

>>>Well, I don't think it's that certain, but it doesn't matter.  You
>>>just don't hit the same system again.
>
>>Systems do talk, at least if they are wise
>
>Unfortunately, even if you could distinguish signatures, systems
>can only trade news as fast a ship travel.

>...That means it is possible
>to stay ahead of news.  (And a pirate only has to do it long
>enough to just retune the reactor and change his signature).

Sure, you could run, but there are limits.  If you are connected with an
act of piracy, we are not talking a seriously difficult problem to get your
signature out to all of the Naval units eventually.  As long as you stayed
ahead of the data dumps, you could run for a while, but they would be
interested in you and your ship.  As far as the signature change, see below.

>>and it is not in the Imperial
>>interest for piracy to happen.
>
>OTOH, it is not in Imperial interest to spend more money
>preventing piracy than the piracy itself would cost.

Note: military ships are cheap.  A picket costs roughly twice what a ship
of similar size does.  If you assume jump pickets that are triple the size
of the average merchant, then losing six ships justifies one picket
completely.

Earth is a different case - our military ships are much, much more
expensive than commercial ships by factors of 20-100.


>>>>The new senor rules make it very hard to hide in a way that will not bite
>>>>you if you intend to be taken for normal commercial traffic later.
>>>
>>>Unless you just take a moment to change your ships signature.

It is not a moment, I suspect, based on modern results.

>>Last time I talked to someone who knew sonar, it was very difficult to
>>change fundamental signature such that a modern day ocean ship was
>>unrecognizable
>
>It gives you the general type of ship, pirates us the same types
>of ships that are being used for other purposes.

And the Navy can ID a given ship via sonar exactly, not by type, but
exactly, if it is within range.  Since Naval sensors are only good out to
10 miles for this kind of task, it is easy to slip by - there are not that
many attack subs out there.  Further, the data needed to ID a ship in the
modern navy fits, by arguments about capacity, in under 1K.  (I presume
they are using some kind of time evolving FFT, but this I do not know.
This would give them 100-300 FFT coefficients, which should be enough for a
good match.)

Since getting signatures on the thousands of ships out there would only be
a few megabytes, it is certainly possible for the Navy to put a computer
with all the signatures on every ship.  They do not, because the sensors
are not as useful in general, and they are not likely enough to be in range
for it to matter.  In Traveller, on the other hand, every A or B port and
every vessel has the sensors needed, so it is only a question of the talent
of the person doing the scan.

In Traveller, since the ports are in sensor range of the jump limit, they
are going to be in range, and the number of ships is out of line.  It seems
unlikely that there are more than 3600 ships a world, on average, so 3.6
megabytes of data for each byte that a full ship ID takes.  Assuming a
megabyte for signature, or 2-3 orders of magnitude more data than a
positive sonar ID today, and more than many intensive stellar surveys have
garnered on items of great interest after much scanning, you are still
talking under ten terabytes.  This would be a thousand bucks of storage
today.  The astronomer types I know assert that you can get an awfully good
signature on something in just a few K.

To change signatures such that the old ones fail apparently takes a major
shipyard some time in the modern world.

It is open to question whether the radiation from a Traveller ship has the
same properties, but the signal analysis astronomy types I know do not see
significant differences in the underlying difficulty.  Both are hard
problems, but both should produce similar data.

>>Also, note that your signature must change regularly, as they can always
>>check records, so the signature you have when you do the illegal act better
>>be very different than the signature you had when they first spotted you,
>>and what they wrote down when you were last in port.  This would be the
>>equivalent of repainting your car every time you drove downtown, just on
>>the off chance that you could commit a robbery.
>
>Um no, it would be the equivalent of repainting the car only after
>you commit a robbery (which happens).

Big difference - if there were only 300,000 cars in the world, and there
were ID posts at every gas station that could positively ID a vehicle, then
doing anything illegal within sight of a gas station would give things
away, even if you could outrun the law and change the signature after the act.

They will know what vehicle committed the crime, because they saw it come
in, and each port, at least, will have a list of all cars in existence as
of the last update.  Yes, you can claim to be a new vessel, but then you
will suffer intensive scrutiny.  Sure, you can bribe or talk your way past
it much of the time, but there may well be times you cannot, and then you
had better be clean.

This is why piracy requires anonymity, and the only way to have anonymity
in Traveller with reasonable sensors is to be out of range of the sensors
at the ports when you do your heinous act, such that they do not know who
did it.

>If you commit a crime
>you just have to change you identity _once_, changing you
>identity again (unless you have committed a crime) is both
>unecessary and pointless (you already have a new clean identity).

As long as none of the back history helps them find you.  After all, they
can ID your vehicle absolutely.  With modern crime, they cannot ID you at
the scene, so repainting the car is sufficient.  Further, the car is cheap,
so once you get away, you can lose the car.  Ships cost, so they cannot as
easily be lost.

>>  I am considering moving to a hyper drive system
>>where ships can be attacked in hyper, but where many of the other Traveller
>>"facts" stay the same.
>
>Except this makes a major change in how war works.  Also, to
>work the ships have to be able to detect each other in jump
>space over interstellar distances, which is a big change.

Yep.  The latter is the part that bothers me.  I am considering trying a
"jump routes" deal where traffic had a relatively small number of routes,
but where the total length precluded patrolling.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:37:18 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Bible code

Nick Munn wrote:
> > But, since you asked, all of the ones you cite above are translations.
> > The Bible Code works off of the ancient Hebrew, from which all of those
> > translations were translated from.
> 
> Which version? 8-)
> 
> There is no one "original" copy of any Biblical book, and (virtually)
> no two ancient sources which agree...

Drosnin states this:

"The Old Testament has been a settled text for at least a thousand
years.  The Torah has not changed in that time, and no scholar would
question that.  There is a complete version from 1008 AD (The Leningrad
Codex), and every Hebrew Bible that now exists is the same letter for
letter.  So the text used in the computer program--the one in which I
found the exact date of the collision of the comet with Jupiter;  July
16, 1994--has not changed in at least a thousand years."

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:09:46 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

At 11:01 am 10/08/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>And what about thrust vectoring (for either HEPlaR or thruster plates)
>Thrust vectoring as done by the Harrier will be a tad hard for Heplar as
>the exhaust is pretty hot and ought to melt the plates (but then Dave

	There are many ways to do thrust vectoring, and placing paddles or plates
in the exhaust stream is only one. Two of them: you can gimbal the entire
exhaust nozzle (Shuttle) or you can inject mass asymmetrically into the
nozzle (Minuteman II Stage 2).
- -- 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: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:05:02 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

At 12:38 am 10/08/97 +0000, you wrote:
>David J. Golden wrote:
>> 
>> At 10:40 pm 10/06/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >If thrust for thruster plates in T4 is only provided in one direction,
>> >then how is orienation and maneuvers performed?  Certainly not with
>> >orientation jet-thrusters?
>> 
>>         Why not?
>
>Fuel for one thing.  Jet thrusters are a reaction drive, no?  Or does it
>just push air out--something that it can steal from other areas of the
>ship?
>
>Also, I don't see jet-thrusters producing thrust equivalent to thruster
>plates.  It seems that jet thrusters are last ditch systems that you use
>when you M-Drive goes out.  In space combat, I'll let a ship orient
>itself with the jet-thrusters, but its effective speed is zero.  I don't
>see a space ship pulling 1 G with these little orientation
>jet-thrusters.

	No, you don't pull 1G with the attitude control thrusters. You use them to
reorient the ship in a few seconds, and then pull 1G with the thrust plates.

>It would like trying to steer the Queen Elizabeth with one paddle.

	Actually, it's just like steering the QE -- you use the rudder to change
the direction the ship is pointing, not to actually move the ship itself.
- -- 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: 09 Oct 1997 15:16 EDT
From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
Subject: Landing Heavy Ships

I have a question that springs from the ship-landing
thread: is a ship's weight distributed in such a way
that it need not land on rock or a landing pad?

Can Joe Traveller set down his 400td merchant vessel
in the savannah without it sinking or getting a lander
stuck?  How about Dave Wanderer in his 200td Trader,
or Captain Blackthorne with his 100td Scout?  Has
anyone got a rule of thumb, or is it a "use your
judgement" thing? 

Rob

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:34:33 -0500
From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pen.net>
Subject: Re: automation - the Gunner's job

Anders Backman wrote:

> The same goes with gunners: They're arent frantically tracking their
> targets with green crosshairs screaming as they go. They will try to
> predict what the target will do during timelag which involves lots of
> psionics or lots of skill. I have some problems with Space gunnery being a
> separate skill from Sensor op. Space gunners will definately be special
> case sensor ops and splitting the skills is akin to having Rifle and Aim as
> separate skills.

I agree with you Anders. Gunnery, in Traveller terms, is mostly a Sensor
Operation involving getting FC locks from the data the Sensor Operator
hands off to them and using their experience and intuition to determine
just how to get those weapon locks.

I don't think it is a *low* automation job, like some people seem to
think, but it does (IMO) depend a great deal on the skill of the Gunner.

Eris
Eris

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:12:06 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Automation and Security

At 09:00 am 10/08/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Here is an example of automating shipboard function and security;
>How many times was the "Enterprise" taken over by unfriendlies. This is
>the most hi-tech equipped starship in the Federation. The FLAGSHIP of
>Star Fleet Command. 

	No, this is the dramatical centerpiece of a television drama that
frequently sacrifices logic, realism, consistency and even common sense to
match what the current episode's writer wants to happen.
- -- 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: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:16:38 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

At 10:56 pm 10/08/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:
>
>>         Just out of curiosity, does this dodge work with Latin versions of
>> the Bible?  Which version of the Bible does it work with best?  Does using
>> a pocket King James produce the same result as using a large illustrated
>> RSV?  How far back do the predictions run?  Did it predict that King James
>> of Scotland would hang Black Jock Armstrong?  What does it have to say
>> about the future of Tung Chee-Hwa as CE of the HK SAR?  Would it work with
>> a Japanese translation of the Bible written in Kanji?
>
>I never intended for this thread to become un-Traveller related. I only
>wanted to bring up the 5th dimesion stuff.
>
>But, since you asked, all of the ones you cite above are translations. 
>The Bible Code works off of the ancient Hebrew, from which all of those
>translations were translated from.

	Which version of the ancient Hebrew? The Masoretic texts, the Dead Sea
scrolls, ...?
- -- 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: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:25:56 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Summarize this piracy thread and move on

>
   
   Hi.
   
> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
   
>>>Hans' position against piracy, as I understand his arguements, is based on
>>>a policy of equal resource allocation, 
   
>> It most certainly is not. It's based on a most unequal resource allocation.
>> 0.2% of the standard naval budget used for piracy suppression.
   
> Yes it is.  You may only allocate .2% of the total budget, but you _apply_
> it equally everywhere.  You contend that a Starport E, Pop-3, TL-5 world
> will be just as secure for a merchant as a Starport A, Pop-A, TL-F world.
   
   Hans applies it equally everywhere because that miniscule 0.2% is more
   than adequate to stop piracy EVERYWHERE.  Why not stop piracy
   everywhere if you have more the resources to do it very easily?
   
> I've never said that independant pirates go after corporate ships, tho'
> corporate raiders may. That would be suicidal.  You may get one Tukera
> Liner, but then what?  Sooner or later they will get you.  Scout ships,
> OTOH, disappear all the time.  200-500 ton merchant ships, independant or
> subbies, don't have that kind of protection.  
   
   If Tukera is strong enough to defend its ships and still make a
   profit, then the Imperium should have no problem whatsoever protecting
   its citizens without taxing them very hard.
   
>> It's like saying that since the Sumatra Strait wasn't very important in
>> itself, John Company didn't care if the Royal Navy patrolled it or not.
>> The reason the RN didn't have a permanent patrol in the Sumatra Strait
>> wasn't that they didn't want to, it was that they didn't have enough
>> ships to do it.
   
> The most powerful Navy (of the time) didn't have the (gasp) resources to
> protect it's merchant fleet?  Or rather, they were not willing to disperse
> the resources and leave themselves vulnerable?
> Why who would have thought of that...  ;)
   
   Well, Britain may not have had the resources to patrol the whole
   world, but the Imperium CERTAINLY has the resources to patrol each
   starport and the important space around it.  And they still have
   99.8% of their resources undispersed with what's left over.
   
   [snip]
   
> So the _numbers_ say yes, it is possible.  The implied threat, the
> motivating force behind a massive military buildup, just isn't (IMHO)
> there.
   
   You miss the point.  No massive military buildup is necessary.  A mere
   0.2% of the naval budget is sufficient to patrol every world.  If you
   believe that the naval budget is a little too large (as I do), then
   OK, slash it by a factor of 10!  Then you'll need a whopping 2%
   (1/50th) of the new (miniscule) naval budget to eliminate piracy!
   
   Let me re-iterate this point, since you seem to think that stopping
   piracy will be some kind of arduous or expensive task.  Spending
   0.2% of the naval budget is EASY.  The US navy spends more than that
   on environmental restoration alone!  On base closures alone! On
   procurement of ammunition alone!  And yet the US economy or political
   will does not shudder under these burdens.

> I guess what I am saying is that TCS is a great system for playing
> interstellar war.  But it is optimized for fleet production for war, not
> for long term play.  I'm not sure that the numbers there work particularly
> well for Traveller as a whole.  (Oh, that's going to open a can of
> worms...where did I put the flame-proof suit??)
   
   No can of worms at all.  In fact, the numbers there do not work to
   better than a factor of 2.  But even if they were too large by a
   factor of 10 as I pointed out above, or even by a factor of 100, the 
   Imperium could still easily eliminate piracy in its borders.
   
>> If you can give me a historical example of a city that had 500 times as
>> many full-time militia-men as it had street corners and still allowed
>> muggers to work the streets, then I will take my opinion up to revision.
   
> First you give me a historical example of a city that was able to support
> 500 times as many full-time militia-men as it has street corners for any
> length of time.
   
   There is no historical example, which is exactly why you cannot
   rationally point to the existence of crime on the street as an analog
   for piracy in the Imperium.  No situation remotely like jump travel in
   the imperium has ever existed in history.
   
   -Rob
   

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1940
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 9 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1941



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: automation - the sensor operator's job
Re: Bible Code <FNORD!>
FF&S2 Crew Requirements
[none]
re: Bible Code
re: sensor rules
re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)
Piracy Challenge
Re: Landing Heavy Ships
Re: Landing Heavy Ships
I have Pictures!
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)
Landing Heavy Ships
Poppin' Hulls (fwd)
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Bible Code
Fast Drug
RE: Hauling people
RE: Gas Giants
Re: Starship Troopers

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: automation - the sensor operator's job

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

> >Actually, a sensor operator's job is a lot like an astronomers...
> >
> >Bruce
> 
> Are you saying Traveller have automatic astronomers :)
> 
> My take on what sensor ops do is decide on what part of the sky to scan for
> how long, what diabolical noise reduction algorithms will be used (most
> good rely on certain supposed facts about the signal and that input will
> shurely take some experience to master) etc.
> 
> The same goes with gunners: They're arent frantically tracking their
> targets with green crosshairs screaming as they go. They will try to
> predict what the target will do during timelag which involves lots of
> psionics or lots of skill. I have some problems with Space gunnery being a
> separate skill from Sensor op. Space gunners will definately be special
> case sensor ops and splitting the skills is akin to having Rifle and Aim as
> separate skills.
> 

The only real point I disagree with you is the comparison of the Gunner
and Sensor Operator's jobs.  The Sensor Operator is taking the big picture
and defining it.  The SO will be taking the filtered sensor data (the
computer gets first crack at it, although, in some cases the SO may look
at the raw data to check for spoofing), interpret it, setting priorities,  
and passing it to the workstations (Nav, MFD, ect...) that need to use it.

The gunner will be concentrating on taking the targets the SO identifies
and refining a Fire Control solution.  By removing the SO from the
picture, you will reduce the gunners ability to concentrate on the
specific targets (what the gunner needs to do) by making him have to
interpret the whole picture and pick out targets and select priorities.

Refinements in computers and sensors will make it easier to automate
either job, but only under normal circumstances.  Add any kind of
serious unusual or artificial confusion to the sensor plot, and, IMHO,
the computer will not be able to interpret the picture.

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:52:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: Bible Code <FNORD!>

<MIB, Illumnati mode ON>

Mr. Bearden and citizens of the TML.

There is no such thing, nor has there ever been any such Bible Code <FNORD>.
This is just a hoax and has nothing whatsover to do with the fact that this 
is the Illumanti's secret project book<FNORD>.  This program is finding 
things at random just to keep the conspiracy theorist's and Millenium groups 
in line <FNORD>.

Again, the Bible Code <FNORD> does not exist.


P.S.
<FNORD>If you can read this, then you are Illuminated<FNORD>

<MIB/Illumnati Mode OFF>

Kinda makes you think scary "what if" thoughts, doesn't it?

More insanity brought to you by the Commander...
who has played a bit too much FNORD lately! :-)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:40:30 -0500
From: Andrew Akins <igor@ames.net>
Subject: FF&S2 Crew Requirements

I'm making a FF&S2 spreadsheet, and I'm having a problem with maneuver crew
requirements for military ships. The formula is:

3xLog(CMxShip Size)

First of all - what is ship size? Diplacement? Volume (m3)?

Second, I can't get any numbers to agree with table 206: Maneuvering crew.
All my  results are larger than those numbers.

Any comments?

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:22:22 -0500
From: "Brian Songy" <bxs3829@usl.edu>
Subject: [none]

subscribe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:30:23 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Bible Code

>Rips found "Hussein picked a day", and close to this was encoded,
>"January 18, 1991", "Saddam", "missile", "Enemy", and "war".

>This was three weeks before the Gulf War started--by Hussein launching
>his first scud missile attack.  That day was Jaunaury 18, 1991.

Predicting the Gulf War in December of 1990 is like predicting that the 
sun will come up tomorrow. 

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:40:23 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: sensor rules

>What exactly does "an AEMS-14 has about the same range as a PEMS-14" mean?

It means they have the same range. 

More precisely, the maximum range at which they have any chance of detecting
the legendary "typical" target - 100 dTon sphere with average masking and
no stealth - is the same. It seemed the best way to go - if I went with
your 2*RF approach then ships would have PEMS-14 and AEMS-28 and the poor
players would get confused.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:55:17 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)

>Why limit yourself to the neutrino signature?  I believe the primary ID
>used in Bruce's system is IR.  You can fiddle with the IR to some extent,
>but significant changes in signature involve significant changes in hardware.

Ships with Advanced or Extreme IR Masking have a little leeway to 
change their IR signature. Almost all the IR comes from the radiators, and
ships with upgraded masking have extra/redundant/high-capacity radiators
all over the hull. They can (for example) chose not to use the masking
and run with the signature of an unmasked ship - andpossibly to vary what
sort of unmasked ship they appear like. Still, that'll only fool someone
for a turn or two.

Sooner or later there will be rules for using passive jammers to 
do exotic deceptive things like appearing as a different class of ship...
but those will almost always work only against lower-tech-level sensors.
(Something like "fooling a passive sensor one TL lower is an Impossible
task, +1 DM for each extra tech level the jammer exceeds the sensor.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:58:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Piracy Challenge

 
Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> said:
> So the _numbers_ say yes, it is possible.  The implied threat, the
> motivating force behind a massive military buildup, just isn't (IMHO)
> there.

	I think this is the crux of the thread.  The way this could be 
resolved, if it can be, is for Douglas to tell us what level of naval 
spending he would consider reasonable and not "a massive military 
buildup."  If Hans can show that less than 1% of that budget would be 
all that's required to stamp out piracy, we'll consider the 
"insufficient resources" part of the argument finished.  Douglas and 
others are free to argue that the Imperium wouldn't distribute these 
anti-piracy forces in an equitable manner or bring up other reasons why 
piracy would still exist, but no one would be able to credibly say that 
the resources were lacking, only the will.
	Hans, Douglas, what do you say?  Sound fair?
 
- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:51:05 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Landing Heavy Ships

Robert Eaglestone wrote:
> 
> I have a question that springs from the ship-landing
> thread: is a ship's weight distributed in such a way
> that it need not land on rock or a landing pad?
> 
> Can Joe Traveller set down his 400td merchant vessel
> in the savannah without it sinking or getting a lander
> stuck?  How about Dave Wanderer in his 200td Trader,
> or Captain Blackthorne with his 100td Scout?  Has
> anyone got a rule of thumb, or is it a "use your
> judgement" thing?
> 

I tell the pilot to use his judgement, which often means rolling
an uncertain (MT) task to see if he thinks its safe. Something like
this:

	To determine if the ground is safe to land on:
	Routine, Pilot, Int (uncertain)
	Referee: Increase difficulty by one level if the ground
	cannot be observed directly due to clouds, vegetation
	or other reasons. Increase difficulty by one level if the 
	ship is	larger than 1000 tons. Increase by two levels if
  	the ship is larger than 10,000 tons.

That's just off the top of my head and could bear some tweaking.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:31:18 -0500
From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pen.net>
Subject: Re: Landing Heavy Ships

Robert Eaglestone wrote:
> 
> I have a question that springs from the ship-landing
> thread: is a ship's weight distributed in such a way
> that it need not land on rock or a landing pad?
> 
> Can Joe Traveller set down his 400td merchant vessel
> in the savannah without it sinking or getting a lander
> stuck?  How about Dave Wanderer in his 200td Trader,
> or Captain Blackthorne with his 100td Scout?  Has
> anyone got a rule of thumb, or is it a "use your
> judgement" thing?

As I mentioned in a post yesterday, I have starships land/lift from
water, and it's for this very reason. 

Of course, if you keep your CG modules running, and your effective
weight down to almost nothing, you can put your ship down on a thin
sheet of ice or in the middle of bog.  Just don't turn the CG's off! ;->

Eris

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 22:58:48 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: I have Pictures!

The pictures referred seem to have been vacationing in my E-mail
folders, and are all signed by Mike Linsenmayer.  I'm sure he
knowingly sent them, but for what reason I no longer recall, and
can't find the e-mail that they were attached to.  They're quite
impressive, and would make lovely replacements for the Foss
artwork on the covers of some of the Traveller releases.  I would
appreciate it if Mike would be so kind as to send me e-mail
giving permission to open up an art gallery in Freelance
Traveller.  And yes, he has permission to be snarky at me if
that's why he sent them in the first place.  Art like this does
not admit of an excuse for not exhibiting it.

I seem to recall that Chris Cox is also a prime Traveller artist.
I'd have no reason to object if he decided that he had some
exhibitable work as well.
- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

I said:
> > 	With all that going against pirates, I'd think that they'd have 
> > to be able to make more money as honest merchants. 

Douglas said:
> (sigh) let me give you a few ideas...

	Douglas, I'll grant you all that.  I'll grant you complete and 
total knowledge of the destination and cargo of all ships in the system.  
I'll grant you GG refueling.  Whatever you want.  But you still haven't 
addressed the points I was making. Namely, that the presence of a single 
SDB makes piracy untenable.  And, that even in the absence of SDBs, the 
presence of armed merchants makes capturing the target rather expensive 
and therefore not a winning proposition economically.
	This is not to say that piracy is totally impossible, only that 
it can only occur under a highly restrictive set of circumstances:

	(1) absence of SDBs
	(2) superior arms on the part of pirates

	And let me reiterate, at 1% of GDP for Naval spending, even 
150,000 people can support an SDB.  So condition (1) will hold only in 
_really_ small systems, and how much trade do they generate?  Besides, if 
they're that small a settelment and they have no space defenses, you 
could just hold the entire population hostage by threatening to drop 
rocks on them until they hand over all their wealth in some portable form.
	(2) Is important because if the pirate and merchant are equally 
matched then the merchant has as much chance of disabling the pirate as 
the pirate has of disabling the merchant!

	If you want pirates because you think pirates are fun, then 
okay.  But the Trav universe simply does not allow for economically 
viable pirates, and its that position that I am arguing with.

- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:50:58 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)

Thu, 09 Oct 1997 11:23:19 -0700, Scott Ellsworth
<Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>>Which is why you don't do it again in the same system until
>>you have changed your ships signature.
>
>This is very, very difficult to do in present day surface craft.

Bunk.  It's not that difficult at all.

>>  In any cast, since
>>commercial ships use standard reactor design, all ships of
>>the same type will have the same neutrino signature
>
>Why limit yourself to the neutrino signature?

Because the original poster was asking if neutrino detection
made piracy impossible.

>  I believe the primary ID
>used in Bruce's system is IR.  You can fiddle with the IR to some extent,
>but significant changes in signature involve significant changes in hardware.

IR output of ships is going to be similar to begin with,
the output of ships of the same type is going to be
the same.

>>[Note: The poster's point is also based on the premise that
>>one can track a ship's neutrino signature all the way out
>>at the 100 diam jump limit.

>More correctly, my point is based on two premises:  One, you can track and
>ID a ship successfully standard sensors of the type traffic control will
>have, including neutrino, IR, radio, microwave, and visible, out to the
>hundred diameter limit.  Two, the signature is very hard to change, based
>on our experiences with sonar and submarine.

Well, even if detection at the 100 diam limit is possbile, you
still don't have the level of indentification you desire.  You
example of sonar is a good one.  Sonar gives you the type
of ship, but if I took a merchant ship and armed it for piracy
sonar won't let you know.  Also, it is ill suited to identifing
a specific ship and even if you could changing the signature would
require a few minute at the propellar and a file.

>>Or the first shot takes out the comm system.
>
>Possible, but how much of a radio does it take to send a "Signal GK?"

It takes more than a personal communicator.  How much of a
shot does it take to take out an attenna.

>  Note
>also that you cannot easily jam if you are in easy sensor range, as then
>traffic control will see you.

Actually, you just jam at the time of attack and then you
have about an hour (or more) to transfer the cargo.

>>>Systems do talk, at least if they are wise
>>
>>Unfortunately, even if you could distinguish signatures, systems
>>can only trade news as fast a ship travel.
>
>>...That means it is possible
>>to stay ahead of news.  (And a pirate only has to do it long
>>enough to just retune the reactor and change his signature).

>Sure, you could run, but there are limits.  If you are connected with an
>act of piracy, we are not talking a seriously difficult problem to get your
>signature out to all of the Naval units eventually.

Except by then you could have sold your ship and bought a new one,
let along just change signature.

>>OTOH, it is not in Imperial interest to spend more money
>>preventing piracy than the piracy itself would cost.
>
>Note: military ships are cheap.  A picket costs roughly twice what a ship
>of similar size does.  If you assume jump pickets that are triple the size
>of the average merchant, then losing six ships justifies one picket
>completely.

Well, you are going to need something the size a Kunuir since
a small ship can be ganged up on and suprised.  If you take a
ship out by suprise (which can be seconds, but lets assume
it takes a full 5 minute) and then 15 minutes to transfer
cargo, you need a response time of 20 min.  This will require
multiple ships and those ships will need to be spelled (another
poster mentioned that US ships spend 30% of their time at sea
so maybe we can figure that there are three shifts).  So
maybe 18 Kunuir sized vessels (6 posts in three shifts) will
guard a world.  At that rate you are going to see the major
systems, and the main worlds in middle sized systems, protected
and other places are going to be iffy.

>>It gives you the general type of ship, pirates us the same types
>>of ships that are being used for other purposes.
>
>And the Navy can ID a given ship via sonar exactly, not by type, but
>exactly, if it is within range.

This is no my understanding of Naval capabilities at all.
[But I know some ex submarine people on another list, I'll
check...]
In any case, the ID is not a fixed as you would make it.  All you
need to do is give the engine a tune up and make trivial
changes to the propellar and you have a new signature.

[STuff about storing signatures...]
If you can get a signature is won't matter.  You won't see
it again.  He will just move on and change it on another
world.

>To change signatures such that the old ones fail apparently takes a major
>shipyard some time in the modern world.

And this is based on what?

>>Um no, it would be the equivalent of repainting the car only after
>>you commit a robbery (which happens).

>Big difference - if there were only 300,000 cars in the world, and there
>were ID posts at every gas station that could positively ID a vehicle, then
>doing anything illegal within sight of a gas station would give things
>away,

Nah, repainting a car to make such a possitve ID from a photo
is easy.

>>If you commit a crime
>>you just have to change you identity _once_, changing you
>>identity again (unless you have committed a crime) is both
>>unecessary and pointless (you already have a new clean identity).
>
>As long as none of the back history helps them find you.  After all, they
>can ID your vehicle absolutely.

This is where we disagree.


_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:05:37 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Landing Heavy Ships

09 Oct 1997 15:16 EDT, "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
>I have a question that springs from the ship-landing
>thread: is a ship's weight distributed in such a way
>that it need not land on rock or a landing pad?
>
>Can Joe Traveller set down his 400td merchant vessel
>in the savannah without it sinking or getting a lander
>stuck?  How about Dave Wanderer in his 200td Trader,
>or Captain Blackthorne with his 100td Scout?  Has
>anyone got a rule of thumb, or is it a "use your
>judgement" thing?

The background is inconsitent.  You have exploritory
ships with auxilary vehicles to get to the surface
and the fact that the Imperium has gone to the trouble
to blast at least a level rock surface on every system
in the entire Empire (ie type "X" is the lowest class
port for a world).  OTOH, if you look at the rules there
is no clear reason why a ship couldn't land anyplace open.

In my campiagn, a ship landing on anything other than
rock kicks up a lot of debris (but then I don't use
thruster plates, my reactionless thrusters have
exhaust) and, since star ships weight a lot, there
is some chance that the ground may not support one
or more of the struts (so they at least sink in)
complicating landing.  This causes the landing to
have a fairly small, but real, risk of going wrong.
Thus, you hit the "port" (ie the level bit of rock)
if you can, otherwise you land else where.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:48:59 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Poppin' Hulls (fwd)

Moin Kenneth Bearden,

> This brings us to a related question.  How easy is it for your
> characters to space walk to a ship they've found, dead in space, and
> open it from the outside?

	anything has weak points, you dont care about this weak
	point in space combat, but an infantryman with a cutting
	torch will. in our house rules a classical point for somebody
	with a torch is thru the fuel scopes into the engine room.

	ok you are wracking the scopes, at least one tank, perhaps
	the fuel purification plant, and you should use a remote
	controled robot because of LHy in the tank.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:42:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

>1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium

I think that Piracy would exist in the Imperium, as I've stated, usually
rather vehemently.  Major places it would exist?  Spinward Marches, Coreward
Edge of the Imperium (towards the Vargr Extants), around Reaver's Deep area
(and all along the Solomani Rim for that matter).

I am mostly against the "piracy can only work if its an act of war" argument,
because I don't think that its true.

>2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals

I think this is entirely possible (I think it is foolish to think otherwise).
 But, it is something that would be relatively difficult to do, or somewhat
expensive to have done by someone else.

>3) the frequency of GG refueling visits

I haven't made up my mind on this one yet.  There are a number of things (GG
refueling vs. Starport refueling, "Standard" Life Support vs. Closed Loop
Life Support) that make little sense in the Traveller Universe in my opinion.

>4) T4 pirates' modus operandi

T4 meaning Milieux: 0?  There'd be tons of pirates.  Lots of them, until the
3I says: "ENOUGH!" And starts slaughtering them.

>5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy

This depends on the amount of funds that the Imperium has to spend on its
whole Navy to begin with.  Until I get through my crash course in
Macroeconomics I refuse to comment further :)

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:15:56 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Bible Code

Moin Kenneth Bearden,

> But, since you asked, all of the ones you cite above are translations. 
> The Bible Code works off of the ancient Hebrew, from which all of those
> translations were translated from.

        f crs t wrks btr wth hbrw. n hbrw nmbrs nd
        ltrs r th sm. ld hbrw dd'nt wrt vcls, nd
        wrds f th sm nmbr hd t hv smlr mnngs. Th
        "vrgn" mr s sch  trnsltn, th hbrw wrd cld
        ls mn "yng wmn", r jst n th frst bk. s dm
        nd v "ndrstnd*" ch thr, th cld ls b slpd
        tgthr. f y drp th vcls bth r dntcl wrds.

        * dnt hv n nglsh bbl hr,  thnk th nglsh ppl
          wl hv thr trnsltn, "ndrstnd" s wrng.

        n thr wl knwn fct s tht ld hbrw ptry sd ths
        nmbr=ltr qvlnt t xs, t xprs mthmtcl trms
        n ptry r prsc wrtngs.

        ..g. Th bk f slmn shws P s 22/7 qt crt fr
          tht tm, smwhr btwn th mlky wmn s nc s shp.

	-- and now just the same !

	of course it works better with hebrew. in hebrew numbers and
	letters are the same. old hebrew did'nt write vocals, and
	words of the same number had to have similar meanings. The
	"virgin" maria is such a translation, the hebrew word could
	also mean "young woman", or just in the first book. As Adam
	and Eve "understand*" each other, the could also be sleeped
	together. If you drop the vocals both are identical words.

	* dont have an english bible here, I think the english people
	  will have their translation, "understand" is wrong.

	An other well known fact is that old hebrew poetry used this
	number=letter equivalent to xs, to express mathematical terms
	in poetry or prosaic writings.

	.e.g. The book of salomon shows PI as 22/7 quite acurate for
	  that time, somewhere between the milky woman as nice as sheep.

	PS : Did you see that I predict TCL to become a major computer
	     language - ok found the clue.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:17:41 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: Fast Drug

Looking for some notes about fast drug I came across an old scrap of
game record that reminded me that one of my companions had once used
fast on my character.

This was many years ago and the ref ruled that when the vehicle carrying
the characters crashed I was fine due to complete body relaxation (I
never saw it coming) and the character that had "kidnapped" me was so
badly damaged that I came out of it before he did.

Needless to say my character was not impressed.

Brody Dunn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:14:17 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Hauling people

On Thursday, 9 October 1997 23:34, shadow@krypton.rain.com
[SMTP:shadow@krypton.rain.com] wrote:
> On the other hand, now that someone has posted that fast drug makes a
> jump take 2.8 hours, I think it *would* work. In three or four hours,
> not even a slaver's "dense pack" is going to result in any serious
> physical problems. Though I suspect that a modest percentage of the
> passengers would suffer from claustrophobia afterwards.

This would surely only effect metabolism.  The effects of rubbing
against each other would still be present (ohhh chafing - ouch).

> Of course, if it's possible to administer slow drug and then a good
> sedative, they can sleep thru the whole trip!

I'm also not convinced of the duration effect - 1 week into 3 hours
seems very severe (get this into the drinking supply of your target and
just walk in and around the people - they won't even see you.

There was slow, medical slow and fast.  Whhich I though was x2 for slow
(i.e. the world goes slower - you go faster), x 30 for Medical Slow (but
your unconcious (handy for healing - you'd need a very grunty drip feed
medication though), and for the life of me I can't remember the ratio
for Fast (bugger!) although 60 to one does sound right. hmmmmmm

Must be difficult to get into the victim..... um I mean patient.

Brody Dunn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:27:16 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Gas Giants

On Friday, 10 October 1997 00:16, shadow@krypton.rain.com
[SMTP:shadow@krypton.rain.com] wrote:
> Sure folks *might* be unwilling to drink or wash with the extracted
> water (though I doubt it).

I agree - Recycled water will just be fact of life - in fact some crew
may find ot distasteful to drink unrecycled water (psychologically
anyway), after all you just don't know where it's been (and with whom!)


Brody Dunn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:02:33 +1000
From: Scott & Isabell <becubed@connexus.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

At 22:40 8/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:
>
>   It's worse than that.  If someone is wearing one of those suits
>faints or even throws up (which has happened I understand), Disney rules
>state that they must be taken out of public view before the head can be
>removed.  Imagine the joy of seeing Goofy fall to the ground and start
>to smell icky before some of his "associates" can carry him away.  No
>wonder the characters travel in packs.

There is a story told here about Humphry the Bear. Sort of like Barney,
he's been around for many years. The story goes that one day during an
event in a park a bee flew into the head through the eye holes. The
children were treated to the sight of Humphry ripping of his head and
kicking around the park.

Scott

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1941
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1942



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

RE: Gas Giants
Re: Gazelle NPAWS Redux
RE: Fuel purification
Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Bruce and the sensor question
Re: Interesting thought on TL
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Intrasystem Piracy.
Strange metals
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Poppin' Hulls (fwd)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:22:28 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Gas Giants

On Friday, 10 October 1997 00:02, shadow@krypton.rain.com
[SMTP:shadow@krypton.rain.com] wrote:
> It's gonna take a *long* time to cause any significant effects on any
> planet that has any sort of reasonable hydro figure.
> 
> Planets are *huge*. Yes, we've managed to cause some damage to this
> one. But the only "lasting" damage so far are things that act like
> *catalysts. It only takes a small amount of chlorine at the right
> altitude to interfere with the ozone layer. And it only takes a little
> pesticide in the surface layers of the ocean to reduce the number of
> plankton. 
> 
> But trying to export enough water (seawater) to cause a noticable
> effect would be a major project.

There's an excellent short story about this by Asimov??? about men
living on mars being charged exhorbitant amounts for the water used to
propell rockets about because of politicians on earth not knowing the
figures and rationing.

Anyways - these mars dwellers (or maybe asteroid miners - I read it a
while ago) go to Saturn and grab a chuck of ice from orbit there and
bring it back.

Last line of the story goes something like.

"And if earth is so concerned about running out of water.  Don't worry
we can sell you all the water you want."

Brody

> 
> -- 
> Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
>  shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:22:42 -0400
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Gazelle NPAWS Redux

Joseph and Michael, thanks for posting your PAW designs they've been quite
helpful to me in proofing my PAW spreadsheets.

Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett on the TML wrote:
>So, my question remains: is this weapon any good as it stands, in terms of
>damage and reach, or would a laser be a better use of volume and energy?
>It's been too long since I dabbled in Traveller space combat.  I'd whip up
>a few barbette-scale lasers myself for the comparison, but I'm about to
>chaperone a bunch of seventh graders on a road trip to the Four Corners
>region of Colorado. (Hm... Any TML folks in that neck of the woods?  :-)
>Maybe when I get back.


<deletage>

>Theoretical Effective Range  17961.27  <-- Wimpy or acceptable?

Compared to Lasers this is wimpy.  For comparison I've included a Laser
design at toward the end of this message.

>Continental Range (5,000 km)
>  Intensity                   5896.24

An ommision from FF&S2 is that Intensity should never exceed Discharge
Energy. so the above intensity should be 456.92...

>  Damage                       384.24

....and result in a Damage of 48

>Planetary Range (50,000 km)
>  Intensity                     58.96
>  Damage                        38.42  <-- See above?
>Far Orbit Range (500,000km)
>  Intensity                      0.59
>  Damage                         3.84
>
>Rate of Fire                     3.00
>Input Energy per Shot        12089.00
>Power Required                 274.86

I see you multipled Input Energy by number of laps to get Input Energy per
Shot.  It is being discused on the GDW-Beta list whether Input Energy per
Shot should be DE x 10 (as it currently is in FF&S2) or DE x 10 x #laps.  If
you just used FF&S2 as is Input Energy per Shot should be 1727.  Also Power
Required seems off.  Power Required should be (ROF3/min x 1727MJ x7laps
/60sec) = 604.45MW.  FF&S2 seems to have an error in its Power Requires
eqauation currently it reads: "Power required is Rate of Fire x Energy Per
Lap x Number of Laps per Shot / Length of Turn)".  I beleive it should read:
"Power required is Rate of Fire x 10 x Energy Per Lap x Number of Laps per
Shot /
Length of Turn)".                ^^^^

>Tunnel Volume                   56.43
>Tunnel Mass                     42.32
>Tunnel Cost (MCr)                5.64

>Accumulator Volume (m3)         10.99
>Accumulator Mass (tons)         21.99
>Accumulator Price (MCr)          0.11

Unfortunately I think that accumulators are also incorrect.  TL-14
accumulators are .04m3/MJ.  for 1727MJ this would be 69.8m3 or for 12089MJ
would be 483.56m3.

>84m3 socket has 75.94m3 usable volume, 15.98m2 area, 4.51 m dia, 0.84MW
>
>Total Volume of NPAW (m3)       75.22 <-- includes tunnel, accumulators,



OK for comparison here's a laser that will fit into a barbette.

TL-14 300MJ Grav Focused 4.5m X-Ray laser
Area     Volume   Mass     Power   Price
15.90m2  74.77m3  134.77t  75MW    2.55MCr

Short Range: 500,000km
Effective Range: 506,250,000km

         Damage at
5,000km  50,000km  500,000km     ROF
  43        43         43        3/min

Chris Cox
"Investment banking galley slave in New York City"
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:40:43 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Fuel purification

On Friday, 10 October 1997 04:14, Tommy Grav
[SMTP:tommy.grav@astro.uio.no] wrote:
> But you'll have to store raw water in the tanks or there will be no
point
> in having fuel scoops larger than what your purification plant can
> process. I mean what does a ship do with the 100 dton scooped while it
> waits for it to be purified at a rate of 3 dtons per hour. 

Ahh - But it takes time to pump on water and scoop up hydrogen - This
time also includes the time spebnd producing unrefined fuel from the raw
material and dumpiing the unused molecules (such as oxygen).  Then the
hydrogen is refined into exactly perfect Jump Fuel.  Power plants get by
on unrefined fuel (not water, nor ammonium/hydrogen mixes or whatever is
scooped).

IMHO - What the scoops do is take in whatever you scoop up (or pump) and
turn it into unrefined fuel (the equipment to do this is subsumed into
the powerplant and stuff (as the process is very simple perhaps) and so
while thrusting to the jump diameter you can turn the unrefined ( but
still liquid hydrogeny) fuel into refined fuel (perhaps refined fuel is
just all facing the right way or is zero tolerance for Impurities).

Brody Dunn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:21:10 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

As a tangent to the current thread regarding the use of sensors within a
star system, perhaps I can ask a further question:

How does the "Sensors" skill interact with the technology of the sensors
themselves in Traveller?  If sensor displays are similar to today's air
traffic controller set-ups (big round sweeping graphic displays with Z-axis
information provided numerically), most unskilled individuals can pick a
blip on such a display and have a very good idea as to it's range and
bearing (passive sensors might be a bit harder).  IOW, the equipment itself
provides much of the "skill".  To what affect does a character's sensor
skill improve one's chances when using ship's sensors?

This may sound like a stupid question, but I am just interested in a few
examples as to how two people with different skill ratings-- looking at the
same sensor display-- can acquire different levels of information.

Jamming and passive sensors, OTOH, are a different story.



James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:21:08 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:15:19 -0500, Sam Thomas wrote:

> At 04:02 PM 10/8/97 -0600, you wrote:
> 
> >Ken, I think you misunderstood the thread. Semo et. al are talking about
> >why *actors* aren't running around in _Starship Troopers_ in hot plastic
> >suits. And the stormtrooper thing got brought up as an example.
> >
> >I'm sure even ILM won't pay to build AC into every Stormtrooper costume.
> >;-)
> 
> Why not Barney has a fan that he has placed in his mouth, but even then the
> suite guy goes thru several large (liter sized)containers of Gatorade
> during his performance?
> 
> It was very interesting to watch him get into the suite ie from the bottom,
> the suite is suspended from above, and he crawls in underneath.

They use the same technique when filming the current live-action kids show
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles".  They insert a modified hair dryer (with
the heating elements removed) in through the mouth to provide cool air to
the actor inside.  Of course, if the animatronics guy is out having a
smoke, there's no one around to open the mouth (it happened more than
once-- "I can't breathe... open the mouth... OPEN the mouth!").



James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:18:35 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).

Nick wrote:

>
>Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
>
>> 	This week, somebody (I forgot who; I was studying at the time)
>> suggested that somebody (hints were dropped about Famille Spofulam) try to
>> design a .75 recoilless (i.e. rocket slug firing) pistol based on the
>> Stainless Steel Rat's sidearm of choice.
>
>Hehehehehe.  That was me.


	That demented chuckling is making me nervous..:).


>
>> T4 stats:
>>
>> Name: .75 DiGriz Special Recoilless pistol (TL-11)
>> Tech Level: 10
>> Damage: Special: damage and armour penetration varies depending on range:
>> 	Damage at 4+ meters: Slug: 4.5, HE: 6.5
>> 		Penetration vs armour at 4+ meters: 4.5
>
>Hahahahaha.  What about a HEAP round? ;-)  (I won't ask about
>hollowpoints.)


	FF&S2 treats HEAP and HE identically for damage calculations; I'd
treat HE as being no more effective than slug against armour, and HEAP as
being no more effective than slug against unarmoured targets.

	As far as hollowpoints go, the damage resolution in Trav is just
too coarse to reflect any advantage, AFAIK.

	Been thinking about the design today, and I realized that I was
making the assumption that x joules worth of rocket exhaust will produce
the same velocity as x joules produced by chambered propellant detonating
in a gun.  I'd be inclined to subtract a die's worth of damage from each
range to reflect the (AFAIK) less efficient means of propulsion.


>
>I'm glad these don't exist, the temptation to misuse them on
>students would be incredible.


	I would think that anything that produces a 12 foot long muzzle
blast would be a very convincing means of enforcing discipline in a lecture
hall..:)

	I know what you mean... Back when I worked retail, I had the
occasional really annoying customer... but we won't go there :).

	Besides, we never needed guns for that at that job; we had all the
axes and claw hammers and and ball peen hammers and sledge hammers (in
different weights) and pickaxes we needed, not to mention chainsaws,
reciprocating saws, chop saws, panel saws, jig saws, power drills, hammer
drills, belt sanders, disc sanders, industrial floor sanders, weed
whackers, garden trowels, finishing nails, acetone, paint thinner, lacquer
thinner, paint stripper, muriatic acid, Drano... ahh... nostalgia :).


>I've just been experiencing Fresher's
>Week again (vicariously) and my reactions are:
>
>i) I wish I were 21 again and knew everything... [*]
>ii) Can't I just kill *one* as an example to the others?
>


	No.  It might affect your chances at tenure :).


>Actually, ii) would just prolong the mass hysteria.  Lucky escape
>there for someone.
>
>[*] Minimum age for students at the college in question.  No better
>than 18, it seems.
>
>ObTrav: DoeS aNyBody impose SAN checks on characters using this kind
>of stuff.

	Characters?   As somebody once pointed out here, they're 90%
alcoholic homicidal sociopathic criminals.  It's the players that I'd worry
about..:)

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:50:37 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

In mail you write:

> At 04:02 PM 10/8/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>Ken, I think you misunderstood the thread. Semo et. al are talking about
>>why *actors* aren't running around in _Starship Troopers_ in hot plastic
>>suits. And the stormtrooper thing got brought up as an example.
>>
>>I'm sure even ILM won't pay to build AC into every Stormtrooper costume.
>>;-)
>
> Why not Barney has a fan that he has placed in his mouth, but even then the
> suite guy goes thru several large (liter sized)containers of Gatorade
> during his performance?
>
> It was very interesting to watch him get into the suite ie from the bottom,
> the suite is suspended from above, and he crawls in underneath.

Anything that happens to an actor playing "the purple abomination" is
deserved! :-)

Seriously, back in the *60s* they came up with a self contained cooling
suit for race car drivers. It's essentially a bodysuit with small
plastic tubes woven into it. A small waist pack pumps water thru the
tubes. The cooling is supplied by filling the waist pack (about the
size of a larger fanny pack) with ice. 

The guy who tested it for an article in Popular Science wore it in a
steam bath for 30 minutes or so. 

They are expensive, but not *that expensive. Thopugh it's possible that
they movie folks haven't discovered them yet (though I find that
unlikely, given that many stunt men are involved with racing)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:44:20 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

In mail you write:

> Kenneth Bearden wrote:
>> 
>> SemoFetus@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> > >   One example I don't recall being mentioned to this point is Star
>> > >Wars.  There were most definately guys in plastic suits (stormtroopers)
>> > >running around in the desert (of Tatooine) in that film.
>> >
>> > Well, look carefully and you'll find that there aren't alot of 
> stormtroopers
>> > actually 'running' in the desert.  They are basically walking on a desert
>> > like backlot, or standing and mulling around in the desert for 5 seconds 
> or
>> > so.
>> 
>> It is my understanding that the Stormtrooper armor is environmentally
>> contained.  They can wear it in space like a vac suit.
>> 
>> I'm sure those stormtroopers on Tatooine were experiencing a cool 72
>> degrees.
>
> Ken, I think you misunderstood the thread. Semo et. al are talking about
> why *actors* aren't running around in _Starship Troopers_ in hot plastic
> suits. And the stormtrooper thing got brought up as an example.
>
> I'm sure even ILM won't pay to build AC into every Stormtrooper costume.
> ;-)

They didn't. The scenes that were shot in Tunisia were a *real* bear. I
recall reading that they had problems with parts of the C3PO outfit
*melting* in the heat. And that was while the poor actor was *wearing* it.

You'll notice that there are *no* desert scenes in the first movie
where a shot lasts more than a minute or so. All those camera cuts are
so that they could us *short* "takes".

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:28:57 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Bruce and the sensor question

In mail you write:

> (1) A list of ever type of sensor available in Traveller (EMS, neutrino,
> densitometer, etc).  The list needs to be broken up into active and
> passive sensors, and each of those need to have scan (scanner) and lock
> (tracker) modes.

Well, gravity/densitometer and neutrino are passive *only*.

> (2)  Next to each sensor type, I'd like to see a description of the type
> of information that the sensor scan will reveal--information that GMs
> can give to players and the mystery of what the target is unfolds.

Neutrino sensors will give a "count rate" (intensity) and a direction.
The directional info is going to depend greatly on the count rate (it's
easier to get a direction of a source that's sending out lots of
neutrinos). It's also going to depend on how well you can
directionalize the signals. This has to invlove either sheilding (which
means the source could use sheilding) or directionally sensitive
sensors (ie they only react to neutrinos moving thru in a specific
direction, sort of like a directional loop radio antenna). The count
rate depends greatly on what percentage of neutrinos can be detected,
and also on the energy sensitivity (neutrinos have varying energies,
and low energy ones will be harder to detect).

Gravity sensors (as opposed to grvity *wave* detectors) essentially
sense density differences. With multiple srensors (or reading taken
from several different points) you get an idea of the mass involved,
and can "map" the density patterns. 

In space, they have a easier job in that you are looking for dense
objects (ships, rocks, iceballs) surrounded by vacuum. That's a pretty
sharp density discontinuity. At the same time, since gravity is a quite
weak source, they work much better at shorter ranges.

If someone knows where to get operational info on the Forward Mass
Detector (a real device), it'd really help the folks writing the sensor
rules!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:25:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Interesting thought on TL

In mail you write:

> Quoth Leonard Erickson:
>> ps. a nasty trick I learned from a jeweler friend backwhen I played
>> D&D. There are some rather interesting alloys out there. Want a
>> *purple* metal? How about a *red* one (not "orange" like copper, but
>> *red*). Also green and brown are available. These aren't coatings. If
>> you slice a chunk of the stuff in half, the color is there on the cut
>> surface. 
>
> So don't leave us hanging!  What are they?  :-)

I'll have to dig out my old D&D notes. They are all gold alloys. The
only one I recall is purple, which is an alloy of gold and aluminum
(ok, "lavender" :-).

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:01:38 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

In mail you write:

> Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
> I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
> is the vote on
>
> 1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
> 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
> 3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
> 4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
> 5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy

I think pirates are unlikely/rare. 

In all of SF I can think of three situations where piracy was occuring
in a plausible manner.

1. Heinlein's "Citizen of the Galaxy".
   The pirates are capturing free traders and small merchants. They are
   selling the cargos (and crews!) in another government's area. That
   government doesn't "support" the pirates. That is, it doesn't give
   them ships, and it doesn't supply them crews. But it does fuel and
   repair them (at normal rates). And it certainly isn't trying to
   *stop* them. But even though it might let them get away with
   refitting a captured ship and re-registering it, they likely
   wouldn't tolerate raids on *their* ships.
2. Some of Andre Norton's stories.
   This appears to be a case of opirates operating in areas outside
   those controlled by the big interstellar powers. And there's also
   the Theives Guild, which has people almost everywhere, and even has
   its own *ports* on worlds not known to the government. The guild
   doesn't have pirates as members, but they'll cheerfully sell them
   services and buy their loot.
3. E.E.(Doc) Smith's "Lensman" stories.
   Here we have "pirates" that are actually "commerce raiders" from
   another "government". Boskone is an autocracy, and they don't much
   care what you do as long as you get the job done. They see nothing
   wrong with drug-running, slavery, and other such thing (think of
   them as the Mafia grown big enough to *be* a government).

Case 1 is only applicable on the fringes of the Imperium. Case 2 is
applicable a bit farther into the Imperium, but still relies on there
being unexplored areas or some other way to cheaply have "hidden" bases.
Case 3 could apply all through the Imperium, but only because the
"pirates", being agents of a real government, have enough resources to
*create* complete hidden starports even inside the Imperium.

Note that Case 3 isn't really "pirates". But they'll be called that
until it eventually becomes obvious that what is really going on is a
war of attrition.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:16:04 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Intrasystem Piracy.

At 09:56 9/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Colin Hutchinson wrote:
>
>>         A couple of thoughts.
>>         1.Considering the inhospitable nature of most planets outside the
>> Habitable zone (according to the world detailing systems in WTH or WBH)  I
>> doubt that there would be much in-system traffic with two exceptions:
>
>I disagree.  Considering the inhospitable nature of most planets outside
>the H zone, and considering that the extended system generation system
>can give you substantial populations on these worlds, there must be quite
>a bit of intra-system traffic from the mainworld to support these worlds!
>Also, binary and trinary systems can have a 2nd and 3rd habitable zone...
>
>[snip]
>
I am sort of surprised.  I really did mean the World detailing systems, not
system generating systems.  Most of the other supposedly habitable worlds
turn out to be absoloutely freezing or roasting, even those in the Habitable
system.  Most habitable zones around M class stars seem not to be.  Of
course this only goes for worlds in the unmodified system generation, I
think that if you use some of the modified versions you get planets which
when listed as habitable, turn out to be so, but you also get less habitable
worlds.  Mind you, I have not calculated any statistics  about this.  Any ideas?


                        Colin
>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:49:08 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Strange metals

Here are the odd alloys I mentioned:

Red Gold	75% Au, 25% Cu
Green Gold	75% Au, 25% Ag
Brown Gold	75% Au, 18.75% Pd, 6.25% Ag
Purple Gold	75% Au. 25% Al

Au = gold
Ag = silver
Pd = palladium
Al = aluminum

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:19:18 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

John Macpherson wrote:

>
>	Douglas, I'll grant you all that.  I'll grant you complete and
>total knowledge of the destination and cargo of all ships in the system.
>I'll grant you GG refueling.  Whatever you want.  But you still haven't
>addressed the points I was making. Namely, that the presence of a single
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>SDB makes piracy untenable.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[snip]

	I have to disagree with this assertion.

	Let's take a look at the Solar system.  Let's assume it's a typical
system.  Leaving out the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belts, and just measuring
from the Sun to Pluto's aphelion, we get a sphere with a radius of 49.3
A.U, or 4,584,900,000 miles, or 7,378,479,570 kilometers.  Its diameter is
1.475696*10e10 kilometers.  Light takes over 13.5 _hours_ to travel cross
it.

	Its volume is 1.682632*10e30 cubic kilometers.  That's a lot of
room.  It's the kind of number that makes Carl Sagan want to take two
Tylenol and go lie down for a while.  It's far to vast for me to even begin
comprehending.

	However, most of that is waste space; the valuable real estate and
hence all the action is down in the plane of the ecliptic.  So let's
calculate the volume of a disk 10% of an A.U. thick, i.e. 9,300,000 miles
or 14,966,490 km thick.  This gives us a volume of only 2.559786*10e27
cubic kilometers, spread out in a disk that's about 1:99.6 height to
diameter.

	However, for the Solar system, even some of this is waste space.
Let's assume that nothing outside the orbit of Saturn or inside the orbit
of Mercury is going to be visited often (and I'm leaving out two gas
giants, a small planet, and a raft of moons here).  Thus, we subtract
1.577363*10e23 cubic kilometers from the space inside of Mercury's orbit,
giving us 2.559628*10e27 left over, minus 2.463954*10e27 for the space
outside Saturn's orbit, which leaves us with 9.5674*10e25 cubic kilometers
worth of prime space in the system.

	This is significantly smaller than the spherical volume of the
Solar system.  Carl could probably hack it, and the fact that I'm still
standing is a testament to my inability to grok huge numbers.

	Now, let's take an SDB.  Let's take a hypothetical Famille Spofulam
SDB from hell.  One with a horking great big spinally mounted PA gun with
an 80 light-second range (the maximum T4 space combat range band), that
does 12 G's (double the canonical max acceleration for Thruster plates;
maybe it's got some big HEPlaR auxiliary drives as well.  And lots of
reaction mass.  LOTS of reaction mass).

	Its effective radius is therefore a sphere 160 light-seconds in
diameter, which gives us a volume of 1.130973*10e17 cubic kilometers.
Anything within 24,000,000 kilometers, that ship can hit.  It's a pretty
frightening ship.

	Now, let's calculate its effective radius given 24 hours warning;
let's say that an allowable elapsed time from a GK signal to the SDB
charging in with PA gun blazing is 24 full hours; the local pirates are all
Slow Drug addicts aside from the being the usual alcohol and Drug Drug
addicts.

	At 12 G's, from rest, the SDB will travel 2.239488*10e10 m,
assuming turnaround, or double that (4.478976*10e10 m, or 44,789,760 km) if
the captain is a total maniac and floors it all the way to the scene of the
crime and then begins decelerating.  Bear in mind that this is doing 9 g's
over the maximum that TL-12 inertial compensators can compensate for.  Even
if the crew are in G-tanks, they're still having a really rough 24 hours.
(note; this is based on the travel formulae in the T4 manual; the numbers
may therefore be slightly porked).

	So basically, the SDB has an effective response radius, assuming 12
G's, and crew effectiveness while pulling 9G's for 24 hours, of 68,789,760
km.  Which is pretty scary, and way, way beyond what canonical SDB's are
capable of.

	The effective volume of space this souped-up psycho-killer SDB from
hell can defend, even allowing it 24 hours response time, is a sphere
137,579,520 km in diameter, with a volume of 1.363515*10e24.


	This is 0.01425168, or slightly less than 1.5%, of the system's
"prime real estate".  If we compare radii, the radius of the prime real
estate (i.e. from Sol to Saturn's orbit) is 1,427,803,146 km, which is
20.75 times the effective 24 hour response radius of our hypothetical
monster SDB.

	I should note that given jump drives and 100-diameter limits, the
sum of the really prime real estate, the volume of space inside safe jump
radius of each planet , will be infinitesimal compared to the volume of the
system as a whole.  However, the SDB still has to get around inside the
system.  It can only defend one planet at a time, two for a small portion
of any local year if the orbits are spaced right.

	Therefore, I sincerely doubt that a single SDB will suffice to
defend a given system.

	Recall what one prominent pre-WWII air strategist had to say...

	"The sky is too large to defend"

	The same goes for space.  Space is _BIG_.  The scale that the game
takes place on, and it's reference to jump "points", and the fact that most
people (myself included) don't really bother trying to conceptualize the
scale of things while roleplaying, tends to make us forget this.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:19:01 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Poppin' Hulls (fwd)

Michael Koehne wrote:
>         anything has weak points, you dont care about this weak
>         point in space combat, but an infantryman with a cutting
>         torch will. in our house rules a classical point for somebody
>         with a torch is thru the fuel scopes into the engine room.

Hmmm.  In our deck plans, the fuel scoops lead right into...the
purification plant!

Sombody cutting in from there would need a lot of power and be able to
cut through these massive pieces of machinery.

Besides, I wonder want it would take to cut through the hull like that. 
I guess I'll have to pull out my CSC and check on what it takes to cut
through superdense.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1943



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Bible Code
Piracy
Re: Fuel purification
Re: Intrasystem Piracy.
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1928
Re: Gas Giants
Piracy
B5
B5
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Actives integration time
Re: Bible Code
Re: Poppin' Hulls (fwd)
Re: automation - the Gunner's job
re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Piracy Challenge
Re: BattleDress vs Vac Suit
RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
RE: Piracy Challenge (long)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:27:15 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

Michael Koehne wrote:
>         .e.g. The book of salomon shows PI as 22/7 quite acurate for
>           that time, somewhere between the milky woman as nice as sheep.
> 
>         PS : Did you see that I predict TCL to become a major computer
>              language - ok found the clue.

Look everybody, I'm not a proponent of the Bible Code, I'm just reading
it, and I think it is a fascinating book.

I'm only on Chapter three, and I'm still a skeptic.  I checked the net,
and there are many web sites of opinions--many agree with Drosnin's
conclusions, and many don't.

I don't really care who believes this stuff or not.  If you are
interested in it, read it.  If you are not, then don't read it.

But, just stop trying to convince me it is wrong.  

I don't know what it is--other than a facinating read.

We spend our time reading, for hours, Milieu 0, and we get entertainment
out of it.  Right now, Drosnin's book is entertainment to me.  Maybe
when I get done, I'll believe it, and maybe I won't.

Many of you have no place to critique the Bible Code because you haven't
read it, and you don't know what you are talking about.  Me, on the
other hand, has not finished the Bible Code, and I don't know what I'm
talking about either.

I've just reported on what I've read.  Read it if you find it
interesting.

That's all I can say.

Thanks,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Piracy

 
"David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu> said:
>
> Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu> said:
> >Note: military ships are cheap.  A picket costs roughly twice what a ship
> >of similar size does.  If you assume jump pickets that are triple the size
> >of the average merchant, then losing six ships justifies one picket
> >completely.
> 
> Well, you are going to need something the size a Kunuir since
> a small ship can be ganged up on and suprised.  If you take a
> ship out by suprise (which can be seconds, but lets assume
> it takes a full 5 minute) and then 15 minutes to transfer
> cargo, you need a response time of 20 min.

	Perhaps you're using an old version of space combat rules, but it 
takes quite a bit longer than seconds or even 5 minutes to disable even a 
small warship like an SDB, Patrol Cruiser, or Kinunir.  This depends, of 
course, on what is attacking it, but your average pirate in a coverted 
merchantman is simply not going to have the fire power to do this.  
Current space combat turns are 30 minutes and it may take several to get 
a disabling hit on a target.  Light military ships like those mentioned 
above also have more than enough fire power to take out a pirate, even a 
small group of them.  Merchants are not so easy to disable, either.
	As for off-loading cargo in 15 minutes, I think this is also 
extremely optimistic.  It probably took far longer than 15 minutes to 
load the merchant ship at the port where they had the benefit of 
specialized gear.  Doing it through an airlock in space is likely to take 
much longer.
	Since an SDB only takes 1.5 hours from the mainworld to bring a 
target at the 100-d limit into range, the pirates only have that much 
time to disable the target, dock, off-load the cargo, and skedaddle.  
Given the realities of space combat, that is an almost impossibly short 
time.  Pirates working in gangs that can create diversions for each other 
might work, but that requires a lot of coordination and means that the 
gains from an economically marginal endeavor get spread even thinner.

- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:54:43 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Fuel purification

In mail you write:

> On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Ethan Henry wrote:
>
>> OK, true, it's easy to just make sure you don't store "raw" water
>> in the tanks. Purification will kill a lot of stuff - ok, it'll
>> kill everything. 
>
> But you'll have to store raw water in the tanks or there will be no point
> in having fuel scoops larger than what your purification plant can
> process. I mean what does a ship do with the 100 dton scooped while it
> waits for it to be purified at a rate of 3 dtons per hour. 

The purification plant rather obviously is seperating hydrogen
*isotopes*. Producing hydrogen (unrefined fuel) is much faster.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:38:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Intrasystem Piracy.

In mail you write:

>         A couple of thoughts.
>         1.Considering the inhospitable nature of most planets outside the
> Habitable zone (according to the world detailing systems in WTH or WBH)  I
> doubt that there would be much in-system traffic with two exceptions:

Well, there may be resources more easily extracted on other worlds in
the system. Especially if they have any grasp of pollution effects.

Also, in systems that have gone thru the Long Night, they may have
advanced to the point of being able to travel within the system long
before recovering Jump tech. And they'd have a *damn* good reason to
visit the other planets. Too look for relic technology. Which requires
at least small bases for searching for things that may not be visible
from orbit. After they get contacted, or re-develop jump, they'd still
have the bases. There are *always* people who LIKE to live in isolated
areas where it's a struggle to survive.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:28:42 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1928

In mail you write:

> OK. Consider the Stanley Steamer -- still holds (AFAIK) the world
> record for the fastest steam car -- around 120 mph, IIRC. Now, look
> at pictures of the Stanley -- it is no more AF or SL than the Model
> "T".

Better check out the one that set the record. It was at least as
streamlined as a Soapbox Derby racer.

> So it seems to me that there is no reason why a USL hull couldn't
> handle even stratospheric/jet stream winds of at least that speed.

Force a wind force chart I came across while looking for something
else, at 75 mph wind exerts a force of 17 pounds per square foot. And
the way the force increases is not linear with velocity.

That can add up to quite a bit over the surface area of a ship. And it
can easily exceed the "sideways" forces the ship was designed for.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:02:23 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

In mail you write:

>> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>> Only thing is, you *don't* fill the tanks with water. Given what you
>> *have* to do to extract the hydrogen, nothing bigger than a virus is
>> likely to get into the purifier (you'd use ceramic filters such as are
>> used in survival gear) and even those won't survive the extraction of
>> the hydrogen. You'd either electrolyze the water, which tends to be
>> exceedingly unhealthy for anything in it and doesn't let any viruses
>> travel with the gas anyway. Or you'd "thermally crack" the water. This
>> involves heating it to a few thousand degrees (hot enough that the
>> water breaks down into free oxygen and free hydrogen) and that'll be
>> the best sterilization routine you ever saw. :-)
>
> OK, true, it's easy to just make sure you don't store "raw" water
> in the tanks. Purification will kill a lot of stuff - ok, it'll
> kill everything. 
>
> However, I still think it might be a bad idea to just land in an
> ocean and start sucking. I have one of those ceramic water filters
> and it's great, yeah, a 1 micron filter (and iodine for the 
> smaller stuff) but it's also got an intake hose that's less than 1 
> cm in diameter. With that kinda hose, you'll be waiting a long time
> to refuel you ship's tanks (not to mention that you can only move water 
> through a 1 micron filter so fast... personally, I wouldn't to try
> doing 14 m^3 of it). A starship's intake valves are going to be pretty
> big and there's a good chance that (as Rod described) something
> organic is going to get sucked in. A bunch of plankton, shrimp
> or a couple of seagulls will gum up that 1 micron filter pretty 
> quick. Or, if you just suck 'em in and electrolyse the water,
> you may end up getting unplesant "buildup" on the electrodes.
> Thermal cracking would probably be the easiest way to deal with 
> stuff in the water though.

Well, just like current plants that draw in lots of water, you have
multiple layers of "filter". First a coarse screen (say 1 cm grid),
then finer screen, then the ceramic stuff. And I'd tend to use a "pump"
that sucks X amount of water in thru the filters under low pressure and
then sends .5X back out under high pressure. That'd tend to keep the
filters from getting seriously clogged. True, it involves pumping twice
as much water, but I still think it's sensible.

But thermal cracking will tend to wipe handle almost any goop you can pump.

> As for stuff getting "baked in space" on the trip, sure, I'd agree
> that almost everything will be DOA, but there might be a few
> single-celled critters that manage to make it, sttuck in some 
> crack in one of the scoops... apparently there's bacteria inside the
> lens of that camera that was left on the moon that would come back to
> life quite fine if it was returned to Earth. The chances of something
> like this happening are pretty small, but any world that has a lot
> of space traffic will have laws to make sure that the chance is zero.
> i.e. don't land in the water, please.

The bacteria could do just as well if the ship landed in the spaceport.
Say a bird shits on the ship, and it lands somplace protected. Then on
another world, the ship gets rained on...

> Also, although I have not yet had the time to verify it, I believe
> it's "canon" that you can live with unrefined fuel. You don't have
> to have a fuel purification plant just because you have fuel scoops.
> It's stupid, sure, but if you were in a hurry (and who isn't ?)
> you might be tempted to just fill'er up and jump. It only
> takes one tank of bad water to ruin your ecosystem.

I can only assume that they do a quick and dirty thermal cracking,
which can get you hydrogen, but not easily seperate the isotopes.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 22:50:14 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Piracy

Hello,
>It takes more than a personal communicator.  How much of a
>shot does it take to take out an attenna.

  Are such aimed shots possible under the T4 rules? (Sorry, I'm CT...)
In any case, if such a hit represents an event in a 15 or 30 minute
turn doesn't it still represent an average 5-15 minutes, say, to SOS?

>Actually, you just jam at the time of attack and then you
>have about an hour (or more) to transfer the cargo.

  Is it possible to jam maser comms under current rules? Also, this
may very well work outbound, but inbound that's another hour into the
100 diameter limit. A pirate could be justified in considering that
to be a high risk.

>Except by then you could have sold your ship and bought a new one,
>let along just change signature.

  Isn't interacting with the authorities _within_ the Imperium going
to be the basis of the problem? You probably just sold your ship at
a loss, and the new registration will be out before you've left the
system. If it wasn't your ship you were selling, you may be as good
as caught already.

>Well, you are going to need something the size a Kunuir since
>a small ship can be ganged up on and suprised.  If you take a

  Aren't wolf-packs of pirates contra-indicated? This allows
a single police plant to nail a half-dozen ships (potentially),
not to mention the class of merchant-cum-pirate vessel needed
to take out a state of the art warship 5 or 6 times their size.
In CT/HG, it effectively can't be done.

>ship out by suprise (which can be seconds, but lets assume
>it takes a full 5 minute) and then 15 minutes to transfer
>cargo, you need a response time of 20 min. 

  Again, outbound this may very well be valid. In general,
and especially inbound, the time to match vectors will put
you well within the reach of COACC assets (not starships for
budgetary purposes) and increase available response time in
general.

  Does anybody happen to know some typical SDB allocations
from FFW? This would certainly illuminate one of the GG safety
issues.

        Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:14:31 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: B5

Good God!

Did you guys watch Babylon 5?

Truly, it is the best show that ever been on TV.

And, I though last night's Deep Space Nine was good.

I can't wait until January when I can watch the whole series, all the
way through, with the three new 2-hour movies they've made.

I get goose bumps when I watch this stuff.

Incredible.  In-freakin'-credible.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:26:18 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: B5

Really dead.  I saw it on the web tonight from an interview with JMS,
the show's creator.

If you saw tonight's episode, you'll know what I mean.

They've gone off and killed another major character--one that I thought
would never get killed--tonght on B5.

This character has been on the show for 4 years, since the show's
beginning.

One of the top stars of B5 was hurt tonight,and will be killed off in
the next few episodes.

This show is truly amazing.  You'd never see this on Star Trek.

Dead.  Gone.  Finito.

Wow.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:40:59 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>How does the "Sensors" skill interact with the technology of the sensors
>themselves in Traveller?  If sensor displays are similar to today's air
>traffic controller set-ups (big round sweeping graphic displays with Z-axis
>information provided numerically), most unskilled individuals can pick a
>blip on such a display and have a very good idea as to it's range and
>bearing (passive sensors might be a bit harder).  IOW, the equipment itself
>provides much of the "skill".  To what affect does a character's sensor
>skill improve one's chances when using ship's sensors?
>
>This may sound like a stupid question, but I am just interested in a few
>examples as to how two people with different skill ratings-- looking at the
>same sensor display-- can acquire different levels of information.
>
>Jamming and passive sensors, OTOH, are a different story.

Passive sensors are (in space combat) what will be used. Actives have far
to short a range to be useful at hundreds of thousands of km. A low skilled
sensorop would get as much information if he saw actual blips on a screen
but in reality (the Traveller reality) he'd be presented with a display of
noiselevels and some hints from the software what kind of noise anomalies
there are. The sensor op decides what part of the screen to allot more
integration time and thus better signal.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:54:32 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Actives integration time

I understand the reasons for doing active sensors in the (for me) weird way
but there's something else that bothers me: With the FF&S II actives how do
they scale? Given a fixed TL they should go up as +1 for every x10 antenna
area AND x10 power.

Also, one huge advantage with passives is that they can integrate signal
over time but I'm not shure how actives can do that; either they send
pulses and get information from their delays giving range to target faster
or they send continuously and can integrate but lose the range info as
there are no pulses (I also find it hard to believe that a continuously
sending radar can use the same dish for reception without seriously
increasing noise.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:06:52 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Bible Code

>>Rips found "Hussein picked a day", and close to this was encoded,
>>"January 18, 1991", "Saddam", "missile", "Enemy", and "war".
>>
>>This was three weeks before the Gulf War started--by Hussein launching
>>his first scud missile attack.  That day was Jaunaury 18, 1991.

Notice the word "close". In a big fat book as the bible written in hebrew
I'm shure anything can be found if you define close liberally enough. The
sad part about all this is the statistical journal that actually allowed
the publication of the article(s) - scratch one journal for scientific
credibility.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:02:39 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Poppin' Hulls (fwd)

>Hmmm.  In our deck plans, the fuel scoops lead right into...the
>purification plant!
>
>Sombody cutting in from there would need a lot of power and be able to
>cut through these massive pieces of machinery.
>
>Besides, I wonder want it would take to cut through the hull like that.
>I guess I'll have to pull out my CSC and check on what it takes to cut
>through superdense.
>
>Kenneth.

I have weaker armour (-70%) on the fuel scoops, thrusters (exhaust for
reaction gasses and that weird Cherenkov glow from thrusterplates) etc.
Gives those crazy players something to aim at when they take on the
Kferuzeng Ozarr with a Scout.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:10:49 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: automation - the Gunner's job

>I agree with you Anders. Gunnery, in Traveller terms, is mostly a Sensor
>Operation involving getting FC locks from the data the Sensor Operator
>hands off to them and using their experience and intuition to determine
>just how to get those weapon locks.
>
>I don't think it is a *low* automation job, like some people seem to
>think, but it does (IMO) depend a great deal on the skill of the Gunner.
>
>Eris

A skill the definately could be handled by low automation is Pilot, at
least when not dealing with reentry. Plotting courses in 3D with gravity is
fairly simple and dodging even more so.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:12:49 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>How does the "Sensors" skill interact with the technology of the sensors
>themselves in Traveller? 

I posted a while ago about what a passive sensor operator does - decides
how to trade off search area with depth, where to concentrate, what
wavelengths to concentrate on, what to do to get more info about a 2-sigma
contact.

Active sensor opreastors do have some similar decisions to make - setting
up the sweep pattern for the radar to affect how often and how deep a 
particular region is probed, interpreting faint contacts, etc. 
(Try and flight simulator with a good model for the onboard radar - 
there's a non-zero amount of work to do to keep the radar optimized for
the task at hand.)

That being said, it could all be automated - and even if it isn't, there
isn't a *huge* difference between what a good operator and a bad
operator can do (just like there probably ins't for gunnery); but
Traveller tends to exaggerate (legitimately) the importance of 
skills. 

Actually, the current DSR reflect (somewhat) the lesser importance of 
the operator for active sensors - active sensors go from "undetectable"
to "automatically detected" more rapidly with decreasing range (this is also
the R^4 dependence in action, of course.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:54:50 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Piracy Challenge

>        I think this is the crux of the thread.  The way this could be
>resolved, if it can be, is for Douglas to tell us what level of naval
>spending he would consider reasonable and not "a massive military
>buildup."  If Hans can show that less than 1% of that budget would be
>all that's required to stamp out piracy, we'll consider the
>"insufficient resources" part of the argument finished.  Douglas and
>others are free to argue that the Imperium wouldn't distribute these
>anti-piracy forces in an equitable manner or bring up other reasons why
>piracy would still exist, but no one would be able to credibly say that
>the resources were lacking, only the will.
>        Hans, Douglas, what do you say?  Sound fair?
>
>-JM

In the real world(tme) there are pirates but not worldwide. The reason I
think there is piracy (aside from the fact that I like the romantic
depiction of pirates as badly dressed serious drinkers who are experts with
Rapier and Main Gauche) in Traveller is that the number of spaceports is so
huge. The mainworld has one up to several ports but most medium pop and up
systems will have spaceports all over the place; moons, asteroids,
artificial colonies etc - all these can be pirated so the navy has to
patrol LOTS of places in each system.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:14:57 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: BattleDress vs Vac Suit

<HTML>
Woa Kenneth, you're right.&nbsp; Welp, back to the drawing board.&nbsp;
:)

<P>--
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The J-Man
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
GOC Systems
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
j-man@iname.com
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:49:33 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

You know, there was a bank robbery in Hillsboro today.  Not a large town, 
but the bank has surveillance cameras, alarms - all the bells and whistles. 
 Cops can respond in ten minutes or less.

Cops didn't respond that quickly tho', you know why.

Someone set off a pipe bomb shortly before (11 minutes before to be exact) 
and every cop in town was focused there when the robbery went down.

Coincidence?  Probably not.  The cops certainly don't think so.

Relevant to the thread?  Think about it.

________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of 
dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

- ----------
From: 	John Macpherson[SMTP:john35@wharton.upenn.edu]
Sent: 	Thursday, October 09, 1997 3:56 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

I said:
> > 	With all that going against pirates, I'd think that they'd have
> > to be able to make more money as honest merchants.

Douglas said:
> (sigh) let me give you a few ideas...

	Douglas, I'll grant you all that.  I'll grant you complete and
total knowledge of the destination and cargo of all ships in the system.
I'll grant you GG refueling.  Whatever you want.  But you still haven't
addressed the points I was making. Namely, that the presence of a single
SDB makes piracy untenable.  And, that even in the absence of SDBs, the
presence of armed merchants makes capturing the target rather expensive
and therefore not a winning proposition economically.
	This is not to say that piracy is totally impossible, only that
it can only occur under a highly restrictive set of circumstances:

	(1) absence of SDBs
	(2) superior arms on the part of pirates

	And let me reiterate, at 1% of GDP for Naval spending, even
150,000 people can support an SDB.  So condition (1) will hold only in
_really_ small systems, and how much trade do they generate?  Besides, if
they're that small a settelment and they have no space defenses, you
could just hold the entire population hostage by threatening to drop
rocks on them until they hand over all their wealth in some portable form.
	(2) Is important because if the pirate and merchant are equally
matched then the merchant has as much chance of disabling the pirate as
the pirate has of disabling the merchant!

	If you want pirates because you think pirates are fun, then
okay.  But the Trav universe simply does not allow for economically
viable pirates, and its that position that I am arguing with.

- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:57:03 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

David Weber - In Enemy Hands - the Q ships are sent out to stop piracy, which turned out to be commerce raiders

Lois Bujold - Miles VorKosigan hijacks ships on a irregular basis.

_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

- ----------
From: 	Leonard Erickson[SMTP:shadow@krypton.rain.com]
Sent: 	Thursday, October 09, 1997 8:01 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

In mail you write:

> Okay, now that we've gathered long posts re: Piracy,
> I'd like to see some kind of summary posted.  What
> is the vote on
>
> 1) the existence & dwelling places of piracy in the Imperium
> 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals
> 3) the frequency of GG refueling visits
> 4) T4 pirates' modus operandi
> 5) level of effort by the Imperium to control piracy

I think pirates are unlikely/rare. 

In all of SF I can think of three situations where piracy was occuring
in a plausible manner.

1. Heinlein's "Citizen of the Galaxy".
   The pirates are capturing free traders and small merchants. They are
   selling the cargos (and crews!) in another government's area. That
   government doesn't "support" the pirates. That is, it doesn't give
   them ships, and it doesn't supply them crews. But it does fuel and
   repair them (at normal rates). And it certainly isn't trying to
   *stop* them. But even though it might let them get away with
   refitting a captured ship and re-registering it, they likely
   wouldn't tolerate raids on *their* ships.
2. Some of Andre Norton's stories.
   This appears to be a case of opirates operating in areas outside
   those controlled by the big interstellar powers. And there's also
   the Theives Guild, which has people almost everywhere, and even has
   its own *ports* on worlds not known to the government. The guild
   doesn't have pirates as members, but they'll cheerfully sell them
   services and buy their loot.
3. E.E.(Doc) Smith's "Lensman" stories.
   Here we have "pirates" that are actually "commerce raiders" from
   another "government". Boskone is an autocracy, and they don't much
   care what you do as long as you get the job done. They see nothing
   wrong with drug-running, slavery, and other such thing (think of
   them as the Mafia grown big enough to *be* a government).

Case 1 is only applicable on the fringes of the Imperium. Case 2 is
applicable a bit farther into the Imperium, but still relies on there
being unexplored areas or some other way to cheaply have "hidden" bases.
Case 3 could apply all through the Imperium, but only because the
"pirates", being agents of a real government, have enough resources to
*create* complete hidden starports even inside the Imperium.

Note that Case 3 isn't really "pirates". But they'll be called that
until it eventually becomes obvious that what is really going on is a
war of attrition.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:48:48 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Piracy Challenge (long)

- ----------
From: 	John Macpherson[SMTP:john35@wharton.upenn.edu]
Sent: 	Thursday, October 09, 1997 2:58 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	Piracy Challenge


Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> said:
> So the _numbers_ say yes, it is possible.  The implied threat, the
> motivating force behind a massive military buildup, just isn't (IMHO)
> there.

	I think this is the crux of the thread.  The way this could be
resolved, if it can be, is for Douglas to tell us what level of naval
spending he would consider reasonable and not "a massive military
buildup."  If Hans can show that less than 1% of that budget would be
all that's required to stamp out piracy, we'll consider the
"insufficient resources" part of the argument finished.  Douglas and
others are free to argue that the Imperium wouldn't distribute these
anti-piracy forces in an equitable manner or bring up other reasons why
piracy would still exist, but no one would be able to credibly say that
the resources were lacking, only the will.
	Hans, Douglas, what do you say?  Sound fair?

- -JM
____________________________________
Well, I may disagree with this being the only point, but it definitely is 
one of the points!  :)

"To monitor the space lanes, the Imperium maintains a Navy.  Because these 
forces can never be everywhere at once, local provinces (subsectors) also 
maintain navies, as do individual worlds.  This three tiered structure of 
Imperial, Subsector, and planetary navies produces a flexible system for 
patrolling space, while putting the limited resources of the Imperium to 
best use"  Book 5 - High Guard, page 1.

I really can't give you a number.  I wish I could. I'm only a 'tinkerhead', 
not a full fledged gearhead.  The numbers we are bandying around date back 
to CT, and some of the fleet structures we are using run through MT.  I 
have not seen any Capital ships built using T4 yet, so I don't have a good 
idea of cost.  But roughly, let's assume the Imperial Navy gets 1.5%, the 
Subsector Navy gets 1%, the Scouts get 1%, the Army and Marines get 1% 
between them, and all the other services, branches that have to do with law 
enforcement get .5%.  Let's also assume that 50% of the Navy's funding goes 
towards infrastructure (bases, training costs, operational expenses, R&D, 
etc...)  How are those for numbers?

Based on the tactics I've read regarding the frontier wars, you are not 
going to see fleet strengths in excess of the perceived threat.  The 
example of ADM Plankwell, IMHO, put an end to excessively large fleets in 
the hands of IN admirals, wouldn't you agree?  And while the numbers used 
by TCS are distributed directly to the IN, there are several military 
branches, all requiring funding, not to mention the infrastructure cost. 
 TCS doesn't address building Navy bases or funding Depots at all, as I 
remember.

(BTW, my copy of TCS and my copy of CT's Fighting Ships both seem to have 
fallen into a black hole.  Since Marc has graciously given permission for 
copies to be made, could someone please...?  Scans would be fine, and I 
promise that I am actively pursuing real, paper copies of both of these 
tomes!  :)

Please remember, I am not trying to change canon, the following remarks are 
based on my interpretation of canon...

(deep breath, [rustle of anti-flame gear])  All of the arguments I've heard 
so far are based, I believe, on the idea of a stable, comfortable Imperium. 
 And that it may appear to be, towards the core.  But let us also remember, 
that in every extended character generation chart, there are lots and lots 
of opportunities for combat.  In High Guard the range was:

2	Battle
3	Shore Duty
4	Siege
5	Strike
6	Patrol
7	Training
8	Patrol
9	Strike
10	Shore Duty
11	Special Duty
12	Special Duty

So, let me propose that perhaps the Imperium isn't quite as calm as it 
appears, at least on the frontier.  Who do you suppose the Navy is sending 
Sieges and Strikes at, and where are all the Battles are being fought?  The 
Imperium and the Nobility are placed upon the shoulders of the planets. 
 There is no reason that the planets need to like this, nor that they will 
decide that this is a "good thing" in any quick order.  (for examples, how 
long had the Vietnam war been fought before America foolishly got involved? 
 I've heard numbers ranging up to 300 years.  How long have the Irish been 
fighting the English?  How about the Basque Separatists?  For that matter, 
how long have Christians been fighting the Islamic for Jerusalem?)

So, you want to drop a squadron of Imperial SBDs into a system.  Where is 
the support base?  Oh, you'll just run 'em out of the starport?  (Class E? 
 Cleared Bedrock?)  OK, where will the crew be stationed?  There are no 
barracks (no Navy or Scout Base), so you'll put 'em in town.  A TL-5 world? 
 And you expect them to be happy?  OK, the crew is stationed on-world.  A 
low tech world can't possible hope to support the ships, so all services 
are imported.  There is not the industrial or technical base to man these 
ships, so all this is imported as well.  You've got a crew on liberty, 
enjoying the sights.  Having seen what "civilized" 18 yo sailors do on 
liberty I can guarantee two things 1) the sailors will be having fun and 2) 
the locals will not!  :)  Whether they intend it or not, a us/them 
mentality will develop.  They will have 'toys' that most of the locals 
would give eyeteeth for.  Hand Comps, Aids, Comms - think of all the 
goodies that they will have.  Think about the drunk sailor in the bar that 
pulls out a credstick to pay (by mistake), then laughingly throws the 
'monopoly money' on the bar to pay the tab.  Watched by all the locals, to 
whom that credstick is a month's pay.  See the sailor wake up (if he's 
lucky) the next morning in his underwear on the beach.  (True story, 
adapted freely for the environment)

What I am trying to say is that a little piracy, in the eyes of a system, 
may not be a high cost to keep them 'damn Impies' out!  And smuggling may 
very well be viewed as a cottage industry!

Anyway, so then we have the Subsector fleets.  These are manned by 
resources local to the Subsector, which could be good or bad depending on 
the local history.  I definitely see some intra-planet rivalry tho'.  These 
are not as high tech as the Imperial fleet, simply because the resources 
are not there to pick and choose from.  While they would have a greater 
percentage of smaller ships, the placement of those ships are more at the 
control of the local nobility than the Imperial Fleet.  Again, basing 
requirements are going to force the ships to the planets that can support 
them.  According to 'Fighting Ships of the shattered Imperium' Colonial 
Fleets (the equivalent of the Subsector Fleet from CT) will be stationed at 
worlds TL9+ and Pop9+ (not just at Navy Bases).  And finally, the ultimate 
in reserve fleets, the Planetary Navies.  I don't see these moving from 
worlds of origin.  These are stationed at worlds that are TL9+ and Pop4+.

So, the argument that any planet with a POP of 150,000+ can support a SBD 
is correct.  I did not argue that.  I argue that a Starport C, Low Pop, 
sub-stellar TL planet cannot, and will not, have permanent basing of ships. 
 My interpretation of canon is that the planets will not want this, and 
will actively oppose it unless the perceived benefit of such basing is 
greater than the implied menace that will exist without it.  In any case, 
it is difficult to operate starships, not to mention man them, under such 
conditions.

I might point out that this does not even touch on the subject of resource 
allocation, and perceived inequities (our planet pays for 8% of the 
Subsector fleet, why isn't that here!) or political clout in basing matters 
(just what clout does a low pop, Ni, NAg world have, and why are we wasting 
assets there).  Nor does it touch on the fact that the majority of military 
ships are going to be built at lower TLs (I seem to recall TL C as the base 
IN ship??), while pirates who wish to be successful are going to have TL F 
AEMS suites.

I want to finish with post with this.  I have gotten a sense that some of 
the list is getting bored and/or tired of this topic.  And I know that my 
arguments are drawing closer and closer to campaign specific, which is not 
necessarily applicable to the list.  If there is an interest in continuing 
this thread, I will continue to discuss it.  If there is not, but 
individuals would like to discuss the topic, then feel free to e-mail me 
personally.  I have strong feeling in some areas, and this happens to be 
one of 'em!  :-)
_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of 
dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1943
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1944



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

CT as Hypertext
re: Actives integration time
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Last on the bible quote thingy
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: Bible Code
Re: B5
RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: B5
re:Landing Heavy Ships
re:Piracy
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Piracy - VOTE!
Landings
Resources of Large Organizations (Re: Summarize this Piracy (fwd)
Piracy Challenge

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:36:14 -0800
From: Mitchell Hudson <mitch@sirius.com>
Subject: CT as Hypertext

    There was a discussion awhile back about scanning the classic
traveller books and converting them to text via OCR. As an experiment I
tried this with mild success. I scanned Books 1 thru 5 and supplements 1
thru 8. I ran the Books 1, 2 and 3 through the OCR and came up with a
426K MS Word file. Besides the fact that this would be illegal I think
you could put it all together in hyper text format without to much
trouble. The text looks pretty accurate but the formating needs alot of
attention.
 

- --M

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:34:39 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Actives integration time

>Given a fixed TL they should go up as +1 for every x10 antenna
>area AND x10 power.

+0.5, actually. x10 area and x10 power buys you x100 more signal-to-noise,
which lets you see targets x3.3 further away, which is +0.5 sensitivity.
(Convieniently, since active sensors in FFS2 always use the same power per
unit area, this works very nicely on the tables...And produces the same
scaling (x10 area => +0.5 range) that passives have.

>Also, one huge advantage with passives is that they can integrate signal
>over time but I'm not shure how actives can do that

One thing they can do is add together multiple scans of the same target - 
if you scan the whole sky every minute (or whatever) and get a 
marginal detection one pass and another marginal detection the next pass
you can be more certain you have something real.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:34:39 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:35:52 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:28:42 PST
>From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1928
>
>In mail you write:
>
>> OK. Consider the Stanley Steamer -- still holds (AFAIK) the world
>> record for the fastest steam car -- around 120 mph, IIRC. Now, look
>> at pictures of the Stanley -- it is no more AF or SL than the Model
>> "T".
>
>Better check out the one that set the record. It was at least as
>streamlined as a Soapbox Derby racer.

Sure, but compared to what we would call "streamlined" *today*, it doesn't
really match ... of course, I suppose, the problem is in defining exactly what
is *meant* by AF and SL compared to USL ... and I don't just mean (random)
numbers that FF&S or High Guard throws at us, what exactly is the difference in
*descriptive* terms ... and from an official source, too! There isn't one, so we
can be arguing like we disagree when we mean the same things ... :-(

>> So it seems to me that there is no reason why a USL hull couldn't
>> handle even stratospheric/jet stream winds of at least that speed.
>
>Force a wind force chart I came across while looking for something
>else, at 75 mph wind exerts a force of 17 pounds per square foot. And
>the way the force increases is not linear with velocity.

And with any material suitable for use in keeping structural and atmospheric
integrity in a Spacecraft, this should not be a problem. Certainly not at TL/9+

>That can add up to quite a bit over the surface area of a ship. And it
>can easily exceed the "sideways" forces the ship was designed for.

The interesting thing about AF/SL/USL hullforms is that they all perform
identicaly *in space* ... now, if the hull was for a big fat and slow Merchie,
yeah, I agree that the hull probably wouldn't be stressed for high speed
maneuvers even in space. However, for (say) a 6G stressed USL combat rated hull?
If it can withstand 6G (plus, allowing for sideways vectors etc.) hull stresses
and maintain structural and atmospheric integrity, well, I reckon it would have
damn all trouble handling a piddling little 75 mph crosswind!

Like I said, the real problem is that the original provision for no USL landings
on atmosphere possessing planets made "sense" (sort of ) only as long as no
attempt was made to explain *why* this was the case. Once you do, you have smart
alec bastards like me who are quite happy to keep on pointing out the logical
flaws in any pseudo-reason that is put forward. Because, simply put, there is no
logical and believable reason that has been given to date.

I personally prefer (obviously!) the suggestion I made ... you *can* do a USL
landing/takeoff, but its so slow that doing it anywhere other than the safest
worlds is *not* a good idea ... the target you make is too easy to hit, and
stays a target for too long! Not to mention the fact that it isn't fast enough
to be a decent smuggler ... both of which are important in the background
usually presented to Trav players of financially stressed small shipowners
where, as they say, "time is money" (sort of ;-)

Phil

- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 06:58:21
From: Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

>From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

>>I'll grant you GG refueling.  Whatever you want.  But you still haven't
>>addressed the points I was making. Namely, that the presence of a single
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>SDB makes piracy untenable.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>[snip]
>
>	I have to disagree with this assertion.
>
>

>
>	I should note that given jump drives and 100-diameter limits, the
>sum of the really prime real estate, the volume of space inside safe jump
>radius of each planet , will be infinitesimal compared to the volume of the
>system as a whole.  However, the SDB still has to get around inside the
>system.  It can only defend one planet at a time, two for a small portion
>of any local year if the orbits are spaced right.
>

The problem for the pirates is that the main world is where the action is,
target-wise. A pirate may be waiting a lot longer for a nice juicy target
if they stick to the fringes of a system (not to mention getting the Navy
interested as to exactly *why* this ship is hanging out near Uranus).

>	Therefore, I sincerely doubt that a single SDB will suffice to
>defend a given system.

One SDB defends one world. If you have five worlds, you will need five
SDBs. All jump traffic will be coming in and leaving within 100 diameters,
so that is the only area we need to defend. Insystem traffic can travel in
convoy if it really really has to.

Remember, if a SDB costs MCr10 a year to maintain and your citizens pay
Cr100 naval taxes each per year, you can have a SDB per 100 000 citizens.
Assume two thirds of them are in the shop at any given time (reasonable for
cutting-edge immature technologies like a Collins-class submarine circa
1997, unreasonable for a mature stable technology like HMS Victory circa
1805), and two-thirds of the naval budget is wasted, then you get one SDB
per million people.

>
>	Recall what one prominent pre-WWII air strategist had to say...
>
>	"The sky is too large to defend"
>
>	The same goes for space.  Space is _BIG_.  The scale that the game
>takes place on, and it's reference to jump "points", and the fact that most
>people (myself included) don't really bother trying to conceptualize the
>scale of things while roleplaying, tends to make us forget this.

Yes, but you only need to defend the bits with planets or ships in it. By
similar argument, the Atlantic was too big to defend against U-boats in
WW2. But with convoy, you only need to defend the 100 square miles of it
that contain convoys at any given time.

And it is convoy that absolutely, completely, comprehensivly screws piracy.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:03:08 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

At 00:49 10/10/97 -0700, Douglas wrote:
>You know, there was a bank robbery in Hillsboro today.  Not a large town, 
>but the bank has surveillance cameras, alarms - all the bells and whistles. 
> Cops can respond in ten minutes or less.
>
>Cops didn't respond that quickly tho', you know why.
>
>Someone set off a pipe bomb shortly before (11 minutes before to be exact) 
>and every cop in town was focused there when the robbery went down.
>
>Coincidence?  Probably not.  The cops certainly don't think so.
>
>Relevant to the thread?  Think about it.
>
	Certainly, and with diversionary tactics being employed on purpose, your
poor old super-duper SDB would be useless.

	A fine parallel in history would be William the Conqueror's invasion of
Britain in 1066. While not an act of piracy, it demonstrated the use of a
diversion to thwart the defenders.

	In this case, Bill Conq sent a force to a pretty northern part of
Scotland. King Harold sent his army up there to defeat them, only for them
to then realise that they had to schlep all the way back down to the
south-east coast of England for a starring role in the Battle of Hastings.

	Being 1066 and British Rail not yet even going through the rigours of
privatisation, Harold's army were unable to buy a ticket for the trip down
south, and decided to walk there instead of waiting 800 years for the rail
network to be built.

	Upon arriving at Hastings, Harold's army were suitably shagged out from
the long walk, and also due to being duped into a false call from the
Frenchies that William was dead, they were eventually unable to stop
William's army from chucking arrows around. "Oi! You could 'ave an eye out
with that! Oh, got the point chaps."

	When Will's army arrived in London, they were met with open arms from the
locals, only because they realised that they were utterly unable to defend
themselves.

	So, no matter how effective a defensive force can be, with the right
degree of diversions and other tactics, it can be stuffed. Sometimes. We
haven't been invaded since, you know ;-) Except by MacDonalds...

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:37:54 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Last on the bible quote thingy

Quote Kenneth

> Many of you have no place to critique the Bible Code because you haven't
> read it, and you don't know what you are talking about.  Me, on the
> other hand, has not finished the Bible Code, and I don't know what I'm
> talking about either.

Well, that was abrupt. And you are incorrect in the extreme, Kenneth. I have
seen several books and essays that are very similiar. Believe me, I DO know
what I am talking about (at least here, 8^))

And I still want someone to do the Imperial proclamation to see if it
predicts the rebellion

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:37:07 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943

>I personally prefer (obviously!) the suggestion I made ... you *can* do a USL
>landing/takeoff, but its so slow that doing it anywhere other than the safest
>worlds is *not* a good idea ... the target you make is too easy to hit, and
>stays a target for too long! Not to mention the fact that it isn't fast enough
>to be a decent smuggler ... both of which are important in the background
>usually presented to Trav players of financially stressed small shipowners
>where, as they say, "time is money" (sort of ;-)
>
>Phil

I think the basic rule about no landings on atmosphere planets with USL
hull came way back in CT land when as to wether ships used antigravity or
fusion torches or whatever to go about was not dwelt upon.

I'd allow USL landings but let them take a long time (several hours and a
pretty trivial Pilot roll) and they'd be illegal in say B+ starports as
this super slow descent not adhering to standard highspeed entry corridors
would clog up traffic for the poor starport controllers.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:42:00 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

>The problem for the pirates is that the main world is where the action is,
>target-wise. A pirate may be waiting a lot longer for a nice juicy target
>if they stick to the fringes of a system (not to mention getting the Navy
>interested as to exactly *why* this ship is hanging out near Uranus).

Pirates aren't "waiting a lot longer for a nice juicy target". They go
there in a legal ship or have an informer at the starport(s) thet tells
about nice juicy targets and their routes. As highly valuable cargoes often
are kept secret the pirates will probably need some contacts within large
insurance companies (piarets would mix well with insurance people thay are
all of the same type :). Why are there so many pirates milling about in
bars at the seedier parts of startown? They're fishing for rumors about
departure times, cargo manifests, ship armaments etc.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:47:30 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Bible Code

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> Michael Koehne wrote:
> >         .e.g. The book of salomon shows PI as 22/7 quite acurate for
> >           that time, somewhere between the milky woman as nice as sheep.
> >
> >         PS : Did you see that I predict TCL to become a major computer
> >              language - ok found the clue.
> 
> Look everybody, I'm not a proponent of the Bible Code, I'm just reading
> it, and I think it is a fascinating book.
> 
> I'm only on Chapter three, and I'm still a skeptic.  I checked the net,
> and there are many web sites of opinions--many agree with Drosnin's
> conclusions, and many don't.
> 
> I don't really care who believes this stuff or not.  If you are
> interested in it, read it.  If you are not, then don't read it.
> 

What does this thread have to do with Traveller? Could you all please
take it elsewhere? Or find a Traveller reference in the Bible, hmmm?


:-)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:51:55 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: B5

Kenneth Bearden writes:

>They've gone off and killed another major character--one that I thought
>would never get killed--tonght on B5.
>
>This character has been on the show for 4 years, since the show's
>beginning.

   Contract disputes have a way of making things happen on TV series. 
So do cases where the star decides that they don't want to return, but
there are enough people in the ensemble cast that the show goes on.

   Among the shows where things like this have happen before:

1) Almost every American daytime drama ("soap opera") ever made 

2) Dallas

3) Star Trek: The Next Generation

4) M*A*S*H

5) All In the Family

   Normally these things are resolved in such a manner that the
character is "reassigned" or moves away (i.e. Beverly Crusher, STNG), so
if the actor changes their mind, or the creator of the show find a
person to replace the original actor (i.e. "Miss Ellie", Dallas), the
character can be brought back.

   Never assume that a popular character is gone forever, just because
they are dead.  As fans of Dallas and Star Trek can testify to that.

>This show is truly amazing.  You'd never see this on Star Trek.

   Oh, but in fact you have.  It is not used too frequently as a plot
device, but it has been done before.

Regards,

Harold

P.S.  I'm looking forward to the reshowing of B5 as well, since it was
shown in first run here in Dayton, Ohio at 1 am on Sunday night.  There
was/is absolutely no justification for it, except that one local TV
station purchased the right to show the series for the sole purpose of
denying it to another local TV station that is known for its broadcast
of sci-fi shows (for example, they broadcast all versions of Star Trek a
minimum of 3 hours a day, not to mention the occasional Star Trek
marathon).  I can't begin to count the number of epsiodes that I've
missed. <grumble, grumble>

- --h

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:18:05 -0400
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@pop.erols.com>
Subject: RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

>	A fine parallel in history would be William the Conqueror's invasion of
>Britain in 1066. While not an act of piracy, it demonstrated the use of a
>diversion to thwart the defenders.
>
>	In this case, Bill Conq sent a force to a pretty northern part of
>Scotland. King Harold sent his army up there to defeat them, only for them
>to then realise that they had to schlep all the way back down to the
>south-east coast of England for a starring role in the Battle of Hastings.

I've read bad history before, but this takes the cake.  That 'force' had
nothing to do with William.  It was the invading army of Harald Hardraada,
the Norwegian adventurer-king.  He landed one of the largest viking forces
in history near York, but was surprised by Harold Godwinson's English army
and defeated at Stamford Bridge.  William wasn't brilliant (at least not in
this), he was lucky.  He also chose the date and place of his invasion
purely by chance - that was when the winds permitted his fleet to move.  

The only thing worse than not knowing any history is knowing too little.

Scott

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:55:26 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: B5

Kenneth Bearden wrote:

< SNIP of B5 Spoiler >

KEN! Why'd you have to go and tell us this?

Some of us in Canada and other countries outside the US won't get B5
next year, TNT isn't available here. I purposefully shy away from JMS
interviews on the web so that when I *am* able to watch the show (oh, it
will come, yes, even if I have to buy every video they put out or a DVD
machine just to watch it), the sense of wonder and surprise (best part
of the show) is wholly intact.

PLEASE PLEASE the next time you have a juicy B5 tidbit, leave spoiler
space on top of your email, or put SPOILER in the Subject field.

SHeeeEEssh

PS. If anyone down there in the US of A wants to set up an underground
pipeline of B5 video episodes, please contact me to work something out.
:-)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:08:47 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Landing Heavy Ships

David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>In my campiagn, a ship landing on anything other than
>rock kicks up a lot of debris (but then I don't use
>thruster plates, my reactionless thrusters have
>exhaust) and, since star ships weight a lot, there
>is some chance that the ground may not support one
>or more of the struts (so they at least sink in)

I agree with what you are suggesting, but are they really 'reactionless'
thrusters if they have an exhaust?

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:23:31 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Piracy

John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu> wrote:

>	Since an SDB only takes 1.5 hours from the mainworld to bring a
>target at the 100-d limit into range, the pirates only have that much
>time to disable the target, dock, off-load the cargo, and skedaddle.
>Given the realities of space combat, that is an almost impossibly short
>time.  Pirates working in gangs that can create diversions for each other
>might work, but that requires a lot of coordination and means that the
>gains from an economically marginal endeavor get spread even thinner.

The CJ Cherryh book 'Tripoint' has an interesting part where one merchant
is unloading to another in space while there is incoming fire. I
recommended the book wholeheartedly.

>"David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu> said:

>> Well, you are going to need something the size a Kunuir since
>> a small ship can be ganged up on and suprised.  If you take a
>> ship out by suprise (which can be seconds, but lets assume
>> it takes a full 5 minute) and then 15 minutes to transfer
>> cargo, you need a response time of 20 min.

15 min to unload a merchant ship carrying 60 to 80 dt of cargo? - get real!
You need to unstrap the cargo (I assume that you aren't leaving it loose)
and then shift it to the other ship. So, say they are 5dt boxes, that gives
you 3 min per box to unfasten, load, carry to an adjacent ship, unload, and
refasten for a 60 dt cargo bay. Probably without the benefit of any grav
vehicles (as they don't operate so well out of the gravity well). Also each
5dt box is approx 3m x 3m x 7m, around the same size as an isofreight.

*Maybe* (if practiced and well trained) you could do it in 10 minutes a
box, 2 hours total for a 60 dt cargo.

Dom


- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

 
Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca> said:
> 
> John Macpherson wrote:
> >
> >	Douglas, I'll grant you all that.  I'll grant you complete and
> >total knowledge of the destination and cargo of all ships in the system.
> >I'll grant you GG refueling.  Whatever you want.  But you still haven't
> >addressed the points I was making. Namely, that the presence of a single
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >SDB makes piracy untenable.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> [snip]
> 
> 	I have to disagree with this assertion.
> 
> 	Let's take a look at the Solar system.  Let's assume it's a typical
> system.  Leaving out the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belts, and just measuring
> from the Sun to Pluto's aphelion, we get a sphere with a radius of 49.3
> A.U, or 4,584,900,000 miles, or 7,378,479,570 kilometers.  Its diameter is
> 1.475696*10e10 kilometers.  Light takes over 13.5 _hours_ to travel cross
> it.

	Woah, hold on there cowboy, I was only talking about the 100-d 
limit of the mainworld.  Early in the thread I pointed out how an SDB 
could bring any point inside the 100-d limit under attack in 1.5 hours.  
I assumed Douglas would remember what I was talking about so I didn't go 
through the details again.
	If you believe there's a lot of normal space intra-system 
traffic, then you're right, SDBs can't patrol all of that.  Piracy of 
intra-system trade is still difficult though because unless the pirate 
has a higher-g ship than the target, he'll have trouble matching vectors 
with him.  Still, intra-system piracy would seem to be the most likely kind.

> 	Therefore, I sincerely doubt that a single SDB will suffice to
> defend a given system.

	A single SDB can clobber anybody misbehaving inside the 100-d 
limit of the mainworld.
 
- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:58:06 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors?  

Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Piracy - VOTE!

O.K, now I'm curious.  I've seen people come out of the woodworks on both
sides of the issue.  Based on the arguments I've seen, the issue breaks
down into one of three basic camps.  I should mention that I have always
argued from the perpective of a 1105 Spinward Marches campaign viewpoint.

____	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
stamp it out.)

____  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
longer a threat)

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:18:07 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Landings

I've always assumed that 'sreamlining' is more than rudimentary control
surfaces and a pointy shape.
Streamlining includes a certain amount of structural bracing etc which
prevents a starship falling apart under wind stresses and also gravity (I
have problems with really dispersed structures pulling 4g turns!)

My ruling has always been: Airframes can glide, gererate lift and dogfight
if the mood takes them.
Streamlined ships can travel fast in straight lines in atmosphere, and can
make wide turns.
Unstreamlined ships can make risky atmospheric landings using CG, subject
to Horrible Referee Interference.

Similarly, landing on soft ground close to the 'adventure site' keeps
characters from having to take any risks like meeting the locals. Too
convenient. So if someone wants to search for a 'safe' landing site (stable
ground, hard rock, paved patio or whatever) then this will be a little way
from the adventure site if I can help it.

Now, if proximity is desired, the players can risk landing on softer
ground, and may have problems due to Justifiable Horrible Referee
Interference (ie sinking landing legs, boggy ground etc). Clever dodges
like bellying the ship rather than using the legs (subject to some risk)
will help.

I've always liked my players to be reminded occasionally that a starship is
a pretty wondrous thing. It's not a bus. Characters are 'living the
experience' of starflight, and need to deal with the details occasioanlly.
It also gives me a chance to bushwack them on the way to the Lost Temple of
Bogdit or whatever, and prevents convenient pickup when they manage to get
into trouble (they always do).


In other words, I've always approached the Landings thing from the point of
view of:
 'what ruling can I justify using, which will make the game the most
believable and still challenging/fun?'

Or sometimes: 'What unforgettable nastiness can I do to the buggers
tonight?'

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:49:17 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Resources of Large Organizations (Re: Summarize this Piracy (fwd)

Moin David P. Summers,

> >> 2) the ability & ease in changing ship transponder signals

> >	This is likely to be as difficult as the Imperial authorities can
> >make it.  It could also be backed up by using personal ID checks on the
> >captain and crew to make sure that the captain-of-record is still in
> >control of the ship.

	lets quote :

	" Prototype SDG transponders were in the final testing 1086,
	  and with the passage of the enabling laws in 1088, the new
	  transponders known as "DEYO CIRCUITS" became mandatory
	  equipment on all spacecrafts operating within the imperial
	  boundaries. "

	If the imperium had a transponder like system before, it was
	perhaps a private key sender, you have to use once when you
	exit jump space to show who you are, but not this overall
	killer application as the SDG Imperial Transponder was.
	So when you are at starport the captain has to show papers
	of ownership as usual in the our days.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:35:50 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Piracy Challenge

Moin John Macpherson,

> Douglas and 
> others are free to argue that the Imperium wouldn't distribute these 
> anti-piracy forces in an equitable manner or bring up other reasons why 
> piracy would still exist, but no one would be able to credibly say that 
> the resources were lacking, only the will.

	thats the point. While it is possible to produce enormous
	amouts of SDBs to secure any GG on any f*cking backwater
	system, shipyards are generaly suffering from lack of orders.

	A lot of planets have their shipyards. If it dos'nt make
	economical sense to build ships here, the shipyard will run
	subsidary, as politcans still want to have a shipyard at
	their planet for the event of war. Normaly they build traders,
	as any planet needs trade to sustain their techlevel, and
	to not provoke the duke, or empress of the neighboring system.
	When the first system starts massive subventions of traders
	shipyards next will either close or also becoming subsidaries
	of their government. Together with the 1000Cr/ton constrain
	of imperial trade, it becomes more and more expensive to
	have a shipyard at full production.

	As most trade is Jump:1,2,3 Tl:10,11,12 shipyards will be the
	cheapest for traders and liners. So high tech starports will
	either run subsidary, or produce military ships and yachts.

	Perhaps I'm a bit pessimistic as Vulkan closed some month ago,
	and Luerrsen is the last big shipyard in Bremen. They are building
	Yachts and Destroyers. Agakhans Yacht runs 62 knots, and their
	destroyers are know to be nearly as fast (58). But can shipproduction
	rely on government spendings for long ? I dont think so.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1944
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1945



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: B5
RE: Piracy Challenge (long)
The Julian War
Re: Emperor's Vehicles
Re: Strange metals
Re: Intrasystem Piracy.
Re: Piracy
RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: BattleDress vs Vac Suit
Re: Emperor's Vehicles
Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Re: Piracy
Piracy Vote
Re: B5
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Creating an enjoyable game
RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:22:03 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: B5

>   Contract disputes have a way of making things happen on TV series.
>So do cases where the star decides that they don't want to return, but
>there are enough people in the ensemble cast that the show goes on.
>
>   Among the shows where things like this have happen before:
>
>1)... <snip> ... 5) <snip>

6) B5. General Hague was killed off because of this. Here are some notes
about it by JMS, taken from the Lurker's Guide
<http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide>:

   Foxworth [the actor playing Genral Hague] was slated for "Severed Dreams"
   when he bailed on us.

   We had booked Foxworth long in advance. Later, out of the blue, a rep for the
   actor said that by accident he'd been double-booked on B5 and DS9 for the
   same period...and even though we had prior claim, because the other was a
   two-parter, more money, they went for that. One can only wonder when the
   other offer *really* came in....

   The Foxworth bail resulted in a change of about three lines, that's about it.
   You'll know which lines when you hear them.

   We'd booked the actor long, long in advance. At the last minute, he bailed to
   do a DS9 episode playing, essentially, the same character, despite our having
   first dibs.

   So I killed off the character. Didn't change the story by the smallest
   measure. May actually have helped, since it raised the stakes in the story
   right from the start.

   Rule #1: Never honk off the writer.

That's funny ... thought Rule #1 was "No poofdas!" :)

On to Traveller: Obviously this has value in explaining the *real* reason
Strephon was assassinated in MT. He got a better-paying role in Star Trek.
Harold's point that dead really doesn't mean "dead, dead, dead ... dead as
f@#$ing stone" is also relevant here. Bring on the clones! "Right! I'm not
dead yet!" Wahhaaahaha!!!... <trails off> Hmm ... sorry.

Joseph Dietrich
yikes@evansville.net

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: RE: Piracy Challenge (long)

 
Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> said:
> - ----------
> From: 	John Macpherson[SMTP:john35@wharton.upenn.edu]
> 
> Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> said:
> > So the _numbers_ say yes, it is possible.  The implied threat, the
> > motivating force behind a massive military buildup, just isn't (IMHO)
> > there.
> 
> 	I think this is the crux of the thread.  The way this could be
> resolved, if it can be, is for Douglas to tell us what level of naval
> spending he would consider reasonable and not "a massive military
> buildup."  If Hans can show that less than 1% of that budget would be
> all that's required to stamp out piracy, we'll consider the
> "insufficient resources" part of the argument finished.
<snip>
> ____________________________________
> Well, I may disagree with this being the only point, but it definitely is 
> one of the points!  :)

	Well, we agree on something :-)
 
>  But roughly, let's assume the Imperial Navy gets 1.5%, the 
> Subsector Navy gets 1%, the Scouts get 1%, the Army and Marines get 1% 
> between them, and all the other services, branches that have to do with law 
> enforcement get .5%.  Let's also assume that 50% of the Navy's funding goes 
> towards infrastructure (bases, training costs, operational expenses, R&D, 
> etc...)  How are those for numbers?

	Well, you haven't mentioned the planetary Navy, which would be 
the most likely to defend against pirates in the system.  But later you 
talk about low-tech and low-pop worlds as being the problem areas, so can 
we agree that any world big enough and hi-tech enough to have its own 
planetary navy is unlikely to be a hospitable place for pirates?
	Now, about the numbers, when you say 50% is for infrastructure, I 
assume that means that the other 50% is for ships.  Does this include the 
ship's maintenance, etc?  Or should I use the TCS rule that the navy has 
to spend 10% of the ship's purchase price on maintenance, salaries, etc?

<snip>  
> (deep breath, [rustle of anti-flame gear])  All of the arguments I've heard 
> so far are based, I believe, on the idea of a stable, comfortable Imperium. 
>  And that it may appear to be, towards the core.  But let us also remember, 
> that in every extended character generation chart, there are lots and lots 
> of opportunities for combat.  In High Guard the range was:

	Well, the presence of lots of opportunities for combat would seem 
to encourage the investment in plenty of naval vessels, aggressive 
patrols, SDB squadrons, and other things inimicable to pirates.
 
 > So, you want to drop a squadron of Imperial SBDs into a system.  Where is 
> the support base?  Oh, you'll just run 'em out of the starport?  (Class E? 
>  Cleared Bedrock?)  OK, where will the crew be stationed?  There are no 
> barracks (no Navy or Scout Base), so you'll put 'em in town.  A TL-5 world? 
>  And you expect them to be happy?
<snip> 
> What I am trying to say is that a little piracy, in the eyes of a system, 
> may not be a high cost to keep them 'damn Impies' out!  And smuggling may 
> very well be viewed as a cottage industry!

	These are exactly the kind of non-resource arguments that you and 
others are free to make.  The presence or absence of these problems 
depends in part on your particular campaign and are really a matter of 
taste.  I'm only arguing that Imperium has more than enough resources to 
stamp out piracy, all else being equal.
	As for smuggling, I think this is far more likely than piracy.  
But remember, the Impies have next to nothing to say about what you can 
trade.  Except for nukes and slaves I think everything else is fair 
game.  So if the locals are smuggling, they're smuggling things past the 
planetary authorities, not the Impies.
 
> So, the argument that any planet with a POP of 150,000+ can support a SBD 
> is correct.  I did not argue that.  I argue that a Starport C, Low Pop, 
> sub-stellar TL planet cannot, and will not, have permanent basing of ships. 

	Okay, I think we're making progress.  Marginal worlds with 
sub-stellar TLs will not have the indigenous capability to form a 
planetary navy, but stellar TL worlds of Pop 150,000+ will have the 
resources to support at least an SDB.  I agree completely.
	I can even agree that it might not make sense to permanently base 
subsector forces on such low-tech worlds.  To the extent that they are 
defended by subsector forces, it will be done by jump-capable ships that 
are deployed there for some length of time. 

>  My interpretation of canon is that the planets will not want this, and 
> will actively oppose it unless the perceived benefit of such basing is 
> greater than the implied menace that will exist without it.

	Well, I don't get the idea from canon sources that there is this 
much animosity between most low-tech planets and the Imperium.  I'd think 
that most low-tech planets would want Impie facilities on their world for 
the economic stimulation and opportunity for the locals to get jobs on 
the base and learn hi-tech skills.  But again, this is a matter of taste 
and will depend on an individuals campaign world.

<snip>
>  Nor does it touch on the fact that the majority of military 
> ships are going to be built at lower TLs (I seem to recall TL C as the base 
> IN ship??), while pirates who wish to be successful are going to have TL F 
> AEMS suites.

	I certainly would not expect that pirates would routinely have
access to more advanced gear than the IN.  If you are arguing that a 
fast, armed, hi-tech ship from an advanced world might go out to harass 
the locals in some backwater, then I'd agree that that would certainly be 
possible.  However, I'd think that such a ship would quickly stick out, 
which would be bad for pirates.  At the very least, they'd have to keep 
moving and avoid worlds with a planetary navy.

> I want to finish with post with this.  I have gotten a sense that some of 
> the list is getting bored and/or tired of this topic.

	I agree.  The list is occasionally taken over by big debates 
about things like task systems, Virus, etc.  But I think we are close to a 
kind of consensus on at least the resouce part of this discussion, so I'd 
like to stick it out just a little longer, if you don't mind.  If you can 
answer my questions about how much you imagine being available for the 
IN, I'll see what sort of anti-pirate force seems reasonable.
	Oh yeah, and since we're doing this on the subsector basis, I 
need you to pick a subsector and send me population and TL stats for it.

- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:43:54 -0400
From: Martin Laurie <MLaurie@compuserve.com>
Subject: The Julian War

I just bought Milieu 0 and read with interest the Julian war details. =

Strategic traveller wars have always been too lightly covered for my tast=
es
and so I was pleased that this previously briefly mentioned subject was t=
o
have some depth at last.

However I read the strategy of Martin I with growing alarm.  He divides h=
is
fleet in an enveloping manouver?  He splits his forces over a distance th=
at
leaves both out of range of the other and then is suprised when the enemy=

defeats each in detail?

One would have expected a warlike Emperor like Martin I to have studied
Clauswitz, Sun Tzu and Napoleon enough to know that splitting your forces=

against an enemy operating on interior lines is tantamount to putting you=
r
head in a noose and asking someone to remove that pesky chair your standi=
ng
on......

IMO the Imperium should not have lost a war so close to their core sector=
s
- - I can understand the Zhodani giving them a hard time given the difficul=
ty
of reinforcement and the time lag involved (as well as the relative pauci=
ty
of worlds with starship construction capabilities and highpopulations in
the Spinward Marches) but when fighting the Julian Protectorate the
Imperium seems strangely inept and incapable - far less so than they were=

against the much bigger and more powerful Solomani sphere for
example.......

Another thing, given the parallel between the attack on Terra and the
attack on the Julian Protectorate - there seems to be this terrible
fascination in Imperial strategy with the envelopment manouver or attack =
on
parallel lines.  This is crazy IMO unless the enemy is outnumbered at all=

points - its elementary strategy to maintain mass an numbers when fightin=
g
a foe on interior lines.  In fact its crazy altogether given the problems=

of isolating a fleet.

Note warfare in space is NOT like armoured warfare on the Eastern Front a=
nd
the "Pincer attack" does not apply to the long term wars in space.   A fa=
r
closer parallel would be island hopping in the Pacific and the US fleet
there was far more effective when concentrated than split!

Martin Laurie

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:59:06 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles

>Then, the opposite page from this picture and description is eight
>vehicle examples, complete with stats.  Like I said, the only thing
>missing seems to be the TL.

Look a little closer; Its four vehicles on two sided "cards", each has a
front and a back.

I never checked to see if photocoying permission is included in the
introduction.  I hope they dont think we're going to cut them out and fold
them together, only to write all over them and need another, buying another
book...wait, maybe that's the idea.

Pete

Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:58:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: XatoKuom@aol.com
Subject: Re: Strange metals

In a message dated 97-10-10 03:22:14 EDT, Leonard wrote:

<< 
 Here are the odd alloys I mentioned:
 
 Red Gold	75% Au, 25% Cu
 Green Gold	75% Au, 25% Ag
 Brown Gold	75% Au, 18.75% Pd, 6.25% Ag
 Purple Gold	75% Au. 25% Al
 
 Au = gold
 Ag = silver
 Pd = palladium
 Al = aluminum
  >>

Do these alloys have any useful characteristics beyond rarity?  For instance,
is Red Gold a better conductor that copper or is it only effective in thin
platings like good old Au?

Scott Quigg(XatoKuom@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:52:56 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Intrasystem Piracy.

Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:38:58 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)

>>         A couple of thoughts.
>>         1.Considering the inhospitable nature of most planets outside the
>> Habitable zone (according to the world detailing systems in WTH or WBH)  I
>> doubt that there would be much in-system traffic with two exceptions:

>Well, there may be resources more easily extracted on other worlds in
>the system. Especially if they have any grasp of pollution effects.

>Also, in systems that have gone thru the Long Night, they may have
>advanced to the point of being able to travel within the system long
>before recovering Jump tech. And they'd have a *damn* good reason to
>visit the other planets.

Also, if you look at extended system data, most decent sized systems
have people explioting other worlds in the system.  A big system,
like Regina, has a _lot_.

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:49:11 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:36:38 -0400 (EDT), John Macpherson
<john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
>> Well, you are going to need something the size a Kunuir since
>> a small ship can be ganged up on and suprised.  If you take a
>> ship out by suprise (which can be seconds, but lets assume
>> it takes a full 5 minute) and then 15 minutes to transfer
>> cargo, you need a response time of 20 min.

>	Perhaps you're using an old version of space combat rules, but it
>takes quite a bit longer than seconds or even 5 minutes to disable even a
>small warship like an SDB, Patrol Cruiser, or Kinunir.

Um, no.  I'm saying a Kinunir _would_  deter all but the most
rare forms of piracy.  But, when the pirate attacks an unarmed
or poorly armed merchant, the ships has to get there and that
 the time pirate has to transfer cargo and jump.

>	As for off-loading cargo in 15 minutes, I think this is also
>extremely optimistic.  It probably took far longer than 15 minutes to
>load the merchant ship at the port where they had the benefit of
>specialized gear.

Except the port isn't trained an optimaized for speed (since it
really doesn't matter if it takes an hour instead.)  I also
is unwillling to damage the vessel.  A pirate can have their
hold already evacuated with lines standing by, blow the hatch
on the cargo ship, and then just use the lines and the
fact that you are in zero G to pull it over.  In any case,
even if it took 30 min, the pirate has enough time.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:07:22 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Bruce E J Lewis wrote:

> 	Certainly, and with diversionary tactics being employed on purpose, your
> poor old super-duper SDB would be useless.
> 
> 	A fine parallel in history would be William the Conqueror's invasion of
> Britain in 1066. While not an act of piracy, it demonstrated the use of a
> diversion to thwart the defenders.

Not only that, it works the other way, too...one reason the Normandy
invasion (in WWII, Not the Norman Invasion being discussed) succeeded 
was because the German High Command was convinced that the landings were a
feint, and held back Rommel's Panzer divisions until it was far too late
to repel the Allies. 

Why? Because the Allies had taken great care to make them _think_ that an
invasion was going to happen at Calais, the 'natural' place to invade
France...

also quite applicable, by clever GM's and PC's...

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:33:15 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

At 12:58 1997-10-10 +0000, you wrote:
>Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors? =20
>
>Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?

I think passive sensors only detect something active (accelerating ships,
firing weapons, active sensors and such). They do not detect lurking pirate
ships, debris and other energy-dead objects.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

Widows 95 - Missing something important

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:24:41 -0700
From: Scott William Brogley <sbrogii@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: BattleDress vs Vac Suit

Lurker surfacing...

I've been reading all the Starship Trooper/Battledress/VaccSuit thread, I'm
quite interested in all of it.

On the Vacc Suit vs. Battledress thread : my thoughts.

Vacc Suit is a skill specific to use and maintain a self contained
environmental control system in environments from hostile-corrosive
atmosphere to vacuum, and from normal (1g) gravity to micro or null
gravity.  I'm sure that there comes some experience and/or familiarity with
high gee environments ass might be encountered on a star ship during
maneuvers.  Other skills involved might be proper use of low gee tools,
special environmental tools (non sparking in a methane or other combustible
atmosphere, understanding the various warning devices for low consumables,
radiation warning, commo gear, safety procedures, etc.

Battledress is a skill specifically to use, maintain, and execute military
operations in an armoured, self contained, and possibly augmented suit.
Other skills the suit would use are matching the chameleon properties of
the suit ( if so equipped ) to surrounding terrain, use of weapons,
fighting skills, tools, etc. etc. etc.

Is there still a zero-G-combat or zero-G-maneuver skill?

scott-

Lurker slides beneath the surface

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:35:34 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Emperor's Vehicles

>I never checked to see if photocoying permission is included in the
>introduction.  I hope they dont think we're going to cut them out and fold
>them together, only to write all over them and need another, buying another
>book...wait, maybe that's the idea.

Probably the best thing to do in any case is to make computer files out of
the sheets. Then, you can print them out when you need them. This applies to
virtually everything (character sheets, price lists etc.), provided that you
own a printer.

If not, you can always write new sheets by hand :-)

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

Widows 95 - Missing something important

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:30:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

I wonder ...

A friend of mine, who does not play RPG's, had a nice book sitting on a
shelf. It's title is 'Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.', and it details
spacecraft from a very early period of the Traveller universe (it has to be
Traveller, the ships are exactly in that style). I have a few questions
about this book:

* What milleu covers this early period?

* The book refers to two other races, living in the Centauri star system,
4.3 light years away from Earth. The inhabitants of Alpha Centauri are
obviously almost human, but there are references to the strange anatomy of
the people from Proxima Centauri. Could you please give me information about
these races?

Please bear in mind that I am a Traveller newbie, having owned the game for
about a month. All I know is what is written in the T4 rulebook and the
three equipment supplements I own (Starships, General supply catalog,
Emperor's arsenal). I will get Milleu: 0 soon, but my local game store does
not have it in stock right now :-(

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

Widows 95 - Missing something important

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:38:10 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Thu, 09 Oct 1997 22:50:14 -0700, shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
>>It takes more than a personal communicator.  How much of a
>>shot does it take to take out an attenna.

>  Are such aimed shots possible under the T4 rules? (Sorry, I'm CT...)

Don't know, but if I was GMing I would regard suprise attack
on an unarmed ship to be a special case anway.  Anyway, I
certainly would let the ship target engineering which is
going to cut power and prevent a distress call.

>In any case, if such a hit represents an event in a 15 or 30 minute
>turn doesn't it still represent an average 5-15 minutes, say, to SOS?

Well, the problem is that the turn both includes time before
the shot (when the clock isn't running) and time to cycle
around to return fire (which irrelvant if you disable in one
shot).

>>Actually, you just jam at the time of attack and then you
>>have about an hour (or more) to transfer the cargo.

>  Is it possible to jam maser comms under current rules?

Maser comms are typically only found on military vessels.

> Also, this
>may very well work outbound, but inbound that's another hour into the
>100 diameter limit. A pirate could be justified in considering that
>to be a high risk.

I'm sorry, I don't see why this would be.  But, in any case,
you could just attack the outbout ships.

>>Except by then you could have sold your ship and bought a new one,
>>let along just change signature.

>  Isn't interacting with the authorities _within_ the Imperium going
>to be the basis of the problem?

I am, it's the slow communication in the Imperium that make this
possbile.

> You probably just sold your ship at
>a loss

Not if you do a trade with someone else who has the same problem.

>>Well, you are going to need something the size a Kunuir since
>>a small ship can be ganged up on and suprised.  If you take a

>  Aren't wolf-packs of pirates contra-indicated?

I'm not talking about wolf-packs.  I'm talking about a couple
smugglers that decide on an adhoc basis to get together than take
out that scout that the Imperium unwisely sent by itself
to stop piracy.

>  Again, outbound this may very well be valid. In general,
>and especially inbound, the time to match vectors will put
>you well within the reach of COACC assets

Well, you can catch them as the arrive and their
velocity vectors are low, but it may be that outbound
is better.


_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:00:00 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Piracy Vote

____	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
stamp it out.)

But with a disclaimer that it increases as you head towards the frontier.
Nearer to core you get, the less there are

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:01:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: B5

Glenn Hoppe wrote:
> 
> Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> < SNIP of B5 Spoiler >
> 
> KEN! Why'd you have to go and tell us this?


Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

I hate B5 spoilers.  I usually mark my posts if they contain spoilers,
but I took additional care to make sure I didn't give anything away.

You know somebody dies, but that's it.  You have no idea who it is from
my post.

Also, this is not fact yet.  I just read it on the web.  I haven't seen
the actual episode when the character does die.

I will be extra careful in the future.

Completely my fault, and I apologize.  

I was just extremely excited about the show.  It was damn good.

You'll get no more spoilers without warner posted warning from this B5
fan.

Kenneth.

PS

> (oh, it
> will come, yes, even if I have to buy every video they put out or a DVD
> machine just to watch it),

I know, I know.  I deserve the worst Zhodani mind torture known, aided
by a computer infected with the Virus.

Please forgive me.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:10:26 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

I asked a friend who is a former US Navy sonarman about this question.  His
response:

"A senor operator will give you range and bearing to the target, and a
general classification.  A good sensor op will tell you the name of the
ship, and after five minutes, tell you which crew is aboard."

This was based on his experiences onboard a Los Angeles class attack sub.



- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:12:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Creating an enjoyable game

At 19:18 1997-10-10 +0100, Martin wrote:
>In other words, I've always approached the Landings thing from the point of
>view of:
> 'what ruling can I justify using, which will make the game the most
>believable and still challenging/fun?'
>
>Or sometimes: 'What unforgettable nastiness can I do to the buggers
>tonight?'

This is one of the key secrets to good RPG adventures. So, the rules may not
be THAT realistic. They are, on the other hand, fast and action-packed. So,
the existence of pirates is somewhat illogical. But they are such a
wonderful part of the Traveller universe, so leaving them out would remove
much fun. So, the microorganisms virtually everywhere are harmless to
humans. If they weren't, everyone would wear protective gear all the time.
Prevents those nasty insects and reptiles from biting the characters.

The only limit is your (and your players') imagination, not some boring
logic. Have fun !

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

Widows 95 - Missing something important

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:15:50 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

At 11:18 10/10/97 -0400, Scott Nolan wrote:
>I've read bad history before, but this takes the cake.  That 'force' had
>nothing to do with William.  It was the invading army of Harald Hardraada,
>the Norwegian adventurer-king.  He landed one of the largest viking forces
>in history near York, but was surprised by Harold Godwinson's English army
>and defeated at Stamford Bridge.  William wasn't brilliant (at least not in
>this), he was lucky.  He also chose the date and place of his invasion
>purely by chance - that was when the winds permitted his fleet to move.  
>
>The only thing worse than not knowing any history is knowing too little.
>
	Fine. However, we studied this in school and we were taught that William
had sought the Norwegian king's aid in invading Britain (sorry I couldn't
remember this detail before). The idea we were taught was for the other
army to tire out the English army in Scotland - where you note that it was
instead York - so that they would be unable to repel William's forces when
he came to invade.

	I'm sorry if I apparently had this wrong, it's just that this is what we
were taught.

	And sorry if I upset you.

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1945
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 10 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1946



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
The TNE Conspiracy Theories Page
re:Landing Heavy Ships
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
re:Piracy
Re: Piracy - VOTE!
Re: Piracy - VOTE!
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
CT as Hypertext (fwd)
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Piracy - VOTE!
Re: B5
1G Thrust
Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
1G thrust
Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Landing Heavy Ships
m-overdrive
RE: Piracy Challenge (long)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:15:55 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors?
> 
> Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?
> 
> Kenneth.

In MT, I believe that the tasks associated with active sensors
are easier than those with passive sensors. So it'd be easier
to determine the nature of your opposition, once both of you
know each other's location.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:23:36 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: The TNE Conspiracy Theories Page

I've added a new page to my web site that explores the various TNE
Conspiracy Theories, as I call them.

Essentially, it's a place to publish essays on the dangling plot threads
that TNE left behind. If you're interested, please visit

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/campaign/conspiracy.html

Even better, if you've written (or want to write) an essay that explores
the causes and possible resolutions to any of the TNE mysteries (for
example, the Empress Wave, Black Curtain, the Hiver Plot, etc.), and would
like to put it up on the web, please e-mail it to me and I'll HTMLize it.
Thanks and enjoy!

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:22:56 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re:Landing Heavy Ships

Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:08:47 +0100, SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>

>>In my campiagn, a ship landing on anything other than
>>rock kicks up a lot of debris (but then I don't use
>>thruster plates, my reactionless thrusters have
>>exhaust) and, since star ships weight a lot, there
>>is some chance that the ground may not support one
>>or more of the struts (so they at least sink in)
>
>I agree with what you are suggesting, but are they really 'reactionless'
>thrusters if they have an exhaust?

Expelling reaction mass isn't the only way to have an exhaust.  It
may be that the process that generates lift also generates
exhaust as a side product.  (It also explains all those
movies where a ship uses thrustsers that do exhaust, but
clearly don't put out enough mass to hold the ship up :-)

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:19:28 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

 Thu, 02 Oct 1997 06:58:21, Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
>>	Therefore, I sincerely doubt that a single SDB will suffice to
>>defend a given system.
>
>One SDB defends one world. If you have five worlds, you will need five
>SDBs.

I have to diagree.  You attack and disable an unarmed ship.  Even
if we assume that it can get a distress signal off, the port
operator has to forward the call and then they have to
scrable the defense boat.  Then it has to make it out
to the spot where the attack occured.  That can easily
take most of an hour, plenty of time to tranfer the
cargo.

Also, a SDB is not that impressive a ship.  There are armed
merchants that are as well armed.  If you get to pirates
cooperating and then they suprise the ship, it's dead.

As to the main world being where the "action" is.  Sure it
is more desirable.  But you attack where you can.  After
all, the best people to mug are those walking out of
Jewelry stores (during business hours abviously).  However,
muggings occur in isolated areas of low traffic.  This
is how piracy occurs.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:31:39 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re:Piracy

Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:23:31 +0100, SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>15 min to unload a merchant ship carrying 60 to 80 dt of cargo? - get real!
>You need to unstrap the cargo (I assume that you aren't leaving it loose)
>and then shift it to the other ship.

First of all, you don't need to carefully unstrap it.  You just
cut the bloody things.  Also, you can just use a rope to pull
them from ship to ship and hual them in.  And you don't have
to wait until the first one has been trasnfered before you start
the second one (for example you put them on a stringer).
Nor do you have
to do any of this anymore carefully than is necessary so that
the prodominate portion of the cargo survives (in fact you
could just take what you can get and leave when time is up).
Finally, with G comp, there is no reall reason to have to
tie them down again.

Remember, you don't use time it would take to transfer
the cargo at leasure, in port, being carefull not to
damage the ship and not loose any cargo.  You use what
the optimum time would be for someone who didn't care
about the ship he was unloading, is in zero gravity,
can put up with a few losses, and has time to think
about how this would be done and prepare himself to do
it.

>*Maybe* (if practiced and well trained) you could do it in 10 minutes a
>box

I couldn't diagree more.


_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:40:37 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy - VOTE!

Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:11:25 -0700 (PDT), Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>

>____	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and
>continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
>stamp it out.)
>
>____  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
>(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
>rules allow for it to be stamped out.)
>
>____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
>to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
>longer a threat)

Well, "2" is closest.  Actually piracy does exist in cannon
(it's in the enouncter tables) but I assume you mean "exist"
as the Traveller univers is set up.  But I would say that it
would be better stated that if are willing to adapt the
setting ( with things like regulated
departure points, a policy that is based on an emotional
response to piracy rather than the actualy costs, etc.
easy possitive identification of all ships, disallowing
armed civilian vessels, etc) to assume things that are
not delineated in the setting, then you can have a setting
where piracy is very rare, except near the borders (which
will depend on the politics with your neighbors).

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:47:32 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Piracy - VOTE!

Douglas wrote:
> 
> ____    1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and
> continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
> stamp it out.)

I'll vote for this one. I believe there are the resources, but not the
will, to eliminate it.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Traveller-digest wrote:
> 
> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
> From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
> Subject: Piracy
> 

[snip]

>  
> 	Since an SDB only takes 1.5 hours from the mainworld to bring a 
> target at the 100-d limit into range, the pirates only have that much 
> time to disable the target, dock, off-load the cargo, and skedaddle.  
> Given the realities of space combat, that is an almost impossibly short 
> time.  Pirates working in gangs that can create diversions for each other 
> might work, but that requires a lot of coordination and means that the 
> gains from an economically marginal endeavor get spread even thinner.
> 
> - -JM
> 

First off - a pirate may only have to fire one volley to convince the
merchant he is serious and convince the merchant to dump cargo and run to
avoid *expensive* damage and possible loss of the ship.  If the Capt of
the merchant knows he will take 100 KCr + in damage, assuming he survives,
there may not be a distress call, much less combat.

Second, you don't need a second ship to provide a diversion.  A drone with
a battery, timer,  and jammer will suffice.  Perhaps a short, recorded
message that plays while the jammer powers up.  It shouldn't take much,
you just need to grab the attention of System Defense, and force them to
investigate.

And, if you get them to the point where they confirm all distress calls
prior to moving off station...all the better!!


Finally, don't assume that there will be a SBD in orbit (I've heard that
over and over again), or if that the SBD is stationed in orbit, that the
crew is aboard!  They have lives too...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, John Macpherson wrote:

[snip]

> > 	Let's take a look at the Solar system.  Let's assume it's a typical
> > system.  Leaving out the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belts, and just measuring
> > from the Sun to Pluto's aphelion, we get a sphere with a radius of 49.3
> > A.U, or 4,584,900,000 miles, or 7,378,479,570 kilometers.  Its diameter is
> > 1.475696*10e10 kilometers.  Light takes over 13.5 _hours_ to travel cross
> > it.
> 
> 	Woah, hold on there cowboy, I was only talking about the 100-d 
> limit of the mainworld.  Early in the thread I pointed out how an SDB 
> could bring any point inside the 100-d limit under attack in 1.5 hours.  
> I assumed Douglas would remember what I was talking about so I didn't go 
> through the details again.

Well, I knew that this is what you were referring to, as that seems to be
the focus of this debate.

> 	If you believe there's a lot of normal space intra-system 
> traffic, then you're right, SDBs can't patrol all of that.  Piracy of 
> intra-system trade is still difficult though because unless the pirate 
> has a higher-g ship than the target, he'll have trouble matching vectors 
> with him.  Still, intra-system piracy would seem to be the most likely kind.

It will be the greatest concentration of wealth, but also the riskiest.
However, there will be some cargoes coming in from, say mining worlds,
that could have great intrinsic value as well!  :)

> 
> > 	Therefore, I sincerely doubt that a single SDB will suffice to
> > defend a given system.
> 
> 	A single SDB can clobber anybody misbehaving inside the 100-d 
> limit of the mainworld.

But only if it is on station (not responding to another distress or
anomaly, not inport getting maintenance, not performing escort duty for
the convoys that have been bandied about, etc...), online (not waiting for
parts because the mainworld is not able to technically support the ship) 
and manned for duty (i.e. the crew is on liberty or something)

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:23:40 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: CT as Hypertext (fwd)

Moin Mitchell Hudson,

>     There was a discussion awhile back about scanning the classic
> traveller books and converting them to text via OCR. As an experiment I
> tried this with mild success. I scanned Books 1 thru 5 and supplements 1
> thru 8. I ran the Books 1, 2 and 3 through the OCR and came up with a
> 426K MS Word file. Besides the fact that this would be illegal I think
> you could put it all together in hyper text format without to much
> trouble. The text looks pretty accurate but the formating needs alot of
> attention.

	We came up with at least one man year of work. Quite a lot of money.
	Distributing this work to the fans, would be a posible solution.

	My idea of producing such a beast would be :

	The files where transphered to a web site, anybody can get a login
	on this site, if he signs that the work he is editing is under
	CopyRight of IG/FF, that its ok that his name will appear in the
	"credits" list, and that only major work will offer a free CDROM.

	For this login he get the account for reading lets say 5 pages.
	He can profread any page, and send it to the lectors list,
	increasing his account by an other 5 pages. And so on until all
	pages where profread and ready for press. Redrawing any deckplan
	in a CAD suite, should also increase the account. To have
	Postscript file for printing and not only a gif for the page
	would be nice.

	When the game is finished the web site will become open for
	public and Marc is selling CDs.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:06:38 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

Moin John Macpherson,

> 	(1) absence of SDBs
> 	(2) superior arms on the part of pirates

	Exact, stupid pirates are dead pirates. btw pirate as a career
	are canon, at least in TNE where its posible to become drafted
	into a even more career: The Prisoner ;-)

> 	If you want pirates because you think pirates are fun, then 
> okay.  But the Trav universe simply does not allow for economically 
> viable pirates, and its that position that I am arguing with.

	You wont find pirates anywhere in the "Trav universe". But
	the "Trav universe" extends in space and time. So while you
	wont pirates around Sylea in M0, you'll find them in 1202
	in the same area. And there where you find them, they wont
	call themselfs pirates, but e.g. "Diaspora Trade Guild". 
	Piracy could be "economically viable" at some times and
	in some areas. I'm living in the Hanse Stadt Bremen, and
	of course we played some of our fantasy settings "at home"
	so we undertook some recherce of old writings the so called
	Bremensien. We found a very interesting paper about that
	several Hanse Rathsherren gave 3 ships to a man called
	Stoertebaecker who was a well known pirate of that time,
	they gave him the ships because he had lost one when
	fighting an english vessel, and they wanted that he continued
	to act as a privateer. Some years later he had about a
	dozend vessels and moved into the Weserburg, blocking Bremen.
	This was enough and the Burg was charged. He left with 2
	vessels and died on a burning ship some month later.

	ObTrav: Piracy could be "economically viable" even in a trade
	empire like the early 3I. Tukaera could give one pirate a ship,
	LSP would subsidary run an other priate fleet, Cleon will have
	his own, as any other. Anybody will be interested that the
	backwater planets dont have SDBs to have a playground for
	their hidden subsidaries. And its clear that a pirate has to
	become hunted down when he left comon practice and starts
	to block habours. Hey nobody should give those Kaneshis the
	idea that they need an SDB.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:22:21 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy - VOTE!

> ____  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
> (Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
> rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

My vote, for whatever that's worth. As the absolute ruler/god/Old
One/Thing-That-Man-Was-Not-To-Know of my Traveller setting, *everything*
exists exclusively at the discretion of me. ;0

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:49:14 -0500
From: Jimmy Simpson <nimrod@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: B5

At 01:26 AM 10/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Really dead.  I saw it on the web tonight from an interview with JMS,
>the show's creator.
>
>If you saw tonight's episode, you'll know what I mean.
>
>They've gone off and killed another major character--one that I thought
>would never get killed--tonght on B5.
>
>This character has been on the show for 4 years, since the show's
>beginning.
>
>One of the top stars of B5 was hurt tonight,and will be killed off in
>the next few episodes.
>
>This show is truly amazing.  You'd never see this on Star Trek.
>
>Dead.  Gone.  Finito.
>
>Wow.
>
>Kenneth.
>
No, she is not going to die...permanently.  Her contract dispute didn't
come up until after they had finished filming both of the TNT movies and
all of season 4, including the FINAL episode of the series, which she will
be in.

According to what JMS said at WorldCon in September, just because of a
dispute, he is not going to go and mess with an episode that is already in
the can.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:06:54 -0400
From: Tom Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: 1G Thrust

> The maneuver drive on the Harrier provides thrust equal to push the ship
> along at 1 G of acceleration (the amount of thrust needed to push the
> ship out of a 1G, Earth-like, gravity field).
>


Sorry this is a questiion prompted by a statement so long ago...but I'm
way behind on digests....my question then.  Does this mean that the
March Harrier cannot escape the surface of a planet of size 8...assuming
a standard density....if it lands on it.  OK!  maybe it is a stupid
question....but it makes perfect sense to someone preparing for their
oral comprehensive exam....Don't believe me....Try
it!..................See, I told you.....

Thanks

TT

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:30:56 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

- ----------
From: Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm

>I wonder ...

>A friend of mine, who does not play RPG's, had a nice book sitting on a
>shelf. It's title is 'Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.', and it details
>spacecraft from a very early period of the Traveller universe (it has to
be
>Traveller, the ships are exactly in that style). I have a few questions
>about this book:

>* The book refers to two other races, living in the Centauri star system,
>4.3 light years away from Earth. The inhabitants of Alpha Centauri are
>obviously almost human, but there are references to the strange anatomy of
>the people from Proxima Centauri. Could you please give me information
about
>these races?

This book is not Traveller, but it is a great book nevertherless. They
actually did a series of them -- not just spacecraft, but travel guides and
the like. They are out of print now, but I wish I could get ahold of them.

IIRC, they featured a lot of artwork by Chris Foss and artists with similar
styles.

In Traveller, there are no natives of Alpha and Proxima Centauri.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:51:49 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

>A friend of mine, who does not play RPG's, had a nice book sitting 
>on a shelf. It's title is 'Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.', and it
>details spacecraft from a very early period of the Traveller 
>universe (it has to be Traveller, the ships are exactly in that
>style).

_Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D._ by Stewart Cowley

The only relation this book has with Traveller is that many of the
illustrations in this book and in T4 are done by the same artist.  The
book has no bearing or relation to Traveller, having been published a
number of years ago (1978 by my copy).  

Many of the illustration are by Chris Foss.  The powers-that-be at IG
decided that Foss art would work for Traveller.  Many on this list do not
share such feelings.

There are a couple of other books in this series: _Starliners: Commercial
Spacecraft in 2200AD_ and, I believe, another one about aliens races.

Each book seems to be only a project to allow some really neat artwork to
be published.  By all means, steal ideas, ship designs, company names, etc
from them (I have), but the books themselves have nothing to do with
Traveller.

\
- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:09:34 -0400
From: Tom Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: 1G thrust

Sorry I should finish reading posts before I post........as it is
answered in a later paragraph.

I hereby ask forgiveness of the TML for wasting bandwidth both with the
original post and with this apology!  :-{

Thanks

TT

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:26:48 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).

In mail you write:

>>I'm glad these don't exist, the temptation to misuse them on
>>students would be incredible.
>
>         I would think that anything that produces a 12 foot long muzzle
> blast would be a very convincing means of enforcing discipline in a lecture
> hall..:)

I have this picture of a student being obnoxious and the lecturer
pushing a button on the lectern. The class watches open mouthed as a
beam flashes down from the ceiling turning the student into a small
pile of ash. Then the lecturer looks at the class and says "Any more
questions?" 

:-)

If I had either FFS I'd try designing the gizmo. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:10:01 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors?  
>Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?

The biggest advantage is that they're harder to hide from. Shutting down
your power plant, parking in the shadow of an asteroid, will make a 
ship (especially a masked one with a military black or ultrablack hull) 
almost undetectable on passive sensors. Even just shutting down the power plant
often makes ships very hard to see with passives...but still detectable on
actives. So, if you light up your actives, you can guarantee you'll detect
almost anything within their range, no matter what - but you've also announced
your presence to the whole solar system. 

The other class of active sensor that is very important is LIDAR - it's be
best way for small ships to get fire control locks. In fact, if converting
old-style designs, I would gernally feel free to add a LIDAR to all of 
them - a small one for civilians and a big one for military.

Possibly the rules are going to get tweaked to make active sensors more
useful for fire control solutions, too.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:17:28 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Landing Heavy Ships

In mail you write:

> I have a question that springs from the ship-landing
> thread: is a ship's weight distributed in such a way
> that it need not land on rock or a landing pad?
>
> Can Joe Traveller set down his 400td merchant vessel
> in the savannah without it sinking or getting a lander
> stuck?  How about Dave Wanderer in his 200td Trader,
> or Captain Blackthorne with his 100td Scout?  Has
> anyone got a rule of thumb, or is it a "use your
> judgement" thing? 

Well, there are *two* things to consider. First is the area loading of
the landing pads (weight of ship divided by area of the landing pads).
A ship not *designed* to set down on "soft" surfaces will have too high
a loading, and the pads will sink in.

Second, there's the matter of having to worry about the "quality" of
the surface. That's a combo of both how even the surface is (that tall
grass on the prairies or steppes can hide some *huge* holes) and how
consistent the surface is. That is, is the strength of the surface the
same or are some parts softer than others.

And of course, if you are using a reaction drive, you want to use rock
or a prepared field anyway, so as to not excessively damage things.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:22:35 -0400
From: Tom Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: m-overdrive

> This is solved by the M-drive's overdrive capability.  For a short
> period of time (usually about 5 minutes), the M-drive can be
> overdriven--producing more thrust as if the drive produced thrust like a
> more powerful drive.  The limit on this is 400% of the drive's normal
> thrust (normal overdriving procedure is to overdrive the drives by 40%,
> and the Harrier's drive can maintain this for a few days if need be--but
> it should be used sparingly, only for take offs and landings, as it
> makes for a lot of wear and tear on the drive).  Since the ship can
> produce .25 G's of thrust to the sides of the plates (and thus, to the
> bottom of the craft), the Harrier can land on 1G (and below) planets
> easily.
>


OK, I finished the post this time...so this is a legit. question.....

How do you prevent this overdrive from being used in ship combat?   400%
for 5 min.  40% for several days.  Interpolating (quickly in my head)
gives that a 300% to 200% overdrive might be possible during a combat
situation.  And even if there is wear and tear on the M-drive for doing
so....if I'm losing a few MCr for each hit I take from an enemy ship, it
might be worth a little overdrive to end the battle quicker.......

Or is this the sort of decision making that you wanted to allow all
along? :-}

I'm toying with the idea in my campaign of not having overdrive.....if
you have a cheap ship with only 1G....you gotta use a >1G shuttle to get
to and from the surface of planets bigger than size 8.

TT

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Piracy Challenge (long)

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, John Macpherson wrote:

>  
> 	Well, you haven't mentioned the planetary Navy, which would be 
> the most likely to defend against pirates in the system.  But later you 
> talk about low-tech and low-pop worlds as being the problem areas, so can 
> we agree that any world big enough and hi-tech enough to have its own 
> planetary navy is unlikely to be a hospitable place for pirates?

Yes.  I have never disagreed with the idea that pirates do not operate in
worlds with Class A or B starports, or with the infrastructure (Stellar
TL) to support a decent SBD force.

That does not, however, mean that they do not identify potential victims
at these ports, they just don't attack them there.

> 	Now, about the numbers, when you say 50% is for infrastructure, I 
> assume that means that the other 50% is for ships.  Does this include the 
> ship's maintenance, etc?  Or should I use the TCS rule that the navy has 
> to spend 10% of the ship's purchase price on maintenance, salaries, etc?

I think it would be fair to include the 10% in the 50% I've arbitrarily
set for expenses.

> 	Well, the presence of lots of opportunities for combat would seem 
> to encourage the investment in plenty of naval vessels, aggressive 
> patrols, SDB squadrons, and other things inimicable to pirates.

With BIG ships.  BatRons for Battles, CruRons to support Strikes and
Battles, Monitors and Battle Riders for Seiges, and DesRons for screening
and scout work in interdicted systems.

>  
>  > So, you want to drop a squadron of Imperial SBDs into a system.  Where is 
> > the support base?  Oh, you'll just run 'em out of the starport?  (Class E? 
> >  Cleared Bedrock?)  OK, where will the crew be stationed?  There are no 
> > barracks (no Navy or Scout Base), so you'll put 'em in town.  A TL-5 world? 
> >  And you expect them to be happy?
> <snip> 
> > What I am trying to say is that a little piracy, in the eyes of a system, 
> > may not be a high cost to keep them 'damn Impies' out!  And smuggling may 
> > very well be viewed as a cottage industry!
> 
> 	These are exactly the kind of non-resource arguments that you and 
> others are free to make.  The presence or absence of these problems 
> depends in part on your particular campaign and are really a matter of 
> taste.  I'm only arguing that Imperium has more than enough resources to 
> stamp out piracy, all else being equal.

But, as I've said, by the numbers there is no argument.  Raw numbers say
that the Imperium can do it.  I'm arguing that the potential to do it,
does not translate into the will to do it.  And, as I pointed out, my
arguments are straying toward the 'campaign specific'.

However, my statements about the support base ARE canon.  And I've yet to
get a specific, long-term solution that is cost effective.

[snip]

>  
> > So, the argument that any planet with a POP of 150,000+ can support a SBD 
> > is correct.  I did not argue that.  I argue that a Starport C, Low Pop, 
> > sub-stellar TL planet cannot, and will not, have permanent basing of ships. 
> 
> 	Okay, I think we're making progress.  Marginal worlds with 
> sub-stellar TLs will not have the indigenous capability to form a 
> planetary navy, but stellar TL worlds of Pop 150,000+ will have the 
> resources to support at least an SDB.  I agree completely.
> 	I can even agree that it might not make sense to permanently base 
> subsector forces on such low-tech worlds.  To the extent that they are 
> defended by subsector forces, it will be done by jump-capable ships that 
> are deployed there for some length of time. 

It is easy, using paper ships and crews, to wave your hand and deploy
ships away from homeport for extended periods of time.  It is a much more
difficult thing to make it happen with real ships and human crews.  Having
lived that life for 9 years, trust me when I say there are REAL problems
with that.

> 
> 	Well, I don't get the idea from canon sources that there is this 
> much animosity between most low-tech planets and the Imperium.  I'd think 
> that most low-tech planets would want Impie facilities on their world for 
> the economic stimulation and opportunity for the locals to get jobs on 
> the base and learn hi-tech skills.  But again, this is a matter of taste 
> and will depend on an individuals campaign world.

I used low-tech worlds as an example because, IMHO, the tensions would be
exagerated there.  However, I feel the dissatisfaction with the Imperium
could extend much, much higher.  Look at how the worlds banded together
into factions against central authority during the MT Rebellion.

> 
> <snip>
> >  Nor does it touch on the fact that the majority of military 
> > ships are going to be built at lower TLs (I seem to recall TL C as the base 
> > IN ship??), while pirates who wish to be successful are going to have TL F 
> > AEMS suites.
> 
> 	I certainly would not expect that pirates would routinely have
> access to more advanced gear than the IN.  If you are arguing that a 
> fast, armed, hi-tech ship from an advanced world might go out to harass 
> the locals in some backwater, then I'd agree that that would certainly be 
> possible.  However, I'd think that such a ship would quickly stick out, 
> which would be bad for pirates.  At the very least, they'd have to keep 
> moving and avoid worlds with a planetary navy.

IN, maybe, maybe not.  Subsector - probably.  Planetary, almost certainly
(unless the planet is a High Stellar world...)  It depends on what the
Subsector and Planetary Navies have access to.  The IN can pick and choose
it's manufactoring bases with a great deal more care.

[snip]

> 	Oh yeah, and since we're doing this on the subsector basis, I 
> need you to pick a subsector and send me population and TL stats for it.

Awwww, do I have to?  I've already crunched the numbers for that book
twice!  :)

I have the Spins in ASCII format, will that do?

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1946
***********************************

Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 11 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1947



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

[T97#1942] Gas Giants
RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Sensors and the "Sensors" skill (again)
Harold and William
small correction
Re: Gas Giants
Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).
Outfitting the Harrier
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Landings
Re: Piracy
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: B5
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943
Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:42:56 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: [T97#1942] Gas Giants

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:39:57 -0400, Brody  Dunn
<brody@intersol.co.nz> wrote:

>There's an excellent short story about this by Asimov??? about men
>living on mars being charged exhorbitant amounts for the water used to
>propell rockets about because of politicians on earth not knowing the
>figures and rationing.

Yes, Isaac Asimov, _The_Martian_Way_.

>Anyways - these mars dwellers (or maybe asteroid miners - I read it a
>while ago) go to Saturn and grab a chuck of ice from orbit there and
>bring it back.

It was indeed the Mars colonists.

>Last line of the story goes something like.
>
>"And if earth is so concerned about running out of water.  Don't worry
>we can sell you all the water you want."

It also had a very good explanation of _why_ Earth's complaint
was mostly bogus - the short form is: if you work it out, most of
the water will end up right back on Earth - it's used to get out
of that damn gravity well.

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:19:14 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: RE: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

Bruce E J Lewis writes:

>        Certainly, and with diversionary tactics being employed on 
> purpose, your poor old super-duper SDB would be useless.

   Lost in the piracy discussions is reality that space is a *big*
place.  There's no way that a single ship of any kind could adequately
patrol an entire star system all by itself.

   Pirates would survive because of the vastness of space, and because
of the likelihood that corrupt starport officials would allow pirates to
use their facilities.  Pirates would be much less common (probably
non-existent) in the Imperial interior, more common along the frontier
where things are less settled (and there are ports outside of Imperial
space).

>        A fine parallel in history would be William the Conqueror's 
>invasion of Britain in 1066. While not an act of piracy, it 
>demonstrated the use of a diversion to thwart the defenders.

   William and King Harald of Norway (who supported Harold's brother as
King of England) planned their invasions without prior knowledge of the
other's actions.  They weren't even allies.  Had King Harald managed to
defeat King Harold, it would have merely changed one of the competitors
in the finals at Hastings.

> King Harold sent his army up there to defeat them, only for them
> to then realise that they had to schlep all the way back down to the
> south-east coast of England for a starring role in the Battle of 
> Hastings.

   Harold force marched his troops unnecessarily because he was afraid
that William was moving much faster than he actually was.

>        Upon arriving at Hastings, Harold's army were suitably shagged > out from the long walk, and also due to being duped into a false call 
> from the Frenchies that William was dead, they were eventually unable 
> to stop William's army from chucking arrows around. "Oi! You could 
> 'ave an eye out with that! Oh, got the point chaps."

   Well actually William sent his mounted troops out in front of the
rest of his lines to skirmish and then pretend to retreat in a
deliberate attempt to lure the Anglo-Saxon infantry out of formation. 
The trick worked.  As the Anglo-Saxons advanced piecemeal across the
field, they were cut down.  Harold's lines now in total chaos, William's
archers let loose with arrows to further exploit the situation.  One of
their arrows found Harold's eye socket. 

   The battle was suppose to be one of the hallmarks of the ascension of
calvary to dominance in the Middle Ages.  In fact had Harold's troops
maintained their discipline, the ending could have been dramatically
different.   

>        When Will's army arrived in London, they were met with open 
> arms from the locals, only because they realised that they were 
> utterly unable to defend themselves.

   Well actually it was more a case of William being the last man
standing in a fight for the throne.  The English of 1066 fell in line
like the good subjects they were supposed to be.  If this had been 1642,
the story would have ended somewhat differently...

>        So, no matter how effective a defensive force can be, with the
> right degree of diversions and other tactics, it can be stuffed. 
> Sometimes. We haven't been invaded since, you know ;-) 

   Well there was that *navy* you had for so many years that made
invading England...unattractive.  Of course now that the Chunnel is
operational and you've decommisioned most of the fleet...

> Except by MacDonalds...

   We are the Cultural Borg.  You will be assimilated.

Regards,

Harold (who other than being extremely near-sighted, has no stabbing eye
pain  :-)  )

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:52:19 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill (again)

I'm sending this again since I accidentally deleted it and all of its
responses from my "Traveller" folder.  I'd really appreciate it if those
that responded could repost their emails (if you all still have a copy).




As a tangent to the current thread regarding the use of sensors within a
star system, perhaps I can ask a further question:

How does the "Sensors" skill interact with the technology of the sensors
themselves in Traveller?  If sensor displays are similar to today's air
traffic controller set-ups (big round sweeping graphic displays with Z-axis
information provided numerically), most unskilled individuals can pick a
blip on such a display and have a very good idea as to it's range and
bearing (passive sensors might be a bit harder).  IOW, the equipment itself
provides much of the "skill".  To what affect does a character's sensor
skill improve one's chances when using ship's sensors?

This may sound like a stupid question, but I am just interested in a few
examples as to how two people with different skill ratings-- looking at the
same sensor display-- can acquire different levels of information.

Jamming and passive sensors, OTOH, are a different story.





James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 22:08:11 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Harold and William

On 10/10/97 at 10:15 PM,  Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk> said:

>>I've read bad history before, but this takes the cake.  That 'force' had
>>nothing to do with William.  It was the invading army of Harald Hardraada,
>>the Norwegian adventurer-king.  He landed one of the largest viking forces
>>in history near York, but was surprised by Harold Godwinson's English army
>>and defeated at Stamford Bridge.  William wasn't brilliant (at least not in
>>this), he was lucky.  He also chose the date and place of his invasion
>>purely by chance - that was when the winds permitted his fleet to move.  

>>The only thing worse than not knowing any history is knowing too little.

>	Fine. However, we studied this in school and we were taught that William
>had sought the Norwegian king's aid in invading Britain (sorry I couldn't
>remember this detail before). The idea we were taught was for the other
>army to tire out the English army in Scotland - where you note that it was
>instead York - so that they would be unable to repel William's forces when
>he came to invade.

Ok, here comes the old history teacher to the rescue. ;->

Bruce's account took some liberties with the details, but it was a very
interesting read.  Scott's account was more accurate.  IAC, the events of
1066 are open to some interpretation.

It is very likely that William knew that Harold, King of Norway and Tostig
(Harold of England's brother) the ousted Earl of Northumbria were planning
to invade England.  King Edward had died in January and it was no secret
that Hardaade wanted the conquer England.  It is also *possible*, but not
likely, that William and Hardaade were secretly allies. 

Hardaade wanted to conquer and rule all of England (Tostig would have been
made Earl of Northumbria), and William believed that he had a rightful
claim to the throne.  So it's unlikely those two could have been real
allies.  In fact, during the spring and early summer Tostig lead several
Norman raids in the south of England, so Tostig was a link between the
ambitions of both Hardaade and William.  Tostig was probably playing the
two of them off against each other and against his brother Harold.

William had been organizing his army since January and landed his army in
England as soon as he was able.  He wanted to invade in midsummer, but
winds kept his fleet in port until the end of September.  He wasn't
explicitly waiting for the attack in the north to take place, and it's very
possible that William didn't even know Hardaade had actually invaded in
early September.  However, once William got his army ashore he *did* find
out about the fighting in the north, and he used it to his advantage.

William didn't move forward to attack, instead he waited for the two
Harolds to beat each other up in the north, so he could defeat whichever
one survived.  That *was* smart.  

Harold defeated and killed Hardaade and Tostig at the Battle of Stamford
Bridge.  The Housecarls were badly hurt in the fighting, and the loyal
Northumbrian and Mercian levies were decimated during the fighting. This
all happened a few days before William's army landed in southern England.

Hearing of this Harold marched south with his exhausted housecals raising
as many levies as he could on the way, but was still badly outnumbered when
he went out to meet William's army.  Even so, Harold's defensive line at
the top of a ridge near Hastings proved to be *almost* enough to beat
William.

Several attacks on Harold's line were broken and rumors that William was
dead spread through his army after he was dehorsed in a charge up the hill. 
When William's left began to retreat the levies on Harold's right pursued. 
William, regaining his seat, ripped off his helmet and rode across his
retreating front rallying his troops.  He and his calvary then swept the
pursuing Anglo-Saxons from the field.  Still Harold's center and left held,
and continued to do so in the face of hard pressed attacks.  William
ordered fake retreats in the afternoon to lure more of Harold's levies out
of the line and to their deaths and although it worked to a small degree
Harold's line continued to hold.

William ordered his archers to begin high angle attacks so their arrows
would fall down into the shield wall, rather than be deflected, while he
continued frontal assaults on foot.  Harold's line continued to hold, but
*both* sides were becoming exhausted.  It could have gone either way, and
the likely result would have been a draw for the day. 

Then an unluckily (or lucky, depending on your point of view) arrow hit
Harold in the eye and he feel mortally wounded.  The English line began to
collapse without their leader, and by nightfall the Normans had taken the
field, chased down and killed most of the housecarls, and there was no
standing army in England except William's.  And the mopping up began.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:24:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Woden2014@aol.com
Subject: small correction

David P. Summers says:
>The background is inconsitent.  You have exploritory
>ships with auxilary vehicles to get to the surface
>and the fact that the Imperium has gone to the trouble
>to blast at least a level rock surface on every system
>in the entire Empire (ie type "X" is the lowest class
>port for a world).

' X       No Starport.  no provision is made for any ship landings.'  (T4
p.133)

The Imperium hasn't made a starport on every world. You've misremembered the
starport type definition.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:20:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Woden2014@aol.com
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

Leonard Erickson writes:

<<For example, let's take a world the size of Earth. Say 6000 km radius.
And let's say that there's enough water to cover the surface 1 meter
deep if it was spread evenly. 

Surface area is 4 * pi * r^2. R is 6,000,000 meters. So there are
4.5e14 m^3 of water. If they are shipping out a *billion* tons of water
a year it'll take 4.5e14/1e9 years. That's 452 *thousand* years. Call
it half a million years.

Now consider that Earth has enough water that if spread out evenly it'd
be over a *kilometer* deep. So that raises the figure to half a
*billion* years.>>

You're talking about decimating a planets water supply.  Yes that would take
millions of years on Earth.  And on most high water content worlds it would
be near imposible to eliminate all water, BUT I'm not talking about removing
*all* water, just enough to be noticed.  And since we notice changes in the
Earths environment now, when all we are doing is redistributing things rather
than removing them, how much more so would it be noticed if  just one
*million* tons were completely *removed* from the Earth?  It would make an
impact upon the bioshpere (not much because planets are extremly Zen, and
above such concerns : ) )  and a great impact upon the occupants of the
planet.('Hey, how come we're letting them take away our ocean?)  And it would
be relatively easy to remove a million tons in say 20 years.  A Far
Trader(200t) would need 40t to refuel, and say the planet has 5 FT's/day
(200t/day or 73,000t/year) after 20 years you've shipped off 1,460,000 tons
of water.

<<It's gonna take a *long* time to cause any significant effects on any
planet that has any sort of reasonable hydro figure.

But trying to export enough water (seawater) to cause a noticable
effect would be a major project.>>

I disagree.  Noticable is very subjective.  I'm not saying that planets will
become barren wastes, just that the loss of vital resorces, no mater how
small, will be noticed.(.1%, .01%, even .001% *is* noticable, especially the
larger the subject is)  And on some worlds (IMO, most) it would result in
ocean refueling being outlawed.  And GG mining would become necessary.  It
could even be used to explain the difference in the cost of refining fuel,
and the cost of buying refined fuel at starbases.  The added cost is from the
corporation(s) mining the GG and transporting it back to the main world.

(Starbase refueling personel wiping hands on oily rag as he speaks)
    "Yes, you could refuel in the ocean, but there's a 10 MCr. fine for that,
or you could take three or four weeks and refuel at the gas giant... OR...
you could just pay our refueling costs and be on your way.  Well, whatcha
gonna do?"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 22:33:03 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: .75 recoilless pistol design >:).

On 10/09/97 at 11:26 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

>>>I'm glad these don't exist, the temptation to misuse them on
>>>students would be incredible.

>>         I would think that anything that produces a 12 foot long muzzle
>> blast would be a very convincing means of enforcing discipline in a lecture
>> hall..:)

Yeah, but tough on the furniture.  At a college, you can always get another
student, but replacing furniture takes an purchase order and that means
dealing with the spawn of the devil, administrators. ;->

>I have this picture of a student being obnoxious and the lecturer pushing
>a button on the lectern. The class watches open mouthed as a beam flashes
>down from the ceiling turning the student into a small pile of ash. Then
>the lecturer looks at the class and says "Any more questions?" 

No, no!  Not a pile of ash.  It has to be slow enough for there to be a
good long scream...got to have the scream!  Otherwise there's no object
lesson. ;->


Eris,
    who could use your gizmo on a certain smart-aleck in my Tuesday
    night. 
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:08:26 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Outfitting the Harrier

MINIMUM EQUIPMENT (REQUIRED BY IMPERIAL LAW)

       MARCH CLASS (TYPE R) SUBSIDIZED MERCHANT VESSEL

 

Approved:  Starport Authority, Sadi Downport, Pysadi/Aramis/Spinward
Marches



VESSEL:  March Harrier

EQUIPMENT REQ:  
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
(adjusted Pysadian prices in Imperial Credits)



Vac Suits (space baggies, TL 10, from the CSC)  Cr15,625 each

7  Crew workstations (crew's choice of location)
17 Passenger and crew staterooms
9  Low berth room
3  Port, starboard, and aft airlocks
4  Four major hallways on living deck

1  Airlock on Launch
1  Under pilot's chair on launch
13 Max passenger capacity for launch
- --
55 Total                                 Cr859,375



PLSM (Portable Life Support Module, TL 10, Basic unit, from CSC)  Cr3125
each

55  For each vac suit location above     Cr171,875



Suitpatches, TL 7, Cr4 each

55 For each vac suit location above      Cr220



Wall patches, TL 10, from CSC Cr469 each

4  Four major hallways on living deck
1  Launch
- --
5  Total                                 Cr2,345



Rescue Balls, TL 7, from MTIE, Cr268 each

55 For each vac suit location above      Cr14,740



Personal Medkits (one time use), from TNE, Cr179 each

3  Port, starboard, aft airlocks
13 Staterooms
3  Low berth modules, one each 3 person module
2  Cargo deck, one fore, one aft
1  Bridge
1  Lounge
1  Galley
1  Engineering
4  four major hallways on living deck

1  Launch airlock
- --
30 Total                                 Cr5,370



Paramedic Kit, TL 8, from CSC, Cr2,083
1  Launch                                Cr2,083



Personal survival kit, TL 7, from DA4, Cr536 each
30  Same locations as personal medkits   Cr16,080



Survival kit, TL 8, from CSC, Cr8,333 each
4  Launch                                Cr33,332



Mechanic tool kit, TL 12, from CSC       Cr12,500


Electronics tool kit, TL 12, from CSC    Cr6,250



TOTAL FOR ITEMS:                         Cr1,124,170



Miscellaneous items (fire extinguishers, parts, equipment overhauls,
tether cords, Starport charge for inspection, comm hard links, minor
repairs, etc.)

                                         Cr126,288



Items:         Cr1,124,170
Misc. charge:  Cr126,288
               ----------
Total:         Cr1,250,458

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:24:05 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

In mail you write:

> Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors?  
>
> Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?

Sometimes you use actives to make sure the other side *knows* that you
know they are there. 

They can also be used to indicate that you think you are the biggest,
baddest thing in the area. That is, that you don't think that you need
to worry about announcing your location. This can even be a form of
bluff. :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:01:11 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Landings

In mail you write:

> I've always assumed that 'sreamlining' is more than rudimentary control
> surfaces and a pointy shape.
> Streamlining includes a certain amount of structural bracing etc which
> prevents a starship falling apart under wind stresses and also gravity (I
> have problems with really dispersed structures pulling 4g turns!)

Again, due to the way turning works in space, you only get major
stresses along the thrust axis. It doesn't take that long for even low
thust "steering jets" will turn a ship end for end in a reasonable
amount of time. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:42:41 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Piracy

In mail you write:

> 15 min to unload a merchant ship carrying 60 to 80 dt of cargo? - get real!
> You need to unstrap the cargo (I assume that you aren't leaving it loose)

The cargo will be containerized. And thus it'll be set up for automatic
handling. You just tell the cargo handling system on the ship to start
unloading. 

> and then shift it to the other ship. So, say they are 5dt boxes, that gives
> you 3 min per box to unfasten, load, carry to an adjacent ship, unload, and
> refasten for a 60 dt cargo bay. Probably without the benefit of any grav
> vehicles (as they don't operate so well out of the gravity well). Also each
> 5dt box is approx 3m x 3m x 7m, around the same size as an isofreight.

Since you are in free-fall, you don't *need* grav vehicles. And I'm
willing to bet that there'd be a fairly cheap "adapter" for connecting
the cargo "ports" of two ships for transferring cargo in space. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:39:42 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> 
> I asked a friend who is a former US Navy sonarman about this question.  His
> response:
> 
> "A senor operator will give you range and bearing to the target, and a
> general classification.  A good sensor op will tell you the name of the
> ship, and after five minutes, tell you which crew is aboard."
> 
> This was based on his experiences onboard a Los Angeles class attack sub.
> 
> --
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> |   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
> |          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
> |          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
> |*************************************************|
> |"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
> |  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
> |  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
> |  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
> |                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
> +-------------------------------------------------+

- -- 
There's a huge difference between U.S. Navy and the Imperium.  Being
many times more vast, I don't think this amount of detail would be
possible for Imperial Warships.

                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:35:36 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: B5

In mail you write:

> Really dead.  I saw it on the web tonight from an interview with JMS,
> the show's creator.
>
> If you saw tonight's episode, you'll know what I mean.
>
> They've gone off and killed another major character--one that I thought
> would never get killed--tonght on B5.
>
> This character has been on the show for 4 years, since the show's
> beginning.
>
> One of the top stars of B5 was hurt tonight,and will be killed off in
> the next few episodes.
>
> This show is truly amazing.  You'd never see this on Star Trek.
>
> Dead.  Gone.  Finito.
>
> Wow.

Sure you will. In case you weren't aware of it, that actor had a
contract dispute and was dropped because of that. So, like any show
where that happens, they write the character out of the show.

Remember Henry Blake on M*A*S*H?

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:50:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943

In mail you write:

>>> OK. Consider the Stanley Steamer -- still holds (AFAIK) the world
>>> record for the fastest steam car -- around 120 mph, IIRC. Now, look
>>> at pictures of the Stanley -- it is no more AF or SL than the Model
>>> "T".
>>
>>Better check out the one that set the record. It was at least as
>>streamlined as a Soapbox Derby racer.
>
> Sure, but compared to what we would call "streamlined" *today*, it doesn't
> really match ...

But that's all the streamlining that's *needed* for that low a speed. :-)

>>> So it seems to me that there is no reason why a USL hull couldn't
>>> handle even stratospheric/jet stream winds of at least that speed.
>>
>>Force a wind force chart I came across while looking for something
>>else, at 75 mph wind exerts a force of 17 pounds per square foot. And
>>the way the force increases is not linear with velocity.
>
> And with any material suitable for use in keeping structural and atmospheric
> integrity in a Spacecraft, this should not be a problem. Certainly not at 
> TL/9+
>
>>That can add up to quite a bit over the surface area of a ship. And it
>>can easily exceed the "sideways" forces the ship was designed for.
>
> The interesting thing about AF/SL/USL hullforms is that they all
> perform identicaly *in space* ... now, if the hull was for a big fat
> and slow Merchie, yeah, I agree that the hull probably wouldn't be
> stressed for high speed maneuvers even in space. However, for (say) a
> 6G stressed USL combat rated hull?  If it can withstand 6G (plus,
> allowing for sideways vectors etc.) hull stresses and maintain
> structural and atmospheric integrity, well, I reckon it would have
> damn all trouble handling a piddling little 75 mph crosswind!

Don't forget that the sideways vectors aren't all that big in a
spacecraft. It's not like an airplane where you get significant side
forces just from the act of turning. The major forces on a spaceship
will *always* be aligned with the thrust axis. The steering jets (or
whatever) produce much smaller sideways forces, even in a combat ship.

> I personally prefer (obviously!) the suggestion I made ... you *can*
> do a USL landing/takeoff, but its so slow that doing it anywhere
> other than the safest worlds is *not* a good idea ... the target you
> make is too easy to hit, and stays a target for too long! Not to
> mention the fact that it isn't fast enough to be a decent smuggler
> ...  both of which are important in the background usually presented
> to Trav players of financially stressed small shipowners where, as
> they say, "time is money" (sort of ;-)

I still think that the wind forces get prohibitive. Especially
considering that it's quite possible for things like wind shear to rip
apart a ship not designed for them. You can have the wind force
affecting the ship change *drasticly* in only a few meters.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:57:42 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

Jimmy Simpson writes:

>No, she is not going to die...permanently.  Her contract dispute didn't
>come up until after they had finished filming both of the TNT movies and
>all of season 4, including the FINAL episode of the series, which she will
>be in.
>
>According to what JMS said at WorldCon in September, just because of a
>dispute, he is not going to go and mess with an episode that is already in
>the can.

   OK, I'll say it, since others can't see to:

   ***SPOILER ALERT***

   Just how many long-time female characters do you think are on the
damn station?  <geesh!>

   Well anyway, "the female in question who's name may start with the
letter 'I'" appears in the FINAL episode (which was filmed out of
sequence in case the other contract problem B5 had wasn't resolved), and
in the last episodes of the 4th season.  I was my understanding that she
is not in any of the new material produced for TNT.  How they plan to
bring her back is a very good question, if they did in fact have her die
on screen.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1947
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@MPGN.COM".  If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 11 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1948



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: m-overdrive
Re: Interesting thought on TL
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: B5
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
In Orbit
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Strange metals
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Piracy
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1944
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1944
Re: B5
Re: Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:56:41 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: m-overdrive

Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:22:35 -0400, Tom Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>

>How do you prevent this overdrive from being used in ship combat?

Well, I make it usable only in low orbit, or lower, and it requires
some preparation (longer than the PC's have in battle) to be used
safely.  Not airtight, but it's managed so far.


____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:43:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Interesting thought on TL

>ps. a nasty trick I learned from a jeweler friend backwhen I played
>D&D. There are some rather interesting alloys out there. Want a
>*purple* metal? How about a *red* one (not "orange" like copper, but
>*red*). Also green and brown are available. These aren't coatings. If
>you slice a chunk of the stuff in half, the color is there on the cut
>surface. 

In addition, you can also make a copper/silver alloy which is pink (I worked
in a jewelry studio for a couple years).  I didn't like the color, but it is
genuinely pink.

Also, using modern day (early TL9?) "nanophase" techniques, you can quite
literally make just about any metal or ceramic (and some other materials as
well) have different visual properties.  I read it in an article in
Scientific American, can't remember the issue number though.  They were
making _very_ opaque ceramics, and they said you could do the same with
metals and such.  The technique was truly fascinating.

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>That "backlot" was Tunisia.  The Stormtroopers spent *hours* in costume,
>and each suit had a small fan built in.  They also had a "cold tent" for
>between-take cooling off.

Not trying to just be contrary, but I could have sworn Mos Eisley was a
studio backlot.  I seem to remember seeing a "making of Star Wars" type
program when I was younger.  And other than that, there were very few desert
scenes with stormtroopers in the original Star Wars.

I can believe they had a small fan.  I would doubt they spent hours in those
suits in the desert, even with fans and a cold tent.  I guess anything is
possible though.

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:21:16 +1100
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: B5

At 01:26 10/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Really dead.  I saw it on the web tonight from an interview with JMS,
>the show's creator.
>
>If you saw tonight's episode, you'll know what I mean.
>
>They've gone off and killed another major character--one that I thought
>would never get killed--tonght on B5.
>
>This character has been on the show for 4 years, since the show's
>beginning.

ARRGHH... Kenneth! I stopped reading the B5 newsgroups for this very
reason..... we in Aust dont see that season for at least two more years,
they have only just finished season three here!!!! (luckily I have been
able to see most of season four, but not the last few episodes) 

You've done it now..... I am now wracking my brains trying to think of
possibilities, aaarrrgghhh!!

>One of the top stars of B5 was hurt tonight,and will be killed off in
>the next few episodes.

OOOHHHHH NOOOOOOOO!!!! I won't ask....I won't ask....I won't ask....I won't
ask
(sob)
 


>This show is truly amazing.  You'd never see this on Star Trek.

I have to agree.... I am completely addicted to the show.... But you would
see it on Star Trek.... but only after it's been done on B5.... still for
that reason alone DS9 is becoming very interesting.

I have a campaign going at the moment where we use traveller rules to play
B5. (home grown starship combat). Only two players...both EA starship
captains but I ahve managed to manipulate it so that at the so that for the
moment they are both on opposite sides of the civil war.... (although one
is only on Clarks side because he hasn't found the opportunity to escape yet)

I had heaps of fun, sending there ships as part of a squadron to the Io
transfer point to capture the Alexander and General Haig. 
One captian (light cruiser) defected at once (after rounding up the
nightwatch personel on his ship... some viscious gunfights there), and
threw the squadron into chaos. The other player (in charge of an Omega
Class Carrier) was placed in charge of the squadron. He was desperately
trying to avoid conflict, let his friend escape, while keeping the other
starship commanders pacified. He eventually committed some heavy cruisers
to try to stop Haig... in particular the Excaliber and the Swartchcoff....
He did that on purpose... I had a good laugh about that....naturally after
that was done... I had to let Haig escape... I mean... that's what the ISN
said had happened.  

Of course, that is the last time I was going to be so kind... from here on
in the combat goes wihtout any "deus ex machina" from the ref....
The Omega captain is nect going to B5, with orders to arrest the command
staff and take over!!! Whatever happens here happens... except that I don't
think those four last minute jump points will contain Minbari ships <bwwaa
ha ha ha>

Hmmm... see what starting a conversation about B5 does to me.... I'll
ramble on forever if you let me!


Harry

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:01:33 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

> No, you don't pull 1G with the attitude control thrusters. You use them to
> reorient the ship in a few seconds, and then pull 1G with the thrust plates.

If it takes "a few seconds" to turn, you are far more likely to be hit by someone 
0.5 light seconds away ... or can i turn faster in an emergency?

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:58:04 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: In Orbit

I'm trying to gauge how long it takes a ship to orbit a planet, if the
ship is in parking orbit.

It seems I should be able to figure this out using the planet's size
code.

Any ideas, anyone?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:52:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

In mail you write:

>>        So, no matter how effective a defensive force can be, with the
>> right degree of diversions and other tactics, it can be stuffed. 
>> Sometimes. We haven't been invaded since, you know ;-) 
>
>    Well there was that *navy* you had for so many years that made
> invading England...unattractive.  Of course now that the Chunnel is
> operational and you've decommisioned most of the fleet...

Anyone stupid enough to *try* using the Chunnel to invade deserves what
he gets. It's far too narrow a bridgehead, and far too easy to knock
out. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:59:38 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

In mail you write:

> At 12:58 1997-10-10 +0000, you wrote:
>>Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors? =20
>>
>>Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?
>
> I think passive sensors only detect something active (accelerating ships,
> firing weapons, active sensors and such). They do not detect lurking pirate
> ships, debris and other energy-dead objects.

No, at least in the inner system, you'll still detect that sort of
thing, it's just that a ship lurking at zip power will look a lot like
a large meteoroid to passive sensors. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:56:25 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

In mail you write:

> I asked a friend who is a former US Navy sonarman about this question.  His
> response:
>
> "A senor operator will give you range and bearing to the target, and a
> general classification.  A good sensor op will tell you the name of the
> ship, and after five minutes, tell you which crew is aboard."
>
> This was based on his experiences onboard a Los Angeles class attack sub.

Anyone wanting a good example of using sensor ops skill in *very*
unfavorable conditions should "The Hunt for Red October". Clancy does a
good job of getting across the "feel". And it's a good example of
sensor *skill* too. The sonarman (whose name I forget) on the Dallas is
about skill 8... :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:29:55 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Strange metals

In mail you write:

> In a message dated 97-10-10 03:22:14 EDT, Leonard wrote:
>
> << 
>  Here are the odd alloys I mentioned:
>  
>  Red Gold       75% Au, 25% Cu
>  Green Gold     75% Au, 25% Ag
>  Brown Gold     75% Au, 18.75% Pd, 6.25% Ag
>  Purple Gold    75% Au. 25% Al
>  
>  Au = gold
>  Ag = silver
>  Pd = palladium
>  Al = aluminum
>   >>
>
> Do these alloys have any useful characteristics beyond rarity?  For instance,
> is Red Gold a better conductor that copper or is it only effective in thin
> platings like good old Au?

They look pretty. That's the whole idea. After all, it was jewelers who
came up with them. 

Red gold is unlikely to be a better conductor than copper, as gold is a
*worse* conductor than copper. Silver is better than copper. So green
gold *might* be as good as copper , but more corrosion resistant.

That's the main reason gold is used *at all* in electronics. It doesn't
corrode. And for micro circuitry, it's useful for hooking between the
actual chip inside the package and the pins. That's because it's so
malleable and ductile.

Of course, these might be good for some strange reason (why is
lanthanum good for jump grids?)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:27:15 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>The other class of active sensor that is very important is LIDAR - it's be
>best way for small ships to get fire control locks. In fact, if converting
>old-style designs, I would gernally feel free to add a LIDAR to all of
>them - a small one for civilians and a big one for military.
>
>Possibly the rules are going to get tweaked to make active sensors more
>useful for fire control solutions, too.
>
>Bruce

Doesn't all armed ships have a pretty powerful LIDAR built in?
Its called a lasergun and the reflected signal from unfocussed or focussed
shots can be read by the passives.
Why not use passive sensors to boost lasercomm reception? the same can be
said about radar dishes and microwave radios.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:18:41 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors?
>
>Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?
>
>Kenneth.

You'll get range info faster/at lower signal to noise ratio but with
weapons shooting with c or near c speeds that is not as important. As the
range drops off at 1/r^4 instaed of 1/r^2 it is VERY easy to detect targets
close by. Missiles etc will have a hard time getting close to your ship
without detection when you're on active. Finally, active sensors are VERY
effective when your targets are REALLY close: If those pesky pirates are
jetpacking over to your ship and they've disabled your guns hit them with
the radar. A few MW of microwave power will make them crisp on the outside
an jummy on the inside ;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:42:39 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson writes:
>
> <<For example, let's take a world the size of Earth. Say 6000 km radius.
> And let's say that there's enough water to cover the surface 1 meter
> deep if it was spread evenly. 
>
> Surface area is 4 * pi * r^2. R is 6,000,000 meters. So there are
> 4.5e14 m^3 of water. If they are shipping out a *billion* tons of water
> a year it'll take 4.5e14/1e9 years. That's 452 *thousand* years. Call
> it half a million years.
>
> Now consider that Earth has enough water that if spread out evenly it'd
> be over a *kilometer* deep. So that raises the figure to half a
> *billion* years.>>
>
> You're talking about decimating a planets water supply.  Yes that would take
> millions of years on Earth.  And on most high water content worlds it would
> be near imposible to eliminate all water, BUT I'm not talking about removing
> *all* water, just enough to be noticed.  And since we notice changes in the
> Earths environment now, when all we are doing is redistributing things rather
> than removing them, how much more so would it be noticed if  just one
> *million* tons were completely *removed* from the Earth?  It would make an
> impact upon the bioshpere (not much because planets are extremly Zen, and
> above such concerns : ) )

No it wouldn't. A million tons of water is a cube 100 meters on a side.
That's *trivial*. We get more material than that infalling from meteors
every year. And I'd not be surprised to find that we lose that much
water to photo-dissociation in a year.

Remember, *all* the oxygen currently in the atmosphere used to be part
of water molecules. The oxygen in the CO2 molecules went into the sugar
formed by photosynthesis.

> planet.('Hey, how come we're letting them take away our ocean?)  And it would
> be relatively easy to remove a million tons in say 20 years.  A Far
> Trader(200t) would need 40t to refuel, and say the planet has 5 FT's/day
> (200t/day or 73,000t/year) after 20 years you've shipped off 1,460,000 tons
> of water.
>
> <<It's gonna take a *long* time to cause any significant effects on any
> planet that has any sort of reasonable hydro figure.
>
> But trying to export enough water (seawater) to cause a noticable
> effect would be a major project.>>
>
> I disagree.  Noticable is very subjective.  I'm not saying that planets will
> become barren wastes, just that the loss of vital resorces, no mater how
> small, will be noticed.(.1%, .01%, even .001% *is* noticable, especially the
> larger the subject is)

But a million tons is not even .00001%. On that 6000 km radius planet
it is 2 *nanometers* of ocean depth (ie 2 one-millionths of a
millimeter). You just don't understand the *scale* of this sort of
thing. Figuring with the one km deep "planetary ocean" (I think earth's
would be even deeper), I get .0000000002%.

We probably convert more water to hydrogen and oxygen in various
industrial processes.

No offense but you are worrying about the equivalent of taking a grain
of sand from the Sahara desert.

And you also are suffering from the impression that the biosphere is
*stable*. Far from it. It's in *dynamic* equilibrium. Quite a dufferent
thing. The worst ecological disaster known was when photosynthesis was
invented by cyanobacteria. They dumped *quintilions* (10^18) of tons of
deadly poison unto the environment. That killed off the mjority of all
living things. A few adapted to the poisonous oxygen atmosphere. And
the change in atmospheric chemistry caused *massive* erosion. Yet the
biosphere not only survived, it's now far more diverse than it was
before this catastrophe.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:01:59 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

In mail you write:

>  Thu, 02 Oct 1997 06:58:21, Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
>>>      Therefore, I sincerely doubt that a single SDB will suffice to
>>>defend a given system.
>>
>>One SDB defends one world. If you have five worlds, you will need five
>>SDBs.
>
> I have to diagree.  You attack and disable an unarmed ship.  Even
> if we assume that it can get a distress signal off, the port
> operator has to forward the call and then they have to
> scrable the defense boat.  Then it has to make it out
> to the spot where the attack occured.  That can easily
> take most of an hour, plenty of time to tranfer the
> cargo.

I started to object that the SDB could *shoot* the pirate from a lot
farther awat than an hour out. Then I realized that to do that, it'd
have to be able to positively ID which ship was the victim. And be able
to fire with some assurance that it'd miss the victim but still hit the
pirate. And that's not going to happen if the ships are grappled
together.

On the other hand, the pirate has to get close to the victim. Which
almost certainly involves deviating *greatly* from the flight path
assigned it by STC (Space Traffic Control).

At the point it deviates, both STC and any nearby ships are going on
alert, because the only reasons a ship has for doing that are an
emergency, or an attack. 

Once it starts shooting, it's obvious what it is, and at that time it's
still a *seperate* target. And can be fired upon.

So the pirate has to manage to make an attack run, dodge incoming fire,
and close with *and disable* the victim rather quickly. Otherwise he
gets shot to hell and picked up.

He also has to do this close enough to the 100 diameter limit that he
can jump safely after getting the cargo. Though I suppose that given
the other risks, pirates might accept the extra risk of jumping from
inside the 100 diameter limit.

It still requires a lot of luck and timing.

I think that what the pirates would be doing is *trying* to come out of
jump near one of the more likely *outgoing* jump areas. This isn't
suspicious, because given the known jump duration differences, ships
arrive all over the place outside the limit.

They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
refueling. That way they jump in, and if they get lucky and there's a
ship they have decent chance of intercepting, they attack it and if they
can disable it and close quickly enough to avoid fire from distant
ships, they transfer the cargo and jump out of there. 

If they have extra time, they can even try to space the crew and jump
the ship out (assuming that the jump drive was intact).

And if they run out of time before they get a chance to transfer cargo,
they jump empty-handed and hope for better luck next time.

If there isn't a likely target, they just proceed into port and sell
some cargo (probably high value low bulk so they'll have room for loot,
or else something easy to jettison but not very valuable say some sort
of liquid or gas).

Attacking on the way out is a lot more difficult, especially since the
locals will have entirely too much info about your ship (since you'll
have been to the port). You'll have been assigned a course that doesn't
go at all close to anybody else, which means that you'll be acting
*very* suspiciously for a lot longer. That greatly increase the chance
of you being fired upon at long range.

I think the best method is to combine piracy and hi-jacking. You place
some people aboard the target as passengers or crew, and get them to
try to take over the ship. Then you arrange for your ship to have a
flight path close to that of the target. So when the distress call goes
out, you can radio STC that you are going to the aid of the other ship.
That'll get you closer without raising *too* much suspicion. (even if
this is SOP for pirates, it's *also* SOP for armed merchants that
really *do* want to help nail hijackers). 

Then, if your confederates can disable the ship, your boarding party
can take it over (instead of helping the crew). And you both jump out.

If your buddies actually manage to take over, they can tight beam a
message to you so you can "accidentally" let them get away.

And if they fail, you can attack the ship while the crew is distracted.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:36:10 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

>If it takes "a few seconds" to turn, you are far more likely to be hit by
>someone
>0.5 light seconds away ... or can i turn faster in an emergency?
>
>Simon

A previous post by me (and later worked out in tabular form and put on a
website by Dave Golden) calculated the hit propability dependency of range
due to lightlag. If the ship can turn in no time compared to the lightlag
hitpropability scales as 1/r^4 due to lightlag but if a ships turning
ability is slow compared to lightlag the propability is only 1/r^2 which is
a huge difference. As combat ranges will be about 1 lightsecond as
calculated by Bruce Macintosh a ship will be much harder to hit while
evading if it can turn a significant amount in a second. The reason for
this is the difficulty of predicting where a ship will be a few seconds
into the future when it can be accelerating in any direction compared to
when it can only accelerate in one direction but vary its acceleration. If
the ships thrust agency has a slow throttle then it will be even easier to
hit but so far nobody has come up with good rules about throttle speed for
different types of drives (better still real world figures for presemt
thrusters such as turbojets etc of various sizes).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:17:55 +1300
From: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Piracy

Strikes me that there's a point here that most people have failed to take
into account. Why the heck are the pirates stealing the cargo? Why not
just steal the whole ship? After all, the ship is worth a whole lot more
than most cargo's; and all that stouging around unloading the cargo just
gives the SDB's time to arrive. Plus even if you can't sell the ship, it
can serve as a source of spare parts on the hoof; helping to ease the
problems of maintaince, life support supplies etc. Slight problem of what
to do with the crew of the victim, but well, we are talking about pirates.
As an aside, this is close to the MO of "classical" pirates. They'd
capture a target and then sail it to a secluded cove and loot it at their
leisure. After all, why does the Corsair have that huge ship bay and why
are captured X-boat tenders so popular with pirates. Actually, I can see
some very interesting points from this. Firstly, if pirates exist, most
of their vessels will be stolen (if you can scrape together the deposit
for even a 2nd hand starship, you are not very likely to become a pirate);
pirates will mostly hit ships on their outbound leg, near the 100d limit
(but not too close); pirates will rely on stealth and quickly disabling
their target at short range (fusion guns or non-grav focused lasers);
pirate bases will be found in the outer fringes of a system (maybe even
the Oort cloud) and are likely to have the hulks of previous victims
scattered about, a slow distant comet would be ideal; and finally, with
this method, the pirates don't actually need a ship at all, just hijack
the ship and jump it somewhere.

As too the 3I's will to stamp out pirates; I think the best answer to
this is found in the oft repeated phrase "doesn't rule the worlds, only
the space between". Any threat to the safe transit of space is a direct
threat to the very legitimacy of the Imperium. Somehow, I'd say the 3I
would take piracy *very* seriously. I'd have to say the "logically"
piracy would only exist in the 3I under exceptional circumstances (the
Civil war, the Rebellion, M:0, the 3rd Frontier War [mentioned as being
characterised by widespread 'commerce raiding']). However, pirates are a
very 'popular' factor in the game and every referee I've soken to is
quite willing to ignore this reality in favour of a more fun game.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
The longest distance between two points is with children.
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:38:01 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1944

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:40:21 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:37:07 +0100
>From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
>Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1943
>
>I think the basic rule about no landings on atmosphere planets with USL
>hull came way back in CT land when as to wether ships used antigravity or
>fusion torches or whatever to go about was not dwelt upon.

Which is the way it should have remained ... then smart alecs like me wouldn't
be coming up with complaints!

>I'd allow USL landings but let them take a long time (several hours and a
>pretty trivial Pilot roll) and they'd be illegal in say B+ starports as
>this super slow descent not adhering to standard highspeed entry corridors
>would clog up traffic for the poor starport controllers.

More or less how I'd handle it ... make it difficult and, semi, illegal ... and
only something you'd do in an emergency!

Phil

- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:43:13 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1944

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:40:21 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:18:07 +0100
>From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
>Subject: Landings
>
>I've always assumed that 'sreamlining' is more than rudimentary control
>surfaces and a pointy shape.
>Streamlining includes a certain amount of structural bracing etc which
>prevents a starship falling apart under wind stresses and also gravity (I
>have problems with really dispersed structures pulling 4g turns!)

OK, like I said, this is fine if you are talking a 1G USL merchie. What about a
6G USL Battlecruiser? It is, presumably, braced for violent changes of direction
and acceleration *in space* ... surely it can handle a few hundred kmh in
atmosphere without falling apart? OK, dispersed structures are obviously not
going to cut it, but a standard USL Wedge could do it, no probs.

>My ruling has always been: Airframes can glide, gererate lift and dogfight
>if the mood takes them.
>Streamlined ships can travel fast in straight lines in atmosphere, and can
>make wide turns.
>Unstreamlined ships can make risky atmospheric landings using CG, subject
>to Horrible Referee Interference.

And this is the way it should be! And that's all I was saying!

>Similarly, landing on soft ground close to the 'adventure site' keeps
>characters from having to take any risks like meeting the locals. Too
>convenient. So if someone wants to search for a 'safe' landing site (stable
>ground, hard rock, paved patio or whatever) then this will be a little way
>from the adventure site if I can help it.

And since a USL ship has no real landing gear (after all, they are expected to
handle only z-gee landings most of the time), this is not a problem ... it
actually makes your task *easier*. The USL ship needs a site that simply is not
available within however long a distance suits the typical GM's nasty little
plans!

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:26:17 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: B5

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:35:36 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> Sure you will. In case you weren't aware of it, that actor had a
> contract dispute and was dropped because of that. So, like any show
> where that happens, they write the character out of the show.
> 
> Remember Henry Blake on M*A*S*H?

Arguably one of the *best* exiting scenes for any character.  Gary Burgoff
(Radar O'Reiley) played out the scene in the OR delivering the bad news
absolutely perfect the first time, yet the director wanted another take of
it just to be sure.



James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:45:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants)

At 04:02 PM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Tim Connors wrote:
>>        I suspect that a trip through the purification plant will
substantially
>>         reduce the number of "little critters" in the fuel tank and I also
>>         suspect that any ship which attempts to jump from World A with a fuel
>>         tank full of water and "little critters" instead of LHyd may not
reach
>>         World B anytime soon -- at least they're really unlikely to if
I'm running
>>         the game.
>
>Well, depending on how tough you assume fuel purifiers are, running
>little critters through the purifiers may have a pretty nasty effect
>on the purifiers!
>
>At any rate, ships might take on water for any number of reasons 
>and it might not all get converted to LHyd. e.g. drinking/bathing
>water, reaction mass, ballast, whatever. Heck, who says you
>have to turn it into LHyd? If I'm not mistaken, purifiers turn
>unrefined fuel into refined fuel. However, the rules do say that 
>you can run on "pure unrefined" fuel, with an additional chance
>of misjump (CT I think). So I think that eventually some critters
>would get from World A to World B unless they were both pretty
>fussy about where they let ships land and refuel.

        But isn't "pure unrefined fuel" hydrogen gas or liquid with some
impurities?
        Water is 88+% oxygen, not hydrogen! I'd think you had to do some
refining to
        use it at all.
>
>They only had to bring a few rabbits into Australia and pretty
>soon... *BOOM*. (If you've never seen the pictures, at one point
>the rabbits were so thick that they completely covered the 
>ground like a thick blanket of vegetation.) The miracles of
>unchecked exponential growth.
>
        Actually, this off-topic topic might be more interesting than the
other --
        how did they get rid of all the rabbits, anyway? Not joking here, I've
        really always wanted to know. I mean, you're hip deep in rabbit
droppings
        -- shotguns are not the answer.
>--
>Ethan Henry                      ehenry@magma.ca
>

	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1948
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 11 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1949



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Re: Piracy - VOTE!
Re: Last on the bible quote thingy
Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Re: piracy
Re: Piracy
Re: Piracy - VOTE!
The Unstreamlined
Re: B5
CT Fusion Rockets
CSC Software
RE: m-overdrive
Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**
RE: 1G thrust
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Piracy - VOTE! - update
RE: Piracy
Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**
Re: Landings
RE: Piracy Challenge (long)
Bunny problems
Landings
Starship Security

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:09:29 -0700
From: "Brian A. Howard" <bruadh@southwest.net>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

At 06:51 PM 10/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>_Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D._ by Stewart Cowley
>
>The only relation this book has with Traveller is that many of the
>illustrations in this book and in T4 are done by the same artist.  The
>book has no bearing or relation to Traveller, having been published a
>number of years ago (1978 by my copy).  
>

I am sorry to be obnoxious about this but I have just carefully examined my
copy of said book (I have had if for nearly twenty years. Sheesh I feel
old!) and Chris Foss is not credited for any of the art. Angus McKie, Jim
Burns, Colin Hay, Tony Roberts, Bob Layzell, Alan Daniels, and Peter
Goodfellow are however, so unless Mr. Foss operated under a pseudonym in
the seventies he had nothing to do with this book. 

>Many of the illustration are by Chris Foss.  The powers-that-be at IG
>decided that Foss art would work for Traveller. [Snippage]

There maybe some stylistic effluences.

>There are a couple of other books in this series: _Starliners: Commercial
>Spacecraft in 2200AD_ and, I believe, another one about aliens races.
>
Oooo! I missed those. Has anyone seen either of these in a vintage bookstore?

>Each book seems to be only a project to allow some really neat artwork to
>be published.  By all means, steal ideas, ship designs, company names, etc
>from them (I have), but the books themselves have nothing to do with
>Traveller.
>
I whole-heartedly agree with Vanya here. This book has been a source of
inspiration for many years. Several of the illustrations have been used as
'This is what you see' sort of a thing. One of my particular favorites is a
work by Angus McKie described as the 'Miami Spaceport'. It is an excellent
view of a starport or maybe an arcology.
Brian A. Howard

If you hear the sound of a Babel fish, run. 
For a Vogon constuctor fleet cannot be far behind.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:30:19 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Piracy - VOTE!

>> ____         2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
>> (Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
>> rules allow for it to be stamped out.)
>
>My vote, for whatever that's worth. As the absolute ruler/god/Old
>One/Thing-That-Man-Was-Not-To-Know of my Traveller setting, *everything*
>exists exclusively at the discretion of me. ;0

Agreed!  Well, except for the identity of the absolute ruler...

Anyway, my vote's for (2).  And there are pirates in my universes.
 
John G. Wood  |  john@elvw.demon.co.uk  |  Oxford, United Kingdom

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:43:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Last on the bible quote thingy

At 09:37 AM 10/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Quote Kenneth
>
>> Many of you have no place to critique the Bible Code because you haven't
>> read it, and you don't know what you are talking about.  Me, on the
>> other hand, has not finished the Bible Code, and I don't know what I'm
>> talking about either.
>
>Well, that was abrupt. And you are incorrect in the extreme, Kenneth. I have
>seen several books and essays that are very similiar. Believe me, I DO know
>what I am talking about (at least here, 8^))
>
>And I still want someone to do the Imperial proclamation to see if it
>predicts the rebellion
>
        I checked my annotated copy -- it didn't mention the rebellion, but it did
        mention the virus and it said no one would like it.

	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

Dear Jens...

     Most likely the book you have is not Traveller-related...Chris Foss (who
is the artist doing the current artwork on the covers) is a newcomer to Trav
art, AFAIK.  His style is very different from previous artists used in Trav
(Paul Jaquays being the one I remember most...am I old or what!  :-) )
 Personally I don't like Mr. Foss' work, not because it isn't artistic (it's
very good) but it's just not how I see Traveller.  I guess I feel the same
way about Trav as I do about Star Trek:TNG and new cars...too many curves!!!

     AFAIK, there is nothing yet on the era of early Solomani exploration of
space (Terra discovered j-drive in AD 2087, contacting the Vilani Imperium
shortly after), but there are hints of a possible Milieu setting to be
forthcoming...I personally think it would be a fascinating time to play in!

Ed Jenkins (Las Vegas, NV)
DustyLV769@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:39:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: piracy

At 02:46 PM 10/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>--- Hans wrote:
> because the ship will be doing one
>of three things in addition to just being there:
>
>1) Broadcasting its true transponder code
>2) Broadcasting a fake transponder code
>3) Not broadcasting at all
>
>In the first case it is hardly going to perform any acts of piracy. In the
>second case it will not be able to do legitimate business in the system,
>and may easily arouse suspicion (any naval commander will have a ship
>registration list). 
>--- end of quote ---
>just like in Star Wars:Return of the Muppets...uh, JEdi? remember the Shuttle
>Tiberian scene? ;->
>
>jus' a thought...
>
>-j
>
        A complete, updated list of all registered ships in (and, I presume,
around)
        the Imperium will be available to every patrol ship in the Imperium?
Shades
        of 1984! I'd rather have the pirates!

        Is it seriously proposed that there will exist (or could ever exist
in a 
        government run by human beings) a bureaucratic agency capable of
creating, 
        maintaining, and distributing any such list with any hope of success.

        Maybe -- when pigs fly!

        
	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:07:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy

At the risk of kicking over an already well-stirred can of worms....

Has anyone considered the effect of Light-speed lag on piracy?  For example,
a ship arrives in system X at 0100 hrs, a range of 2 light-hours from the
system.  He will have 2 hours before his arrival is noticed in-system, but he
will already have 2 hours of intel on what is going on in-system.

I just thought I'd toss that out for consideration of it's effects...(cringe)

DustyLV769@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy - VOTE!

At 11:11 AM 10/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>O.K, now I'm curious.  I've seen people come out of the woodworks on both
>sides of the issue.  Based on the arguments I've seen, the issue breaks
>down into one of three basic camps.  I should mention that I have always
>argued from the perpective of a 1105 Spinward Marches campaign viewpoint.
>
>_XXX_	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
>continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
>stamp it out.)
>
>____  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
>(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
>rules allow for it to be stamped out.)
>
>____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
>to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
>longer a threat)
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
>                                              -Merlin
>
>douglas@teleport.com
>http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\
>
>MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
>      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP
>
>*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
>--------------------------------------------
>
        Of course, it exists. Yes, the resources to eradicate it exist. Just
        as the resources to eradicate mugging in New York City exist -- we 
        can put a cop every fifteen feet throughout the city. Voila! end of
        New York muggings. The good-ole U-S-of-A has the money, but I'll bet
        we find something better to spend it on. Okay, maybe we won't find
        something better, but we will find something else -- there's not much
        high-level graft in crime prevention.

        The problem of crime prevention is efficiency -- when does it become
        inefficient to prevent more of crime A when we could use the money to
        prevent crime B -- say, smuggling or illegal immigration or anything
        else you might think of.

        Comments on the list show that the Imperium has a huge amount of
        money to use for military and internal security and crime prevention.
        A huge amount, not an unlimited amount. If piracy gets out of hand in
        Sector Z, we'll send a fleet and squash'em like the "cucrachas" they
        really are. When a new outbreak occurs over in Sector G, we'll crush
        them, too. The level of piracy will be non-existent in Sectors Z and
        G for a while, but there'll be some somewhere -- crime is like dirt,
        you can move it around but you really can't get rid of it.

	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:07:11 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The Unstreamlined

On the landings thread...did we ever decide why an unstreamlined vessel,
using contra-gravity, could not land on a planet with atmosphere?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1997 18:34:32 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: B5

Anyone in Toronto know when the 'new' B5 episodes will be broadcast?

The last one I saw was Sheridan in the interrogation chamber.  CFMT is still
in season 2, and the official site by Warner Brothers assumes that if you
aren't living in America you don't want to watch B5.  <Sigh>

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1997 18:30:57 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: CT Fusion Rockets

>I think the basic rule about no landings on atmosphere planets with USL
>hull came way back in CT land when as to wether ships used antigravity or
>fusion torches or whatever to go about was not dwelt upon.

In Classic Traveller ships used a fusion rocket.

My evidence:

The artwork by the Keith brothers clearly showed a rocket exhaust at the back
of the ship.  JTAS 5 had an article on Champa Starport, with landing pads,
blast berms, and pictures of ships coming down on their tails with flames out
the back.

High Guard allowed fighters to attack ships with their drives.  The drive was
counted as a fusion gun with a factor equal to its acceleration in Gs.  Given
that a fighter could only mount a factor-3 battery of guns, the drive was
actually more dangerous.  In fact, the classic fighter attack was a run in to
extremely close range followed by an attack with the drives.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Oct 1997 18:45:54 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: CSC Software

I would be willing to upgrade my CSC software to print out the vehicle cards
from Emperor's Vehicles, provided that someone tells me how to calculate the
new values they've introduced (like "Ease of Use").

Yes, I've read the part in EV about rolling a dice, but it strikes me that
the designer should have some control over that.  Possibly a cost modifier? 
Or a manufacturing time modifer (although manufacturing time isn't
mentioned)?  

Anyway, the question's out there.  Debate away.  

I can't read every TML digest (no time, and the long ones are arriving
scrambled), so please send me a copy of the conclusion (ie. the way you want
it done) by private email.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:50:46 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: m-overdrive

Overdrive was never intended for use in combat, just as an explanation of 
how ships with 1G drives can land on planets over size 7 (with greater than 
1 std G gravity).

IMC, I multiply the damage done on hull and drive hits by the Overdrive 
percentage being used (to show the greater stress involved), and also give 
hits to the M-drive and P-Plant if the engineer fails his roll.

It reduces the player enthusiasm for overdrive very quickly!  :)
________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of 
dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________


- ----------
From: 	Tom Trelenberg[SMTP:tomt@scri.fsu.edu]
Sent: 	Friday, October 10, 1997 5:22 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	m-overdrive

> This is solved by the M-drive's overdrive capability.  For a short
> period of time (usually about 5 minutes), the M-drive can be
> overdriven--producing more thrust as if the drive produced thrust like a
> more powerful drive.  The limit on this is 400% of the drive's normal
> thrust (normal overdriving procedure is to overdrive the drives by 40%,
> and the Harrier's drive can maintain this for a few days if need be--but
> it should be used sparingly, only for take offs and landings, as it
> makes for a lot of wear and tear on the drive).  Since the ship can
> produce .25 G's of thrust to the sides of the plates (and thus, to the
> bottom of the craft), the Harrier can land on 1G (and below) planets
> easily.
>


OK, I finished the post this time...so this is a legit. question.....

How do you prevent this overdrive from being used in ship combat?   400%
for 5 min.  40% for several days.  Interpolating (quickly in my head)
gives that a 300% to 200% overdrive might be possible during a combat
situation.  And even if there is wear and tear on the M-drive for doing
so....if I'm losing a few MCr for each hit I take from an enemy ship, it
might be worth a little overdrive to end the battle quicker.......

Or is this the sort of decision making that you wanted to allow all
along? :-}

I'm toying with the idea in my campaign of not having overdrive.....if
you have a cheap ship with only 1G....you gotta use a >1G shuttle to get
to and from the surface of planets bigger than size 8.

TT

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 19:59 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

In-Reply-To: <343F1556.5C71@siscom.net>

JSM has often said he's a big fan of _Blake's 7_, and yet people are 
still surprised when he kills off major characters!

Anyway, the character everyone's talking about doesn't die. Somebody 
else does.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:53:22 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: 1G thrust

Forgiven.  This was a troublesome question in my campaign before SOM came out.

- ----------
From: 	Tom Trelenberg[SMTP:tomt@scri.fsu.edu]
Sent: 	Friday, October 10, 1997 5:09 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	1G thrust

Sorry I should finish reading posts before I post........as it is
answered in a later paragraph.

I hereby ask forgiveness of the TML for wasting bandwidth both with the
original post and with this apology!  :-{

Thanks

TT

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 19:58 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

In-Reply-To: <343E685E.AD14E09@iname.com>

Jory,

> > "A senor operator will give you range and bearing to the target, and a
> > general classification.  A good sensor op will tell you the name of the
> > ship, and after five minutes, tell you which crew is aboard."

> There's a huge difference between U.S. Navy and the Imperium.  Being
> many times more vast, I don't think this amount of detail would be
> possible for Imperial Warships.

OTOH, most ships/crews will probably spend most of their time in the same 
area (probably the same subsector, certainly the same sector - and SDBs will 
never leave their home system), so the chances are you *will* bump into the 
same ships often enough to build up a good picture. Sure, you could swap the 
ships around to confuse the enemy, but don't forget it works both ways.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 19:58 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

In-Reply-To: <199710102254.4220600@stl-online.net>

Vanya,

> _Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D._ by Stewart Cowley
>  
> The only relation this book has with Traveller is that many of the
> illustrations in this book and in T4 are done by the same artist.  The
> book has no bearing or relation to Traveller, having been published a
> number of years ago (1978 by my copy).  
>  
> Many of the illustration are by Chris Foss.  The powers-that-be at IG
> decided that Foss art would work for Traveller.  Many on this list do not
> share such feelings.
>  
> There are a couple of other books in this series: _Starliners: Commercial
> Spacecraft in 2200AD_ and, I believe, another one about aliens races.

IIRC the other two are _Space Battles_ and _Derelicts_ (I've got all four 
sitting up in the loft, but I haven't seen them for years, so they might 
not be exactly right). Very nice books.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:56:51 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Piracy - VOTE! - update

Results to date!  Oh, for the record, I vote #1.

__3__	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
stamp it out.)

__2__  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
longer a threat)


_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:44:33 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Piracy

On Saturday, October 11, 1997 5:18 AM, Andrew Moffatt-Vallance 
[SMTP:a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz] wrote:
> Strikes me that there's a point here that most people have failed to take
> into account. Why the heck are the pirates stealing the cargo? Why not
> just steal the whole ship? After all, the ship is worth a whole lot more
> than most cargo's; and all that stouging around unloading the cargo just
> gives the SDB's time to arrive. Plus even if you can't sell the ship, it
> can serve as a source of spare parts on the hoof; helping to ease the
> problems of maintaince, life support supplies etc. Slight problem of what
> to do with the crew of the victim, but well, we are talking about 
pirates.

The main reason I argue to the point of stealing cargo is time, damage, and 
disposable wealth.  It takes time to batter a merchant into submission (I'd 
have planted people aboard, but that's beside the point), and if a merchie 
knows he can get away with a minimum of damage and loss by dumping his 
cargo, he is more likely to cooperate (ie. not scream for help).

Damage is another issue.  Most merchants *are* armed, at least with 
pop-guns.  Not a real threat, but you never know when that lucky hit will 
take out the J-drive or P-plant.  Again, if the merchie cooperates, it's 
better for you, and you haven't killed the chicken that lays the eggs! 
 There is also the matter of by the time you take the ship, it's usually 
pretty beat up.  I've been lucky in the past with crew kills, but they are 
by far the exception, not the rule.

Finally, while the ship *is* valuable, it is difficult to  dispose of. 
 Cargo is fairly simple.  Although, one of my player pointed out that if 
you stash the ship for a couple of years, then retire the pirate ship and 
start a "salvage" company, you stand to make some pretty big bucks...I'll 
have to watch that guy...

[snip]
_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of 
dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 14:07:13 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

On 10/11/97 at 01:57 AM,  "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net> said:

>   ***SPOILER ALERT***

Harold, you've *got* to give your spoiler alerts more space.  ;-> At least
enough space so the reader has to page down to get to the juicy stuff. ;->



>   Just how many long-time female characters do you think are on the damn
>station?  <geesh!>

Three. ;->

The telepath Lia Alexander (sp), the Minbari Ambassador Delin (sp), and the
delectable Susan, but we all know which of those three it is.  ;->

>   Well anyway, "the female in question who's name may start with the
>letter 'I'" appears in the FINAL episode (which was filmed out of sequence
>in case the other contract problem B5 had wasn't resolved), and in the
>last episodes of the 4th season.  I was my understanding that she is not
>in any of the new material produced for TNT.  How they plan to bring her
>back is a very good question, if they did in fact have her die on screen.

From what I've seen it looks like both Sinclair and Innova (ok, I simply
*can't* spell today) are leaving the show.  Sinclair is elected Earth
President and isn't around, except for an occasional cameo, and Susan gets
a job off the station..maybe Haig's job.  I've read that they are bringing
in a new female commander for B5, and the plots will revolve around whoever
she is.  What they are going to do about Delin and Sinclair, I don't know.
Of course all of this might be bunk, but it *is* what I've read.

Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:21:47 -0400
From: Paul Kestner <paully@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Landings

>>So if someone wants to search for a 'safe' landing site (stable
>>ground, hard rock, paved patio or whatever) then this will be a little way
>>from the adventure site if I can help it.

  Could I not just hover on Contra-Grav a few meters off the ground,
and lower a landing ramp?   I would have to stay away from the
attitude/reaction thruster vents while the computer is correcting
for wind gusts.....   Think of your unstreamlined starship as a
big air raft.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:03:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: RE: Piracy Challenge (long)

 
Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> said:
> Yes.  I have never disagreed with the idea that pirates do not operate in
> worlds with Class A or B starports, or with the infrastructure (Stellar
> TL) to support a decent SBD force.
> 
<snip>
> 
> But, as I've said, by the numbers there is no argument.  Raw numbers say
> that the Imperium can do it.  I'm arguing that the potential to do it,
> does not translate into the will to do it.  And, as I pointed out, my
> arguments are straying toward the 'campaign specific'.

	I think these are our points of agreement.  If you don't disagree 
that by the numbers the Imperium can stamp out piracy then there's no 
point in going through the exercise of proving it numerically.  I'm 
willing to leave it there and agree to disagree about whether the 
Imperium has the will to stamp out piracy.

- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:24:15 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Bunny problems

Didn't they reduce the rabbit explosion in Australia by introducing
myxomatosis? 
ie adding to the environment one of nature's own control mechanisms
(dynamic equliibrium here we come)

of couse, dynamic equilibrium would have re-established itself eventually.
But we might not have liked  the results!

Martin

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:21:09 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Landings

Phil said:
>OK, like I said, this is fine if you are talking a 1G USL merchie. What
about a
>6G USL Battlecruiser? It is, presumably, braced for violent changes of
direction
>and acceleration *in space* ... surely it can handle a few hundred kmh in
>atmosphere without falling apart? OK, dispersed structures are obviously
not
>going to cut it, but a standard USL Wedge could do it, no probs.

Yeah, I agree. It'd maybe suffer some wind shear and damage to antennae
that aren't designed to be retracted. High speeds might cause re-renty
heating problems. But the craft should survive because it's buillt tough. 

And you also said some other stuff I totally agree with.

The ref should decide what's feasable and what's not, subject to a desire
to give the players as hard a time as possible without getting lynched.

I think Phils said that, too.

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:24:48 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Starship Security

Moin Mark Halvorsen,

	unfortunately I dont own SOM ;(

> As a matter of fact, what is the best way to portray he operation of a New 
> Era starship computer system? Would it still be a voice-operated, relatively 
> articulate system?

	Any virus controlled ship will be more or less articulate. Sais
	you have to convince the computer that a jump to system A would
	be better for trade, than a jump to system B. While most Tl12
	ships (new or old) are dynamicaly linked. For me that are
	consoles, able to run own code and can be aranged to access
	anything available in the nextwork (most non virus ships have
	distinct networks, to avoid that an infection of one system
	distributes over the ship) Its TNE canon that the differnt
	operators have low tech RadioVoice Intercom, so the astrogator
	is telling the enineer the codes he have to type into the
	thuster control, and the sensor operator tells the gunner
	where he things the oponent is.

	A TNE starship is a bit like an MS-DOS network where application
	and OS limits, make it neccessary to print something from one
	program, reboot and type it into the next.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1949
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1950



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Piracy
Piracy (fwd)
Re: In Orbit
Re: CSC Software
Re: At Close Quarters Playtest
Re: How automated are Traveller ships?
Re: Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants)
Art
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**
Re: B5
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
The March Harrier--Sensors
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Hmmmm
Re: FF&S2 Crew Requirements
Re: FF&S2 Crew Requirements
Re: B5
Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:41:49 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Piracy

Moin Leonard Erickson,

> The cargo will be containerized. And thus it'll be set up for automatic
> handling. You just tell the cargo handling system on the ship to start
> unloading. 

	this depends, I think you have similar cargo types like in
	the current time :

	- Rock'n'Roller (roll on roll off) are side or frontloaders
	  (like the MT/TNE/CT traders) able land and have a cargo
	  hatch enabling surface vehicles to enter the ship for
	  load/unload.
	- Container Freighers, are most times toploaders, loaded
	  unloaded by a crane. Some of the ships have own cranes,
	  other rely on starport service.
	- bulk carriers for special load like oil,grain,..., normaly
	  loaded/unloaded on special ports with starport service.
	  If you want to handle this type of cargo in a free trader,
	  in the wilds, you have to wait weeks for the Bimbos to load/
	  unload hundreds of sacks per hand.

> Since you are in free-fall, you don't *need* grav vehicles. And I'm
> willing to bet that there'd be a fairly cheap "adapter" for connecting
> the cargo "ports" of two ships for transferring cargo in space. 

	If a privatier is specialised in AIMora frighters, LSP
	would certainly give them such a adapter, and vice versa.
	Unfortuntately, while the vilani standart for turrets and
	barbetts is still common, the vilani standart for cargo is
	lost during the long night, and any company has its own.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:52:45 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Piracy (fwd)

Moin Andrew Moffatt-Vallance,

> Strikes me that there's a point here that most people have failed to take
> into account. Why the heck are the pirates stealing the cargo?

	Jumping away, stripping the ship (ripping jump-drive, pp, etc)
	into saleable parts is comon practice, the rest can be found
	on an illegal junk yard one a gas giant or is drifting into
	the next sun.

<h1>
	Passenger - male 33 - Bounty Hunter
</h1>
	Anyway, things being what they were there wasn't much
	work for a ex-Marine Colonel who had seen lots of action
	to do.
<p>
	You visited the office of a local bank and did some
	discreet inquiries.  Yes, they said, they paid 0.75% of the
	principal on the loan for ships recovered. Yes, we keep lists
	of skipped ships with holographs of their skippers...
	Oh.. but you need to have a private investigator's license.
<p>
	Of course you had one, so now you've got the list of skipped
	ships.  You've heard rumours that a well known pirate has recently
	hired on the Windfall, a 40 year old Jayhawk, and you think
	this would be worth investigating.  It would be interesting
	to compare the serial numbers of some of the more expensive
	items such as the power plant, jump drive, thrusters,
	contra-grav, computers and weapons.
<p>

	And dont forget : TNE - Corsair Career 

	"Other effects: -1 SOC per term served. 3 Ship DMs per term
	 for a warship. At end of each term, roll 1d10. If the roll
	 is equal or less than the characters INT attribute there is
	 no effect. If it is greater than characters INT attribute,
	 the character has been apprehended and must spend the next
	 career term as a prisoner. If more than one term served,
	 +1 to initiative. "

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:27:07 +0100
From: "Nicholas Wright" <xgr52@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Kenneth wrote:
>I'm trying to gauge how long it takes a ship to orbit a planet, if the
>ship is in parking orbit.

What do you mean by parking?
Geostationary? or merely not going to decay within set parameters eg MIR?

IIRC from school physics on angular momentum: There is a particular orbit
speed for each orbit height where the orbit is perpetual, not counting
atmospheric drag to bring you down again.
A geostationary orbit is the one where the particular speed gives a period
of rotation,  time for once round, exactly equal to the planets day length.

>It seems I should be able to figure this out using the planet's size
>code.
>Any ideas, anyone?
>Kenneth.

Given that you need to know the length of local single rotation, I dont
think you can work out a geostationary orbit radius but, of course, if you
do know day length then thats how long the geostationary ship takes to go
round.

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:38:27 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: CSC Software

On 11 Oct 1997, Rob Prior wrote:

> I would be willing to upgrade my CSC software to print out the vehicle cards
> from Emperor's Vehicles, provided that someone tells me how to calculate the
> new values they've introduced (like "Ease of Use").
> 
> Yes, I've read the part in EV about rolling a dice, but it strikes me that
> the designer should have some control over that.  Possibly a cost modifier? 
> Or a manufacturing time modifer (although manufacturing time isn't
> mentioned)?  

Hmmm...I think that a straight cost modifier would be probably the best
way to go. The only way a designer wouldn't have control over ings like
'ease of use' is if they're TL limited...arguably a TL-8 auto is
_considerably_ easier to use than a TL-5 one, in many ways because of
technological changes (power steering, automatic transmissions, _starter
motors_!).

But a cheap cut-rate car is less likely to have these amenities. This will
affect ease of maintenence, too. The only way a random effect should come
into play should really be with randomly pregenerated things. "You go to
the rent-a-car office..all they have is a Shchoobie Lion and a Groshikin
Mudfish...of course you take the Mudfish because everyone knows that they
never did get the thruster control right on the lion...it handles like a
wallowing hovercraft."

But if you're _designing_ the craft, certainly you can do everythging
right, but it'll cost you, just like the real world.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:28:48 -0400
From: "Mike Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: At Close Quarters Playtest

- ----------
> From: Douglas E. Berry <dberry@hooked.net>
> To: traveller@NS.MPGN.COM
> Subject: At Close Quarters Playtest
> Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 12:55 PM
> 
> I need some volunteers for the playtesting of the latest version of At
> Close quarters, my advanced combat system for T4.
> 
> Anyone interested, please mail me.  The rules are currently avalible
either
> as a Word6 document of in .rtf, specify which you'd prefer.
> --
Douglas,
Please send me the Word6 format copy of At Close Quarters.
Thanks
Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:31:09 -0400
From: "Mike Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: How automated are Traveller ships?

- ----------
> From: Robert Eaglestone <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: How automated are Traveller ships?
> Date: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 9:00 AM
> 
> A continuing worry for Travellers is that their ship will
> be boarded or damaged while they are landed on the surface 
> of a dangerous planet.
> 
> One of the group I'm insists that something as advanced as
> a starship should be able to detect funny business near it
> and send a distress signal to his communicator (if it's in
> range).
> 
> This sounds very reasonable, but it shuts out the possibility
> of someone breaking into their starship.  Of course, maybe
> people shouldn't just be able to break in, and this kind of
> safety mechanism is needed.  What do y'all think?
> 
> Rob

Hey Rob,

Since I currently carry a burglar alarm for my car that is good for about
1/4-1/2 mile (manufacturer's claims not my own), and my car doen't cost as
much as a star ship I think this is a perfectly reasonable probability. The
signal should be audio/visual and radio, up to the limits of the
communicator carried by the crew. 

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:36:54 +1000
From: Scott & Isabell <becubed@connexus.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants)

>        Actually, this off-topic topic might be more interesting than the
>other --
>        how did they get rid of all the rabbits, anyway? Not joking here,
I've
>        really always wanted to know. I mean, you're hip deep in rabbit
>droppings
>        -- shotguns are not the answer.
>>--

Myxomatosis, a highly infectious viral rabit disease. It didn't kill them
all but it thinned them out. The trouble is the rabbits we have know are
pretty much immune. Just recently the CSIRO (government dept in charge of
such things) was a bit embarrassed when they "prematurely released" the
Rabit Calichi (? spelling) virus. It seems that birds flew from the test
zone on an island back to mainland Aust and started an epidemic that
spread. Caused lots of problems as all the rabbit based industries had been
planning on a release in 2-3 years time.

Scott

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:52:35 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Art

DustyLV769@aol.com wrote:
 I guess I feel the same
> way about Trav as I do about Star Trek:TNG and new cars...too many curves!!!

Although I like new car designs, your sentiment about Foss' art is
shared by many on this list, including me.

I see IG making an effort, though, in this area.  The EA was the first
IG product to feature Bryan Gibson's art, which, IMNSHO, is very
Traveller.

I've noticed Gibson's art becoming the interior standard for all IG
products since then (albeit Foss continues to capture the covers).

Remember that crappy (I guess I should say "non-Traveller" instead of
"crappy") interior art Foss developed for the main book and the CSC? 
Those were the last ones he did.  Now, Bryan Gibson is doing the
majority of the art, sharing the interiors with a couple other people.

BTW, I don't like the curvey designs in Trek ships now-a-days either. 
The Enterprise-E looks OK, but it sure doesn't hold a wink to the
Enterprise-A.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:22:36 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>Doesn't all armed ships have a pretty powerful LIDAR built in?
>Its called a lasergun and the reflected signal from unfocussed or focussed
>shots can be read by the passives.

The weapons lasers aren't really optimized for this sort of thing - 
too low a duty cycle, etc. It
is easier to imagine dedicated LIDARs.

Something I do with I had thought of in time for FFS2 is using LIDAR
hardware to light up targets for the main passive sensors - it's not
actually that hard to write rules for; maybe it'll make it into the next
sensor rule iteration, if I ever have time to run the appropriate
simulation.

>Why not use passive sensors to boost lasercomm reception? the same can be
>said about radar dishes and microwave radios.
It probably won't ever matter too much; most Traveller transmitters and
recievers are so powerful you can pretty much hear each other across the
whole system...making communication gear more reasonable (no more 
megawatt-power radios for talking at interplanetary ranges) was one of the
nice things in FFS2.

bruce

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:45:28 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

At 14:07 11/10/97 -0500, Eris Reddoch wrote:
>On 10/11/97 at 01:57 AM,  "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net> said:
>
>>   ***SPOILER ALERT***
>
[deleted]

	Thanks, so someone gets topped in B5. We too in the UK has still to see
this, and while I'm here, how exactly does the way that JMS handle his
characters have anything to do with the workings of the Traveller universe?

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:39:40 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: B5

At 02:26 PM 10/11/97 +0000, James Lindsay wrote:
><snip>
>
>Arguably one of the *best* exiting scenes for any character.  Gary Burgoff
>(Radar O'Reiley) played out the scene in the OR delivering the bad news
>absolutely perfect the first time, yet the director wanted another take of
>it just to be sure.
>
>>James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
> "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"
>

I was under the impression that that Radar's 'performance' was in fact real:
no one had been told the ending sequence until Burgoff was handed the
telegram and told to enter the OR set and read it.

Even the actor playing Henry Blake did not know how final his exit was until
the scene.

Garry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:45:27 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

At 00:52 11/10/97 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote:
>>    Well there was that *navy* you had for so many years that made
>> invading England...unattractive.  Of course now that the Chunnel is
>> operational and you've decommisioned most of the fleet...

	It would have been even more unattractive to invade had the 'other navy'
bothered to turn up when things started instead of a few years late...

>Anyone stupid enough to *try* using the Chunnel to invade deserves what
>he gets. It's far too narrow a bridgehead, and far too easy to knock
>out. 
>
	Plus the constructors would have placed some means of it being shut off so
that no one could get through, from a conventional blocking system - big
door? - to maybe some explosive device to take out whatever's coming
through it at the same time?

	Maybe a 'Moses' bomb to bring the waters crashing in and eliminating the
potential invaders at the same time!

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:03:29 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Sensors

If you've been following the March Harrier posts, here's the latest
one--detailing the ship's sensors.

Kenneth.
=================================================================================

(the following is reposted information from my game)



So far, there have been 5 posts detailing information you should know
about the March Harrier.  

Those topics have been:

Hull
Hull addendum
Jump Drive
Maneuver Drive
Avionics



This is post number six, detailing the equipment used on the March
Harrier.
============================================================================

SENSORS



The March Harrier mounts two sensor packages--one for passive
scanning/locks and one for active scanning/locks.  

The majority of the sensor equipment (sans some antennas and other
sensor electronics located elsewhere for various reasons) is located in
a sensor dome, on the dorsal spine of the ship near the nose, right
above the bridge.  You can see a good picture of the March Harrier,
featuring this sensor dome, on page 45 of DGP's Starship Operator's
Manual.



ACTIVE SENSORS (EMS Active Array):

Common to many civilian merchant vessels, the active sensor package used
on the Harrier is an EMS array.  EMS is an acronym for Electromagnetic
Spectrum.  This array is a collection of several different types of
specific sensors, related by the fact that they use some form of the
electromagnetic spectrum for operation.

By TL 10, most cultures use computer cross-correlation to integrate a
variety of electromagnetic sensors into one single sensor array.  This
specially designed unit is known as an EMS array.

The SOM describes EMS arrays:  "The EMS array is a series of integrated
sensors coupled to a computer, making the collection of specialized
sensors act as one sensor.  To the operator, the EMS array appears to be
one sensor dealing with much, if not all, of the electromagnetic
spectrum."

In other words, the electromagnetic spectrum can be broken down into a
series of frequency bands.  Each specialized sensor uses a specific band
for its operations.  The data from these individual sensors are then
correlated by the computer and fed to the sensor operator's workstation.

Here's an idea of the type of information collected by an EMS sensor,
the frequencies searched by the specific sensors, and the deductions
made from that data--all of which is correlated in the computer giving
the sensor tech one detailed read out about the object of the entire
array's attention.

There's longwave and shortwave radio, used by the EMS sensor in the form
of radar for ranging information.  There's microwave radio, which gives
the sensor another option for radar type operations.  There's heat and
infrared sensors, which will detect thermal emissions from starship hull
radiators or even, if close enough (or hot enough), the heat from body
temperature.

Visible light is another set of frequencies used by the EMS sensor, so
if a starship can be seen with telescopes or other visual sensing
devices, the EMS sensor will incorporate that data into the operator's
information.  Ultraviolet light is also used, as is X-rays and Gamma
rays--all providing visual information to the sensor.

The active EMS array is used to detect objects, rather than sources,
which is the realm of the passive EMS array.  The active array can
provide an actual image of the object in question (starship, asteroid,
or whatever).  The passive array will only provide information implying
what is behind the source.

The active array works by transmitting its own electromagnetic energy
(radio/radar waves, for example) and bouncing it off an object.  The
active array then reads the reflectd energy and provides an image of the
object, as well as precise range reading.

Of course, the active EMS array is itself a source of electromagnetic
energy, and somebody else's passive EMS array might pick you up when you
use it.

The EMS active sensor is, physically, a long cylinder contained in the
sensor dome.



PASSIVE SENSORS (Passive EMS Array):

The passive sensors on the Harrier, the passive EMS array, operate using
the same types of sensors as the active EMS array (described above) sans
the sensors that actively send out energy.  For instance, radar is not
included in the passive EMS sensor package--only EMS sensors which do
not send out any energy of its own are included.

Passive EMS sensors simply read electromagnetic energy sent out by other
sources.  The Visual light sensors are a good example of this--they do
not send "anything" out to read, they simply sit there and try to "see"
what can be "seen".  If a ship can be read on high resolution thermal,
for instance, it is a good target for the EMS passive sensor.

The quality of what the passive sensor can tell you depends of the
quality of the signal being sent from the source.  If a ship is not
emitting very much heat, for example, the Heat/IR sensors may not pick
it up.

The passive EMS sensor is, physically, a long pipe-like boom, contained
in the sensor dome.



ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE EMS SENSORS:

Active sensors will generally provide more accurate information about
the target object and the range to that object, but at the expense of
telling everybody where you are (because of the sensor energy being
detected by other's passive sensors).

Passive sensors will allow you to remain hidden longer because they do
not emit any energy of their own, but the cost is less specific
information that is reliant on the signal produced by the target source.



EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS:

Both the sensors mounted on the Harrier are TL 12 EMS sensor packages. 
The volume of both systems is 0.3 tons.  It takes 12.6 MW to run the
systems, and together, they cost Cr7,400,000 new.  Antennas and the
sensor dome take up 13 square meters of the hull's surface, and the
entire system generally uses up to 40% of the sensor operator's time.



GAME STATS:

The Harrier's USD for its sensors is:    2A 3P 0J

The Active EMS Array has a Sensitivity of 12
The Passive EMS Array has a Sensitivity of 14

The Harrier has an Active Signature for other's active sensors of +0.5
The Harrier has an Emitted Signature for other's passive sensors of 0
The Harrier has a Reflected Signature for other's passive sensors of
- -0.5



Next Up?  Communications.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:30:34 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

I agree with the System Defense Boat part.  They'll always be drawing
crew from the planet and I'm sure not everyone is going to rush to join
the military, so SDB crews will probably be the same.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:39:50 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

At 08:09 am 10/11/97 -0700, you wrote:

>>Many of the illustration are by Chris Foss.  The powers-that-be at IG
>>decided that Foss art would work for Traveller. [Snippage]
>
>There maybe some stylistic effluences.

	Was "effluences" a Freudian slip ...?
- -- 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: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
Subject: Hmmmm

> I'm sorry if I apparently had this wrong, it's just that this is what we
> were taught.

In America, I was taught that we (the USA) won the war of 1812...imagine my
surprise when I learned different.

Loren Wiseman
      GDW Emeritus

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:10:39 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: FF&S2 Crew Requirements

At 03:40 pm 10/9/97 -0500, Andrew Akins wrote:
>I'm making a FF&S2 spreadsheet, and I'm having a problem with maneuver crew
>requirements for military ships. The formula is:
>
>3xLog(CMxShip Size)
>
>First of all - what is ship size? Diplacement? Volume (m3)?
>
>Second, I can't get any numbers to agree with table 206: Maneuvering crew.
>All my  results are larger than those numbers.
>
>Any comments?

	*Sigh*  I'm away from my design notes right now; remind me Tuesday and I
can look up the Table 206 question. I'm sure I used a spreadsheet, so it'll
be easy to back out. Off the top of my pointy head, Ship Size is in m^3;
displacement is _only_ used in official documents rating overall ship size.
All design steps should have been done in m3 for consistency.
- -- 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: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:10:39 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: FF&S2 Crew Requirements

At 03:40 pm 10/9/97 -0500, Andrew Akins wrote:
>I'm making a FF&S2 spreadsheet, and I'm having a problem with maneuver crew
>requirements for military ships. The formula is:
>
>3xLog(CMxShip Size)
>
>First of all - what is ship size? Diplacement? Volume (m3)?
>
>Second, I can't get any numbers to agree with table 206: Maneuvering crew.
>All my  results are larger than those numbers.
>
>Any comments?

	*Sigh*  I'm away from my design notes right now; remind me Tuesday and I
can look up the Table 206 question. I'm sure I used a spreadsheet, so it'll
be easy to back out. Off the top of my pointy head, Ship Size is in m^3;
displacement is _only_ used in official documents rating overall ship size.
All design steps should have been done in m3 for consistency.
- -- 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: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:14:31 -0400
From: Eric Freitas <edf@atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: B5

At 01:26 AM 10/10/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Really dead.

?????

>If you saw tonight's episode, you'll know what I mean.

>This show is truly amazing.  You'd never see this on Star Trek.

AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When was B5 on?  I obviously missed something important.

Fox didn't show B5 Friday at 10pm (eastern time).  Instead some
@&$##&$#@*$&#$&#&$&@#$&@#$&@&#$&@&# STUPID #$*@#&%#@&*%@*%&@'ed
show called Earth Final Conflict (By Gene Roddenberry, and yes
Magel was prominent), and man did this show S**k!!!



>Dead.  Gone.  Finito.
>
>Wow.

Who died??????

Eric 

p.s. - if you don't want to ruin the show for those who haven't seen
it reply to me privately at:  edf@atlantic.net

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 04:19:26 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

On Sat, 11 Oct 97 14:07:13 -0500, Eris Reddoch wrote:


   ***SPOILER ALERT***




















> I've read that they are bringing
> in a new female commander for B5, and the plots will revolve around whoever
> she is.

She will be played by the equally delectable Tracey Scoggins (some may
remember her from the first season of "Lois & Clark").  Claudia allegedly
left the series because she wanted to take time off to do some non-B5 stuff
(essentially removing her from a total of only 4 episodes).  JMS wanted her
to be in all 22 episodes of season five, and she eventually left.  The
kicker is that Tracey is allegedly only going to appear in 8 of the 22
episodes.  Kinda strange that they don't want to give one of their long
time cast members a few episodes off, and then go ahead and replace her
with someone that will appear in a little over one-third of the final
season.



James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1950
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1951



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1949
pirates!!!
Re: piracy
Re: Art
The Marionette Incident.
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Rabbits of Oz (was Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants))
Unstreamlined
Re: In Orbit
The March Harrier--Communications
Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: In Orbit
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
TNS releases
T4 and Silent Death

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:44:40 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1949

On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:35:16 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:07:11 +0000
>From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
>Subject: The Unstreamlined
>
>On the landings thread...did we ever decide why an unstreamlined vessel,
>using contra-gravity, could not land on a planet with atmosphere?

Yep. (Well, *I* didn't) The consensus was "because it's canon" ... and the
subtext, "even if that doesn't make any sense!" ;-P

Phil

- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:36:06 -0400
From: chris <qwerty@spacey.net>
Subject: pirates!!!

   I understand that a SBD will put a crimp in your pirating within the 100d.
limit but what about the ships that don't come in at 100d ? Some versions
of traveller
have a fare percent of ships that have the minor misjump. A sbd or even 20
sbds 
would have trouble patrolling a area of 1000d around a busy planet. Then
you must plan that for every sbd there needs to be about 2-3 in reserve or
between patrols.this does 
not take other in system trafic into account or the fact that a pirate may
be playing the honest merchant for weeks at a time before a merchant comes
along at the right time to be taken.How can you convoy to defend against
pirates when time of jump varys 10%
and the exit point is not that precice?
  Piracy it's not just a plot device its _canon!_

                                                 qwerty@spacey.net
                                                 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: piracy

>        A complete, updated list of all registered ships in (and, I presume,
around)
>the Imperium will be available to every patrol ship in the Imperium?  Shades
of 1984! >I'd rather have the pirates!

How common do you think starships are?

There's a basic database back at the local naval base, and new updates get
sent by way of xboat routes.  With the sheer size of 3I computers and
storage, there'd be no problem on that end either.

But, how common do you think starships are in a (late) 3I setting?

>Is it seriously proposed that there will exist (or could ever exist in a 
>government run by human beings) a bureaucratic agency capable of creating, 
>maintaining, and distributing any such list with any hope of success.

Um.  In my living room, I have a White Pages for the Greater Philadelphia
Area.  It has 1200+ pages, each page having about 400 listings on it.

Golly, that's alot.

Anyhow, there's roughly half a million listings in there!  It gets updated
and republished and distributed _on paper_.  Then, on the Internet, there are
some locations that I can get a listing anywhere in the U.S., from _millions
and millions_ of listings!  These places are also updated with varying
regularity...

Big lists can, do, and will exist into the future, and I see no reason why
not.

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:55:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Art

>BTW, I don't like the curvey designs in Trek ships now-a-days either. 
>The Enterprise-E looks OK, but it sure doesn't hold a wink to the
>Enterprise-A.

Ken,

     Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that way about Trek...in a
similar vein, I seem to recall a book titled "The Star Trek Spaceflight
Chronology" by Stan and Fred Goldstien.  Now this is very ancient
history...takes me back to 7th grade (1980-81), but it provided tech specs on
various Federation starships up to the Refitted Enterprise (NCC-1701, from
ST: The Motionless Picture), and if I remember right in the very back was a
drawing (side view) of the "next generation" of Federation starship...it
looked to me at the time to be a beached whale of a ship (remember I was only
11...and Net Gen was 6-7yrs in the future...)  I believe now it was prob the
first rendition of Enterprise-D...can anyone confirm this?   I have never
seen this book since I returned it to the library at school (they threatened
to hold up my report card unless I returned all the "lost" books I had.)

DustyLV769@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 02:47:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: The Marionette Incident.

Some interesting stuff happened in my game the other night, which I thought
I'd share with all of you out there.  It was a fast paced situation, which is
now known (in true Quentin Tarantino style):  The Marionette Incident.

Background:

The group is contracted to kidnap a businesswoman's rival for a week to make
him miss an important meeting.  Lifted right from "The Traveller Book" in the
patrons section.

The businessman that's coming into town has two bodyguards and a companion
robot.  The characters have run all the basic checks before the guy lands,
and figure out that he will have bodyguards with him.  However, what they
don't bank on is that the businessman will have a companion robot (read,
direct link to the police in case of emergency).

Dr. Maximillian, ex-scout, is watching the Starport for this guy.  The guy
comes in on the _Concordia_, and luckily Dr. Maximillian has some robotics
skill (he makes a task roll and sees the companion robot for what it is) and
he warns the other characters who are lying in wait for the businessman and
bodyguards of this new development.

The other characters panic in a big way.  Mass chaos and confusion, everybody
thinks their goose is cooked.  See, they can't make too much noise in the
hotel suite, or the hotel's computer will send security to check it out.  As
a result, they pretty much can't fire any of their guns.  They try to think
of ways to neutralize the companion, while making sure that the bodyguards
don't perforate them while they're doing it.

And the clock is ticking...

Someone half-remembers the CSC description of the companion bot.  The robot
is linked into the main database of the world, and much of the personality is
handled by this remote computer...  Or something to that effect.  I assume
that the businessman signed over his robot to the local branch of the
robo-company while inbound from 100 diameters.

Marcus Church, the group's resident computer specialist, gets a bright idea,
and a stroke short of genius.  First, he stops the robot from sending back
any information in the case of an emergency.  Then, he aks if he can possibly
take control of the robot.  "Why?" I innocently reply...  I want to see
exactly what he wants to do to see if I should allow it...

I don't want to spoil the surprise, but I nearly fell out of my chair
laughing.  I repeated the situation back to him 3 times to make sure that I
heard correctly before going back into full GM mode.

So, the situation.  There's Armand Tenserian, an ex-marine behind the couch
with an assault rifle poking out.  There's um...  I forget the name, an
ex-army soldier hiding in another section of the room, with his laser rifle
at the ready (the only weapon the party can fire without arousing suspicion).
 There's Laszlo Hollyfeld, a rogue type in the shadows with a knife (the only
item he got from chargen).  There's Marcus on the portacomp getting ready to
control the robot.  And downstairs, there's Esther Dickenscheitz in the
getaway gravcar...

Shortly, Dysan Savitri (the businessman) runs his keycard through the door
swipe.  The door clicks open.  He enters the room, followed by his guards.
 As the door begins to shut, the robot turns, wide-optical sensored with
fear!  "Look out behind you sir, armed assailants."  They bodyguards and
Dysan draw their weapons, spinning around.  The robot grapples one of the
guards...  who gets quickly batted down by Marcus.  In the confusion and
surprise Dysan swings around...  And finds he is outgunned and outnumbered.
 One of his bodyguards is holding his head and moaning on the floor, and the
other has his back turned on the whole situation.

He wisely decides to give up and give in.

However, an itchy trigure finger and a massive misunderstanding ends with one
of the guards dead, and yellow journalism all over the airwaves.  Especially
the programs like: "Renegade Robots, Could This Happen To You?" with a
dramatic reenactment of the situation.

Although there were several votes to kill the prisoner after they got paid,
cooler heads prevailed and instead put him into a rented grav car to spin
around the equator for 4 days and finally put him down in front of police
headquarters.   He was bound, but given access to water for the duration.

One of the characters was indentified however, and the week ended with the
characters trying to keep one jump ahead of the news and the authorities...

I have yet to think up new fun for this Monday.

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Woden2014@aol.com
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

Leonard Erickson writes:

>Remember, *all* the oxygen currently in the atmosphere used to be part
>of water molecules. The oxygen in the CO2 molecules went into the sugar
>formed by photosynthesis.

Yes, but it is still on the planet and can always be redistributed in a
multitude of ways. What gets hauled off is no longer here at all.  But the
heart of my point is 
that *people* would decide that ocean refueling is not in their best
interest.  Think 
of Environmentalists with a Galactic agenda, add a Corporation with an
intererest 
in gas giant mining, stir with political shenanigains, and presto; no more
ocean refueling.

>But a million tons is not even .00001%. On that 6000 km radius planet
>it is 2 *nanometers* of ocean depth (ie 2 one-millionths of a
>millimeter). You just don't understand the *scale* of this sort of
>thing. Figuring with the one km deep "planetary ocean" (I think earth's
>would be even deeper), I get .0000000002%.

You're right, I didn't understand the scale.  It's just that big numbers seem
so... 
well, BIG.  I was trying to support my opinion with numbers, and failed.
Oops.  
But my opinion remains.  Anyway, like I said above, it would be the people
who would not allow ocean refueling.  Just because we won't run out of oil in
our 
lifetime doesn't stop people from saying we're running out of oil.  Just
because 
the sun won't go nova in a thousand lifetimes doesn't stop us from saying
that 
we should explore space.  People do on occasion take the long view.  Add
money 
to the mix and its a done deal.  GG mining would add jobs to a planets
economy.  You would have dive pilots, freighter pilots, refinery workers, a
full starbase at the 
GG for the refinery since you don't want large amounts of hydrogen sitting
around planetside wating for PC's to shoot into it, you could even say that
any unofficial 
GG skimming is illegal and force ships that are just passing thru to refuel
at the 
GG starbase. "New Jobs For One And All!"(corporate propaganda)  So GG mining
could be very profitable if ocean refueling was banned.  I should have gone
this way the first time, and left those pesky *big* numbers alone. (He says
as he wonders 
just what he missed this time ;)

>And you also are suffering from the impression that the biosphere is
>*stable*. Far from it. It's in *dynamic* equilibrium. 

No, I do realize the biosphere can handle anything that humanity can throw at
it, 
and then some.  That is why I made the Zen comment.  BTW, I remember reading
somewhere that some scientists had determined that the Earth once had a 400 
day year.  Anyone know anything about that?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 97 16:55:32 
From: jamesd@spirit.com.au
Subject: Re: Rabbits of Oz (was Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants))

Hello Tim, on Oct 11 you wrote:

> >They only had to bring a few rabbits into Australia and pretty
> >soon... *BOOM*. (If you've never seen the pictures, at one point
> >the rabbits were so thick that they completely covered the
> >ground like a thick blanket of vegetation.) The miracles of
> >unchecked exponential growth.
> >
>         Actually, this off-topic topic might be more interesting than the
> other --
>         how did they get rid of all the rabbits, anyway? Not joking here, I've
>         really always wanted to know. I mean, you're hip deep in rabbit
> droppings
>         -- shotguns are not the answer.

  Well, there have been a number of attempts to eradicate them, but as yet,
there has been no 100% success rate solution.

  1. I _suspect_ that foxes were partly introduced to keep the rabbits down
     although, it could be for hunting. At any rate, they have done a much
     better job on sheep, and wallabies along with other small native
     mammals, than on the rabbits.
  2. Then they tried a disease called Mixomitosis. This certainly cut down
     the population, but didn't finish the job. I suspect an immunity was
     eventually developed by the rabbits. (vision of lab coated rabbits
     working away...) It also eliminated much of the market for rabbit meat
     in Australia pretty quickly too! :-)
  3. The latest attempt is another disease called Colisii virus. You might
     have heard about this one - it was CSIROs biggest sc**wup in a long time.
     It was released before testing was complete and spread of its own accord
     over much of Australia. The most common suggested transfer method is
     dead rabbit in back of ute! Strange how it jumps 500-1000Km into an
     isolated place like Broken Hill!

  At the end of all this, AFAIK, we still have a rabbit problem. It just
isn't quite as big as before. Oh yes one other method - a big market for
rabbit meat and fur. Although mainly fur since the 50s/60s when Mixo was
introduced.

  Anyway, back to your scheduled piracy debate.

  BTW: Any nominations for piracy as a done to death topic? If I grab the
summaries now, I can put it in the FAQ real quick.

  PS: Apologies for spelling of the various diseases. My Latin is abysmal!

Bye,

James Dempsey
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 email: jamesd@spirit.com.au             | Neptune, Titan, stars can frighten!
 WWW:   http://www.spirit.com.au/~jamesd |   Astronomy Domine - Pink Floyd

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:26:05 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Unstreamlined

Phillip McGregor wrote:

> >On the landings thread...did we ever decide why an unstreamlined vessel,
> >using contra-gravity, could not land on a planet with atmosphere?
> 
> Yep. (Well, *I* didn't) The consensus was "because it's canon" ... and the
> subtext, "even if that doesn't make any sense!" ;-P


Nobody came up with a better explanation than that?

(shaking head) This list is really slipping.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:21:07 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Nicholas Wright wrote:
> 
> Kenneth wrote:
> >I'm trying to gauge how long it takes a ship to orbit a planet, if the
> >ship is in parking orbit.
> 
> What do you mean by parking?
> Geostationary? or merely not going to decay within set parameters eg MIR?

Ya know, a ship is not streamlined, so it takes up a stationary orbit
around a planet.  The crew goes down in a shuttle or a lauch with the
cargo and tries to secure some more for another trip.

I need to figure out how long it takes a ship to orbit around the
planet.

I've got my player's ship coming off the surface.  If they time it where
the other ship (the one in orbit that I'm trying to figure) goes over
the planet's horizon, I want to figure out how much time they have
before the ship appears on the other side of the planet.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 04:28:18 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Communications

In detailing the March Harrier, here's the post on the ship's
communications.

Kenneth.
================================================================

(the following is copied material from my game)



This is post number 7 on getting to know the March Harrier on a more
intimate level.

Posts that have preceded this one include:

Hull
Hull Addendum
Jump Drive
Maneuver Drive
Avionics
Sensors


Kenneth.
- ----------------------------------------------------------

COMMUNICATIONS



The March Harrier incorporates two different comm systems.  Both are TL
12.  Total power for both systems totals 10.6 MW from the ship's power
plant.  Brand new, these two comm systems cost Cr300,000.  Hull area for
the antennas take up 101 square meters, and the comm system takes up 40%
of the communications officer's time.

The Harrier uses one tight beam and one broadcast comm system.



TL 12 RADIO COMM:

Broadcast communicators have the advantage over tight beam communicators
in that the precise location of the receiver need not be known.  This
type of comm is common everywhere--one just sends the message, and if
the receiver is in range, he will receive the transmission.

The problem with broadcast comms is that, if tuned into the proper
channel, anyone can listen in to your conversation or receive the data
being transmitted.  Also, broadcast transmissions are easier to jam.

Radio communication is a form of broadcast transmission.  Radio comms
send and receive information using radio waves.  The information is
broadcast (sending information out in all directions), and this
transmission can be detected by any radio tuned to the correct frequency
within range.

The Harrier uses a TL 12 Radio communicator, which it uses for most of
its transmissions.  The Radio comm is capable of 144 channels, and
standard range on this comm is 30,000 km.  Physically, the mount for
this device is a rod-like boom.

Radio communications can be detected by other ship's sensors.  Radio can
be detected by another radio, a radar direction finder, and an EMS
passive sensor array.  Radio can also be jammed.



TL 12 MASER COMM:

A maser communicator is a tight beam comm requiring the Harrier to know
the exact location of the receiver.  

A maser comm sends and receives information using microwaves.  The
information is beamcast--meaning it is directed at a specific set of
coordinates and can only be received by that receiver.  The maser is a
directional tightbeam version of a standard radio comm, but they are not
adversely affected by atmosphere. 

Although tightbeam communicators are more secure than broadcast, they
have the added problem of having to know the exact location in which to
direct the beam.

The Harrier mounts a TL 12 maser communicator, which has a standard
range of 1000 AU.  The maser comm has 144 channels, and the comm mount
is a series of conical boxes and cylinders on the hull.

Maser communications can be detected by another starship's passive EMS
array, but a maser communicator, once locked on to its receiver, cannot
be jammed.  Maser detection is only possible if the detector is "in
beam", meaning that the  maser is a pretty safe communication method in
a combat situation. 



INSYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURES

When a ship jumps into a new system, the comm officer will scan the
radio bands for the system's directory.  The exact location of which may
already be know from prior visits to the system, or may be obtained from
the subsector library program.

Most star systems, TL 8 and above, and all systems with a Class C or
better starport, maintain a communication directory on broadband radio. 
Once this directory is located, the ship's communication officer will
the local channels used for standard system information.

For example, starports maintain a Traffic Control Channel.  There may be
a standard Hailing channel.  There may be a standard Distress channel. 
Local entertainment may be broadcast from the main world--starships can
pipe this in for the passengers during the trip from jump point to
planet side.  Local news may also be carried on a standard channel, as
well as standard channels for commidity prices, commercial passage
reservations, and just about any other general information channels you
can think of.  

The variety of channels available is dependent on the specific system,
but some channels are standard in just about every system in the
Imperium.  For example, if the system is TL 8+, and/or the system has a
Class C+ starport, Traffic Control will be handled on its own channel.

Not all of the various channels mentioned above will be Image/Voice/Data
capable.  This is dependent on the requirements of the information being
broadcast and the equipment used to broadcast it.  In different star
systems, different types of broadcast will be made.

Traffic Control, for instance, is usually Voice only, although some
higher tech systems may use Images as well for real-time viewer
communication with the starport.  Entertainment channels, on the other
hand, are usually Image/Voice transmissions, although Voice only
entertainment channels are not unheard of.  Likewise, Market channels
usually transmit data only, providing stock quotes and commidity prices
to passenger and crew stateroom consoles.



Next Up?  Weapons

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:46:31 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

At 02:07 PM 10/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On 10/11/97 at 01:57 AM,  "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net> said:
>
>>   ***SPOILER ALERT***
>
>
>Harold, you've *got* to give your spoiler alerts more space.  ;-> At least
>enough space so the reader has to page down to get to the juicy stuff. ;->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>   Just how many long-time female characters do you think are on the damn
>>station?  <geesh!>
>
>Three. ;->
>
>The telepath Lia Alexander (sp), the Minbari Ambassador Delin (sp), and the
>delectable Susan, but we all know which of those three it is.  ;->

Lyta Alexander, Delenn, and Commander Susan Ivanova.

>>From what I've seen it looks like both Sinclair and Innova (ok, I simply
>*can't* spell today) are leaving the show.  Sinclair is elected Earth
>President and isn't around, except for an occasional cameo, and Susan gets
>a job off the station..maybe Haig's job.  I've read that they are bringing
>in a new female commander for B5, and the plots will revolve around whoever
>she is.  What they are going to do about Delin and Sinclair, I don't know.
>Of course all of this might be bunk, but it *is* what I've read.

Sinclair is busy being Valen a thousand years ago.  Captain Sheridan may
end up as President of the Earth Alliance.

- --
+-------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|*************************************************|
|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
+-------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:22:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

In mail you write:

>>That "backlot" was Tunisia.  The Stormtroopers spent *hours* in costume,
>>and each suit had a small fan built in.  They also had a "cold tent" for
>>between-take cooling off.
>
> Not trying to just be contrary, but I could have sworn Mos Eisley was a
> studio backlot.  I seem to remember seeing a "making of Star Wars" type
> program when I was younger.  And other than that, there were very few desert
> scenes with stormtroopers in the original Star Wars.

Yes, Mos Eisley was a studio backlot. But the scenes *outside* of Mos
Eisley were filmed in Tunisia. Including the stuff with the Jawa
sandcrawler.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:19:15 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

In mail you write:

> I'm trying to gauge how long it takes a ship to orbit a planet, if the
> ship is in parking orbit.
>
> It seems I should be able to figure this out using the planet's size
> code.

You need not just the planet's size code, but also the altitude of the
orbit. After all, both the Space Shuttle and the moon orbit earth. But
one takes 90 minutes, the other takes 29 days.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:24:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

In mail you write:

>> No, you don't pull 1G with the attitude control thrusters. You use them to
>> reorient the ship in a few seconds, and then pull 1G with the thrust 
> plates.
>
> If it takes "a few seconds" to turn, you are far more likely to be hit by 
> someone 0.5 light seconds away ... or can i turn faster in an emergency?

Please keep in mind that "turning the ship" (ie changing the direction
it's pointing) is quite different from changing course (changing the
direction it is *moving*).

Changing course takes a *lot* of time, even if you can spin the ship
like a top. You can't "redirect" your velocity in a new direction the
way ships and planes do. Instead you have to *kill* the velocity in the
old direction and build up velocity in the new one.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:13:14 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Summarize this Piracy thread and Move On

In mail you write:

>>Anyone stupid enough to *try* using the Chunnel to invade deserves what
>>he gets. It's far too narrow a bridgehead, and far too easy to knock
>>out. 
>>
>    Plus the constructors would have placed some means of it being shut off so
> that no one could get through, from a conventional blocking system - big
> door? - to maybe some explosive device to take out whatever's coming
> through it at the same time?
>
>     Maybe a 'Moses' bomb to bring the waters crashing in and eliminating the
> potential invaders at the same time!

Actually, considering the fun they had with the fire in their a while
back, I'd say a combo of poison gas and heavy smoke would do wonders.
Even if you button up and go to full anti-gas measures, the smoke means
that you'll have to *crawl* thru the tunnel. Especially since any
commander worth his pay will be *expecting* an ambush at that point.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:28:43 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

> ...the difficulty of predicting where a ship will be a few seconds
> into the future

Which was why I asked the question ... it would be good to discuss this and, hopefully, 
come up with some suitable rules about Agility and hit probabilities.  Do we know who is 
working on the T4 ship combat system?

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 07:57:53 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TNS releases

My campaign is set in early 1107 in the Marches. To add flavour I've 
been creating my own TAS News Service releases which complement the
canon ones. The intent is to show the type of one-sided journalism
and the heightened Imperial-Zho tensions that existed during this
time.

If anyone's interested I'll post 'em to the TML.
- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:30:40 -0400
From: "Nathan & Terri Mezel" <hotchip@bignet.net>
Subject: T4 and Silent Death

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BCD6F9.E36B6BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 A brief mention in Allen Varney's Current Clack (Dragon #240) says that =
IG and ICE have been talking for almost a year and a Traveller version =
of Silent death will be released as the new ship-to- ship space combat =
system.  Of course there is no word on IG's web site about this.

Nathan Mezel




- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BCD6F9.E36B6BC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1008.3"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<P><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;A brief mention in Allen Varney's=20
Current Clack (Dragon #240) says that IG and ICE have been talking for almost a=20
year and a Traveller version of Silent death will be released as the new 
ship-to- ship space combat system.&nbsp; Of course there is no word on IG's web=20
site about this.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>Nathan Mezel</FONT>
<P><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BCD6F9.E36B6BC0--

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1951
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 12 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1952



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

magic formular ?
Piracy - VOTE!
Re: piracy
CT Fusion Rockets
Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: In Orbit
re:B5
re:Piracy
Re: TNS releases
Re: CT Fusion Rockets
Orbit times
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: CSC Software
Piracy - VOTE!
Re: Piracy
Re: In Orbit
An alternative look at things

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 06:05:24 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: magic formular ?

Hy folks,

	does anybody have a "magic formular", calculating the distance
	between 2 systems in the same sector ?

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:28:19 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Piracy - VOTE!

Moin Douglas,

> Results to date!  Oh, for the record, I vote #1.

	I think acording how usnet is distributed anybody will end
	up with a diffent number when your mail arives.

> __2__  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
> (Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
> rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

	When I take a look on the 4 Traveller settings - Piracy exists

	CT - Spinward Marches was a frontier, its canon to sell stolen
	     vessels to the Sword Worlds
	MT - In the Rebellion, nearly anybody was a pirate, and a free
	     trader had "hard times" because the pirates called themself
	     legitime under the command of a backwater duke.
	TNE- Does also know slavery. The Guild knows there is one real
	     market to compete (selling slaves to the Vampires in exchance
	     for high tech parts and trade agreements), and only few
	     human controled ships left, and any posibility is used.
	M0 - I hope you wont find pirates "2 step around Kange" (exept
	     in the bar where talks about bussines), but if you leave
	     the main of 30 systems, anything can happen.

	Even if piracy dos'nt exist most of the time, most of space,
	pirates are a good plot vehicle, so the standart setting allow
	piracy.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:13:21 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: piracy

Moin Tim Connors,

>       A complete, updated list of all registered ships in (and, I
>       presume, around) the Imperium will be available to every patrol
>       ship in the Imperium?  Shades of 1984! I'd rather have the
>       pirates!

	First of all : The early 3I does not have a SDG-Transponder,
	(Deyo-Circuit) it was installed between 1086 and 1098 with
	a passage of enabling laws.

	Next: The Transponder is full time connected to computer,
	sensors and control system, and using the any free frequencies
	of the radio chanal around the clock, to chat with other
	Transponders. The Transponder was NOT a high tech computer
	with state of the art encrytion, only sending a squawk
	when the startport ask's for identity, bu a living and
	intelligent being. This being was connected to the ship
	full time, and chatting with other transponders about.

	So starport personal, could not only see, the name and
	ID of the ship, but also what weaponry is installed when
	it was used, how often crew is drunk, and wether the stuard
	makes sex to the passengers. Military ships where able to
	shut down the radio connection of the transponder (but not
	the internal computer connection - the transponder was
	installed into the mainframe) so any ship not sending a
	transponder signal was automaticly asumed hostage.

	The early 3I dosnt need a transponder, only TL12 Sota
	public encription software. So starport personal only
	need a list of "signers", and a ship has to send a
	standart data package, signed by a valid authority,
	the so called ship ID package, containing :

	- Name of the Ship with serial number, Brutto Register
	  Tons (not displacement tons), and signature on EMS/HRT.
	- Name of the owner, Name of the Bank, Last Payment,
	  Bank expiry, Name of the Captain, ...

	Any time information in the package is changed, e.g.
	because the thursters needed a overhaul, the package
	is encapsulated in a new package containing updated
	informations.

	It would be comon practice that this ship package is
	encapsulated an other time when a ship leaves a
	starport, to add the cargo list.

By Michael
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:39:30 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: CT Fusion Rockets

Moin Rob Prior,

> High Guard allowed fighters to attack ships with their drives.  The drive was
> counted as a fusion gun with a factor equal to its acceleration in Gs.  Given
> that a fighter could only mount a factor-3 battery of guns, the drive was
> actually more dangerous.  In fact, the classic fighter attack was a run in to
> extremely close range followed by an attack with the drives.

	hm was'nt standart briefing for fighter squats :

	"here is the bridge section of the oponents, ok
	 you know where to chrash. Dont forget to press
	 the escape button when you see the blink in their
	 eys, and good luck against the point defense lasers."

	The Rampart had to meet this design :

	- 2*7qm detlaser missiles under the wings
	- 183 metric tons for kinetic kill with
	  2,9 metric G for accelleration (6 Gs stood in the
	  papers for shocking the oponent) and 20 G hour
	  (also there the papers lie)
	- and a 144Mj laser lance for opening
	  the hull for a better chrash

	Normal operation (the rampart had no fire control, and
	a crew of only 1)

	- turn on the evasing program
	- Launch the first missile
	- control the missile using a standart lasercom
	- Launch the second missile
	- control the missile using a standart lasercom
	- turn off the evasing program
	- firing the laser, by locking the fire button
	- directly accellerate towards the oponent,
	  so that the laser hits, use the laser hits
	  instead of ladar, so that you are shure the
	  Rampart hits.
	- hit the eject button before chrash.

	The motto for rampart pilots : "See you, next life"

	Call it a Japanese design of a fighter ;-)
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:57:57 -0700
From: "Brian A. Howard" <bruadh@southwest.net>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

At 07:39 PM 10/11/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 08:09 am 10/11/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>>Many of the illustration are by Chris Foss.  The powers-that-be at IG
>>>decided that Foss art would work for Traveller. [Snippage]
>>
>>There maybe some stylistic effluences.
>
>	Was "effluences" a Freudian slip ...?

ROFLMAO! Oops, I meant to write influences!


Brian A. Howard

If you hear the sound of a Babel fish, run. 
For a Vogon constuctor fleet cannot be far behind.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:18:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

 
Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk> said:
> 
> > ...the difficulty of predicting where a ship will be a few seconds
> > into the future
> 
> Which was why I asked the question ... it would be good to discuss this and, 
> hopefully, come up with some suitable rules about Agility and hit 
> probabilities.  Do we know who is working on the T4 ship combat system?

	There has been a lot of work on this over on the gdw-beta list in
the past and some of us are interested in starting it up again.  David
Golden has the basic equations on his web page for the case where the
ship's orientation is not known.  Introducing slewing speed complicates
things a bit and some other projects intervened before we got that far. 
We did establish, though, that the limit on a ship's slewing speed was not
only the thrust available but the structural strength of the ship.  The
result of all this would be a fairly complicated equation with lots of
exponents that gave us realistic hit probabilities for a given ship size,
range, acceleration, and agility.  Transforming this into a combat system 
playable without a programmable calculator would be challenging but 
rewarding.
	If you're interested in helping to restart this discussion then 
I'd suggest you join the beta list by sending a msg to gdw-beta@qrc.com.

- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:53:30 +0100
From: "Nicholas Wright" <xgr52@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Kenneth wrote:
>Ya know, a ship is not streamlined, so it takes up a stationary orbit
>around a planet.  The crew goes down in a shuttle or a lauch with the
>cargo and tries to secure some more for another trip.
>
>I need to figure out how long it takes a ship to orbit around the
>planet.
>
>I've got my player's ship coming off the surface.  If they time it where
>the other ship (the one in orbit that I'm trying to figure) goes over
>the planet's horizon, I want to figure out how much time they have
>before the ship appears on the other side of the planet.

and Leonard wrote

>You need not just the planet's size code, but also the altitude of the
>orbit. After all, both the Space Shuttle and the moon orbit earth. But
>one takes 90 minutes, the other takes 29 days.

I think Leonard is correct. You want a closer orbit than Geostationary.
Just choose a time period that is convenient.  The Shuttle orbits at about
100 to 200 miles out and goes around in about 90 mins.  But of course the
world turns underneath and the orbit is at an angle to the tilt of the
world thus each orbit does not cover exactly the previous one and you get
those sine wave across the space traffic control map in the Starport
control. For the Earth the orbits are about 1000 to 1500 miles apart across
the face of the globe. The party coming up from the planet will have to
allow for that when they return.  Returning after 90 mins (difficult to do)
the ship will be some 1000 miles up spin. After 3 hours it will be 2000
miles away and may be over the horizon.

If the players don't remember about the planets rotation presumably space
traffic control will but Kirk's advice to the cloaked Bird of Prey crew
springs to mind.
"Everybody remember where we parked"

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:48:13 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:B5

Jimmy Simpson <nimrod@dfw.net> wrote:

>No, she is not going to die...permanently.  Her contract dispute didn't
>come up until after they had finished filming both of the TNT movies and
>all of season 4, including the FINAL episode of the series, which she will
>be in.

Ahem. Kenneth didn't really do a spoiler. By defining the character's sex
you just did do a spoiler.

(So I'd already guessed what was happening, but it was nice to have it vague).

Dom



- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:12:01 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Piracy

"David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>>15 min to unload a merchant ship carrying 60 to 80 dt of cargo? - get real!
>>You need to unstrap the cargo (I assume that you aren't leaving it loose)
>>and then shift it to the other ship.
>
>First of all, you don't need to carefully unstrap it.  You just
>cut the bloody things.  >

Cut many webbing straps recently in zero G? Still takes time, say a minute
or two. If you are under gravity it'd be faster, but you have more mass and
inertia problems, and have to control the crippled ship's computer.
Meanwhile the remaining crew of the ship will be shooting at you or holed
up in the bridge or engineering.

>Also, you can just use a rope to pull
>them from ship to ship and hual them in.

Isofreight type boxes which still have mass and inertia? Need a fair bit of
effort, that would.

>And you don't have
>to wait until the first one has been trasnfered before you start
>the second one (for example you put them on a stringer).

Takes time to set up, and I believe that you are underestimating the effort
involved.

>Nor do you have
>to do any of this anymore carefully than is necessary so that
>the prodominate portion of the cargo survives (in fact you
>could just take what you can get and leave when time is up).

If I was a captain of a ship expecting combat I would want the cargo
secured to avoid loosing it in the event of a hit on the ship.

>Finally, with G comp, there is no reall reason to have to
>tie them down again.

Apart from the fact that system failures happen, and you may not have power
etc because you have just crippled the ship.

>Remember, you don't use time it would take to transfer
>the cargo at leasure, in port, being carefull not to
>damage the ship and not loose any cargo.  You use what
>the optimum time would be for someone who didn't care
>about the ship he was unloading, is in zero gravity,
>can put up with a few losses, and has time to think
>about how this would be done and prepare himself to do
>it.

I agree that preparation is key to this maneuver.

>>*Maybe* (if practiced and well trained) you could do it in 10 minutes a
>>box
>
>I couldn't diagree more.

Similarly I think that you are not being practical and are being grossly
optimistic.

- --
shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:

>> 15 min to unload a merchant ship carrying 60 to 80 dt of cargo? - get real!
>> You need to unstrap the cargo (I assume that you aren't leaving it loose)
>
>The cargo will be containerized. And thus it'll be set up for automatic
>handling. You just tell the cargo handling system on the ship to start
>unloading.

Okay, that sheds a different light (to a point).You will need a receipt
system keyed to accept the off-loaded cargo not unlike that used at a dock
though. (I was assuming the containerisation).

>> and then shift it to the other ship. So, say they are 5dt boxes, that gives
>> you 3 min per box to unfasten, load, carry to an adjacent ship, unload, and
>> refasten for a 60 dt cargo bay. Probably without the benefit of any grav
>> vehicles (as they don't operate so well out of the gravity well). Also each
>> 5dt box is approx 3m x 3m x 7m, around the same size as an isofreight.
>
>Since you are in free-fall, you don't *need* grav vehicles.

Yes, but you need something to pull between hulls.

>And I'm
>willing to bet that there'd be a fairly cheap "adapter" for connecting
>the cargo "ports" of two ships for transferring cargo in space.

Yes but *not* deployable in 15min...

- --

In summary: I am not arguing that a fast unload is not possible, just that
the timescales you are both proposing are grossly optimistic. I can't help
but look at it from a practical view point and 15 to 30 min is just too
short IMO. However, I can't predict that future handling equipment that the
Imperium would have so there's space for the differences between our three
respective Traveller Universes.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:53:49 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: TNS releases

Erwin Fritz wrote:

> If anyone's interested I'll post 'em to the TML.

Erwin,

Send 'em to me direct.  My campaign is about to move into 1106, so it's
a perfect time for me to start planning on using them.

Thanks,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:05:12 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: CT Fusion Rockets

Yep, I agree.  CT used fusion rockets.

look at the Gig in Supplement 9, Fighting Ships.  It has two big blast 
deflectors added because, with the original design, "trainee" pilots 
would fry ground equipment when a landing went awry.

Mind you, in T4 theses same pilots probaly have so many simulator hours 
clocked up that they are very unlikely to damage anything!

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:09:35 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Orbit times

>
   
   Hi.
   
   Someone wanted to know how long it took to orbit a planet.
   The answer is, depending on the orbit altitude, anywhere from
   a little over an hour to as long as you like.  This assumes
   that your ship's thrusters are not firing.  If they are, then
   you can decrease the minimum time to mere minutes.
   
   Oddly enough, this answer does not depend on the planet's size,
   but only on its being spherical and approximately earthlike
   in density.  A dense planet can be orbited more quickly.  If a
   world is twice as dense as Earth, then it can be orbited in
   half the time.  If it is 1/5th as dense as the earth (say, a gas
   giant) then it will take 5 times as long to orbit.
   
   Hope this helps.
   
   -Rob

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:05:08 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

> Please keep in mind that "turning the ship" (ie changing the direction
> it's pointing) is quite different from changing course (changing the
> direction it is *moving*).

Yes, I know that.  But, if I am dodging in combat, the "to hit" calculations 
have been done, so I believe, on the basis that the ship could be anywhere 
within a given sphere (for a certain G rating) - because it is assumed, for 
simplicity, that turning takes no time.  If you can only turn slowly, then your 
predicted location cannot be as far to the "side", making the probability of 
hitting the ship higher.  

If I chase a ship for a while so that I am "behind", relative to the ships main 
vector), then if the target alters acceleration along that same direction it 
will not avoid laser fire (but will still be effective as a dodging 
method against meson gun internal hits).  If the target tries to turn then it 
will (during that time) be much easier to hit.  If I am within (say) 1 light 
second, and the ship can only turn 10 dwgrees per second with side thrusters, 
then my high ROF laser has a good chance to hit ... assuming my sensors will 
give me a targetting solution that quickly.

I was just wondering if someone on the TML had done these sorts of 
calculations, or could argume that rate of turn is not a significant factor in 
the agility of a ship (agility = DM to avoid being hit).

I have always favoured the idea that a ship can use some of it's G rating for 
dodging (agility) and the rest for changing course - obviously "dodging" 
involves lots of course changes, but these all cancel out (a bit like jinxing 
an atmospheric fighter).  Using 3G for dodging could mean that I do not use 
that 3 G at all - a valid dodging technique in Newtonian movement systems.

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:05:14 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: CSC Software

> arguably a TL-8 auto is
> _considerably_ easier to use than a TL-5 one

You mean a TL 5 Lada is harder to handle than Trust-1 as it breaks the land 
speed record? 

> But if you're _designing_ the craft, certainly you can do everythging
> right, but it'll cost you, just like the real world.

Just look at modern high performance (production) cars - $100,000 for a car with 
poor ease-of-use (but high "pleasure of use" :-).  If we were to read car 
reviews, I'm sure we would find lots of "handles like a pig" / "handles like a 
dream" references that are relatively unrelated to cost.  I think that the 
seeming randomness is well reflected by a dice roll.  A vehicle can have some 
DM's on this dice roll by adding ease-of-use features (remember, -ive numbers 
mean something is easier to use):

Propulsion TL is 1 or 2 above min: -1
Propulsion TL is 3+ above min: -2

Cramped pilot station: +1
Roomy pilot station: -1

Propulsion + 5% cost: -1
Propulsion + 10% cost: -2 (maximum allowed)

Roadgrid: -2

A referee can add manufacturer-specific modifers for his campaign:
LSP: -1
FSY: +3 (+6 for hot-wired grav pogo-sticks)
All: +2 for bootlegger speed enhancement (BSE) system

If you prefer not to have a dice roll, I suggest a base Ease of Use of +2, with 
modifiers as given above.

Here is a comparison of the old wheeled ATV (built several TLs above the base 
TL) and the new leading-edge CG-assisted ATV mentioned in an old JTAS article:

"The Grav-assist ATV seemed like such a good idea when he saw the advert in the 
TAS Journal.  He knew he should have known better.  The old wheeled ATV had many 
refinements which had to been discarded to cope with the requirements of the CG 
system.  OK, so he could cross a ravine with ease, but the old winch system had 
many additional uses beacuse it had been so powerful.  Sure, the new style of 
tyres lasted much longer, but they gave no proulsion in water - the twin 
propellers gave greater speed, sure - but they were forever getting blocked with 
kelp"

The new G-ATV losses the TL bonus (CG is the same TL as the vehicle) so is 2 
points worse on Ease of Use.  To keep the G-ATV cost competitive, the 
manufacturer has not included the +10% cost "refinements" in the G-ATV giving a 
further 2 point penalty.  In fact, this new G-ATV is a complete pig to drive!


Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:25:59 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Piracy - VOTE!

>
   
   Hi.
   
> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
> ____	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
> continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
> stamp it out.)
> ____  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
> (Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
> rules allow for it to be stamped out.)
> ____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
> to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
> longer a threat)
   
   Interpretation of canon is not the issue.  No-one believes that piracy
   (past, present, and future) is not canonical.  Just that the rules
   regarding piracy, economics, and space combat are not mutually
   compatable.
   
   Some possible alterations to canon that might fix this compatablility
   issue:
   
   * Piracy does not prey on interstellar trade, but only on
   interplanetary trade (though even this is difficult to explain --- See
   Steve Higginbotham's old posts on the subject.)  Canon /may/ support
   this fix.  The Traveller Adventure protrayed pirates as basically
   preying on belters.
   
   * Starship Combat is shorter ranged, faster, and more deadly than
   canonical combat.
   
   * Warships cost a lot more than merchants.  Or merchants are dirt
   cheap and carry valuable cargo at great risk (as opposed to canon
   where merchants are expensive and carry cheap cargo at essentially
   no risk).
   
   * Merchants must travel extensively though normal space, where they
   are vulnerable.
   
   Many other fixes are possible.  All of them (as far as I can tell)
   violate canon to some degree.
   
   -Rob
   

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:15:40 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Andrew Moffat:
>Strikes me that there's a point here that most people have failed to take
>into account. Why the heck are the pirates stealing the cargo? Why not
>just steal the whole ship? After all, the ship is worth a whole lot more
>than most cargo's; and all that stouging around unloading the cargo just
>gives the SDB's time to arrive.

This was a point I made a while ago - in Traveller, ships just cost too
much per ton, and military grade ships do not cost that much more than
civilian ships.  This imples that fleets of military ships are very large,
compared to thier civilian bretheren.  Today, we do not have this
situation, as military shipos cost a hell of a lot more per ton, and
merchant ships are very, very big.

Note that Traveller ship transport costs about three times present day
prices, as a 2 traveller ton cargo container costs about $2k to ship
overseas, roughly.  A $150M container ship can hold about 1500 of these two
ton cargo containers, with a crew of roughly 20, and a lifetime of 15-20
years.  (Numbers gotten from a cargo shipper in Long Beach, and discussions
with the people at Bollinger, Newport News, and Alabama shipyards.)

A Traveller ship of the same capacity would be roughly a 4000 ton ship,
more or less, and would have a cost of roughly 2000MCr, assuming a cheap
ship.  Expensive drives make life even worse.

From this, T4 cargo shipment costs, ignoring all other expenses, are likely
to be perhaps 15 times as much, or $15K/ton. Converting from dollars to
credits is always exciting, but I have found using PCGNP a good emasure,
and by that, the average is about 10KCr, while it is about $30K in the US.
As a result, we should expect , therefore, that if Traveller cargo were to
cost what present day cargo does to ship, it would cost ~300Cr/Ton to ship,
while the ship cost leads to a price of 4500Cr/Ton.

Military ship costs are actually pretty comparable in present day, from
what I could glean from the web sites.  This makes more sense to me - if
merchant ships cost a 15th of what they do in T4, but military ships stayed
about the same, suddenly the military fleet would have a lot more ground to
cover.

There is stil the problem that a ship teleports instantaneously from one
port to another, without going out of range of the guns.


Scott

- -------
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu.  http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz/
"You die, she dies, EVERYbody dies" - Heavy Metal
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results" -
Calvin Coolidge, attrib. by Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:49:34 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

> Kenneth wrote:
> >I'm trying to gauge how long it takes a ship to orbit a planet, if the
> >ship is in parking orbit.

The answer is "pretty much anything the (owners) want. For an earth-sized
world the fastest orbit is once around every 90 minutes or so (the lowest
possible orbit) with travel time going up at greater radii; a popular orbit
would be geostationary orbit, about 25,000 miles out, once around every
24 hours so you stay over the same (equatorial) point on the planet's surface.

Where a "standard" parking orbit is is a good question. Geostationary has
advantages - being able to stay in constant contact with a ground stations -
but it'll be pretty crowded with comm satellites, etc. Low orbits - 90 minutes
to 120 minutes - will probably be the most common, since it's then
pretty quick to get down to the surface in your ship's boat. 
Orbits will be slower around smaller-than-earth planets.

This is for your "March Harrier" scenario, isn't it...are the players trying
to sneak in or sneak out?

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 97 16:08:57 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: An alternative look at things

On 10/12/97 at 01:12 PM,  SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com> said:

>In summary: I am not arguing that a fast unload is not possible, just that
>the timescales you are both proposing are grossly optimistic. I can't help
>but look at it from a practical view point and 15 to 30 min is just too
>short IMO. However, I can't predict that future handling equipment that
>the Imperium would have so there's space for the differences between our
>three respective Traveller Universes.

I tend to agree.  Transferring a substantial cargo in space (even with both
ships working together) will probably take an hour or two.  A simple
handoff-transfer of a person or small package would be a 10 minutes
operation.

As you know, I'm not a canonist.  In my games, the STL drive produces
pseudo-velocities (stutterjump) ranging from 6 to 60 light seconds per
hour.  Ships jump in and out at the "jumplimit" which is about 150 stellar
diameters (for Sol that's roughly 700 ls) out.  The "habitable zone" is
*usually* quite a ways further in, for Earth it's about 500ls.

It takes 6 to 36 hours (minimum) for a ship to move between the jumplimit
and normal habitable zones in a system.  This generally puts them as close
to some outer system planet (GG's for example) as the inner worlds when
they jump in, so refueling at GG's is relatively common when the ship
doesn't intend to trade with worlds in the inner zone.

Of course, all this varies depending on the system and the ship's
pseudo-speed, but we're still talking several hours of insystem travel.
System defenses have a *much* larger volume of space to cover and, on
average, much longer response times between when a SOS is sent and an SDB
can arrive to investigate.  This makes commerce raiding (and piracy) a
little more possible, especially in border, frontier, and contested areas.

The other point that bothers me is the long ranges for both sensors and
weapons we're seeing with the new rules.  It might be realistic to be able
to routinely detect ships at a couple hundred light seconds with passive
sensors, but that won't be happening in *my* games.  My STL drives aren't
large IR sources, and I'll come up with some way to reduce the
powerplant/lifesupport signature if I have to, too.  As for weapon ranges,
I think anything over 3 light seconds is approaching impossible (really
impossible) against a maneuvering target, especially targets that can move
at the pseudo-speeds that I'm postulating.  Effective ranges should be much
shorter, maybe 1 to 2 light seconds, and that's the way I'll try to arrange
things.

Just my opinion on how things should work.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1952
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 13 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1953



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: TNS releases
Re: magic formular ?
re: The March Harrier: Sensors
Re: Marionette Incident
Re: CT Fusion Rockets
Re: Piracy Vote
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Ocean Refuelling
Hmmmm
Re: Art
weighing in on the piracy thread...
Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.
Re: In Orbit
(Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.
FW: Piracy - VOTE! - 10/12 update
RE: Piracy - VOTE!
Freight Rates
Re: The March Harrier: Sensors
THUDDD 6 wrap-up and comments from voters

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:28:54 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: TNS releases

> If anyone's interested I'll post 'em to the TML.

yes please!


Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:28:56 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

My best effort is fairly long:

First, you split the hex number into the Column and row numbers
2317 = 23 and 17 = A and B ("from")
2212 = 22 and 12 = C and D ("to")
Distance should = 5

Here is some BASIC-style pseudo-code:

Delta1 = A - C
Delta2 = B - D

if Delta1 is even
then
  if abs(Delta2) > abs(Delta1) / 2
  then Distance = abs(Delta2) + abs(Delta1) / 2
  else Distance = abs(Delta1)
  end if
else  
  if A is odd
  then LoLimit = - (abs(Delta1) + 1) / 2
       HiLimit = (abs(Delta1) - 1) / 2
  else LoLimit = - (abs(Delta1) - 1) / 2
       HiLimit = (abs(Delta1) + 1) / 2
  end if
  if Delta2 < LoLimit
  then Distance = abs(Delta1) + abs(Delta2 - LoLimit)
  else if Delta2 > HiLimit
       then Distance = abs(Delta1) + abs(Delta2 - HiLimit)
       else Distance = abs(Delta1)
       end if
  end if
end if

For our example:
2317 = 23 and 17 = A and B ("from")
2212 = 22 and 12 = C and D ("to")

Delta1 = 23 - 22 = 1
Delta2 = 17 - 12 = 5

Delta1 is odd and A is odd so
HiLimit = (Delta1 +1) / 2 = 2/2 = 1
Delta2 is > HiLimit so,

Distance = Delta1 + (Delta2 - HiLimit) = 1 + 5 - 1 = 5

the correct answer!


I think I have my logic correct, but if anyone can see an error, or 
spot a simpler way to implement the logic, let me know.  I am still 
thinking about the "best" way to implement this on a spreadsheet 
("best" = minimum number of cells used for formulae).

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:10:31 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: The March Harrier: Sensors

 
>[good post by Kenneth snipped]
Some parts of this don't quite agree with the current view of how sensors
work and what they look like; here's my view, which might be useful.

The passive array is probably bigger than SOM describes. The bulk of
the array is spread out over the hull -there might be 10-20 reciever 
units, each about a meter in diameter, arranged over the hull and the wings
so that 5-10 are visible from any given facing. Each unit would be 
set flush into the hull, with a (retractable, mostly-transparent) cover
over the actual recieving elements; the receiving elements, and their
housing, are cooled to about -200 celsius by individual coolers (probably
thermoelectric) built into the unit. (This means that sensor sensitivity
is reduced when you're in an atmosphere, because the cover has to close and
the cover can't be cooled to these temperatures. It's also a good
flavour text for sensor damage - "we lost cooling on the port PEMS array,
captain" - losing cooling reduces IR sensitivity by 1-2 points.)

The multiple array elements operate together as a synthetic aperture
interferometer - essentially working as if they were one big telescope the
size of the whole ship, to achieve very high spatial resolution.
A PEMS-13.5 or so (which is probably about right - I think my previous
conversion table was to generous) has a resolution of 20 cm at 5000km,
so it can produce a moderately detailed image of a nearby ship. 

The active sensor array elements will similarly be spread out over the shp,
at least for military ships - a small civilian array llike this might be 
concentrated in one or two dishes. They will indeed operate pretty much like
you describe. It's worth noting that they will actually have worse 
resolution(ability to make detailed images) than the passive array, though,
since they mostly operate at radio/mm/sub-mm waves - even with extensive
computer processing of a bright/nearby target they'll probably only have a
resolution of 5-10m; at space combat regions all you detect with actives is
a fuzzy blob. 

Someday I would love to work on a T4 version of the SOM...I could
(for example) produce an image of what a T4 sensor array would see 
for various ships at various ranges, maybe color-coding the different 
wavelength channels (visible light for blue, near-IR for green, mid-IR
for red)...including the beam shape for the interferometer...but I 
probably don't have the time unless I was working on a project for money.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:00:46 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Marionette Incident

Yeah, Computer hackers are *deadly*. In a recent scenario (based upon
Treasure Island, believe it or not), stowaway pirates (ducks 'piracy
debate' postings) stole our ship and left us stranded. A desperate sneak
attack in a patched-up grav car (!) got us back aboard with most of the
pirates in our gig on the surface, coming rapidly up to clobber us.

We'd been badly knocked about in the firefight to take the ship back, and
couldn't really handle another fight.

So we overrode the Gig's computer using my codes (my ship, after all!) and
spaced the gig's occupants. Shortest firefight in history. Then we
remote-piloted the gig up to the ship and that was it for the pirates.

.....

Incidentally, there's another plan to prevent the Chunnel being used to
invade Britain. 
Near the tunnel mouth at the French end is a big sign to be erected in time
of war.


				It says 'FORD'


Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:35:18 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: CT Fusion Rockets

At 09:05 PM 12/10/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Yep, I agree.  CT used fusion rockets.
>
>look at the Gig in Supplement 9, Fighting Ships.  It has two big blast 
>deflectors added because, with the original design, "trainee" pilots 
>would fry ground equipment when a landing went awry.
>
>Mind you, in T4 theses same pilots probaly have so many simulator hours 
>clocked up that they are very unlikely to damage anything!
>
>Simon

So... fusion rockets are 'canon' and thruster plates aren't??? (sorry
guys... I suddenly got the urge to stir up trouble... just ignore me)


Harry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dedly@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy Vote

I believe it is up to the individual GM whether or not Piracy should continue
to exist in his/her Universe. 

Yes canon says that it has existed in the past. The GM should decide how much
effort the Imperium is willing to put forth to eradicate it, within its
borders and without.

It continues to exist in my universe.

\_/
DED

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:55:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dedly@aol.com
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

Anders wrote:

>>>>I'd allow USL landings but let them take a long time (several hours and a
pretty trivial Pilot roll) and they'd be illegal in say B+ starports as
this super slow descent not adhering to standard highspeed entry corridors
would clog up traffic for the poor starport controllers.<<<<

I like this idea. I'd also add that weather conditions should be favorable
for the atmospheric entry to be attempted, thereby making attempts to refuel
at Gas Giants (if you allow that sort of thing) extremely hazardous.

\_/
DED

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:59:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dedly@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ocean Refuelling

Woden2014 wrote....

>>>Yes, but it is still on the planet and can always be redistributed in a
multitude of ways. What gets hauled off is no longer here at all.  But the
heart of my point is that *people* would decide that ocean refueling is not
in their best
interest.  Think of Environmentalists with a Galactic agenda, add a
Corporation with an intererest in gas giant mining, stir with political
shenanigains, and presto; no more
ocean refueling.<<<

That's exactly what I've had happen in my universe. The severity of the
penalties varies from one world to the next but overall, most worlds have
voted to make ocean refuelling illegal. They consider it to be an
environmental menace. It also takes fees away from the starport and cuts down
the # of ships and crews to be exposed to advertising. ; )

\_/
DED

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:23:52 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Hmmmm

Loren Wiseman typed:
>> I'm sorry if I apparently had this wrong, it's just that this is what we
>> were taught.
>In America, I was taught that we (the USA) won the war of 1812...imagine my
>surprise when I learned different.

At the US Military Academy at West Point, the Museum of American Warfare
has an exhibit that starts off, "At best, the War of 1812, can be
considered a draw."


- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  -- "For the quickest descent into the 
ethical quagmire, the Clinton  administration has set a new indoor 
record."   (Howard Kurtz column, The Washington Post, 3/26/95)
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 01:25:35 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Art

At 05:55 AM 10/12/97 +0000, DustyLV769 wrote:
><snip>
>
>     Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that way about Trek...in a
>similar vein, I seem to recall a book titled "The Star Trek Spaceflight
>Chronology" by Stan and Fred Goldstien.  Now this is very ancient
>history...takes me back to 7th grade (1980-81), but it provided tech specs on
>various Federation starships up to the Refitted Enterprise (NCC-1701, from
>ST: The Motionless Picture), and if I remember right in the very back was a
>drawing (side view) of the "next generation" of Federation starship...it
>looked to me at the time to be a beached whale of a ship (remember I was only
>11...and Net Gen was 6-7yrs in the future...)  I believe now it was prob the
>first rendition of Enterprise-D...can anyone confirm this?   I have never
>seen this book since I returned it to the library at school (they threatened
>to hold up my report card unless I returned all the "lost" books I had.)
>
>DustyLV769@aol.com
>

Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology: Stan Goldstien & Fred Goldstien,
illustrations by Rick Sternbach. From Pocket Books.

There were two "declassifed" speculative designs. SF101SW looks like one of
the Chris Foss illustrations. Lots of curves, humps and bumps that don't
really seem to go anywhere. Does not resemble the Enterprise D any more than
Tuna Factory resembles the Missouri. SF102SW is a little more angular.
Vaguely Star Wars Imperial Destroyer cross breeds with Klingon Battle Cruiser.

Actually, several of the early designs, up to about the time of the original
Enterprise design would work rather well for Traveller ships. Several Wdge,
and Dispersed Structure formats, and dimensions in metric!

Garry

 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:08:39 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: weighing in on the piracy thread...

I'm pretty much in the piracy-is-nearly-impossible as written regime;
but I can make a few suggestions for variations - in roughly increasing
order of canon-violation - for people who really want to add piracy:

(1) Big pirate ships: if you can capture whole merchant ships, you can 
    pay for quite a substantial pirate ship - a few captures of even
    subsidized liners per year could probably support a ship in the 1000-2000
    ton range, which is a substantial opponent for anything smaller than a
    destroyer. Such a big ship could carry enough extra fuel and jump
    capability to grapple ~400 ton victims - and maybe enough extra fuel 
    to refuel captured Jump-1 ships in empty hexes to allow travel a few
    parsecs to market. This does require
    (a) a market for captured ships - it only works in largely open and
        lawless frontier regions.
    It's also helped if you have
    (b) a very intimidating weapon to make victims surrender. One possibility
    is KKM - kinetic kill missiles. There's almost universal agreement 
    that a 1-dTon thruster-plate missile (which would impact at 
    several hundred km/s) would pretty much utterly destroy a medium-sized
    ship. Of course, there's also universal agreement that lasers can shoot
    such missiles down so easily that you need a huge swarm to hit a target...
    unless that target has no lasers; so if a pirate can disable the
    weapons of a victim it can threaten it with instant and total destruction,
    which would probably make most people surrender, especially if the pirates
    have a reputation for allowing prisoners to live.

(2) Dusty systems. Normal sensors can see ships at millions of km - but
    passive sensor sensitivity is strongly affected by how much dust is in
    the system. Young stars with very thick dust clouds might reduce all
    sensor ranges by a factor of 100 or so (this is in the advanced part of
    the DSR.) Of course that makes it harder for the pirate to find its target,
    but much harder for the SDB to find the (presumably stealthy) pirate.

(3) Sparse subsectors: as I suggested earlier, subsectors with few 
    habitable worlds but lots of gas-giant-only systems.

(4) Move the 100-diameter limit. The real problem is that the piece of space
    you need to control - 100-diameters - is very small compared to Traveller
    accelerations, sensor, and weapon ranges. If ships had to travel
    an AU or two to jump, (a) gas giant refuelling is more attractive, and
    (b) you need many more ships to patrol a system. Aside from rewriting the
    laws of game physics by fiat, there are also canonical systems with
    gas-giant-moon mainworlds or red-dwarf primaries where getting away from
    the GG or RD's 100-d limit takes a day or so.

    Big jump limits will also make people tend to use "running jumps" (as
    Marc calls them) which tends to channel all traffic between two systems
    to particular arrival points (you want to be arriving along the line
    (roughly) of the planet's orbit so that a arrival time error doesn't
    cause your velocity vector to point you away from the planet.)

    I think if I were refereeing a campaign I would just arbitrarily move
    the 100-d limit out to an AU or so.

Bruce
h

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:33:38 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft 2000 to 2100 A.D.

Actually, I take it back.  After looking through my copy of _SPacecraft_,
I could not find any Foss art, merely other artists with very similar
styles.  Same with _Starliners_.  Foss are does show up in _Space Wars:
Worlds and Weapons_.

It seems that there is a group of artists that do similar work as Foss:
Colin Hay, Angus McKie, Tony Roberts, and Jim Burns.  


Although all of tehn are packed with really neat art, none of the books
has anything to do with Traveller.

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:58:22 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:

> This is for your "March Harrier" scenario, isn't it...are the players trying
> to sneak in or sneak out?

They've just left the Pysadian surface--27 minutes to orbit.  They're
supposed to be leaving the planet--their welcome worn out, and the
starport is tracking them as far as it can (the planet is TL 4, so no
satellites, but the class C starport is TL 8, with trackers and scanners
for traffic control).

The problem is one of their crew mates is in a Pysadian jail (maybe you
read the short story I posted to the TML about him).  They want to swing
back to the other side of the planet, land, and rescue their bud.

This would be no problem on the lowly TL 4 planet--the plan was just to
run out to jump point, like they were leaving, then when they were
suitable sure they were safe from the starport's sensors, swing around
the other side of the planet, land, and do their dirty deed.

On the way out to orbit, during that 27 minute trip, we broke in your
new sensor rules--and they picked up a ship in orbit!

Normally, this would be no big deal--just another merchant vessel biding
its time as the crew does the starport thing on the planet, but the
Pysadian officials were hiring local merchant/mercenary bands to help
the March Harrier's crew decide it was time to leave.

So, now they are suspicious of this unstreamlined merchant trader in
standard orbit around Pysadi.

Next Sunday, we'll pick up with them just about to reach orbit.  I know
they are going to try to give this vessel the slip--so if it goes over
Pysadi's horizon, I need to know how long they are going to have the
planet between them and this ship.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:09:29 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: (Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> Some parts of this don't quite agree with the current view of how sensors
> work and what they look like; here's my view, which might be useful.

Always.

> The passive array is probably bigger than SOM describes. The bulk of
> the array is spread out over the hull -there might be 10-20 reciever
> units, each about a meter in diameter, arranged over the hull and the wings
> so that 5-10 are visible from any given facing. Each unit would be
> set flush into the hull, with a (retractable, mostly-transparent) cover
> over the actual recieving elements; the receiving elements, and their
> housing, are cooled to about -200 celsius by individual coolers (probably
> thermoelectric) built into the unit. (This means that sensor sensitivity
> is reduced when you're in an atmosphere, because the cover has to close and
> the cover can't be cooled to these temperatures. It's also a good
> flavour text for sensor damage - "we lost cooling on the port PEMS array,
> captain" - losing cooling reduces IR sensitivity by 1-2 points.)

Hmmm.  Good thoughts.  As you can tell, I've been getting most of my
technical information out of the SOM.

One of the things I don't like about the various design systems for T4
(and most other editions of Traveller, for that matter) is there is not
enough explanation for us laymen out here.

I can understand the stuff, but I have to be able to read up on it to
understand it.  Take the SSDS system, for example.  I just used this to
re-engineer the March Harrier's launch.  I noticed a table in there for
"G-tanks".

The text doesn't mention G-tanks, and I'm guessing that these are those
things I saw in Event Horizon.

One of the reasons I rely on the SOM a lot is because it explains
things.  It was in this book that I read what an EMS sensor is.  If you
don't know what an EMS sensor, or a neutrino sensor, or a densitometer
is, then when you go to install them using FF&S, QSDS, or SSDS, you
really don't know what you are installing.  The SOM is plain on what
these things are.

Since this is the most detailed description of Traveller tech that I
have, I tend to use it quite a bit as gospel.  Now, I'm running into
problems because T4 designers keep changing what the SOM finally laid
out as "the way it works".

I really wish that, when these design systems are created, the designers
would spend some time explaining what these things are.

There is not one good source in all of the T4 stuff out that tells you
what an EMS sensor is...what a G-tank is...how the jump drive
works...etc.

I'd like some definition some where if we are going to keep changing
things from what the SOM states.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:08:37 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: FW: Piracy - VOTE! - 10/12 update

__6__	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
stamp it out.)

__3__  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
longer a threat)


_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:32:03 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Piracy - VOTE!

On Sunday, October 12, 1997 1:26 PM, Robert Flammang 
[SMTP:flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu] wrote:
> >
>
>    Hi.

Hi!  :)

>
> > From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
> > ____	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and
> > continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
> > stamp it out.)
> > ____  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
> > (Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
> > rules allow for it to be stamped out.)
> > ____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
> > to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
> > longer a threat)
>
>    Interpretation of canon is not the issue.  No-one believes that piracy
>    (past, present, and future) is not canonical.  Just that the rules
>    regarding piracy, economics, and space combat are not mutually
>    compatable.

Ahhh, so you vote for 2, right?  :)

[snip]

The vote is not so much to institute policy, as to satisfy my curiosity.  I 
was curious to see the percentage of GMs that would still be using pirates, 
and piracy; the arguements on both sides were pretty exhaustive.  There 
were more than enough reason for a GM to go either way, and frankly, I was 
surprised at the number of people who were arguing on my side of the fence 
after the impressive arguments that Hans offered.  The only reason I am 
posting updates is because I have been requested to.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:34:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Freight Rates

Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu> said:

<interesting things about RW shipping snipped>

> >From this, T4 cargo shipment costs, ignoring all other expenses, are likely
> to be perhaps 15 times as much, or $15K/ton. Converting from dollars to
> credits is always exciting, but I have found using PCGNP a good emasure,
> and by that, the average is about 10KCr, while it is about $30K in the US.
> As a result, we should expect , therefore, that if Traveller cargo were to
> cost what present day cargo does to ship, it would cost ~300Cr/Ton to ship,
> while the ship cost leads to a price of 4500Cr/Ton.

	Your Trav cargo prices look very high to me.  It's not difficult 
to design a ship that can carry cargo for less than the canonical 
1000Cr/Td.  In fact, I designed an integrated shipping system that can do 
it for almost 350Cr/Td, which isn't far from your approximated RW 
figure.
	Hans has some good figures for passenger travel and I believe has 
some for cargo as well.  He even adds additional expenses to starship 
operation and still comes up with rather reasonable freight rates.
  
> There is stil the problem that a ship teleports instantaneously from one
> port to another, without going out of range of the guns.

	I think this is an excellent analogy for the piracy "problem."
 
- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: The March Harrier: Sensors

<A PEMS-13.5 or so (which is prob about right-I think my previous conversion
table <was too generous)

I think I must agree...when I designed a TL 12 Scout/Courier (using FF&S2 and
a wedge shape instead of a sphrere...is that canonical?) Ithe best sensors I
was able to fit in were a 13.5 PEMS and a 15 LIDAR...decided the AEMS just
wasn't worth it.  The main limiting factor of course was the hulls surface
area...not the volume of the ship.  Using the BL sensor ratings and the
conversion chart, I could not fit sensors of the recommended size in the
hulls surface area.

DustyLV769@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: THUDDD 6 wrap-up and comments from voters

The THUDDD 6 winners, summarized on these lists a few days ago, are now
available online at the THUDDD website:

  http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/thuddd.html

Follow the link to Competition #6 to view the results in all their tabular
glory. :)  I'll refrain from posting them here again unless there's a
groundswell of opinion to the contrary.

Meanwhile, here are some comments which came in with the ballots.  I've
left them anonymous (editing a bit where necessary to preserve anonymity)
on those comments sent privately to me, and removed all references to
specific scores.

Coming soon:  THUDDD 7: The Heavy Fighter!

=== Voter #1 ===

I decided to "take 5" and only mungle at some important numbers:

[ed. note -- in this voter's parlance, + is good, toward a rating
of 1, - bad, toward a rating of 10.]

	Overall : Predator -2 (ugly shipformat)
	Likely to use : Eman & Darkstar +5 (really ;-)
	Closeness: Eman & Balboa -1 (under 500dt)
	Efficiency
		(20-Price)/2
		+1 if more than 2 G
		+1 for long range weapons
		+1 decent sensors
		-1 if 1 G
		-1 for short range only
		-1 lacking fire control
		-1 lacking defense
		-1 barbetts instead autolaunchers
		-2 rotten sensors
		-2 missiles only
		-2 no missiles
	Unusual: Darkstar +5

> Wraith class SDB
>   Andrew Akins, Seraphim Industries, Inc.
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( -defense )
> 
> Balboa class SDB
>   Douglas E. Berry, (not supplied)
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( -defense, -barbetts,
>                                    -missiles only, -G)
> 
> Type 88621-A SDB
>   Mark Clark, Generica Shipyards
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( -sensors, -barbetts, +G )
> 
> KE-SD/10b "Predator" System Defense Craft
>   Bill Prankard, Kor-El Shipyards
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( -short range, -rotten sensors )
> 
> Eman SDB
>   Michael Koehne, Vulkan Werft
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( +G )
> 
> "Scenic View" class Close Defense Vessel
>   Martin F C Pickett, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Naval Architects
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( +long range weapon, +G,
>                                    -fire control )
> 
> P-500SD SDB
>   Andrew Moffatt-Vallance, Phoenix Corp.
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( -no weapons, -barbetts,
>                                    +G, +sensors )
> 
> Argenaugh class SDB
>   Peter H. Brenton, Goodenuf Construction Company
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( +G, +long range )
> 
> Archer SDB
>   Lewis Roberts, (not supplied)
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( +long range, -G,
>                                    -no missiles )
> 
> Darkstar class SDB
>   John Macpherson, His Majesty's Royal Shipwrights College
>     Efficiency of design      :  ( +long range, -G,
>                                    -no missiles )

=== Voter #2 (Idiot/Savant) ===

My comments on the current THUDDD entrants. Feel free to flame if you
think you've been unfairly criticised.

SERAPHIM INDUSTRIES WRAITH:
        A self-described spacebound SSBN, but without the endurance 
to match. Still, it has good sensors and protection, adequete armament 
and acceleration, and best of all it's designed from scratch to operate 
with a pair of sensor drones. Despite the price and inadequete fuel 
supply, I like it.
 
BALBOA
        This design is cheap, but possibly at the cost of 
performance. Still, it has adequete sensors, enough fuel and ammo to 
keep it fighting for months on end, and more armour than god. On the 
negative side, the Balboa is unstreamlined, making it dependent upon 
preplaced fuel supplies and ruling out hiding in gas giants; its slow, 
and possibly undergunned. OTOH, you could buy 5 of these for the price 
of some of the bigger designs...

GENERICA SHIPYARDS TYPE 88621-A
        Cheap for its size, adequete armament and protection and the 
best sensor suite money can buy. On the negative side, the small fuel 
capacity (18 G-hours) makes it a short-endurance craft, and the 6G 
acceleration will squish the crew if they're ever used. The design 
could be improved by reducing acceleration to 4G or so and dropping 
the extra MFD, thus trimming at least 100 MCR of the cost and giving 
it more endurance.

NVNA UNICORN
        This is my design, so expect to see some bias here :). My 
design philosophy was basicly "small and cheap", based around the 
smallest ISDP TL-10 fusion plant. The result has adequete sensors, 
endurance, and acceleration, but is slightly underarmoured and 
undergunned. Sure, its not as sexy as those big throbbing 900-DspT 6G 
PA-gun and more-missiles-than-god killer penis-substitutes of death, 
but your accountant will love you for it :)
                                         
 [Oh c'mon, somebody say "mediocre". Please?]
 
ASHKHA STAR COMMAND KUKRI
        Cheap for its size, adequete sensors and acceleration, good 
armament (four power-hog laser bays and _eight_ missile barbettes!), 
and they remembered to add some ship's troops (which is where my 
Unicorn falls down). On the negative side, the Kukri's endurance is a 
little below par, and being a QSDS design it's underarmoured. 
I'd add an extra pair of sandcasters. 

KOR-EL SHIPYARDS KE-SD/10B PREDATOR
        Basicly a flying missile bay, with attached point defences. 
Good armament and protection, adequete acceleration, but not quite 
enough fuel, and totally inadequete sensors. Still, it _is_ cheap, 
and with a decent sensor-net in place it would be an unholy terror of 
the spacelanes.

VULKAN WERFT EMAN
        Small, and expensive for its size. Still, it's fast, well 
armoured, and has good sensors - the armament looks good, though I'm 
not sure whether the damage for those lasers has been computed at the 
same range as the stuff in QSDS or SSDS. But best of all, Vulkan 
Werft remembered the G-tanks!

ROSENCRANTZ & GUILDENSTERN SCENIC VIEW
        The aforementioned big throbbing 900 DspT PA-Gun and 
more-missiles-than-god SL Needle penis substitute, guaranteed to 
impress the pants off any military appropriations committee. Excellent 
armament, protection, sensors and acceleration plus adequete endurance 
make this probably the most capable SDB in the THUDDD. The problem? 
Price. You could buy five Unicorns or two Kukris for the same amount, 
gaining much more flexability and wider sensor-coverage to boot. 
Still, it does look cool...

PHOENIX P-500SD
        An overpriced one-shot missile carrier with engines. Despite 
its excellent acceleration and sensors, IMHO this design is crippled 
by its low-endurance - a mere ten G-hours and no missile reloads. 
Possibly it could be used as a last-ditch interceptor, but even then 
the price would put me off :(
 
GOODENUF CONSTRUCTION ARGENAUGH
        Another big throbbing 900 DspT PA-Gun and more-missiles-than-god 
SL Needle penis substitute. Technically impressive, but breaks the 
rules by using TL-12 thruster plates - ruling it out of the competition 
IMHO. 

ARCHER
        This design illustrates the absurdity of the rules for 
calculating the damage of batterys - adding the USDs together rather 
than actual damage gives us toys like the main battery on the Archer, 
which magicly turns 5 400 Mj lasers into a single huge 40 Gj laser. 
Anyone else wondering when energy conservation was repealed?
        Rules quibbles aside, I like this design. While it's slow, it 
has excellent sensors and protection, a staggeringly powerful main 
armament, long endurance (adequete fuel, but no need for missile 
reloads), and (best of all) a low price-tag. 

HMRSC DARKSTAR
        A slow unstreamlined asteroid monitor with a truely vicious 
bite. Unfortunately it's also hideously expensive, costing as much as 
three Archers or six Unicorns, and without the high all-round 
performance of the Scenic View. 

=== Voter #3 ===

Argenaugh class SDB
  Peter H. Brenton, Goodenuf Construction Company

(TL-10 Thrusters?)


Archer SDB
  Lewis Roberts, (not supplied)

(Interesting use of local Technology to produce nasty weapon system)

Darkstar class SDB
  John Macpherson, His Majesty's Royal Shipwrights College

(Another inovative design.  4 Armour? 1000 Structure Points???)

=== Voter #4 ===

Balboa class SDB
  Douglas E. Berry, (not supplied)

  Decent ship, but it fails to meet the design criteria in two
areas (IMHO)...first, it's unstreamlined, thus it cannot loiter
in Gas Giants (specifically mentioned in the design spec), plus,
it is the "last line" of defence - thus I feel it should have SOME
laser weaponry, in the rare instance that it runs out of missiles
(which is, of course, rare for this design - with it's 300 missile
magazine). I like the armor, and the staterooms.

Type 88621-A SDB
  Mark Clark, Generica Shipyards

  Very nice ship, but horrible armor for a SDB. Also, I don't care
for bunks being used on a ship that's going to be on long missions.
The PA mount seems excessive for an SDB, but certainly provides some
punch. Very impressive maneuver drive - I'm wondering how you pulled
it off :) However, the crew is gonna be a bit uncomfortable, since
G-comp can't handle 6Gs...did you give them tanks?

Unicorn class SDB
  Idiot/Savant, New Victoria Naval Architects

  I like this one a lot, but I cringe at the armor...
Still, it is wonderfully priced, with a good weapon load.

Kukri class SDB
  Chris Cox, Ashkha Star Command

  Excellent ship, probably my favorite.  My only complaints are
the relativly low armor and the tight crew quarters - but neither
of these detract too much from the otherwise impressive ship. The
lack of armor is especially bad since the ship is not particularly
stealthy.

KE-SD/10b "Predator" System Defense Craft
  Bill Prankard, Kor-El Shipyards

  IMHO, this is a poor design. Bad armor, no stealth, horrible
sensors, and no real offensive ability, since you're going to
run out of missiles real quick, and the lasers have no punch.

Eman SDB
  Michael Koehne, Vulkan Werft

  An average ship - good armor. But the sensors will prevent an
active lock - not good in combat.

"Scenic View" class Close Defense Vessel
  Martin F C Pickett, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Naval Architects

  Very good ship, but expensive!  Also, no PD weaponry except
for the PA. But nice armament, and good armor and sensors.

P-500SD SDB
  Andrew Moffatt-Vallance, Phoenix Corp.

  A good design, but I can't give a higher score because this
ship is next to useless when it runs out of missiles.

Argenaugh class SDB
  Peter H. Brenton, Goodenuf Construction Company

  This ship has a problem - Thrusters are not available at TL10.
If thrusters were allowed, this is a good ship...but that's because
it needs no reaction mass.  I also don't like the lack of CG...this
ship is supposed to loiter in Gas Giants...CG is a neccessity.

Archer SDB
  Lewis Roberts, (not supplied)

  This is a good design...but I don't like the fact it doesn't
have any jammers, or EMM masking. Plus, it has no missile
weaponry (although its laser weapons are impressive). Finally,
its maneuver performance is a bit low, but that's understandable with
HEPLAR.

Darkstar class SDB
  John Macpherson, His Majesty's Royal Shipwrights College

  I like this ship - but the design specs said the ship was to
guard gas giants, and this ship cannot effectively (since it
cannot enter them). The use of an asteroid hull is good one, however,
for an in-system monitor ( which this ship would be good at ). The
maneuver drive is a bit low, and I like to see some missile weapons.
Also, no EMM masking.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1953
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 13 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1954



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1933
Re: small correction
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
re:Piracy
Parking Oribit
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: T4 and Silent Death
Re: Piracy - VOTE!
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
THUDDD 6 Results
TNS releases: comments
TNS: 314-1106
TNS: 034-1107
TNS release: 266-1106
TNS: 342-1106
Re: magic formular ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:44:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: TravelrTNE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1933

Hey all.  Long time lurker, first time poster. : )   Anyways...  I'm curious
bout "future tech"   ie  technology that appears tl16 up to say tl 21.  Jump
projectors, disintegrators, anti matter power generation, etc etc.  What kind
of ideas do u all have?  (preferably in ffs [1 of course]) terms, but i won't
get too greedy)  : )   

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:28:45 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: small correction

Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:24:55 -0400 (EDT), Woden2014@aol.com
>>The background is inconsitent.  You have exploritory
>>ships with auxilary vehicles to get to the surface
>>and the fact that the Imperium has gone to the trouble
>>to blast at least a level rock surface on every system
>>in the entire Empire (ie type "X" is the lowest class
>>port for a world).

>' X       No Starport.  no provision is made for any ship landings.'  (T4
>p.133)

You are right.  I was working from memory and remembered type "E"
for type "X".  However, the fact that one will bother to make
a port that is just leveled bead rock would still seem to
indicated the fact the there is some issue regarding "wild"
landings.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:22:50 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

Kenneth Bearden 

> Phillip McGregor wrote:
> 
> > >On the landings thread...did we ever decide why an unstreamlined vessel,
> > >using contra-gravity, could not land on a planet with atmosphere?
> >
> > Yep. (Well, *I* didn't) The consensus was "because it's canon" ... and the
> > subtext, "even if that doesn't make any sense!" ;-P
> 
> Nobody came up with a better explanation than that?
> 
> (shaking head) This list is really slipping.

The Droyne aesthetic sensability prefers curves & is opposed to straight
lines.  Because of this Grandfather seeded almost the atmospere of
almost every planet in known space with nanites that attack the hulls of
nonstreamlined ships and cause them to crash.  (Since Earth was not
seeded with these nanites we Solomani do not yet know about the
problem.)  Because of this the Imperium & the other races dare not use
them.  They do not even know how silly it is to prohibit unstreamlined
ships from landing (slowly) on planets with an atmosphere. :)

- -- 
 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:44:25 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>It probably won't ever matter too much; most Traveller transmitters and
>recievers are so powerful you can pretty much hear each other across the
>whole system...making communication gear more reasonable (no more
>megawatt-power radios for talking at interplanetary ranges) was one of the
>nice things in FFS2.
>
>bruce

I was thinking more on the lines of talking to that covert agent at the
starport checking juicy traders for later piracy while hiding in the
outsystem etc.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:25:03 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:01:59 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
[General stuff I don't disagree with has been deleted....]
>> Then it has to make it out
>> to the spot where the attack occured.  That can easily
>> take most of an hour, plenty of time to tranfer the
>> cargo.

>I started to object that the SDB could *shoot* the pirate from a lot
>farther awat than an hour out. Then I realized that to do that, it'd
>have to be able to positively ID which ship was the victim. And be able
>to fire with some assurance that it'd miss the victim but still hit the
>pirate. And that's not going to happen if the ships are grappled
>together.
>
>On the other hand, the pirate has to get close to the victim. Which
>almost certainly involves deviating *greatly* from the flight path
>assigned it by STC (Space Traffic Control).

Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in fram
jump at all system?  I have my doubts.  Such _will_ exist at the
biggest, crowded systems, but it has already been assumed that this
isn't where piracy would occur.   Beside, as someone else pointed out,
you just leave at about the same time and get a path this is similar
anyway.

>He also has to do this close enough to the 100 diameter limit that he
>can jump safely after getting the cargo. Though I suppose that given
>the other risks, pirates might accept the extra risk of jumping from
>inside the 100 diameter limit.

I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
can't see why he would attack anyplace else.

[Regarding coming out of jump and attacking...]

>They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
>refueling.

Well, that's not hard, but you don't need to do it that way.  You
can approach the same point from the planet all fueled up.

>If they have extra time, they can even try to space the crew and jump
>the ship out (assuming that the jump drive was intact).

I'm not sure you space them.  You wouldn't kill gratuitously because
you want to encourage the idea that it's generally a good idea to
surrender.

>Attacking on the way out is a lot more difficult, especially since the
>locals will have entirely too much info about your ship (since you'll
>have been to the port).

Yeah, but you will be leaving anyway...

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:37:10 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re:Piracy

Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:12:01 +0100, SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>>SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>>>15 min to unload a merchant ship carrying 60 to 80 dt of cargo? - get real!
>>>You need to unstrap the cargo (I assume that you aren't leaving it loose)
>>>and then shift it to the other ship.

>>First of all, you don't need to carefully unstrap it.  You just
>>cut the bloody things.  >

>Cut many webbing straps recently in zero G?

No.  Of course neither have you.  But of course you don't have to
cut them zero G.  You wait until after to cut gravity.

> Still takes time, say a minute
>or two.

Based on what?  Even webbing comes down to a few anchor points.

>If you are under gravity it'd be faster, but you have more mass and
>inertia problems, and have to control the crippled ship's computer.

Why?  What mass and intertia problems?  The gravity is on, you
free and ready the cargo, and cut power to the gravity....

>Meanwhile the remaining crew of the ship will be shooting at you or holed
>up in the bridge or engineering.

Or the pirate ships just keep shooting bits of the merchant until
the crew gives up.  Fighting to the death is a military approach
not what some modestly paid guard will do.

>>Also, you can just use a rope to pull
>>them from ship to ship and hual them in.

>Isofreight type boxes which still have mass and inertia? Need a fair bit of
>effort, that would.

Or a winch.

>>And you don't have
>>to wait until the first one has been trasnfered before you start
>>the second one (for example you put them on a stringer).

>Takes time to set up

You just string them on a rope.

>, and I believe that you are underestimating the effort
>involved.

Well clearly we don't agree.

>>Nor do you have
>>to do any of this anymore carefully than is necessary so that
>>the prodominate portion of the cargo survives (in fact you
>>could just take what you can get and leave when time is up).

>If I was a captain of a ship expecting combat I would want the cargo
>secured to avoid loosing it in the event of a hit on the ship.

>>Finally, with G comp, there is no reall reason to have to
>>tie them down again.
>
>Apart from the fact that system failures happen, and you may not have power
>etc because you have just crippled the ship.

Well, the pirate is going to be jumping out next, not fighting
another battle.  He is going to be concerned about getting
way rather than some rare chance of some system failure.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:00:41 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Parking Oribit

It seems to me that standard, parking orbit for a ship can be determined
from the planet's size code.

Maybe standard orbit for unstreamlined ships is 2 diameters?   3
diameters?  1.5 diameters?

Once this is determined, all we need to decide is the speed at which
ships move around the sphere.

Once we have that, we can tell how long it takes for a ship to orbit a
planet.



So, waddya think?   What altitude is standard orbit for a ship, based on
the diameter of the planet?


And, what do you think normal "parking speed" for orbit is?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

Strreamlined versus Unstreamlined.

I suppose if the words mean just smooth, then an unstreamlined ship can land
(using lifters) on a world with atmosphere.

On the other hand, if unstreamlined means you can't (using just lifters)
landing on a world with atmosphere, then there must be a reason. I can think
of...

The equipment and sensors placed on the outside of the hull is not hardened
to resist the drag of atmosphere, including wind speed not from vehicle
velocity but from weather.

Similarly, the hull exterior is not made to withstand not only atmosphere,
but the effects of exotic or corrosive atmosphere, and perhaps the effects of
water and extremes of temperature.

Can you think of any others?

Marc  Miller

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:02:50 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

Quick firing solutions, that is what we use them for. An active sensor,
gives you detailed information quickly. A passive sensor can give you a
fire solution, but only after lots of time. Time can be deadly in combat.

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:58:06 +0000 Kenneth Bearden
<dreamer@brokersys.com> writes:
>Is there an advantage to using active sensors over passive sensors?  
>
>Since actives will almost certainly give you away, why use them?
>
>Kenneth.
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:17:56 -0400
From: "Alan M. Nuss" <amnuss@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: T4 and Silent Death

>A brief mention in Allen Varney's Current Clack (Dragon #240) ways 
>that IG and ICE have been talking for almost a year and a Traveller 
>version of Silent death will be released as the new ship-to- ship 
>space combat system.  Of course there is j0 word on IG's web site 
>about this.

I play test Silent Death for ICE and no one in our group has heard a
thing about this.

Alan

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:04:56 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Piracy - VOTE!

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
writes:
>O.K, now I'm curious.  I've seen people come out of the woodworks on 
>both
>sides of the issue.  Based on the arguments I've seen, the issue 
>breaks
>down into one of three basic camps.  I should mention that I have 
>always
>argued from the perpective of a 1105 Spinward Marches campaign 
>viewpoint.
>
>____	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists 
>and 
>continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
>stamp it out.)
>
>_yes___  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the 
>GM.
>(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but 
>the
>rules allow for it to be stamped out.)
>
>____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient 
>resources
>to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is 
>no
>longer a threat)
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
>                                              -Merlin
>
>douglas@teleport.com
>http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\
>
>MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
>      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP
>
>*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
>--------------------------------------------
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:10:30 -0500
From: ghost029@juno.com
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

Having served on subs, this is substantually correct.

Thomas Harkless
ex MM1/SS
searching for Bradish and Harkless

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:10:26 -0700 "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
writes:
>I asked a friend who is a former US Navy sonarman about this question. 
> His
>response:
>
>"A senor operator will give you range and bearing to the target, and a
>general classification.  A good sensor op will tell you the name of 
>the
>ship, and after five minutes, tell you which crew is aboard."
>
>This was based on his experiences onboard a Los Angeles class attack 
>sub.
>
>
>
>--
>+-------------------------------------------------+
>|   Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
>|          Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
>|          http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
>|*************************************************|
>|"Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day |
>|  But when I follow at my pleasure the serried   |
>|  multitude of the stars in their course, my     |
>|  feet no longer touch the Earth."               |
>|                   -Cladius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) |
>+-------------------------------------------------+
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:28:43 -0500
From: Andrew Akins <igor@ames.net>
Subject: THUDDD 6 Results

The board of directors and engineering staff of Seraphim Industries would
like to congradulate the winners of the recent SDB bidding.

SIInc would also like to thank any and all sophonts who voted for the
Wraith design.

Continue to look to Seraphim Industries for superior craft designs.
=============================================================================

My takes (for what they're worth) on the SDBs, in general.

For the most part, pretty much what I expected. I was surprised about one
thing - the lack of heavy armor on a lot of the designs. Its all opinion,
of course, but I think a SDB needs a good armor belt.

As far as the winning design - well, I hope you don't think I'm whining
'cause I lost, becuase that's not true. I do think it was the best _SHIP_
in the lot. But, it can't enter Gas Giants, which I feel SDBs need to do.
But, obviously, the voting public didn't agree :)

Once again, congradulations to the winners (excellent designs, all of
them), and I look forward to facing you again :)

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:00:14 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TNS releases: comments

The four TNS releases I posted are all that I have right now. I'm
going to make a few more.

My group is in Glisten and it's currently 034-1107. I calculate how 
long it takes for news releases to travel to whereever the PCs are,
so the 266-1106 release should be arriving in Glisten any day now.

Naturally, feel free to comment/critique, since I ain't perfect!

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:51:01 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TNS: 314-1106

TAS News Service Report

Release Date:	314-1106
System:		Regina
Subsector:	Regina/Spinward Marches
Coordinates:	1910

The office of Duke Norris announced today that it is imposing quotas and
tariffs on Zhodani fruits and vegetables. This move is in response to
the move last week by the Zhodani Consulate, in which they instituted a
ban on the import of Atrake, a fruity wine made in the Imperium.

The Imperial restrictions is expected to translate into higher consumer
prices for the produce, higher prices at restaurants for dishes
containing those items and scarcity of supply.

The Consulate was not available for comment.

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:56:28 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TNS: 034-1107

This last one bears some explanation. One of my player characters is
Juri Njvrdinskiold and he was caught in an ambush interview last 
session. He said very little about the Sword Worlds, so the NPC 
reporter, Chi Barr, decided to "embellish" things a little.

My group is currently in Glisten and will get this release the next 
day.

TAS News Service Report

Release Date:	034-1107
System:		Glisten
Subsector:	Glisten/Spinward Marches

By Chi Barr, TNS reporter

This humble reporter discovered that the Glisten system is playing host
to a major figure in the Sword Worlds military forces: none other than
Juri Njvrdinskiold. For those of you who may not know, Mr. Njvrdinskiold
is a retired Admiral of the Gram navy. 

You have may caught a glimpse of him during the recent hijacking of a
bus by escaped prisoners. In that incident, he played a key role in
protecting innocent civilians from harm as well as in capturing the
heavily armed, extremely dangerous convicts.

During a more peaceful moment, he graciously consented to an interview
with this lowly servant of the public. He was quite candid and
forthcoming in his concerns, which I now present to you.

Admiral Njvrdinskiold is aware of the current reorganization of the
Sword Worlds military forces and is concerned about their unification
under a single command. The last time that happened, this reporter
knows, was during the Fourth Frontier War. He admits being concerned
that "extremists" (his word) may have risen to power. However, when
asked to comment on rumors of the Sword Worlds plans with regards to
the Imperium (and, specifically, whether they plan to attack us), he
said only "no comment".

After doing some careful research, this report has learned that Admiral
Njvrdinskiold was the loser in a political power struggle some years
back. The result of the power fight was that Njvrdinskiold lost his
position (read: was forced to retire) and was virtually exiled from the
Worlds. Which is our good fortune, since without that struggle he would
never have appeared in the Imperium and would never have been around to
interview.

Mr. Njvrdinskiold seemed very concerned with the Sword Worlds military
buildup. While obviously not privy to their plans, he can likely read
between the lines. Although he diplomatically elected not to discuss
options available to the Imperium, this reporter got the impression that
a strong Imperial response was in order.


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:49:24 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TNS release: 266-1106

Here's the first one. Note that what actually happened is a lot 
different than what gets reported by TNS.

TAS News Service Report

Release Date:	266-1106
System:		Jewell
Subsector:	Jewell/Spinward Marches

The length of the list of Zhodani violations of Imperial citizens
rights gets longer and longer. In the latest maneuver by the
mind-readers, the luxury liner Rising Star was fired upon, boarded and
its passengers and crew interrogated like common criminals.

This reporter was one of the first on the scene when the Star landed at
Jewell Downport early this morning. Interviewing the dazed passengers
and fatigued crew, the following story came to light.

The Rising Star apparently misjumped into Zhodani space. Some of the
crew say that the jump drives were sabotaged, a claim substantiated by
some of the passengers. Bilstein Yards, manufacturer of the drives, is
inspecting them with Downport authorities as this story is being
written. While misjumps occasionally occur, what happened next is
anything but usual.

The Rising Star had apparently arrived in the middle of a Zhodani naval
training exercise, one of many that have been held near Imperial borders
over the last year or so. With sensors jammed, the crew were unable to
determine their exact location and, therefore, were unable to plot a
course home. Several Zhodani fighters apparently ordered the Star to
prepare for boarding.

Despite the protests from the crew, squads of turbaned Marines entered
the Star, rounded up the passengers and herded them off, against their
will, into Zho ships. The cowardly pirates then subjected the frightened
innocents to hours of interrogation. Several were accused of being
Imperial spies and were threatened with painful deaths and torture!

Eventually, the brave crew and passengers were released. Their innocence
was probably determined by the devious mind-reading the Zhos are
well-known for, in violation of the privacy rights of Imperial citizens.
The Star was allowed to jump back into the safety and security of
Imperial space.

The local population on Jewell is outraged at the way the Zhodani
stormtroopers treated the innocent men, women and children of the Star.
Calls for retaliatory measures are being heard throughout this system.
As word of this dastardly deed gets out, this reported is convinced that
Duke Norris will do the right thing and send a clear message to the
Zhodani Consulate about respect for the basic rights of the Imperium
citizenry.

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:52:19 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TNS: 342-1106

TAS News Service Report

Release Date:	342-1106
System:		Mora
Subsector:	Mora/Spinward Marches
Coordinates:	3124

A gathering of Outworld Coalition supporters turned violent today as
clashes erupted with both police and oppositionists.

When the Hope For Peace organization sponsored a protest in front of the
Imperial Palace, approximately 150 people showed up, sources say. The
demonstration was peaceful, allowing the group to express their
opposition to the rising tension between the Imperium and the Zhodani
Consulate.

"We just want both sides to come together to find a peaceful solution to
the problems. Were dont want another frontier war. Why wont they
listen to each other?", said one member of the protest, who asked not to
be identified.

A crowd of onlookers became first unruly, then violent, when someone
reported that a member of the Consulate itself was part of the Hope For
Peace protest. Fights broke out and police were forced to make several
arrests. Several people were taken to hospital.

A police spokesman stated that the Hope For Peace group seemed quite
capable in combat situations, which she described as ironic, given their
mission.  

Duke Norris was not in Mora at the time.

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:08:14 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

At 22:28 12/10/97 +0100, Simon Early wrote:
>My best effort is fairly long:
[nice stuff deleted]
>Distance = Delta1 + (Delta2 - HiLimit) = 1 + 5 - 1 = 5
>
>I think I have my logic correct, but if anyone can see an error, or 
>spot a simpler way to implement the logic, let me know.  I am still 
>thinking about the "best" way to implement this on a spreadsheet 
>("best" = minimum number of cells used for formulae).
>
	What about using Pythagoras' Theorem, which as we all know states that the
sum of the square of the two sides that are at right angles to each other
are equal to the square of the hypotenuse (third side)?

	I should guess almost all here know it, but I'll detail it just for the
sake of anyone who isn't sure how it would relate to Traveller star maps.
Apologies in advance if this is too much, too little, irellevant, wrong, or
has nothing to do with William the Conqueror at all.

	The hex numbering is similar to x (horizontal) and y (vertical).

	2317 could be converted to y1=23, x1=17 and...
	2212 could be converted to y2=22, x2=12

	The absolute of y1-y2 (23-22) =1, while the absolute of x1-x2 (17-12)=5.

	1 squared equals 1, and 5 squared equals 25. The sum of these is 26.

	Then the square root of 26 equals 5.099, or 5 rounded to the nearest
integer. So the distance of five could be ascertained this way. That's how
I'd it anyway.

	Then...

	The simplest way of doing it on a spreadsheet would be to enter the two
co-ordinates into two separate cells each, so that you have...

	23    17
	22    12

	The equivalent cell references would be...

	A1   B1
	A2   B2

	Formula would be...

	INT(SQRT((ABS(A1-A2)^2+ABS(B1-B2)^2))+0.5)

	The ABS of A1-A2 and B1-B2 would just simply make any result positive. So
17-12 would be 5, and so would 12-17. 23-22=1, naturally.

	The ^2 simply squares the result of each pair, or also multiplying the
answers by themselves. So, 1^2=1, and 5^2=25.

	Then 1 and 25 are added for 26.

	SQRT gives us the square root of the answer, so the square root of 26 is
5.099. +.5 enables the result to be rounded up or down when executed by the
INT instruction.

	That's all the formula you need to determine the distance between two
hexes. But anything longer than a few parsecs isn't likely to take a direct
route anyway, unless you're deep in a Main. You'll usually cover more hexes
going from A to B than the direct route anyway, as the crow flies as it
were, or as the Grandfather flies in this case? ;-)

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1954
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 13 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1955



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Not exactly about piracy...
Re: TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List
CSC Updated
Aeron Family Car (TL9)
Spufom Scout Car (TL6)
Swallow Sailboat (TL5)
The cost of starship paint
Re: Starship Troopers
Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh
Re: In Orbit
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: The March Harrier--Communications

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:40:50 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)

At 03:50 PM 10/9/97 -0700, Dave Summers wrote:
>Thu, 09 Oct 1997 11:23:19 -0700, Scott Ellsworth
><Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>>>Which is why you don't do it again in the same system until
>>>you have changed your ships signature.
>>
>>This is very, very difficult to do in present day surface craft.
>
>Bunk.  It's not that difficult at all.

Hmmm.  Your information differs from mine.

>>>  In any cast, since
>>>commercial ships use standard reactor design, all ships of
>>>the same type will have the same neutrino signature
>>
>>Why limit yourself to the neutrino signature?
>
>Because the original poster was asking if neutrino detection
>made piracy impossible.

Reasonable enough.  IIRC, neutrino sensors are not sensitive enough to
matter w.r.t. piracy.  They are short ranged, and do not give great IDs, if
I remember FF&S2 correctly.  I was arguing from the basis of the total
sensor data that traffic control could reasonably expect to get on vessels
within 100 diameters of the world they were on, which would include IR,
neutrino, etc.

Apologies if that was not clear.

>>  I believe the primary ID
>>used in Bruce's system is IR.  You can fiddle with the IR to some extent,
>>but significant changes in signature involve significant changes in
hardware.
>
>IR output of ships is going to be similar to begin with,
>the output of ships of the same type is going to be
>the same.

I would be rather surprised at that.  Individual variation counts for a
lot, and even if you can alter some of the signature using the extra
radiators masking gives you, there are going to be parts of a signature
that are hard to alter.  The best you can do is try to make other parts of
the signature dominant, and hope they do not spend serious time checking.

....
>>{the navy can positively ID a vesssel with sonar, if it is within 10 miles]
>This is no my understanding of Naval capabilities at all.
>[But I know some ex submarine people on another list, I'll
>check...]

I know a few myself, and this is where I got the information.  Of course,
it is possible that they were pulling my leg, but there were enough data
points that I found it reasonable to believe them.

As one put it, the easiest way to hide a signature is to make the props
extremely noisy, such that the signal normally used to ID a vessel is lost
in the noise.  This will result in a new signature, and the operator may or
may not decide to filter out the noise.  If they do, underneath it is much
of the same signature.

Why do they not do it with commercial ships?  On a commercial ship, the ID
does not matter enough.  They have to get very close, and it is only the
"important" ships they care about.  Since the sonar ID radius for a modern
ship is fairly small, and the ocean is very large, why spend the time to ID
everyone within that radius - it is not like they are going to do anything
interesting there anyway.

In the Imperium, where ships are never more than a few hours out of the
ports, it is worth seeing who is dropping in.  Every traffic control
station can be expected to have an SDB in orbit, and a reasonable sized
sensor dish to feed it information, assuming the world has a pop 5 or so.
Further, the larger worlds can afford to export SDBs to the surrounding
worlds, if it gives them benefits, for a fairly small price if free, and a
fairly small profit if for pay.

>In any case, the ID is not a fixed as you would make it.  All you
>need to do is give the engine a tune up and make trivial
>changes to the propellar and you have a new signature.

>>To change signatures such that the old ones fail apparently takes a major
>>shipyard some time in the modern world.
>
>And this is based on what?

Discussions with the aforementioned ex sub chaps.  They held that it is
very easy to make a ship very loud, and very different, but if you filter
out the bent prop, you will hear many of the same characteristic noises
underneath it.

>>>Um no, it would be the equivalent of repainting the car only after
>>>you commit a robbery (which happens).
>
>>Big difference - if there were only 300,000 cars in the world, and there
>>were ID posts at every gas station that could positively ID a vehicle, then
>>doing anything illegal within sight of a gas station would give things
>>away,
>
>Nah, repainting a car to make such a possitve ID from a photo
>is easy.

Grant me my positive ID for purposes of this half of the debate.  I suspect
we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether this can be done.

Assume that every time you drove into a gas station, they got a copy of the
vin, the engine serial numbers, the driver's license number, the serial
number on the catalytic converter, and so on.  Further, assume that if you
change the numbers, some of them are going to not match.  This is the
situation with the small number of Traveller ships out there.

Clearly, the gas station may decide not to look up every VIN, and every
engine serial number, and so on, in the appropriate databases.  On the
other hand, given the relatively small amount of data, and the fact that
they will have the sensors and the time to gather it, they will likely
record it, if only to track down people who commit crimes on their territory.

After you commit the crime, there will be record of every gas station you
drove past to commit it, so you had best have used a fake ID/signature for
long enough to confuse the back trail, or you had best have done the mods
nearby.  That is, you have to decide before the fact whether you are using
your real ID, or your fake.

>>>If you commit a crime
>>>you just have to change you identity _once_, changing you
>>>identity again (unless you have committed a crime) is both
>>>unecessary and pointless (you already have a new clean identity).
>>
>>As long as none of the back history helps them find you.  After all, they
>>can ID your vehicle absolutely.
>
>This is where we disagree.

Indeed.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 Dedly@aol.com wrote:

> Anders wrote:
> 
> >>>>I'd allow USL landings but let them take a long time (several hours and a
> pretty trivial Pilot roll) and they'd be illegal in say B+ starports as
> this super slow descent not adhering to standard highspeed entry corridors
> would clog up traffic for the poor starport controllers.<<<<
> 
> I like this idea. I'd also add that weather conditions should be favorable
> for the atmospheric entry to be attempted, thereby making attempts to refuel
> at Gas Giants (if you allow that sort of thing) extremely hazardous.
> 
> \_/
> DED
> 

It's funny how different people view things differently.  I'd say that a
USL landing could only be supported _at_ B+ starports, because the
facilities to support this type of spacecraft (ie. organized traffic
control, special landing facilities, etc.) would only exist at the larger
ports.  :)

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:39:11 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
> Please keep in mind that "turning the ship" (ie changing the direction
> it's pointing) is quite different from changing course (changing the
> direction it is *moving*).
> 
> Changing course takes a *lot* of time, even if you can spin the ship
> like a top. You can't "redirect" your velocity in a new direction the
> way ships and planes do. Instead you have to *kill* the velocity in the
> old direction and build up velocity in the new one.

No, that's not it at all... you just crank the joystick/flight
control lever and as you bank around your ship emits a "vrrrowwwaaah"
sound.

Don't you every watch movies? Sheesh.
- --
Ethan Henry                   ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:29:46 -0500
From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pen.net>
Subject: Not exactly about piracy...

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> 
> I'm pretty much in the piracy-is-nearly-impossible as written regime;
> but I can make a few suggestions for variations - in roughly increasing
> order of canon-violation - for people who really want to add piracy:

Personally, I'm less concerned about piracy and more concerned about
getting a game environment that I like. In my case, that environment
just happens to be such that ships are vulnerable to attack while
travelling to and from the jump-points...whether by pirates, privateers,
customs agents, warships or even "big hairy space monsters." Ok, the
last one was a joke. ;->
 
> (1) Big pirate ships: 

>     (a) a market for captured ships - it only works in largely open and
>         lawless frontier regions.

Or where you have competing governments. Let's take an area with 4
competing "empires", Zeristu, Argent, Mark and Mui Gwan. A Zeristu ship
(or cargo) captured by pirates might be sold in any of the other 3
empires, for example. This could be legit (ie privateers during
wartime), or semi-legit (actual pirates, but the local government simply
*overlooks* where you got the ship/parts/cargo...if it comes from
somewhere outside *its* borders). Maybe Argent looks hard at ships that
show up with damaged ships in tow, but winks at cargos without papers,
as long as the proper tarrifs and fees are paid.  Mui Gwan might be just
the opposite, they don't look at *ship* papers, but they want to know
where cargos came from, so our pirates might steal it in Mark or
Zeristu, but have to tranship it through Argent space to produce the
papers that Mui Gwan requires. Of course, Argent gets it's fees for
allowing the cargo in and their local merchants get commissions for
producing the papers, etc.  

>     (b) a very intimidating weapon to make victims surrender.< snip> especially if the >         pirates have a reputation for allowing prisoners to live.

Or ships that are relatively easy to *temporarily* disable, but hard to
destroy. If maneuver, sensor and weapon systems have to be in exposed
positions on the hull and/or power plants need large exposed radiators,
then civilian ships (without massive redundency) could be more easily,
but temporarily, disabled with surface hits. The surface damage might be
repairable in short order, but until it is fixed the ship is helpless. 

Now the options are surrender, fight off borders, or be destroyed at
short range. In enviornments where the pirates didn't normally kill or
enslave the surrendering crews, the option of surrender becomes a very
viable one.  

In fact, the SOP might be to dump the cargo (or part of it) for the
pirate to collect giving the merchant ship time to leave the area
without the fight. This would be sort of like paying "tribute" to pass
through the area.  Ships that refused to turn over a portion of their
cargo run the risk of a fight where they could lose the entire cargo,
their ship and/or their lives.  

> (2) Dusty systems. Normal sensors can see ships at millions of km - but
>     passive sensor sensitivity is strongly affected by how much dust is in
>     the system. Young stars with very thick dust clouds might reduce all
>     sensor ranges by a factor of 100 or so (this is in the advanced part of
>     the DSR.) Of course that makes it harder for the pirate to find its target,
>     but much harder for the SDB to find the (presumably stealthy) pirate.

Sigh, I'd hate for *every* system to be a young dusty system, but Bruce,
average passive sensors picking up ships at 10, 20, 30 million km just
isn't the game I want to run. I really like 3 to 6 million km much
better. I can reduce some of the signature by using non-IR producing
stutterjump for propulsion, and can lower the power requirements (hence
cutting the IR from the powerplant), but I don't yet know exactly how
much that's going to help. Cutting power requirements creates other
unbalancing effects to consider as well, sigh again.
 
> (3) Sparse subsectors: as I suggested earlier, subsectors with few
>     habitable worlds but lots of gas-giant-only systems.

This is probably more realistic, but does change the *feel* of the game. 

> (4) Move the 100-diameter limit. 

Sol has a diameter of about 1,300,000 km, IIRC, and 1 AU is about
150,000,000 km, so 100-d in the Sol system is about .87 AU.  I've always
felt that was too close. 

I, personally, set the absolute minimum jumplimit at 100-d (not 10-d)
from *anything* and make it *very* unsafe. The safe jumplimit begins at
about 150-d, for Sol that's around 1.3 AU. Ships jumping in will come in
somewhere between 150 and 200 diameters from the local star and at least
that far from any orbiting body.  Of course, my ships also have a
different propulsion method so time between the jump-point and the
habitable zone is still only a day or two for slow ships. 

However, stars with much larger diameters (actually masses) than G2V's,
any I, II, or III for example, will have *very* distant jumplimits. For
some of them there might be habitable planets, but it will take ships
*many* days to travel from the jump-point to them.  This has the effect
of having some systems with habitable planets *so* far from the
jumplimit that they are effectively isolated from interstellar trade
even when on an active main.
 
>     I think if I were refereeing a campaign I would just arbitrarily move
>     the 100-d limit out to an AU or so.

Or more! ;-> 


Eris

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:31:06 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: TAS Smaller Imperial Corporations & Institutions List

Here are the three I've created thus far (apologies for the lateness of
this post, but due to work and Real Life(tm), I'm still about 40 digests
behind at the moment...):

Entity :  ValuJump Lines 
Founder      :  Darius Sadri
Founded In   :  -30 Imperial
Contact      :  Paul Owensby <pauld@athens.net>,
	CEO and Chief Bottle-Washer
Main Office  :  PaNaJay City, Ase/CORE (2219)
	<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby>
Sectors      :  Core
Summary      :  An Economy-Class Passenger and Freight Service 
	working the routes along the Sylean Main, offering a low-cost
	alternative to the nefarious practices of the larger companies, 
	who are merely the lackeys of the Imperial Court.
Mottos  : "So Economical, You'll Feel Like You're Part of the Crew"
	"At ValuJump, All Our Cargo is Carry-On"
	"ValuJump: Where a Berth's a Berth"
Subsidiaries  : Pan-Imperia Shipyards and Servicing (PISS on the 
	Imperial Stock Exchange). 

Entity       : Pan-Imperia Shipyards and Servicing
Founder      :  Founded and owned by the members of the United Freight 
	and Passenger Workers Union
Founded In   : Y21 Imperial
Contact      : Sean Monshi (Paul Owensby <pauld@athens.net>)
Main Office  : PaNaJay City, Ase/CORE (2219) [web page as above]
Sectors      : Core
Summary      : An alternative to the high-priced vultures of the ISBA, founded
	by the members of the UFPWU as a cost-effective producer of low-
	priced quality space- and starships for the small business sentient.
Product Line : PICH-1/2 "Guppy" Class Far Trader, and the ACCH "Long
	John" Class Cargo Hauler

Entity    : Ase Civilian Products
Founder      :  Col. Beauregard Isslikki, ret.
Founded In   : -175 Imperial
Contact      :   Emmanuel Jones, VP for Public Relations (Paul Owensby, 
	pauld@athens.net)
Main Office  : Vidaton, Ase/CORE (2219) [web page as above]
Sectors      : Core
Summary      : Maker of fine consumer products for the home and ship, 
	many marketed under the Better Way label
Product Line : Cloud-Nine Line of zero-g beds


**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1997 20:06:28 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: CSC Updated

After much prodding, I devoted part of the Thanksgiving weekend to updating
CSC, which is now at version 1.1.0b  The latest version added a comments
field, in which you can type up to half-a-page of comments, description, etc
about your vehicle.  These comments are exported to both HTML and text, just
as the statistics are.

I've added a bit of smarts to the save routines, so they are backward
compatible.  No need to throw away all your old designs: just open them up,
add comments, and save.  (Forward planning pays off!)


Two provisos:

1) No styling is supported.  You get 10-point Palatino, plain text only.

2) The comments are only displayed in the Description view.


As usual, the software can be found at:

http://www.interlog.com/~dmci104/GamingClub/Traveller/software.html

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1997 20:05:59 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Aeron Family Car (TL9)

Aeron Family Car (TL9)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     1.50 displacement ton box;  2.53 tonnes;  kCr 18.9
Chassis:
     21.0 kL box (4.3 m long x 2.2 m wide x 2.2 m high);  Structure: 220 kg
of fiber laminate, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.20 cm thick, 1 armour rating
     
Performance:
     150 kW TL7 Fuel Cell power plant;  Fuel: 12.7 kL of liquid hydrogen (908
kg), 10 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 150 kW contragrav;  Maximum Speed: 171 km/h;  Range:
1710 km;  Agility: 0DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: pilot;  1 crew station;  3 roomy passenger seats
Communications:
     Regional Radio (10 W, TL9, SmVcl)
Sensors:
     Active Subregional Radar (100 W)  Resolution: 2.0 cm per km of range
Other:
     Safety Features: Roadgrid
     300 L of cargo space

An early version of the personal contagrav car, the Aeron is a reasonably
cheap means of transportation.  Short-range radar interfaces with the
prototype Roadgrid system to provid a reasonable degree of safety; however,
in crowded urban areas frequent delays result when too many vehicles overload
the collision-avoidance software.

To keep costs down, fuels cells are used instead of a fusion power plant
(Fusion Plus not being invented yet), which results in over half its internal
volume being devoted to hydrogen tanks.


Designed with CSC (software Copyright Robert Prior, 1997)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1997 20:05:28 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Spufom Scout Car (TL6)

Spufom Scout Car (TL6)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     1.50 displacement ton box;  11.5 tonnes;  kCr 162
Chassis:
     21.0 kL box (4.3 m long x 2.2 m wide x 2.2 m high);  Structure: 588 kg
of hard steel, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.50 cm thick
     Armour: 6 front (0.50 cm, radical slope), 5 sides (0.50 cm, moderate
slope), 5 rear (0.50 cm, moderate slope), 4 top (0.50 cm), 4 bottom (0.50 cm)
Performance:
     1.05 MW TL4 Internal Combustion power plant;  Fuel: 1.05 kL of
hydrocarbons (1.05 tonnes), 10 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 1.05 MW wheels with off-road suspension;  Maximum
Speed: 98 km/h;  Range: 982 km;  Agility: +3DM
Crew:
     Crew roster: driver, gunner;  2 crew stations
Armament:
     Weapon                          Damage    Range          Shots   
Reloads   Notes
     Machinegun, Heavy-6             6         Long           200     9      
  coaxialturret
     Autocannon, Light-6             10        Long           100     9      
  +3DM, turret1 gunner
Communications:
     Regional Radio (1.00 kW, TL6, SmVcl, MilSpec)
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     113 L of cargo space

Mechanized armies need reliable reconnaisance. The  Spufom Scout Car is fast,
strong, and well-armed, making it ideal for a mechanized reconnaisance troop.
 The gunner doubles as the vehicle commander and radio operator: this is not
considered a problem, as Spufoms typically operate in troops of 2-5 rather
than individually.


Designed with CSC (software Copyright Robert Prior, 1997)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1997 20:47:56 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Swallow Sailboat (TL5)

Swallow Sailboat (TL5)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     1.00 displacement ton open-topped box;  4.26 tonnes;  kCr 11.9
Chassis:
     14.0 kL open-topped box (3.7 m long x 1.9 m wide x 1.9 m high); 
Structure: 337 kg of heavy wood, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.30 cm thick, 0
armour rating
     
Performance:
     240 kW TL1 Sail power plant
     Propulsion System: 240 kW watercraft;  Maximum Speed: 10 km/h;  Agility:
+3DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: helmsman;  1 crew station;  5 cramped passenger seats
Communications:
     No communicators installed.
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     3.00 kL of cargo space

Built for utility, not speed, the Swallow is a typical small sailboat,
capable of carrying five passengers and three cubic metres of cargo. No
sensors or communications gear is installed; if carried, these are usually
personal models. 

Similar boats can be encountered on many worlds, even at higher tech levels.
Solid construction means that, with proper care, a Swallow can last for over
a century.


Designed with CSC (software Copyright Robert Prior, 1997)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:25:25 +0100 (BST)
From: Phil Kitching <PhilK@btinternet.com>
Subject: The cost of starship paint

Whilst trying to setup a spreadsheet to help with FFS2 starship design,
I encountered the following problem:

In Chapter 5.7 (Hull coatings) a TL10-11 starship gets a colour changing
hull for free. If you want to reduce the emitted signature you can buy
a "military black hull" for MCr0.01 per m2 or ultrablack for MCr0.1 per m2.
Although these seem amazingly expensive, they do have to deal with
gas giants, ocean refuelling... 
The real problem comes if you remove the colour changing coating.

This gives a discount on hull price of MCr0.01 per m2.
But the cost of the hull (per m2) depends on its streamlining, material
and thickness.

A sphere with a 191cm thick enhanced coherent superdense hull
costs 1.91m x 0.052MCr/m3 = 0.099MCr/m2 (its armour rating is
191 x 68.6 = 13,000).
 
So in other words by TL10 all practical hulls are free - you only have to
pay for the paint?

I could not find any mention of this in the errata that I found on the net.

Appologies if I missed the relevant digest.

Phil Kitching
- - --
  Philk@btinternet.com (don't blame BT for any of this, they only pay me:)
  Interested in a wargames show in Colchester, Essex UK?
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers

>Yes, Mos Eisley was a studio backlot. But the scenes *outside* of Mos
>Eisley were filmed in Tunisia. Including the stuff with the Jawa
>sandcrawler.

Okay.  Makes sense then.  But not alot of call for Stormtroopers then (1 very
brief scene with them)...

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:30:27 -0400
From: Eric Freitas <edf@atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Question for Bruce Macintosh

>No, that's not it at all... you just crank the joystick/flight
>control lever and as you bank around your ship emits a "vrrrowwwaaah"
>sound.

Well, don't throw me into the rubber room, there is serious research 
being done into the area of inertia & gravity that may hold the key
to controlling both.  For more on this goto: 

	http://www.jse.com/haisch/zpf.html

>GEARHEAD ALERT MODE ENGAGED<
	Some of the links on these pages are not for the week of heart.  
They may contain numerous equations and quite a bit of that 'Secret 
Language of Theoretical Physicists'.  However most of it is summarized
and understandable to varying degrees.  
<GEARHEAD ALERT MODE DISENGAGED>

>Don't you every watch movies? Sheesh.

	What do you think?  Most of us spend our free time in front of
CRT's, the only movies we watch are mpeg's, QT's and avi's. ;)

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 19:25:38 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

On 10/12/97 at 10:58 PM,  Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> said:

>On the way out to orbit, during that 27 minute trip, we broke in your new
>sensor rules--and they picked up a ship in orbit!

>Normally, this would be no big deal--just another merchant vessel biding
>its time as the crew does the starport thing on the planet, but the
>Pysadian officials were hiring local merchant/mercenary bands to help the
>March Harrier's crew decide it was time to leave.

>So, now they are suspicious of this unstreamlined merchant trader in
>standard orbit around Pysadi.

>Next Sunday, we'll pick up with them just about to reach orbit.  I know
>they are going to try to give this vessel the slip--so if it goes over
>Pysadi's horizon, I need to know how long they are going to have the
>planet between them and this ship.

Ken, by "standard orbit" do you mean geo-stationary (remaining above the
same spot on the ground as it orbits), or do you just mean an orbit 3 or 4
hundred km's up?

If it's just a low orbit, you should be able to keep your ship below the
horizon for about as long as you'd like.  You could match the other ship's
orbit just lag behind it by how-ever many km's needed to keep it over the
horizon.  Something similar could be done with stationary orbits.

However, for what your players want to do, I'd just handwave that they have
between 60 and 90 minutes, depending on whether or not the other ship
changes course.  Then I'd roll my dice behind the screen, frown for a
moment, then smile mysteriously, look up and ask them as innocently as
possible, "So what do you do next?


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:23:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

In mail you write:

> Phillip McGregor wrote:
>
>> >On the landings thread...did we ever decide why an unstreamlined vessel,
>> >using contra-gravity, could not land on a planet with atmosphere?
>> 
>> Yep. (Well, *I* didn't) The consensus was "because it's canon" ... and the
>> subtext, "even if that doesn't make any sense!" ;-P
>
> Nobody came up with a better explanation than that?

We did. Phil just didn't like them. 

Basicly the consensus was that things like wind shear, turbulence, jet
streams and "microbursts" place stresses on a USL hull that it wasn't
designed to take. For example, consider what a "measly" 50-75 knot wind
can do to some pretty sturdy structures. 

Even a ship braced for *rapid* turns will be braced for "bow move
right, stern moves left (and vice versa) and have the bracings built
for forces applied by the steering jets and main drive. Wind forces
will be pushing in other directions. And while drive forces *have* to
be symettrical about the center of mass of the ship, the wind forces
((by definition of "unstreamlined!) *won't be*. So you'll get
"twisting" forces in places where the ship wasn't designed to have
them. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:31:25 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: The March Harrier--Communications

In mail you write:

> In detailing the March Harrier, here's the post on the ship's
> communications.
>
> Kenneth.
> ================================================================
>
> (the following is copied material from my game)
>
>
>
> This is post number 7 on getting to know the March Harrier on a more
> intimate level.
>
> Posts that have preceded this one include:
>
> Hull
> Hull Addendum
> Jump Drive
> Maneuver Drive
> Avionics
> Sensors
>
>
> Kenneth.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> COMMUNICATIONS
>
>
>
> The March Harrier incorporates two different comm systems.  Both are TL
> 12.  Total power for both systems totals 10.6 MW from the ship's power
> plant.                                   ^^^^^^^

<snip>

> The Harrier uses a TL 12 Radio communicator, which it uses for most of
> its transmissions.  The Radio comm is capable of 144 channels, and
> standard range on this comm is 30,000 km.

This is one of the places where the rules are *badly* broken. With a
measly 1000 watts a radio station can be heard clear around the world
(ask any ham radio operator, heck novices are only allowed *50* watts
and still manage to contact the whole world).

A *million* watt radio station is an impressive thing. Very few are
anywhere near that powerful. 

And with less than a million watts (ask one of our astronomers for the
exact figures) we were able to radar map Venus! That's a lot more than
30,000 km. And fighting an inverse fourth power law at that.

> INSYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS PROCEDURES
>
> When a ship jumps into a new system, the comm officer will scan the
> radio bands for the system's directory.  The exact location of which may
> already be know from prior visits to the system, or may be obtained from
> the subsector library program.
>
> Most star systems, TL 8 and above, and all systems with a Class C or
> better starport, maintain a communication directory on broadband radio. 
> Once this directory is located, the ship's communication officer will
> the local channels used for standard system information.
>
> For example, starports maintain a Traffic Control Channel.  There may be
> a standard Hailing channel.  There may be a standard Distress channel. 

I rather expect that the "hailing" channel ("Unicom" is what they call
it at airports, not sure what the do at seaports) and distress channel
will be *standardized* throughout the Imperium. And any areas outside
the Imperium that span more than one system will have standards as well.

Also, it's likely that spacecraft will follow a current maritime
procedure, where at a certain time every hour (I *think* it's on the
hour) all vessels are *required* to be monitoring the distress
channel(s) in case someone needs assistance (this dates back to when
the Titanic's distress calls went unheard because the radio operator on
the nearest ship was off duty).

> Local entertainment may be broadcast from the main world--starships can
> pipe this in for the passengers during the trip from jump point to
> planet side.  Local news may also be carried on a standard channel, as
> well as standard channels for commidity prices, commercial passage
> reservations, and just about any other general information channels you
> can think of.  

> The variety of channels available is dependent on the specific system,
> but some channels are standard in just about every system in the
> Imperium.  For example, if the system is TL 8+, and/or the system has a
> Class C+ starport, Traffic Control will be handled on its own channel.

And in smaller system's it'll be handled on the Unicom frequency (just
like at small airports now).

> Not all of the various channels mentioned above will be Image/Voice/Data
> capable.  This is dependent on the requirements of the information being
> broadcast and the equipment used to broadcast it.  In different star
> systems, different types of broadcast will be made.
>
> Traffic Control, for instance, is usually Voice only, although some
> higher tech systems may use Images as well for real-time viewer
> communication with the starport.

Probably all systems from TL-7(?) on up will have a channel
broadcasting graphical displays of the system, the approaches to the
planet, and possibly other "maps". They'll indicate positions of ships,
large bodies, stations, and "restriced areas". These will range from
"fax" type images on up to high quality realtime 3d images. But the
"fax" quality images (with updates every 15 minutes to every hour,
depending on the scale of the map) will likely be on a standard
channel, with the main "port ID" channel listing the frequencies and
formats of all the others.

Note that FAX was invented *before* the telephone. It's about a TL4 or
5 technology. 

The intent of such "maps" will be to let ships find out where
everything is *quickly* after entering the system, without blasting
their own radar all over the place. And it'll give them data that's a
bit more recent than what they'd get that way (except for things
between them and the port).

This is much like many faxed weathermaps available from most airports
now. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1955
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 14 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1956



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Gas Giants
Re: magic formular ?
Re: Unstreamlined (fwd)
THUDDD 6 Results
Re: Collapser
RE: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
personal copies of TNS releases
Algorithm: Distance Between Two Systems
re:B5 SPOILERS???
Re: In Orbit
Algorith (correction)
At Close Quarters playtest.
Re: magic formular ?
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: The March Harrier--Communications
Re: magic formular ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:51:21 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson writes:
>
>>Remember, *all* the oxygen currently in the atmosphere used to be part
>>of water molecules. The oxygen in the CO2 molecules went into the sugar
>>formed by photosynthesis.
>
> Yes, but it is still on the planet and can always be redistributed in a
> multitude of ways. What gets hauled off is no longer here at all.

You missed my point. The *hydrogen* from that water is *gone*. Escaped
into space over the eons. It's just as gone as if it'd been hauled away
by starships (which also only take the hydrogen).


> But the heart of my point is that *people* would decide that ocean
> refueling is not in their best interest.  Think of Environmentalists
> with a Galactic agenda, add a Corporation with an intererest in gas
> giant mining, stir with political shenanigains, and presto; no more
> ocean refueling.

Given that we have fusion powered (and before that *fission* powered!)
ships all over the place, and det-nuke missiles available to merchants,
I figure that people *have* to be more intelligent about ecology. And
it stands to reason, as with *thousands* of planets to study, we'll
have a much better grasp on how ecologies really work.

>>But a million tons is not even .00001%. On that 6000 km radius planet
>>it is 2 *nanometers* of ocean depth (ie 2 one-millionths of a
>>millimeter). You just don't understand the *scale* of this sort of
>>thing. Figuring with the one km deep "planetary ocean" (I think earth's
>>would be even deeper), I get .0000000002%.
>
> You're right, I didn't understand the scale.  It's just that big
> numbers seem so...  well, BIG.  I was trying to support my opinion
> with numbers, and failed.

Innumeracy is so common that it's not worth berating people about. But
it does help to check out some books on the subject. I've got one in
storage (wish I could remember the title) that does a good job of
teaching you how to make your estim=mates of things more reasonable.

> Oops.  But my opinion remains.  Anyway, like I said above, it would
> be the people who would not allow ocean refueling.  Just because we
> won't run out of oil in our lifetime doesn't stop people from saying
> we're running out of oil.

The supply of oil isn't likely to last more than a few centuries. The
water will last about a million times as long. And oil is better used
in the chemical industry instead as fuel. (BTW, a million dimes would
weigh 5000 pounds, just to give you an idea of how big a million is)

> Just because the sun won't go nova in a thousand lifetimes doesn't
> stop us from saying that we should explore space.

The sun won't go nova *at all*. Novas only occur in binary star systems
where one member is a white dwarf or a neutron star, and the other one
is close enough to for gas transfer to occur.

It won't go supernova either. It's too small. We will have to worry in
a few billion years (tens of millions of lifetimes) when the sun's core
runs out of hydrogen and it expands into a (small) red giant.

There are plenty of better reasons for exploring space. Like getting
polluting industries off earth. And being able to do something if an
earth-crossing asteroid or comet looks like it might get too close.

> People do on occasion take the long view.

Yes, but even with the long view, there's no real reason to stop ocean
refueling. At least not until you've been doing it for 10,000 to
100,000 years. At that point, while there's still no real danger, you
*can* safely say that it's not likely that people will start using
something else (ie antimatter, or some unimaginable technology). So
it'd then be time to start considering what to do. And you'd actually
have a long enough database to be able to project the effects with some
chance of success.

> Add money to the mix and its a done deal.  GG mining would add jobs
> to a planets economy.  You would have dive pilots, freighter pilots,
> refinery workers, a full starbase at the GG for the refinery since
> you don't want large amounts of hydrogen sitting around planetside
> wating for PC's to shoot into it, you could even say that any
> unofficial GG skimming is illegal and force ships that are just
> passing thru to refuel at the GG starbase. "New Jobs For One And
> All!"(corporate propaganda)  So GG mining could be very profitable if
> ocean refueling was banned.  I should have gone this way the first
> time, and left those pesky *big* numbers alone. (He says as he
> wonders just what he missed this time ;)

Ah! But the money will be going to the people doing the GG skimming,
and running the base there. They aren't *on* the planet, and aren't
*adding* money to the economy, they are taking it out! You see, the
planet would have to pay *them*. 

I can picture counter demonstrations: "Jobs on planet, not out in
space!" "Ban importing off-planet hydrogen!" 

You see, you are creating a situation akin to deciding not to produce
oil in Alaska due to environmental concerns, but depending on Arab oil
instead. Sure, that protects the environment, and creates a lot of jobs
(and profits). But it creates them *somewhere else*!

>>And you also are suffering from the impression that the biosphere is
>>*stable*. Far from it. It's in *dynamic* equilibrium. 
>
> No, I do realize the biosphere can handle anything that humanity can
> throw at it, and then some.  That is why I made the Zen comment.
> BTW, I remember reading somewhere that some scientists had determined
> that the Earth once had a 400 day year.  Anyone know anything about
> that?

The earth's orbital period has been around 31 million seconds (365.2422
days) essentially forever. But the earth's *rotational period* (day)
used to be a *lot* shorter. The moon is slowing the earth's rotation.
Eventually, we'll have one side of the earth always facing the moon,
which will make the day a month long (the month will be longer because
slowing the earth makes the moon's orbit bigger).

BTW, this is why you need to distinguish between the "day" (24 hours)
and the "sol" (local solar day of a planet). That's why the Viking and
Pathfinder data are listed as being from "Sol xxx". The xxx is home
many *martian* days since the landing.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:15:10 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

Moin Simon Early,
	
> My best effort is fairly long:

	thanks, stored and hopefully inplemented in the next version.

> I think I have my logic correct, but if anyone can see an error, or 
> spot a simpler way to implement the logic, let me know.  I am still 
> thinking about the "best" way to implement this on a spreadsheet 
> ("best" = minimum number of cells used for formulae).

	as my program is written in java, and you sometimes can
	count single bytes droping over the line, any improvement
	is welcome.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:59:45 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined (fwd)

Moin CardSharks@aol.com,

> Can you think of any others?

	This is the price reason - often cheap traders are unstreamlined
	because their sensors/turrets and so on can not stand the force
	of wind.

	typical examples of unstreamlined ship :

	- the container tender, with containers clipped under.
	  the non streamlined external grapple would'nd hold
	  the containers in turbulences.

	  ( Aurora at example )

	- the open frame warship with more than one spinal mount.
	  the needle thin meson or ppc mounts would break when
	  when the ship enters atmos:2+ worlds.

	  ( Chrysanthemum example gracias )

	And I still thing that the Gazelle was designed as a tanker
	for Chrysanthemum like ship. A clipper has a starport, but
	whats a Chrysanthemum without a tanker, a dead fish in space.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:34:19 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: THUDDD 6 Results

Moin Andrew Akins,

> For the most part, pretty much what I expected. I was surprised about one
> thing - the lack of heavy armor on a lot of the designs. Its all opinion,
> of course, but I think a SDB needs a good armor belt.

	Of course its posible to plate as many armor on a ship as you
	like using T4 stats, hiding the mass of a ship. I had to
	recalculate the ship and reduce the armor, because it should
	also be usefull in more "exact" systems like TNE.

	Just a question around, has anybody else calculated fuel and
	acceleration based on mass ?

	Hm can somebody tell the weight of the asteroid ship, while
	gave it a good I vote in "playabliliy" I'm interested if its
	realy able to move with more than 0.1G for more than one turn ?

	I also like asteroid based defense systems (at TL12+ a deep
	mount meson gun) they have plenty of armor (in german we would
	say Unkaputtbar) and a suprising impact to any ship tanking
	at the wrong GG. But those beasts dont move, they dirft in
	their orbit, and its easier to find the right asteroid in
	the right orbit to build the deep mount there, than to move
	a asteroid around in the system.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:04:51 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Collapser

Moin Derek Stanley,

> I'd love to look at and play with the file.  Looks really really
> interesting.  You should run Aubaine and Oriflamme subsectors just for
> the heck of it and see what happens...

	the program is still under development, it currently shows
	the behavior I intended for gushemege. While the Rure sector
	shows now a lot of virus settled systems, the wilds around
	are nearly virus free, at year 50 and a lot of systems are
	human free also, because they collapsed before virus arived.

	When I declare Diaspora&OldExpanses as unsecure between 1119
	and 1130 most systems wont have any virus problems. Outside
	Rure only 2 or 3 systems per subsector have virus population
	at 1150, while in the secure Rure Sector 2/3 of the systems
	have stable and high robotic populations at 1135.

	In terms of my collapser, the luck of those two sectors
	was not that they were selected by a hiver manipulation,
	but that were nuked before virus arived.

	The next improvement will be adding a "trade index" for avoiding
	the economic collapse of selected systems, and a "security index"
	for avoiding becoming nuked between 1120-1130. 

	BTW its not neccessary to mail hundrets of MB of historical
	database. The program is seeding the randomnumber generator
	by MD5(position+year), so the program will show the same history
	anytime run, as long as the program (the number of calls to
	the random generator), and the datafile (whether to call the
	generator) does not change.

	Anybody who's able to install GNU-AWK on his host will have
	the same history, nice bug^h^h^hfeature.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:21:36 +1300
From: Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

On Monday, 13 October 1997 19:25, David P. Summers
[SMTP:summers@alum.mit.edu] wrote:
> Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in fram
> jump at all system?  I have my doubts.  Such _will_ exist at the
> biggest, crowded systems, but it has already been assumed that this
> isn't where piracy would occur.   Beside, as someone else pointed out,
> you just leave at about the same time and get a path this is similar
> anyway.

Even the smallest of ports and airfields have some path control - ships
and aircraft aren't allowed to do what they want.

This allows for aircraft that are comms-out for example to be able to
land with minimal disruption to an airfields operations - it also means
that most samll airfields do not need air traffic control.

The rules aren't made up (in todays world anyway) because they serve a
need - many of the needs they serve we aren't even aware - but most of
the horrible things that could happen are planned for and allowances
made.

In Traveller Terms this means that arrival paths from one world to the
next would definately be required.  This allows the world to manage any
disaster or special circumstance much easier.  After all if ships are
just popping up all over the place - sooner or later they somebodies
going to crash.  If they have assigned paths then chances would be
greatly reduced.

> Yeah, but you will be leaving anyway...

But sooner or later you have to come back.

You have to hang around somewhere to be able to develope contacts to
fence the goods - and in this case you will get caught.  Space just
isn't infinite - If you have a home base you will have an area of
operations so you can't keep going to places only once - they will catch
on and you will be caught.

Piracy may exist - but pirates won't.

It might be the same as the Myth of the Mafia Hitman.

Brody

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:30:00 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: personal copies of TNS releases

I've received several requests for the TNS releases I advertised
yesterday. I'm quite flattered, since I didn't thing this was a big
deal. I think of this kind of thing as a little payback for all the
great stuff I've downloaded from this list.

Anyway, I've posted everything I have so far to the TML. I keep this
stuff in Word 7 format, where the formatting is a little nicer. If 
anyone would like the Word 7 documents emailed to them, I'm perfectly
willing to do that. Just let me know.

There are a few more coming. Basically, I'm wading through the Spinward
Marches adventure and whenever some background information seems
interesting, I'll make a TNS entry for it (or throw my PC's into it
as an adventure, depending).


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: Algorithm: Distance Between Two Systems

Someone asked if there was an *easy* method of computing the distance
between two systems in the same sector.  Yes, there is.  I came up with
this algorithm as part of an episode of masochism known as "CS 450 -
Senior Project".  :-)

int X(int Hex) {
  return (Hex/100)-1; }
int Y(int Hex) {
  return (Hex/100) - (((Hex/100)+1)/2); }
int Distance(int Hex1, int Hex2) {
  int DeltaX := X(Hex1) - X(Hex2);
  int DeltaY := Y(Hex1) - Y(Hex2);
  if ( ( DeltaX > 0 && DeltaY > 0 ) ||
    ( DeltaX < 0 && DeltaY < 0 ) ) {
    return Abs(DeltaX+DeltaY); }
  else if ( Abs(DeltaX) > Abs(DeltaY) ) {
    return Abs(DeltaX); }
  else { return Abs(DeltaY); } }

I'd translate this into English :-) but the school's computer lab is
closing down for the night and I'm being thrown out.  If you don't
understnad the psuedo-C code above, please let me know.  

================================================================
Franklin W. Cain                email: fcain@sct.edu

"We come in peace!...(Set phasers on 'obliterate.')"
================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:53:23 -0500
From: Jimmy Simpson <nimrod@dfw.net>
Subject: re:B5 SPOILERS???

At 12:48 PM 10/12/97 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Ahem. Kenneth didn't really do a spoiler. By defining the character's sex
>you just did do a spoiler.
>
>(So I'd already guessed what was happening, but it was nice to have it
vague).
>
>Dom
>
Sorry about that. I did not even get to see the episode until last night.
I just knew all the episodes had been filmed, and JMS said he would not be
refilming the finale.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:55:42 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Eris Reddoch wrote:
> Ken, by "standard orbit" do you mean geo-stationary (remaining above the
> same spot on the ground as it orbits), or do you just mean an orbit 3 or 4
> hundred km's up?

I don't know what I mean.  I know what geo-stationary orbit is, but I'm
not sure if it is standard practice unstreamlined ships to hover, in
orbit, above the starport.

I'm guessing that can get too crowded, and eventually you'll run out of
logical heights of orbit, so I'm thinking that geo-stationary oribit is
not normal parking orbit for Traveller starships.

If you have a busy starport, you'll probably need various distances from
the surface of the planet, and various courses around the planet.

So, given that, no, I'm not talking about geo-stationary orbits.

> If it's just a low orbit, you should be able to keep your ship below the
> horizon for about as long as you'd like.  You could match the other ship's
> orbit just lag behind it by how-ever many km's needed to keep it over the
> horizon.  Something similar could be done with stationary orbits.

This makes a lot of sense.  Hmm.  I think you just helped my players. 
As long as the other ship doesn't break orbit and come after them,
they'll be able to hide from this guy as soon as he goes over the
horizon--but, they'll have to follow him as you suggest.

Now, what about when they go down to the city to rescue their crewmate? 
The other ship might scan if he is in on it--because he'll know the city
the Harrier's crewmember is held in.

This brings me back to my first question.  I still need to figure out
how long it takes this guy to circle the planet.  If I know that, I can
figure out the earliest possible time for his first scan--and I can
figure out how long the characters have before that ship reaches
scanning position of the city.

If I had a general rule for ship's orbiting planets (distance and
speed), it would be easy to figure this out.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:49:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: Algorith (correction)

(I found another terminal :-)

I found an error in my previous message.  Please use the following code
instead.  

int X(int Hex) {
  return (Hex/100)-1; }
int Y(int Hex) {
  return (Hex % 100)-(((Hex/100)+1)/2); }
//           ^^^ I need "mod", not "div"...
int Distance (int Hex1, int Hex2) {
  int DeltaX := X(Hex1)-X(Hex2); 
  int DeltaY := Y(Hex1)-Y(Hex2);
  if (( DeltaX > 0 && DeltaY > 0 ) ||
    ( DeltaX < 0 && DeltaY < 0 )) {
    return abs(DeltaX)+abs(DeltaY); }
  else if (abs(DeltaX) > abs(DeltaY)) {
    return abs(DeltaX); }
  else { return abs(DeltaY); } }

Now for an explanation...

I'm drawing a "grid" on the standard hex-map, using hex 0101 as the
"origin" (point "(0,0)").  The positive x-axis traces a line from hex 0101
in the "4-o'clock" direction (from 0101 to 0201 to 0302 to 0402 to 0503,
etc.).   The positive y-axis traces a line from hex 0101 in the "6-o'clock"
direction (from 0101 to 0102 to 0103 to 0104, etc.).  Thus, hex 0302
corresponds to "point (+2, +0)," hex 0104 corresponds to "point (+0, +3),"
and hex 0501 corresponds to "point (+4, -2)."  

  >----<        >----<        >----<
 /      \      /      \      /      \
<  0101  >----<  0301  >----<  0501  >----<
 \      /      \      /      \      /      \
  >----<  0201  >----<  0401  >----<  0601  >
 /      \      /      \      /      \      /
<  0102  >----<  0302  >----<  0502  >----<
 \      /      \      /      \      /      \
  >----<  0202  >----<  0402  >----<  0602  >
 /      \      /      \      /      \      /
<  0103  >----<  0303  >----<  0503  >----<
 \      /      \      /      \      /      \
  >----<  0203  >----<  0403  >----<  0603  >
        \      /      \      /      \      /
         >----<        >----<        >----<

"Delta X" (the change in the relative x-coordinates) and "Delta Y" (the
change in the relative y-values) are used to calculate the actual distance.  

  delta-x = the x-coordinate of hex#1 minus the x-coordinate of hex#2
  delta-y = the y-coordinate of hex#1 minus the y-coordinate of hex#2

If delta-x and delta-y are *both* negative or *both* positive, then the
distance is the sum of the absolute values of delta-x and delta-y (note the
way I said this; I don't want the absolute value of the sums, I want the
sum of the absolute values :-).  

If one is negative and the other is positive, then the distance is *either*
the absolute value of delta-x *or* the absolute value of delta-y, whichever
is *greater*.  

================================================================
Franklin W. Cain                email: fcain@sct.edu

"We come in peace!...(Set phasers on 'obliterate.')"
================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:27:58 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: At Close Quarters playtest.

Thanks to everyone who responded.  I now have more than enough playtesters,
so if you haven't responded by now, I'm no longer sending out copies.

Those of you who have recieved playtest copies, I'll be contacting you in a
few days with a evaluation sheet for you and your groups to use.

In responce to a few folks:  Feel free to print out and make photocopies of
the rules for personal use.  


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengence and the boot that is    |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing thay you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 23:31:40 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

On 1997-10-12 15:28, Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk> wrote the 
following:

>My best effort is fairly long:
>
>First, you split the hex number into the Column and row numbers
>2317 = 23 and 17 = A and B ("from")
>2212 = 22 and 12 = C and D ("to")
>Distance should = 5
>
>Here is some BASIC-style pseudo-code:

<snip of algorthm>

>I think I have my logic correct, but if anyone can see an error, or 
>spot a simpler way to implement the logic, let me know.  I am still 
>thinking about the "best" way to implement this on a spreadsheet 
>("best" = minimum number of cells used for formulae).

Interesting thought experiment. Here's what I came up with:

A,B,C,D defined as you have above

Let X=C-A
    Y=D-B

If |2Y|<=|X|+1 then D=|X|
               else D=|X|/2 dn + |Y|

Excelspeak: 
=IF(2*ABS(D-B)<=ABS(C-A)+1,ABS(C-A),TRUNC(ABS(C-A)/2)+ABS(D-B))

This formula gives the distance in *hexes* (counting all hexes inbetween 
source and destination), assuming standard Traveller numbering 
conventions.

so, to use your example

AB=2317 CD=2212

=IF(2*5<=1+1,1,TRUNC(1/2)+5)
=IF(10<=2,1,5)

5
(correct!)


Now, If instead one wants to find the actual *ruler* distance, (say, if 
using a space combat hex grid, and actual distance was to be used) the 
Pythagorean theorem becomes useful.

Distance = {3/4*(C-A)^2 + [D-(C MOD 2)/2 - B+(A MOD 2)/2]^2}^(1/2)

Excelspeak: =SQRT(0.75*(C-A)^2+(D-MOD(C,2)/2-B+MOD(A,2)/2)^2)

Derivation of formula left as an exercise to the reader.


Note the above formulae only require one cell. (Excel is powerful enough 
that it takes a reallllly complicated algorithm to *require* more than 
one ;-)



- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:12:47 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> Basicly the consensus was that things like wind shear, turbulence, jet
> streams and "microbursts" place stresses on a USL hull that it wasn't
> designed to take. For example, consider what a "measly" 50-75 knot wind
> can do to some pretty sturdy structures.

Hmmm.  Not bad reasoning.  I can accept this.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:18:17 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: The March Harrier--Communications

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> I rather expect that the "hailing" channel ("Unicom" is what they call
> it at airports, not sure what the do at seaports) and distress channel
> will be *standardized* throughout the Imperium. And any areas outside
> the Imperium that span more than one system will have standards as well.

Except the Vargr Extents...but I agree with you generally.  I'm thinking
of that TL 4, Class X starport system, though, but I guess the standards
for the Imperium are still there.

> Also, it's likely that spacecraft will follow a current maritime
> procedure, where at a certain time every hour (I *think* it's on the
> hour) all vessels are *required* to be monitoring the distress
> channel(s) in case someone needs assistance (this dates back to when
> the Titanic's distress calls went unheard because the radio operator on
> the nearest ship was off duty).

Good point.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 01:06:24 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

On 1997-10-13 08:08, Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk> wrote the 
following:

>	What about using Pythagoras' Theorem, which as we all know states that the
>sum of the square of the two sides that are at right angles to each other
>are equal to the square of the hypotenuse (third side)?

Pythagoras' Theorem won't work if you're looking to count the *number of* 
hexes between two hexes on the grid as opposed to the *distance in* hexes.

Consider the following diagram (0 is origin, numbers are number of hexes 
from origin):

   2     2     3     5
2     1     2     4     6
   1     1     3     5 
2     0     2     4     6
   1     1     3     5
2     1     2     4     6
   2     2     3     5
3     2     3     4     6
   3     3     4     5
4     3     4     5     6
   4     4     5     6
5     4     5     6     7
   5     5     6     7
6     5     6     7     8
   6     6     7     8
7     6     7     8*    9    

Now, if you took a ruler and measured on hex paper the distance from the 
hex I've marked with a "*" to the origin, you would find it to be very 
nearly 7. That is because the ratio of the distance between opposing 
points of a hexagon to the opposing sides of a hexagon is nearly 8:7.

So, Pythagorean theorem only works when counting hexes, if the two points 
to be measured fall *exactly* on a line perpendicular to the hexes 
enclosing the points. Since you only jump to the *middle* of hexes, in up 
to 6 hex increments, it won't work when measuring distances between two 
worlds farther than 7 hexes apart.

Hmmmmm... maybe that's the *real* reason why jump drives are limited to 6 
hexes... the mathematical rounding errors get too large at longer 
distances! ;-P

>	The simplest way of doing it on a spreadsheet would be to enter the two
>co-ordinates into two separate cells each, so that you have...
>
>	23    17
>	22    12
>
>	The equivalent cell references would be...
>
>	A1   B1
>	A2   B2
>
>Formula would be...
>
>	INT(SQRT((ABS(A1-A2)^2+ABS(B1-B2)^2))+0.5)

Even if one were to measure *actual distance* instead of counting hexes, 
the formula is still incorrect for two reasons:

1. You haven't accounted for the difference in *horizontal* distance vs. 
*vertical* distance when measuring distance between centres of hexagons.

2. You haven't accounted for "slippage" of even "A" numbered hexes. 

0   0101 (A)
     |  \
     |    \ 
0.5  |     0201 (C)
     |    / 
     |  /
1   0102 (B)
    
     0     0.866


Distance AB = AC = BC, therefore the *horizontal* component between AC = 
sqrt(3)/2 * AB (vertical component)

Vertical component for odd column hexes is 0.5 less than the same row of 
even column hexes. The modulus function gives us the remainder, when X 
mod 2 is 0, X is even; when X mod 2 is 1, X is odd.


Pythagorean Theorem: A^2 + B^2 = C^2
Let's take A as being the Horizontal, and B the Vertical.

[sqrt(3)/2 * (V2-V1)]^2 + [(H2-(V2 mod 2)/2)-(H1-(V2 mod 2)/2)]^2 = D^2
    ^                               ^                 ^
    |                               |                 |
hz. correction                 correct for odd numbered columns  


Simplifying, a correct Excel formula using your cell references would be:

SQRT(0.75*(A2-A1)^2+(B2-MOD(A2,2)/2-B1+MOD(A1,2)/2)^2)

Yeah! I looooove geometry...


- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1956
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 14 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1957



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Algorith (retraction of correction to correction)
Re: Algorith (correction)
Re: CT Fusion Rockets
The March Harrier--Weapons
The March Harrier--Misc
Piracy, Harold Rex, Bible Code etc etc etc
Catching a merchant
Re: Piracy
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Piracy
Death Star Basic Stats
Re: Unstreamlined

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 01:31:50 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Algorith (retraction of correction to correction)

On 1997-10-13 21:49, Franklin W. Cain <fcain@st6000.sct.edu> wrote the 
following:

>Now for an explanation...
>
>I'm drawing a "grid" on the standard hex-map, using hex 0101 as the
>"origin" (point "(0,0)").  The positive x-axis traces a line from hex 0101
>in the "4-o'clock" direction (from 0101 to 0201 to 0302 to 0402 to 0503,
>etc.).   The positive y-axis traces a line from hex 0101 in the "6-o'clock"
>direction (from 0101 to 0102 to 0103 to 0104, etc.).  Thus, hex 0302
>corresponds to "point (+2, +0)," hex 0104 corresponds to "point (+0, +3),"
>and hex 0501 corresponds to "point (+4, -2)."  

That's what I get for skimming email late at night -- I kinda missed your 
def's of X & Y axes and so asserted that you were wrong in a previous 
post. Sorry. I retract my assertion here publicly. :)

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 01:06:30 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Algorith (correction)

On 1997-10-13 21:49, Franklin W. Cain <fcain@st6000.sct.edu> wrote the 
following:

>  >----<        >----<        >----<
> /      \      /      \      /      \
><  0101  >----<  0301  >----<  0501  >----<
> \      /      \      /      \      /      \
>  >----<  0201  >----<  0401  >----<  0601  >
> /      \      /      \      /      \      /
><  0102  >----<  0302  >----<  0502  >----<
> \      /      \      /      \      /      \
>  >----<  0202  >----<  0402  >----<  0602  >
> /      \      /      \      /      \      /
><  0103  >----<  0303  >----<  0503  >----<
> \      /      \      /      \      /      \
>  >----<  0203  >----<  0403  >----<  0603  >
>        \      /      \      /      \      /
>         >----<        >----<        >----<
>
>"Delta X" (the change in the relative x-coordinates) and "Delta Y" (the
>change in the relative y-values) are used to calculate the actual distance.  
>
>  delta-x = the x-coordinate of hex#1 minus the x-coordinate of hex#2
>  delta-y = the y-coordinate of hex#1 minus the y-coordinate of hex#2
>
>If delta-x and delta-y are *both* negative or *both* positive, then the
>distance is the sum of the absolute values of delta-x and delta-y (note the
>way I said this; I don't want the absolute value of the sums, I want the
>sum of the absolute values :-).  

SORRY! Look at your above diagram. Choose hex#1=0101 and hex#2=0403.

>If one is negative and the other is positive, then the distance is *either*
>the absolute value of delta-x *or* the absolute value of delta-y, whichever
>is *greater*.  

delta-x = 1-4 = -3
delta-y = 1-3 = -2

Both negative. Therefore, by your algorithm, the distance between 0101 
and 0403 should be 3+2=5. Clearly, by counting intervening hexes, it 
isn't. The correct distance is 4.

The following is a correct algorithm, as far as I've checked ;-)

If |deltax| >= |2*deltay|-1  then  D=|deltax|
                             else  D=|deltax|/2 (round down) + |deltay|

In english: If the absolute value of delta-x equals or exceeds the 
absolute value of delta-y minus 1, then the distance is equal to the 
absolute value of delta-x. Otherwise the distance is equal to half the 
absolute value of delta-x (dropping fractions) plus the absolute value of 
delta-y.

I find the mathematics version more elegant...

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:48:56 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: CT Fusion Rockets

>High Guard allowed fighters to attack ships with their drives.  The drive was
>counted as a fusion gun with a factor equal to its acceleration in Gs.  Given
>that a fighter could only mount a factor-3 battery of guns, the drive was
>actually more dangerous.  In fact, the classic fighter attack was a run in to
>extremely close range followed by an attack with the drives.

Make that High Guard 1st edition.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:51:45 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Weapons

Here's the post on the March Harrier's weapons, short and sweet.

Kenneth.
===================================================================

(the following is reposted material from my game)

This is post number 8 in getting to know your ship better.

Previous posts have been:

Hull
Hull Addendum
Jump Drive
Maneuver Drive
Avionics
Sensors
Communications

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEAPONS


Laid down in 1083, the March Harrier made it's maiden voyage in 1085. 
The ship went almost 20 years, under its first Vargr owner, with no
weapons.  

The Vargr captain always had the intention to fit the Harrier with
weapons, and he ensured that two empty turrets were installed on the
ship when she was built for this purpose.  Unfortunately, the Aramis
Trace did not turn out to be as profitable as was hoped, and the cash
was never there to load the Harrier up with some teeth.

Dry docked between 1097 and 1105, Shawn Grey, the ship's second owner,
installed weapons in these two turrets.  To date, these weapons have
only been fired once, as Frank Forrne blasted the ship out of the hangar
bay in the OSIRIS mining base in the Patinir asteroid belt.

Today, the Harrier mounts two TL 12 95 Mj Laser weapons in these port
and starboard turrets.

Each socket is a standard 3-ton unit, using 10 square meters of the
ship's hull.  Brand new, these weapons cost Cr1,400,000 each.

The turrets are Vargr style "gunner in" turrets, where a gunner actually
gets into the turret and operates the weapon manually (rather than from
a remote station deep within the ship).

The weapons can be tuned to fire once every 3.33 minutes, each shot
using 0.267 MW from the power plant every time the weapon is fired.



GAME STATS

These two laser turrets have a USD of:

Port laser turret  2-0-0-0       ROF 100
Starboard laser turret  2-0-0-0  ROF 100



Next Up?   Miscellaneous Ship Equipment

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:24:23 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The March Harrier--Misc

Here's a catch all post for various equipment on the Harrier.

Kenneth.
===========================================

(the following is reposted information from my game)



This is post number 9 in getting to know your ship better.

MISCELLANEOUS SHIP ITEMS



EXTERNAL GRAPPLE

The March Harrier carries a grapple carriage for the Ship's Boat on the
dorsal, aft section of the hull.  This grapple will hold a ship of
maximum displacement tonnage of 20 tons.  The grapple itself has a
volume of 10 tons, and it takes up 576 square meters of the hull.  The
equipment is TL 12, and brand new, the carriage costs Cr400,000.



PURIFICATION PLANT

The Harrier has two fuel purification plants.  They are located in the
port and starboard M-Drive rooms on the cargo deck.  The machinery
connects with the fuel scoops.

Each plant has a volume of 12 tons, and they take 2.5 MW to operate. 
Brand new, the plants are Cr50,000 each.

Each plant can purify 5 tons of raw fuel per hour.



DISMOUNTABLE TANK

The Harrier has recently been equiped with a 50 dismountable fuel tank,
allowing the ship to break from the Aramis Trace using two consecutive
Jump-1 jumps.

This tank is mounted internally on the ship's cargo deck, dividing the
deck into two sections (fore and aft cargo bays).  Although the ship is
no longer locked to the Jump-1 Aramis Trace trade route, this comes at
the expense of a cargo bay that has been decreased in size by 50
displacement tons.

These tanks can be dismounted at anytime the owner wishes.  Brand new,
this tank set up would cost Cr50,000.



WORKSTATIONS

There are 7 dynamically-linked TL 12 workstations aboard the Harrier. 
Any function on the ship can be run from one of these stations.

Four of these seven stations are located on the bridge--one for
electronics (communications/sensors), command (also library and computer
control), pilot, and navigation.

Two of these stations are located in the weapon turrets--one for each
turret.

The last is located at the engineer's station in engineering.

Each station has a volume of .5 ton.  Total volume for all 7 stations is
3.5 tons.  Each of these workstations cost Cr2,000.



QUARTERS

The Harrier is equiped with 13 large staterooms, which can be used for
passengers or crew.  Each stateroom is a standard 4-ton unit which
requires .001 Mw from the ship's power plant.  Cost to install these
staterooms new is Cr100,000 each.



LOW BERTHS

The ship is equiped with 9 low berths, grouped together in three
seperate units.  The units are TL 12.  Each has a volume of 3 tons, and
power required to each 3-man unit is .003 Mw.  Cost for one of these
3-man low berths is Cr150,000.



CREW REQUIREMENTS

Crew requirments for the March Harrier is as follows:

1 Pilot
1 Navigator
1 Captain
1 Steward
1 Medic
2 Gunners
1 Electronics Tech

The ship can be run with a minimum crew.  Minimum crew for the March
Harrier is as follows:

1 Pilot
1 Navigator
1 Engineer
1 Electronics Tech 

The electronics tech is used as a catch all for the various positions
not requireing full time attention--communications, sensors, gravitics,
computer operator/tech, watch relief, ship's boat pilot, ATV driver,
air/raft pilot, etc.).  In a pinch, the Harrier can be run by just three
people (pilot, navigator, engineer), if between the three these other
three the duties covered by the electronics tech are covered.

It is not suggested that the Harrier be operated at any lengthy period
of time with fewer than 4 crew members.



Next Up?  Power Plant

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:56:16 +0800
From: Michael Bailey <mickb@opera.iinet.net.au>
Subject: Piracy, Harold Rex, Bible Code etc etc etc

>It was the invading army of Harald Hardraada,
>the Norwegian adventurer-king.  He landed one of the largest viking forces
>in history near York, but was surprised by Harold Godwinson's English army
>and defeated at Stamford Bridge.

Nearly as bad as the other horrible defeat at Stamford Bridge...bloody
Liverpool scumbags...*mutter*


Re:  Piracy

Even given ample resources to deal with pirates, lets not forget the
effects of good old corruption.  There's a lot of money in hot starships,
and I'd be surprised if some of it dsidn't stick in the hands of officials.
("That's right captain, this week you are to patrol _that_ area, as our
intelligence leads us to believe...<insert sound of corrupt official
wringing his hands>").

Re:  Bible Code

Being the sceptic that I am, I tried to apply this methodology to other
great works.  Imagine my surprise when I found that, if the text in 'Fear
and loathing in Las Vegas' is subtly rearranged, I find predictions for the
'75 Oil Shock, the Iranian Revolution, the past 15 AFL Grand Final winners,
and my past four monthly bank balances!

I'm a convert...*g*

(sorry Kenneth - I'm not taking the p*ss out of you, but as a confirmed
cynic, skeptic and cultural vandal, I don't believe much)

ObTrav - By scanning the text of the TNE rulesbook, can we decipher the
hidden secrets of the Empress Wave, the Zhodani Exodus and the Black Curtain?



On the other hand, perhaps I should lay off the Guinness...


Michael Bailey
mickb@opera.iinet.net.au
				
pillock-at-large and proud supporter of the Chelsea FC and Fremantle AFL
Clubs!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:31:35 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Catching a merchant

David P. Summers writes:

>Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:01:59 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>>On the other hand, the pirate has to get close to the victim. Which
>>almost certainly involves deviating *greatly* from the flight path
>>assigned it by STC (Space Traffic Control).
> 
>Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in from
>jump at all system?  I have my doubts.

Why? It costs nothing and it has at least one benefit: It deters piracy.
I don't see why anyone would _not_ assign flight paths.

>Beside, as someone else pointed out, you just leave at about the same time
>and get a path this is similar anyway.

David, if you put down at a starport, the port has enough data to identify
you, unless you used cleverly forged papers. If you used forged papers you
leave another kind of trail. And if you sit around on the tarmac and
suddenly decide to leave just after another ship has left, you arouse the
suspicions of any patrol vessel stationed at the world. You also arouse
the suspicions of your intended prey, losing any chance of surprising him.

>>He also has to do this close enough to the 100 diameter limit that he
>>can jump safely after getting the cargo. Though I suppose that given
>>the other risks, pirates might accept the extra risk of jumping from
>>inside the 100 diameter limit.
> 
>I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
>can't see why he would attack anyplace else.

To prevent the merchant from jumping from within the 100 diameter limit,
which may not be something a merchant cares to do if he can avoid it, but
is still preferrable to losing the whole ship (If a pirate catches a ship
with its tanks full, there is no reason why he shouldn't take the ship too).
 
>[Regarding coming out of jump and attacking...]
> 
>>They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
>>refueling.
> 
>Well, that's not hard, 

Not unless you are trying to pose as a legitimate trader.

>but you don't need to do it that way.  You
>can approach the same point from the planet all fueled up.

And with all the disadvantages I mentioned above.
 

>Or the pirate ships just keep shooting bits of the merchant until
>the crew gives up.

Or, far more propably, decides to jump away from inside the 100 diameter
limit.

>>, and I believe that you are underestimating the effort
>>involved.
> 
>Well clearly we don't agree.

No, but all the hard science fiction I've read says that manipulating heavy
objects in space is a difficult, dangerous, time-consuming job. I admit
that Asimov, Cherryh, Heinlein and all the rest may be wrong and you right,
but I know who I would belive if I had to make a bet. 
 
>Well, the pirate is going to be jumping out next, not fighting another
>battle.  He is going to be concerned about getting away rather than some
>rare chance of some system failure.

The thing is, you haven't explained how the pirate intercepted the merchant
in the first place. If he wants to make sure that his prey can't escape by
a premature jump then he has to go after incoming ships. That means he has
to lurk either near the jump limit or down on the planet, intercept the
merchant, disable him, and match vectors with him before a patrol ship can
get close enough to hit him. (And when you do try to explain, please select
either a real merchant ship that just turns pirate occasionally or a 
dedicated pirate ship for your example. Don't use one type of ship when it
comes to fooling starport, patrols, and prey and another kind when it comes
to catching and fighting the prey).




      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
"Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
                - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:15:50 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Tim Connors writes:
>Of course, it exists. Yes, the resources to eradicate it exist. Just
>as the resources to eradicate mugging in New York City exist -- we 
>can put a cop every fifteen feet throughout the city. 

No you can't. New York dosen't have enough cops to put one every 15 feet
throughout the city 24 hours a day. But the Imperium _does_ have enough
ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
system defended against attacks).

That is, they have if we use the canonical rules for establishing the size
of naval budgets and the cost of maintaining ships. Just the other day I
realized (or I think I realized) why David refused to accept that this was 
the case. As far as I can make out, he assumes that no government will use
more money to defend against pirates than can be saved by suppressing them.
Consequently any money spent on a navy will be less than is needed to fulfil
all its other functions PLUS suppressing pirates completely. So propably
the Imperial navy is smaller than I claim, but if it isn't, then it needs
almost everything it has to keep the Zhodani, Sword Worlds, Vargr, etc. in
check. No matter how many ships it has, it needs almost all of them for
duties incompatible with piracy suppression, whether or not David can
explain just what.

In other words, David uses the assumption that piracy is possible to prove
that piracy is possible.

No wonder I can't convince him, nor he me. We're discussing two different
things!

So I will rephrase my original claim: If naval budgets are fixed according
to either TCS or _Striker_ or anything close to those two systems, and if
considerably less than 1% of the budget (I won't commit myself to the 0.1%
figure I started out with, but I think I can make 0.2% stick) is used for
combined pickets/patrol ships, then piracy as a career is impossible and
as a part-time occupation almost impossible in any area of a Traveller
universe that has at least one high-population planet per 20 systems. 

>Comments on the list show that the Imperium has a huge amount of
>money to use for military and internal security and crime prevention.
>A huge amount, not an unlimited amount. If piracy gets out of hand in
>Sector Z, we'll send a fleet and squash'em like the "cucarachas" they
>really are. When a new outbreak occurs over in Sector G, we'll crush
>them, too. The level of piracy will be non-existent in Sectors Z and
>G for a while, but there'll be some somewhere -- crime is like dirt,
>you can move it around but you really can't get rid of it.

You can't get rid of it if there are more places to commit crimes than you
can realistically have sufficient guards stationed to prevent it. No
argument there. My argument is that thanks to the way jump drives work,
the number of places that you need to guard is proportionally far less
than any historical parralel that I can think of, and the assets that
canon indicates would be available more than sufficient to cover them. If
you want to argue that realistically those assets wouldn't be available
if that meant that they would be sufficient to do the job, then that's
fine; it just means that the part of canon that you think is least likely
is another than the part that I think least likely. 
 
And that means that I owe David an apology. You were right. We were
disagreeing about basic assumptions, not about interpretation. Sorry.

Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:

>The main reason I argue to the point of stealing cargo is time, damage, and 
>disposable wealth.  It takes time to batter a merchant into submission (I'd 
>have planted people aboard, but that's beside the point), and if a merchie 
>knows he can get away with a minimum of damage and loss by dumping his 
>cargo, he is more likely to cooperate (ie. not scream for help).

Douglas, if you were a pirate pursuing a merchant, would you really match
vectors with any boxes he happened to push out of his cargo hold, allowing
him to escape while you checked whether he had left you full cargo containers
or empty fold-out boxes that just looked like cargo containers (or just
plain tin foil, for that matter)?

John Macpherson writes:

>	I think these are our points of agreement.  If you don't disagree 
>that by the numbers the Imperium can stamp out piracy then there's no 
>point in going through the exercise of proving it numerically.  I'm 
>willing to leave it there and agree to disagree about whether the 
>Imperium has the will to stamp out piracy.

I can appreciate (though not agree with) the position that the Imperium
wouldn't buy enough ships to patrol all its systems full-time. I still
vehemently disagree with the position that any government would fail to
use the ships if the had them anyway.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:23:08 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

Other people wrote:
> > But you'll have to store raw water in the tanks or there will be no point
> > in having fuel scoops larger than what your purification plant can
> > process. I mean what does a ship do with the 100 dton scooped while it
> > waits for it to be purified at a rate of 3 dtons per hour. 
> 
> The purification plant rather obviously is seperating hydrogen
> *isotopes*. Producing hydrogen (unrefined fuel) is much faster.

Ok, but there are some problems with this:

First, according to FF&S (I, not II) fuel scoops take up only surface 
area, not volume. It seems reasonable to assume then that fuel scoops do
just that - they scoop. It's never been mentioned that fuel scoops
in any way purify the fuel. Now, I know this is obviously silly
as it's unlikely that starship fusion plants can run on either water
(for oceans) or ammonia, et al (for gas giants), but that's canon for 
you.

Second, let's say that fuel scoops do crack the hydrogen out and you're
left, after scooping, with tanks of pure LHyd. Again, the purification 
plant can work after scooping is done to refine the fuel in situ.
Of what use is separating the isotopes? I mean, if you want pure
H2 or H3 (or whatever it's called) sure, great, but once you've purified
it, you still have a bunch of normal H1 which you have to do something
with. I suppose this could be explained using the "jump bubble"
theory then you could use the H2/H3 in the fusion plant and the H1
would go into the bubble, but if you don't subscribe to "jump bubble"
theory then this doesn't do you much good.

Finally, even if your ship lacks scoops and a purification plant,
as long as you get a hose with the right coupling you should be able
to pump water straight into the fuel tank and be on your merry way.
Any ship can buy unrefined fuel and use it even on low-tech
worlds with type C (or D) starports. Is this supposed to be LHyd?

The Traveller background has never really been super clear on
what exactly "unrefined fuel" is. It seems most Trav fusion plant
can run on just about anything as long as it's got some hydrogen in
it somewhere.

Also, back to my point way, way back that most worlds would 
prohibit ocean refueling - I imagine that most worlds would prohibit
a starship landing anywhere but the starport, for the purposes of 
cargo control and immigration. So ocean landings are right out,
biological dangers or no.

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                 ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:35:10 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Harold D. Hale writes:
>   Lost in the piracy discussions is reality that space is a *big*
>place.  There's no way that a single ship of any kind could adequately
>patrol an entire star system all by itself.


It can if 99.9999% of the star system isn't used.

Of course, each outpost on each different planet has to have its own
patrol ship. All we are saying is that one patrol ship can make life
almost impossible for any pirate. By orbiting the planet at, say, 10
diameters it can intercept any ship that makes trouble within the 100
diameters limit in a few hours (I don't know enough about celestial
mechanics to give an accurate figure). It may be that you'd want a
few  patrol ships stationed at specific spots at the 100 diameter limit
to make things doubly difficult for pirates; personally I'd assign an
8 or 10 ship squadron to each system; that would allow for rotation
and maintenance and still leave you half a dozen ships on duty at all
times.

If traffic is very light you only need two ships at the most; you have
one ship stationed at the jump limit and one at the planet. Whenever a
merchant ship arrive or leave, you escort it all the way.

>    Pirates would survive because of the vastness of space, and because
>of the likelihood that corrupt starport officials would allow pirates to
>use their facilities.  Pirates would be much less common (probably
>non-existent) in the Imperial interior, more common along the frontier
>where things are less settled (and there are ports outside of Imperial
>space).

There are two places to curb pirates: Where they catch their prey and
where they fence their loot. I'm not about to claim that you couldn't find
some place to dispose of the loot, human nature being what it is. What I do
claim is that if you can prevent the pirate from catching anyone in the
first place, then the presence or absence of a market for the loot is
irrelevant. And even on the frontier you can prevent pirates from
capturing anything.
 


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 1997 12:08 EDT
From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
Subject: Death Star Basic Stats

One of the folks in our Traveller group figured this out...

OK, here goes....


Using the correct vol equation, (4/3)*pi*r^3
the volume for a 60km radius sphere is approx. 65e12 tons  (HUGE!!)

              Tons      Mw     People
Jump 4        3.0e12             30e9
  Fuel       25.0e12
6G            7.0e12    98e12   126e9
Purifiers    13.7e12     3e12             (130e9 units: 6.5e12tons per hour)
Power         3.6e12  -102e12    72e9     (34e9 plants @ 3000Mw)
  Fuel 6mths   .6e12
Assorted      1.0e12                      (weapons, ships, food, water, etc)
St. Rooms     1.0e12            -45e9     (most small, 300+ hundred large)
Misc          1.0e12                      (Bridge, med, wkstations)
Ship Hull   -65.0e12
             ---------  -----   -----
            -10.0e12    -1e12    0        (extra for spinal mount weapon
                                           and cargo)

How's that?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:03:59 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

Depending on size, would the landing gear be able to support the weight of the ship?

On 13 Oct 97 at 5:17, CardSharks@aol.com wrote:

From:           	CardSharks@aol.com
Date sent:      	Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
To:             	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject:        	Re: Unstreamlined
Send reply to:  	traveller@MPGN.COM

> Strreamlined versus Unstreamlined.
> 
> I suppose if the words mean just smooth, then an unstreamlined ship can
> land (using lifters) on a world with atmosphere.
> 
> On the other hand, if unstreamlined means you can't (using just lifters)
> landing on a world with atmosphere, then there must be a reason. I can
> think of...
> 
> The equipment and sensors placed on the outside of the hull is not
> hardened to resist the drag of atmosphere, including wind speed not from
> vehicle velocity but from weather.
> 
> Similarly, the hull exterior is not made to withstand not only atmosphere,
> but the effects of exotic or corrosive atmosphere, and perhaps the effects
> of water and extremes of temperature.
> 
> Can you think of any others?
> 
> Marc  Miller
> 
> 
> 


 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1957
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 14 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1958



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: THUDDD 6 Comments
Re: Catching a merchant
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Piracy
Re: Hmmmm
Re: In Orbit
THUDDD 6 Results
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1954
TML problems
Re: Unstreamlined
re: The cost of starship paint
Re: In Orbit
Re: The March Harrier: Sensors
re: The March Harrier--Weapons
Not exactly about piracy...
re: Not exactly about piracy...
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1957
Re: Piracy
Damned Star Trek
Re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:14:04 +0000
From: "Martin F C Pickett" <ceemfcp@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: THUDDD 6 Comments

<PR>

On behalf of RGNA, I would like to thank Idiot/Savant for his kind
words about the Scenic View CDV.  While we agree that the Scenic View
does carry a considerable price premium, it is the opinion of the
design team here that the increase in survivability far outweighs the
increase in cost.  Our philosophy says that the main economy in 
buying large numbers of inferior ships is that when you've lost, you 
may have some left to collect the wreckage.

</PR>

To be honest, when I read the comments on the Unicorn & then the 
Scenic View I nearly wet myself laughing.  Idiot/Savant gave the 
Scenic View the sort of praise normally associated with a Famille 
Spofulam product. 

In case you missed it first time...

> ROSENCRANTZ & GUILDENSTERN SCENIC VIEW
>         The aforementioned big throbbing 900 DspT PA-Gun and 
> more-missiles-than-god SL Needle penis substitute, guaranteed to 
> impress the pants off any military appropriations committee. Excellent 
> armament, protection, sensors and acceleration plus adequete endurance 
> make this probably the most capable SDB in the THUDDD. The problem? 
> Price. You could buy five Unicorns or two Kukris for the same amount, 
> gaining much more flexability and wider sensor-coverage to boot. 
> Still, it does look cool...
Martin Pickett 
ceemfcp@cee.hw.ac.uk
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are alive, well and living on Sylea 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Catching a merchant

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> David P. Summers writes:
> 

[snip]

> 
> >Beside, as someone else pointed out, you just leave at about the same time
> >and get a path this is similar anyway.
> 
> David, if you put down at a starport, the port has enough data to identify
> you, unless you used cleverly forged papers. If you used forged papers you
> leave another kind of trail. And if you sit around on the tarmac and
> suddenly decide to leave just after another ship has left, you arouse the
> suspicions of any patrol vessel stationed at the world. You also arouse
> the suspicions of your intended prey, losing any chance of surprising him.

If I might suggest...

You don't set your corsair on the tarmac, that would not be intelligent.
You use a Ship's Boat.  A nice, innocous 30 ton craft that is capable of
*6 G*.  This way, even assuming that you don't use a LasComm, you can get
out to where the Corsair is (lurking on a moon, or hiding in the asteroid
belt) with plenty of time to pass course information.  The 6G advantage
should give the Corsair a reasonable opportunity to jump ahead of the
victim.  (This is assuming the pirate does not have adequate stealthing
and wants to take the target in the destination, rather than the origin, 
system.)

> >I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
> >can't see why he would attack anyplace else.
> 
> To prevent the merchant from jumping from within the 100 diameter limit,
> which may not be something a merchant cares to do if he can avoid it, but
> is still preferrable to losing the whole ship (If a pirate catches a ship
> with its tanks full, there is no reason why he shouldn't take the ship too).

If you are smart, you make an offer to 'stand and deliver'.  Open cargo
bay and dump cargo, don't radio for help, after dumping cargo, jump.  If
all of the above is true, I don't come within, say, 10 miles of your ship,
and I don't slam a volley into your hull.  The first indication I get that
you are not working within these guidelines, bang.

The open cargo doors are going to disrupt the jump field *slightly*! :)
No yell for help, no SDB charging to the rescue.  And damage, even hull
damage, is _very_ expensive to the merchant.  No High Passenger will risk
their skins on a ship that is slagged, so it needs to be fixed.  That
means time.  The cargo can be replaced after a few consecutive jumps, even
if the skipper has to pay out of pocket, the time/money lost to repairs is
more difficult to make up.

>  
> >[Regarding coming out of jump and attacking...]
> > 
> >>They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
> >>refueling.
> > 
> >Well, that's not hard, 
> 
> Not unless you are trying to pose as a legitimate trader.

What is wrong with collapsible tanks?  Do you haul in every trader who
uses 'em?

[snip]

> 
> No, but all the hard science fiction I've read says that manipulating heavy
> objects in space is a difficult, dangerous, time-consuming job. I admit
> that Asimov, Cherryh, Heinlein and all the rest may be wrong and you right,
> but I know who I would belive if I had to make a bet. 

True, but they did not postulate a system using exoskeletons either.  And
this is a developing technology *now*.  And it is not to difficult to
believe that a successful pirate crew will have powered armor that can be
used to ease this process.

[snip]

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 CardSharks@aol.com wrote:

> Strreamlined versus Unstreamlined.
> 
> I suppose if the words mean just smooth, then an unstreamlined ship can land
> (using lifters) on a world with atmosphere.
> 
> On the other hand, if unstreamlined means you can't (using just lifters)
> landing on a world with atmosphere, then there must be a reason. I can think
> of...
> 
> The equipment and sensors placed on the outside of the hull is not hardened
> to resist the drag of atmosphere, including wind speed not from vehicle
> velocity but from weather.
> 
> Similarly, the hull exterior is not made to withstand not only atmosphere,
> but the effects of exotic or corrosive atmosphere, and perhaps the effects of
> water and extremes of temperature.
> 
> Can you think of any others?
> 
> Marc  Miller
> 
> 

The best way to resolve this, IMHO, is to just slightly modify the USL
configuration to one that is not intended to land on a planet.  No landing
[claw/wheels/skids/etc], frame only braced for acceleration stresses,
sensor/equimpent antenna stuck all over.

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Piracy

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:
> 
> >The main reason I argue to the point of stealing cargo is time, damage, and 
> >disposable wealth.  It takes time to batter a merchant into submission (I'd 
> >have planted people aboard, but that's beside the point), and if a merchie 
> >knows he can get away with a minimum of damage and loss by dumping his 
> >cargo, he is more likely to cooperate (ie. not scream for help).
> 
> Douglas, if you were a pirate pursuing a merchant, would you really match
> vectors with any boxes he happened to push out of his cargo hold, allowing
> him to escape while you checked whether he had left you full cargo containers
> or empty fold-out boxes that just looked like cargo containers (or just
> plain tin foil, for that matter)?

Actually, I am just giving a possible way for pirate to make money without
taking ships.  A way for merchants to survive the encounter.  Now that you
have pointed out a possible problem, I would modify the tactic.  The
merchant isn't allowed to power up the j-drive until a box or two has been
checked.

So far as matching vectors, I don't see the problem.  It is just as easy
to match vectors with cargo as it is to match with a ship.

My actual prey were the Type S ships.  I would cut 'em apart and sell the
components.

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:34:46 -0400
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@pop.erols.com>
Subject: Re: Hmmmm

At 09:23 PM 10/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Loren Wiseman typed:
>>> I'm sorry if I apparently had this wrong, it's just that this is what we
>>> were taught.
>>In America, I was taught that we (the USA) won the war of 1812...imagine my
>>surprise when I learned different.
>
>At the US Military Academy at West Point, the Museum of American Warfare
>has an exhibit that starts off, "At best, the War of 1812, can be
>considered a draw."

The only reason that the U.S. wasn't pounded into oblivion during that war
is that the British had a little fellow named Napoleon to worry about.  We
were a sideshow.  "Win" or "Lose" are unhelpful labels.  They didn't defeat
us, but we didn't drive them off, either.  They left because there were
bigger fish to fry.  From the American point of view, survival equalled
victory, and so it was a victory.  From the Anglo-Canadian point of view,
the rebels had been trounced and taught who still ruled the seas.

Who won?  The only clear victory is for Canadian bar-goers, who now have
something to respond when Americans visit Canada and call it the 51st state.

Scott

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:22:41 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

>Eris Reddoch wrote:
>> Ken, by "standard orbit" do you mean geo-stationary (remaining above the
>> same spot on the ground as it orbits), or do you just mean an orbit 3 or 4
>> hundred km's up?
>
>I don't know what I mean.  I know what geo-stationary orbit is, but I'm
>not sure if it is standard practice unstreamlined ships to hover, in
>orbit, above the starport.
>
>I'm guessing that can get too crowded, and eventually you'll run out of
>logical heights of orbit, so I'm thinking that geo-stationary oribit is
>not normal parking orbit for Traveller starships.
>
>If you have a busy starport, you'll probably need various distances from
>the surface of the planet, and various courses around the planet.
>
>So, given that, no, I'm not talking about geo-stationary orbits.

I am not that up on orbital mechanics, but...

Assuming I can burn all the reaction mass (or lack thereof) I want, I could
put my ship into a geosynchronous orbit at any altitude I want.  This is
not to say there isn't a specific altitude (or range of altitudes) in mind
when "geosynchronous orbit" is bandied about.  That altitude is the one
used by various satellites/vehicles to 'stay in one place' relative to a
point on the surface *without using any reaction mass* (or at least using
very little).

If I was on board the March Harrier, on the other hand, or a ship assigned
to watch a certain patch of land, I could use my (reactionless) thrusters
to maintain a geosynch orbit at any altitude I want.

I think you're players are toast.

By the way, a ship in 'forced' geosynch would be terribly obvious.

I would guess that a 'standard' parking orbit would either (1) try to keep
the parked vessel fairly (100s of Km) close to the orbital starport's path
for ease of transfer or (2) would assign fairly fast, low orbits (60 to 90
minutes is good) so that crews would not have to wait for days to be in the
right place to deorbit with a minimum of fuss to any given point on the
planet.

Pete

Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:22:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: THUDDD 6 Results

kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne) said:
> 	Hm can somebody tell the weight of the asteroid ship, while
> 	gave it a good I vote in "playabliliy" I'm interested if its
> 	realy able to move with more than 0.1G for more than one turn ?

	The Darkstar is just under the 15.5 tonnes/ton rule.  It actually
relies on an internal layer of conventional armor for most of its
protection since the asteroid material is too bulky and massive for
an equivalent armor value. 
 
- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Macpherson <john35@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1954

Andrew Akins <igor@ames.net> said:
> My takes (for what they're worth) on the SDBs, in general.
> 
> For the most part, pretty much what I expected. I was surprised about one
> thing - the lack of heavy armor on a lot of the designs. Its all opinion,
> of course, but I think a SDB needs a good armor belt.
> 
> As far as the winning design - well, I hope you don't think I'm whining
> 'cause I lost, becuase that's not true. I do think it was the best _SHIP_
> in the lot. But, it can't enter Gas Giants, which I feel SDBs need to do.
> But, obviously, the voting public didn't agree :)

	Despite being the designer of the Darkstar, I agree with all your
points.  The Darkstar is underarmored and unstreamlined, which are real
liabilities.  Its ability to pretend to be an asteroid is pretty cool,
especially given the "scarecrow" effect of putting similar sized asteroids
in various places, but there are times when hiding in the GG would be
really desirable.  I wanted to put more armor on the ship, but its
asteroid hull was so massive that I couldn't afford the additional mass of
lots of armor.  
	That said, the Darkstar does have two sandcasters and two
PD lasers for defense, and on offense the Toroidal PAW is unmatched by
other entrants.  Since I use Brilliant Lances combat rules, the
effectiveness of the T-PAW is increased even further since BL has
non-ablative armor and a weapon that powerful can do criticals on ships
many times its size.  
	I agree with you that the ideal SDB should be heavily armored and
streamlined.  The Darkstar has a role to play but I would also want a good
complement of more conventional ships to supplement it. 
	I was actually surprised that the Darkstar won, especially so 
strongly.  I designed it as a kind of "gimmick" ship to advertise what 
you could do with FFS2.  It has an asteroid hull, component armor, new 
sensors, new stealthing & masking, endurance life support, long-term 
rations and food storage, a gym, and a T-PAW -- all things you need FFS2 
to build.  I hope that I succeeded in interesting more people in buying 
and learning FFS2 for ship design since that was my primary goal in 
entering the contest.
 
- -JM

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:52:46 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TML problems

I'm getting TML stuff only sporadically today. Is there a problem?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:13:43 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

An additional issue for moving unstreamlined ships through the air is
stability. A streamlined ship is basically stable moving through the air
at moderate-to-high speeds - deviations from its course will tend to push
it back on course. 

An unstreamlined ship is unstable. Imagine a big cube moving through the
air on a line perpindicular to one side; if the ship deviates slightly from
that line, the apparent wind will tend to make it deviate more (since the
orientation with least air resistance is "corner first", and things generally
want to travel in the orientation with least air resistance.) Even 
rectangular ships will suffer somewhat from this problem. (Philip's favourite
analogy - early cars - don't suffer from this since their friction is 
dominted by the wheels, which provide considerable resistance to sideways 
motion.) 

Obviously this instability can be countered by the pilot with the engines,
but that's going to be hard, especially in a low-automation universe like
traveller. Landing a USL ship is probably at least a Formidable task,
and would require speeds below 50 km/h, I would think. Rounding the corners
off would help...but that makes the ship streamlined.

In addition, as Marc says (was he speaking Ex Cathedra?) USL ships won't have
their sensors, antennae, and weapons mounted flush/retractable. For sensors,
for example, this probably means they can't be used while in the atmosphere.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:20:17 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: The cost of starship paint

>So in other words by TL10 all practical hulls are free - you only have to
>pay for the paint?

>I could not find any mention of this in the errata that I found on the net.

>Appologies if I missed the relevant digest.

Oops. I underestimated how much armour costs when I put in the discount for
bare metal hulls...I guess it should be reduced to Cr 50 per m2.

(Double oops - that's a very embarrassing mistake. Wish I had had more time
to playtest...)

>"military black hull" for MCr0.01 per m2 or ultrablack for MCr0.1 per m2.
>Although these seem amazingly expensive, they do have to deal with
>gas giants, ocean refuelling...
Note that military black and ultrablack aren't paint, but enhanced chameleon
coatings - and that they're pretty amazingly black. A normal chameleon
hull set black has a reflectivity of only 0.01; military black is 0.001 and
ultrablack is 0.0001. It has to be that black all the way from the UV to the
near-IR. This is extremely hard to do.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:33:00 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

>Next Sunday, we'll pick up with them just about to reach orbit.  I know
>they are going to try to give this vessel the slip--so if it goes over
>Pysadi's horizon, I need to know how long they are going to have the
>planet between them and this ship.

In that case, it's probably in a 120-minute or so orbit. So it'll tend to 
be out of sight for an hour at most. 

If I were your players, I would get out of sensor range, circle around, and
line up for an approach at about 50 km/s (3 BL hexes per turn.) Shut down
everything and coast (making the ship hard to detect in IR.) Use agressive
masking against the orbiting ship. If you time it right, the last part of
your approach will be in the planet's shadow (reducing visible signature),
and you'll be about 300,000km away at closest when the hostile goes behind
the horizon for the last time. That leaves enough time for even a 1-G ship
to decelerate enough to survive re-entry...

Somethign that isn't in the DSR (because it belongs in the combat system) is
that "surprised" ships - ships without their crew on alert status - get at
least a -1DM to all tasks, possibly -2, which makes life better for the
Harriers.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:35:42 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: The March Harrier: Sensors

>Using the BL sensor ratings and the
>conversion chart, I could not fit sensors of the recommended size in the
>hulls surface area.

I'm pretty sure the BL version of the Scout had a folding array, which 
was allowed to use as little surface area as you liked - mine still require
some surface area. Still, I really do need to look at that conversion
chart again; it probably rates surface area too much and cost and function
too little.

Bruce
,

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:42:11 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: The March Harrier--Weapons

>
>Port laser turret  2-0-0-0       ROF 100
>
>The weapons can be tuned to fire once every 3.33 minutes, each shot
>using 0.267 MW from the power plant every time the weapon is fired.

I think ROF 100 is actually 100 shots per 30 minutes = (roughly) 1 shot
per 20 seconds. 

It's something of a misnomer to say that they use 0.267 MW every time the
weapon is fired. What happens is that the power plant is continuously
chargin the laser's accumulator (which requires 4.75 MW if you want to charge
it in 20 seconds.) Every time the accumulator is full the laser can fire, 
and it then starts charging again. So the laser is continuously sucking power.

Kenneth is quite right that we need a T4 starship operator's manual...
For various reasons much of the "flavour" text got left out of FFS2, and
there's not much of it in basic T4. Maybe T4.1 will have more.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:44:15 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Not exactly about piracy...

Eris writes

>Sigh, I'd hate for *every* system to be a young dusty system, but Bruce,
>average passive sensors picking up ships at 10, 20, 30 million km just
>isn't the game I want to run. I really like 3 to 6 million km much
>better. I can reduce some of the signature by using non-IR producing
>stutterjump for propulsion, and can lower the power requirements (hence
>cutting the IR from the powerplant), but I don't yet know exactly how
>much that's going to help. Cutting power requirements creates other
>unbalancing effects to consider as well, sigh again.

Making every system heavy-dust doesn't actually contradict current astronomical
knowledge. We know very little about extrasolar dust...We know how much
our sun has. We know how of a handful of systems with huge amounts (100 times
as much as our solar system or more - the "Vega excess" stars and Beta Pictoris)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:46:50 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Not exactly about piracy...

(previous version truncated)
Eris writes

>Sigh, I'd hate for *every* system to be a young dusty system, but Bruce,
>average passive sensors picking up ships at 10, 20, 30 million km just
>isn't the game I want to run. I really like 3 to 6 million km much
>better. I can reduce some of the signature by using non-IR producing
>stutterjump for propulsion, and can lower the power requirements (hence
>cutting the IR from the powerplant), but I don't yet know exactly how
>much that's going to help. Cutting power requirements creates other
>unbalancing effects to consider as well, sigh again.

Making every system heavy-dust doesn't actually contradict current astronomical
knowledge. We know very little about extrasolar dust...We know how much
our sun has. We know how of a handful of systems with huge amounts (100 times
as much as our solar system or more - the "Vega excess" stars and Beta Pictoris)
Otherwise, we don't know; solar-like dust is undetectable even around the
nearest stars. In fact, a major goal for the dual-Keck interferometer is 
characterization of extrasolar dust, and even the dual-Keck will only be able
to see systems with 10x normal.

A couple of other things for variant campaigns with weaker sensors would
be to assume cryogenic sensors are impractical (reduce IR sensitivity of
passive sensors by 1-2 points) and that the phased interferometers 
I postulate for TL10+ are impossible (use TL9 stats for all higher TL.) 
You could also jack up the sensor prices still more - I tried to make good
sensors very expensive but they could be even more expensive.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 1997 20:10:53 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1957

Anders writes:
Make that High Guard 1st edition.

Sounds right.  I used that rule with 2nd edition came out, too, but that may
have been a house rule.

Mind you, I have (somewhere) a letter from Marc telling me that a referee's
job was to make the game fun, not worry too much about rules (I'd spotted a
loophole in the trade rules, and written my first letter to GDW).  So
whenever the rules changed, I kept on using my favourite parts of the old
system.  (This explains why my trade rules
<www.interlog.com/~dmci104/GamingCLub/Traveller/trade.html> are based on 1st
edition CT rules.)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 1997 20:17:11 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Piracy

traveller@MPGN.COM,Internet writes:
But the Imperium _does_ have enough
ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
system defended against attacks).

But will they?

During WWII the US had enough destroyers etc to stop the German UBoats that
were sinking ships in US coastal waters.  But they didn't.  They could have
implemented coastal blackouts so ships weren't silhoetted against the lights.
 But they didn't.  Tankers would survive the trip across the Atlantic,
through the black hole, down the Canadian coast, and get torpedoed off the
Texas shore.

Admiral King didn't assign a priority to stopping the uboats, apparently. 
Possibly the Imperial Admirals would rather fight battle fleets than pirates?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:37:04 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Damned Star Trek

OK, I just have to complain for a second.

There's a big company party organized where I work
and we've been divided into teams that are all named...
with Star Trek alien names! Blech! Yuck!

The humiliation of being on "Team Jem'Hadar".
I just can't bring myself to go through all
the explanation necessary for "Team Vargr" or
"Team Zhodani" (or for an even stranger explanation,
"Team Sayat") though. *Sigh*.
- --
Ethan Henry                    ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:21:38 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)

Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:40:50 -0700, Scott Ellsworth
<Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
[There is alot about what could be done or what might be
expected.  I don't disagree that there are spins on
the setting where piracy will be rare (it won't disappear
entirely, types of crime never do, but in such a case
it might be relegated to inside jobs, special situations,
etc.).  But this is not the same as saying that piracy
is impossible.]

[deletions...]
>>IR output of ships is going to be similar to begin with,
>>the output of ships of the same type is going to be
>>the same.
>
>I would be rather surprised at that.  Individual variation counts for a
>lot, and even if you can alter some of the signature using the extra
>radiators masking gives you, there are going to be parts of a signature
>that are hard to alter.  The best you can do is try to make other parts of
>the signature dominant, and hope they do not spend serious time checking.

A lot of assumptions.  Why are they going to be hard to alter?
You can just move radiators, reroute energy flows, etc.

A ship built on standard design is going to have radiators
in standard places.  What is more, to change a signature you don't
have to match a specific signature, you just need a different one.
IR identification is something that is, to a first apporoximation,
the same for each ship and each ship is going to have variations
off of the standardthat are not unique in themselves, so that you
are looking for a unique _mix_ of variation (and note, even that
idea that a standard IR signature is going to have clear, easy to
detect variations  for each ship, is an assumption) .  Then all
one has to do is change the mix of them (be removing some, adding
others) to get a new signature.

In any case, niether of us can say this for sure because neither
of us have done it.  So in the end, you can postulate either without
fear of being "wrong".  What this means is that  this is another
element that says the piracy is "possible" depending how you
choose to spin the background elements.

>>>{the navy can positively ID a vesssel with sonar, if it is within 10 miles]
>>This is no my understanding of Naval capabilities at all.
>>[But I know some ex submarine people on another list, I'll
>>check...]
>
>I know a few myself, and this is where I got the information.  Of course,
>it is possible that they were pulling my leg, but there were enough data
>points that I found it reasonable to believe them.

I checked an it is possible to identify single ships by sonar,
but it is not certain.  Conversly, other sensors (radar, ladar,
IR imaging) which are more like those used in space can't.

>As one put it, the easiest way to hide a signature is to make the props
>extremely noisy, such that the signal normally used to ID a vessel is lost
>in the noise.  This will result in a new signature, and the operator may or
>may not decide to filter out the noise.  If they do, underneath it is much
>of the same signature.

Right, that is why this is the wrong way.  Instead you just
alter the source of the signature.  Making the prop noising
can do this (since it also erases the old way it made noising)
so could retiming the engine.

>In the Imperium, where ships are never more than a few hours out of the
>ports, it is worth seeing who is dropping in.  Every traffic control
>station can be expected to have an SDB in orbit, and a reasonable sized
>sensor dish to feed it information, assuming the world has a pop 5 or so

Why can it be expected?  You are falling into the old trap of anything
that isn't expensive is expected.  The cost of maning all these
stations will have to exceed the cost of piracy is stops, which
will be especially hard since ways to work around this have already
been mentioned and even if they did work, piracy will just tend
to shift to smaller worlds in the same system or to smaller systems.

>Further, the larger worlds can afford to export SDBs to the surrounding
>worlds, if it gives them benefits, for a fairly small price if free, and a
>fairly small profit if for pay.

Well, the small price is debatable.  A system defense boat trying
to stop piracy is going to risk (a SDB has to match _any_ situation
it comes up against, or you are going to start taking losses and
costs are going to soar).  Many of us feel that one SDB guarding
a world is laughable, let along guarding a system.

However, this point has already been debated so that I
will note that this is one of the points that differences
hinge on.

>Assume that every time you drove into a gas station, they got a copy of the
>vin, the engine serial numbers, the driver's license number, the serial
>number on the catalytic converter, and so on.  Further, assume that if you
>change the numbers, some of them are going to not match.  This is the
>situation with the small number of Traveller ships out there.

Well, agree that this would make piracy rare.  However, as you
noted, we disagree that this is likely, or even possible, in
the Traveller world.  You aren't even close to this with
you sonar example, and it is not clear how well sonar
applies to traveller sensors.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1958
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 14 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1959



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: The March Harrier--Weapons
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: In Orbit
test please ignore
Re: Catching a merchant
Re: magic formular ?
Re: magic formular ?
In the void of space...
Re: Death Star Basic Stats
Re: In Orbit
Test
Re: Piracy
Re: Piracy
Re: In Orbit
Re: Hmmmm
Re: T4 and Silent Death
re:Piracy
Re: FF&S2 Stuff...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:40:39 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: The March Harrier--Weapons

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> I think ROF 100 is actually 100 shots per 30 minutes = (roughly) 1 shot
> per 20 seconds.

Sheesh!  You're right!  That's what I get for doing that easy
calculation that early in the morning.

I figured wrong.  It's 3.33 shots per minute--not one shot every 3.33
minutes.

Thanks for catching that.

> It's something of a misnomer to say that they use 0.267 MW every time the
> weapon is fired. What happens is that the power plant is continuously
> chargin the laser's accumulator (which requires 4.75 MW if you want to charge
> it in 20 seconds.) Every time the accumulator is full the laser can fire,
> and it then starts charging again. So the laser is continuously sucking power.

Good thoughts.  

Thanks,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:40:45 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:21:36 +1300, Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
>> Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in fram
>> jump at all system?  I have my doubts.  Such _will_ exist at the
>> biggest, crowded systems, but it has already been assumed that this
>> isn't where piracy would occur.   Beside, as someone else pointed out,
>> you just leave at about the same time and get a path this is similar
>> anyway.

>Even the smallest of ports and airfields have some path control - ships
>and aircraft aren't allowed to do what they want.

Well, actually small airfields often run under visual flight
rules, and don't have such control.  Also such control is only
in the last few minutes.  Finally, this is also easier because
aircraft don't show up unannouced out of jump space is more
necessary because aircraft are operating in a more limited
volume than in space and have a harder time detecting
each other than Traveller ships do.  (of course even now
there is a move a foot to switch to systems that put a greater
emphasis on individual path selection).  I agree that space
ships will have path control in situations where traffic
densities compare to those at a busy airport and might
have it at densities that compare to a run of the mill
airport, but that will only apply right around the star
port.

>> Yeah, but you will be leaving anyway...
>
>But sooner or later you have to come back.

And then you have a different signature.

>You have to hang around somewhere to be able to develope contacts to
>fence the goods - and in this case you will get caught.  Space just
>isn't infinite

Neither is our world now, but people that hijack truck have not
trouble finding a fence.  Nor does the ship have to hand around
anywhere, you just dump the cargo through smuggling channels
and let them fence it.

> - If you have a home base you will have an area of
>operations so you can't keep going to places only once - they will catch
>on and you will be caught.

I agree that pirates won't opperate out of bases.  They will
use the same methods that have traditionally been the pirates
modus operandus, passing on legit (or apparently legit)
business and taking targets of opportunity.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:46:05 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> 
> >Next Sunday, we'll pick up with them just about to reach orbit.  I know
> >they are going to try to give this vessel the slip--so if it goes over
> >Pysadi's horizon, I need to know how long they are going to have the
> >planet between them and this ship.
> 
> In that case, it's probably in a 120-minute or so orbit. So it'll tend to
> be out of sight for an hour at most.

Is every planet's standard orbit going to be about 120-minutes or so?

This isn't dependent on the planet's size (the diameter)?

I'd like to be able to figure this out for any planet I come to.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:56:28 +1000
From: Scott & Isabell <becubed@connexus.apana.org.au>
Subject: test please ignore

test

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:18:22 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Catching a merchant

Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:31:35 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in from
>>jump at all system?  I have my doubts.

>Why? It costs nothing and it has at least one benefit: It deters piracy.
>I don't see why anyone would _not_ assign flight paths.

No. It does _not_ cost nothing.  Virtually every time I have
_ever_ heard (in Traveller, GURPS, Harn, etc.) claim that something
is "free" or "costs nothing" has been dead wrong.  There
is not such thing as a free lunch, but is seems that people
never apply this to roleplaying games.

Here we are talking about people and equipment to monitor and
people and equipment to enforce.  And, as others have commented,
it is not even clear how much this does to deter piracy.

>>Beside, as someone else pointed out, you just leave at about the same time
>>and get a path this is similar anyway.
>
>David, if you put down at a starport, the port has enough data to identify
>you, unless you used cleverly forged papers.

I'm sorry I don't agree for the reasons I have posted before.

>>I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
>>can't see why he would attack anyplace else.

>To prevent the merchant from jumping from within the 100 diameter limit

Which he won't do if you get him on the first shot.

>>>They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
>>>refueling.
>>
>>Well, that's not hard,
>
>Not unless you are trying to pose as a legitimate trader.

Why?

>>>, and I believe that you are underestimating the effort
>>>involved.
>>
>>Well clearly we don't agree.
>
>No, but all the hard science fiction I've read says that manipulating heavy
>objects in space is a difficult, dangerous, time-consuming job.

Well, it is with the fragile, low tech craft and devices we use now.
It also be true of lifting heavy objects (like the time they
made such a spectacle out of lifting an obelisk in St. Peter's,
a task that would be done in 10 min now).

 I admit
>that Asimov, Cherryh, Heinlein and all the rest may be wrong and you right,
>but I know who I would belive if I had to make a bet.

Or maybe your interpretation of what they have said doesn't
apply to this sitatuation as well you believe it does.

[redundant points deleted.]

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:22:13 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

> Excelspeak: 
> =IF(2*ABS(D-B)<=ABS(C-A)+1,ABS(C-A),TRUNC(ABS(C-A)/2)+ABS(D-B))
>

This seems to work - and is much shorter than my algoritm.  Well 
spotted Glenn.

Michael - I recommend you use Glenn's formula in preference to my much 
longer one.

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:22:09 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

>  What about using Pythagoras' Theorem, which as we all know states that the
> sum of the square of the two sides that are at right angles to each other
> are equal to the square of the hypotenuse (third side)?

2914 to 3116 is three hexes

By Pythagoras, 2^2 + 2^2 = 8

root (8 + 0.5) is less than 3.

The problem comes because some hexes are on a triagular (60 degrees) distance 
rather than a square (90 degree) step, so Pythagoras breaks down.


Simon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:54:45 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: In the void of space...

I've always believed this, but have recently seen it debated, so I thought I'd ask here.

In the void of space, free from all gravities, will a moving body truly retain its forward 
velocity and momentum?

For example, if I set myself to move at 1000km/h will I maintain 1000km/h in the same 
direction until another force alters that?  Or is there a slower decrease in speed, but 
decrease nonetheless?

I always thought that I would burn fuel to set speed, and then not burn any to maintain 
speed.  Then to change course, I would also burn fuel -- combination of retros and lateral 
engines to bring about a new heading, then increase speed again...

Which is correct?

Kevin


 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:16:23 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Death Star Basic Stats

Robert Eaglestone wrote:

>
>One of the folks in our Traveller group figured this out...
>
>OK, here goes....
>
>
>Using the correct vol equation, (4/3)*pi*r^3
>the volume for a 60km radius sphere is approx. 65e12 tons  (HUGE!!)
>
>              Tons      Mw     People
>Jump 4        3.0e12             30e9
>  Fuel       25.0e12
>6G            7.0e12    98e12   126e9
>Purifiers    13.7e12     3e12             (130e9 units: 6.5e12tons per hour)
>Power         3.6e12  -102e12    72e9     (34e9 plants @ 3000Mw)
>  Fuel 6mths   .6e12
>Assorted      1.0e12                      (weapons, ships, food, water, etc)
>St. Rooms     1.0e12            -45e9     (most small, 300+ hundred large)
>Misc          1.0e12                      (Bridge, med, wkstations)
>Ship Hull   -65.0e12
>             ---------  -----   -----
>            -10.0e12    -1e12    0        (extra for spinal mount weapon
>                                           and cargo)
>
>How's that?

	You might very well need that much room for the spinal mount.  A
while back I tried to do a psycho-killer mass driver for dealing with deep
meson sites.  I discovered that something that delivers 4.3 megatons worth
of energy to an approximately Earth-density planet will leave a crater
slightly over 850 meters wide.

	Too bad I have to study tonight.  I'm seriously tempted to work up
a weapon (or rather insane array of outsize weapon bays) that'd do enough
damage to seriously croggle a planet...

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> > 
> > >Next Sunday, we'll pick up with them just about to reach orbit.  I know
> > >they are going to try to give this vessel the slip--so if it goes over
> > >Pysadi's horizon, I need to know how long they are going to have the
> > >planet between them and this ship.
> > 
> > In that case, it's probably in a 120-minute or so orbit. So it'll tend to
> > be out of sight for an hour at most.
> 
> Is every planet's standard orbit going to be about 120-minutes or so?
> 
> This isn't dependent on the planet's size (the diameter)?
> 
> I'd like to be able to figure this out for any planet I come to.
> 
> Kenneth.
> 

Ummm...I know this may offend the gearheads, but could we come up with
something I don't need a calculator for?  That, in the midst of a game
gone wrong, when the players look at me and say "how long will it take for
the ship to return overhead" (with that particular glaze that says that if
I don't give a confident answer, I'll be arguing until next week...)


Like, maybe, 20 * Planet size (in minutes...)?

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:34:50 -0700
From: "Brian A. Howard" <bruadh@southwest.net>
Subject: Test

Test. Test. Test. Sorry for the interruption, folks, but I haven't seen
anything from TML in TWO days. Is the server down?
Brian A. Howard

If you hear the sound of a Babel fish, run. 
For a Vogon constuctor fleet cannot be far behind.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:41:44 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:15:50 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
[OK, I may not keep up with this.  Hans has used a response
to another posts to take a swipe at my views.  I will just
point out some of the basis for disagreement without rehashing
stuff that Hans an I have already beaten to death.]

>Tim Connors writes:
>>Of course, it exists. Yes, the resources to eradicate it exist. Just
>>as the resources to eradicate mugging in New York City exist -- we
>>can put a cop every fifteen feet throughout the city.

>No you can't. New York dosen't have enough cops to put one every 15 feet
>throughout the city 24 hours a day. But the Imperium _does_ have enough
>ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
>system defended against attacks).

Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every
intersection.  But the reason they don't is that this
would cost more than the crime it stops. It doesn't matter
what %age of the military budges it would take to stop
piracy (though we disagree on that too).  It matters how
the cost compares to the cost of piracy.  If 0.000001% of
the buget is more than the cost of piracy, they aren't
going to spend it to stop piracy.  Conversly, if piracy
was on the verge of shutting down trade, they might
be willing to devote 50%, or more, to stopping it.

>Just the other day I
>realized (or I think I realized) why David refused to accept that this was
>the case. As far as I can make out, he assumes that no government will use
>more money to defend against pirates than can be saved by suppressing them.
>Consequently any money spent on a navy will be less than is needed to fulfil
>all its other functions PLUS suppressing pirates completely. So propably
>the Imperial navy is smaller than I claim, but if it isn't, then it needs
>almost everything it has to keep the Zhodani, Sword Worlds, Vargr, etc. in
>check. No matter how many ships it has, it needs almost all of them for
>duties incompatible with piracy suppression, whether or not David can
>explain just what.

Well, I _have_ explained, numerous times, how piracy suppression
is incompatible with military uses.  To win battles, you
need concentrate your forces (for example, read "The Art
of War" by Sun Tzu) but to stop piracy, you need to disperse
your forces for coverage.

As to wether they need those ships to stop the Zhodani, etc.  If
they didn't, why would the build them?  (And of course, the fact
the Zhodani almost ineveitably seize the initiative in every
war means they do need everything they got).  If the answer is
piracy, then were are right back to the fact the the costs
of piracy needs to justify those ships.

>In other words, David uses the assumption that piracy is possible to prove
>that piracy is possible.

This is ironic on multiple levels...
1) this comes after Hans I has an exchange about respecting
the views of others.  Please don't try and go
to a message I might never read to spin my points as circular
reasoning.

2) you keep assuming part of the background (Traffic
Control, regulated departure points, etc) to justify that
piracy doesn't exist.  One could indeed argue that if
anything is using assumptions to prove assumptions, this
is it.

3) I have never claimed to prove piracy is possible. I
have claimed that you haven't proven it impossible (I
know you chafe under this burden of proof, but you assumed
it voluntarily).  I am willing to agree that piracy
could be pretty rare depeding on what assumptions the
GM decides to go with.

>My argument is that thanks to the way jump drives work,
>the number of places that you need to guard is proportionally far less
>than any historical parralel that I can think of, and the assets that
>canon indicates would be available more than sufficient to cover them.

Aside from the general disagreement, another problem is that you
ignore interplanetary traffic.

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:07:01 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

14 Oct 1997 20:17:11 GMT, Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
>traveller@MPGN.COM,Internet writes:
>But the Imperium _does_ have enough
>ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
>system defended against attacks).

>But will they?

>During WWII the US had enough destroyers etc to stop the German UBoats that
>were sinking ships in US coastal waters.  But they didn't.  They could have
>implemented coastal blackouts so ships weren't silhoetted against the lights.
> But they didn't.  Tankers would survive the trip across the Atlantic,
>through the black hole, down the Canadian coast, and get torpedoed off the
>Texas shore.

>Admiral King didn't assign a priority to stopping the uboats, apparently.
>Possibly the Imperial Admirals would rather fight battle fleets than pirates?

Exactly!

Just because it is "possible" for something to happen, doesn't
mean it will and, as I have endevored to point out, any analysis
of what the Imperium "could" do has to consider that those
making the decisions have a million other problems that are
all clamouring for the same resources.

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:15:20 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

At 04:08 pm 10/14/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Ummm...I know this may offend the gearheads, but could we come up with
>something I don't need a calculator for?  That, in the midst of a game
>gone wrong, when the players look at me and say "how long will it take for
>the ship to return overhead" (with that particular glaze that says that if
>I don't give a confident answer, I'll be arguing until next week...)
>
>
>Like, maybe, 20 * Planet size (in minutes...)?

	Sounds fine to me. As long as they don't ask what orbital altitude they're
at ... Unfortunately, my astro book is at work or I'd whip up a quick Excel
spreadsheet showing planet size along the top, and orbital radius (in
planetary diameters) along the side, with the circular orbital period in
the chart.  In fact, I'll do that tomorrow during my lunch break (assuming
I get one ...).
- -- 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: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:43:48 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Hmmmm

At 10:33 pm 10/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> I'm sorry if I apparently had this wrong, it's just that this is what we
>> were taught.
>
>In America, I was taught that we (the USA) won the war of 1812...imagine my
>surprise when I learned different.

	Well, the Brits did burn down the White House, didn't they? Doesn't that
count as a win for us?
- -- 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: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:49:44 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: T4 and Silent Death

At 10:30 am 10/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>A brief mention in Allen Varney's Current Clack 
>(Dragon #240) says that IG and ICE have been talking 
>for almost a year and a Traveller version of Silent 
>death will be released as the new ship-to- ship space 
>combat system.  Of course there is no word on IG's web site about this.

	Announced at GenCon last year. I went running down to the ICE booth to
check out Silent Death ... and discovered a game that tells you that it's a
Newtonian-based system, and since there is no friction in space, you lose
half of your speed for each turn you're not thrusting ... and put it back
and walked off.
- -- 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: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:00:00 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: re:Piracy

At 12:37 am 10/13/97 -0700, David P. Summers wrote:
>Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:12:01 +0100, SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>>>SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>>>>15 min to unload a merchant ship carrying 60 to 80 dt of cargo? - get
real!
>>>>You need to unstrap the cargo (I assume that you aren't leaving it loose)
>>>>and then shift it to the other ship.
>
>>>First of all, you don't need to carefully unstrap it.  You just
>>>cut the bloody things.  >
>
>>Cut many webbing straps recently in zero G?
>
>No.  Of course neither have you.  But of course you don't have to
>cut them zero G.  You wait until after to cut gravity.

	Of course, the crew of the ship you've taken over probably cut gravity a
long time ago, if it didn't go out when you shot out the power plants ...

>> Still takes time, say a minute
>>or two.
>
>Based on what?  Even webbing comes down to a few anchor points.

	"A few anchor points" ... per container? And are those anchor points
conveniently placed for you to cut? How big are your containers? 

>>If you are under gravity it'd be faster, but you have more mass and
>>inertia problems, and have to control the crippled ship's computer.
>
>Why?  What mass and intertia problems?  The gravity is on, you
>free and ready the cargo, and cut power to the gravity....

	... and the cargo just sits there. Now you've got to apply _force_ to the
_mass_ to overcome the _inertia_ and cause it to start moving towards the
cargo hatch. You've got to apply it from behind or directly in front of the
container, and it's got to be exactly aligned with both the Center of Mass
of the container and the hatch center, otherwise you mash one of your crew
between a box and the hull of the ship.  Next, you've got to make sure your
ship's cargo hatch is also perfectly lined up so it actually goes in and
doesn't bash off your paint and antennas.

>>Meanwhile the remaining crew of the ship will be shooting at you or holed
>>up in the bridge or engineering.
>
>Or the pirate ships just keep shooting bits of the merchant until
>the crew gives up.  Fighting to the death is a military approach
>not what some modestly paid guard will do.
>
>>>Also, you can just use a rope to pull
>>>them from ship to ship and hual them in.

	I've been trying for years to figure out how to PUSH a rope. Yes, you can
pull it to get it started. Now mass and inertia come into play--how are you
going to STOP it from moving?

>>Isofreight type boxes which still have mass and inertia? Need a fair bit of
>>effort, that would.
>
>Or a winch.

	Which is a pull-only device ...

>>>And you don't have
>>>to wait until the first one has been trasnfered before you start
>>>the second one (for example you put them on a stringer).
>
>>Takes time to set up
>
>You just string them on a rope.

	Push???

>
>Well, the pirate is going to be jumping out next, not fighting
>another battle.  He is going to be concerned about getting
>way rather than some rare chance of some system failure.

	Unless, of course, he's concerned about the lack of sufficient jump fuel
caused by a fuel hit from the BATTLE he was just in, or the damage to the
hull grid, or any other kinds of system failures caused by a battle--not
necessarily rare at all!
- -- 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: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:40:21 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: FF&S2 Stuff...

At 08:30 am 10/13/97 -0500, somebody wrote:
>I'm busy writting a spreadsheet to design spaceships/starships, and it's
>nearly done. I'll be posting it on TML when done (or posting its
>location, at least).
>
>I have a couple questions -
>
>1) Maneuvering Crew on miltary vessels: I can't get my numbers to agree
>with your table - for example, if you use a CM of 1 (poor, I admit, but
>it makes a good example), the 3*Log(CM*Size) for a 100std ton ship comes
>out to 3*Log(1*1,400)  which is roughly 8 by my calculator, not the 3
>that is listed in my copy of the rules. Am I doing something wrong? Is
>TTAFinal.doc wrong?

	It's probably more right than what got printed, but in this area I'm
befuddled. I can't get the answers to work out either! And I can't seem to
find anything indicating where either the F^&%*& table or the equation
itself came from! They're certainly in my copy of the final draft, but none
of my notes indicate anything... *&%#@!$(%@#&(#@&%$*(&#


	OK, I'm feeling better now .... a quick stint playing around with Excel
reveals the table was generated using 

	Crew= RoundUp 3*log( CM * Volume / 140 )

	At this point I can't explain how the exact equation was generated, other
than it "felt" about right--a 1000Td ship gets by with a 3-man maneuvering
section, but it doesn't become astronomical at higher sizes--a 1,000,000Td
ship  only requires 15. Basically, a linear curve would have caused some
ridiculous figures (what _would_ a dreadnought do with 3,000 pilots and
astrogators????), but at the same time, it makes larger ships carry larger
crews. Not because they actually require more work. A large military ship
will carry more "spares" because it _can_ to allow for things like prize
crews, battle injuries, illness, "additional duties," shifts, etc., etc. A
50Td picket ship cannot afford to carry enough pilots for three shifts; a
larger ship can carry three shifts, and a much bigger ship can have extras ...


>2) One of the few things I miss from FF&S1 that aren't in ver 2 are the
>survey sensors: Densiometers, Neutrinos, and NAS's...can I just use the
>FF&S1 versions as is in a ver 2 design?

	Two answers

	1) Heresy: the volume and price of sensors are really down in the noise
for large ships, so it doesn't matter too much unless you're tracking cargo
space down to the 0.1m3 ... 

	2) Correctness: Bruce Macintosh, the sensor system designer for FF&S2 (but
don't blame him because they printed a beta version!), has continued to
expand and improve it. Get a copy of his latest version.

>3) If you stealth a hull, does the 1.1/1.25 volume/area multiplier for
>surface fixure contouring  apply PER LEVEL of stealth, or just a flat
>multiplier no matter what level of stealth?

	For EACH LEVEL!  Thus, two levels of stealth require 1.1x1.1=1.21 times
the volume, and 1.25x1.25=1.56 times the surface area. Likewise, three
levels are 1.33 (1.1x1.1x1.1) and 1.95 (1.25x1.25x1.25). Likewise armor
cost is 5x PER LEVEL ... 2 levels is x25, 3 levels is x125, etc.

	I wanted stealth to remain reasonable for most ships, but I also wanted
the option to be able to produce cramped, incredibly expensive,
superstealthed "spyships" and the like. I believe Bruce's latest version of
his sensor rules put TL restrictions on how much stealthing you can apply;
hopefully at mid to high TLs you can put more than one or two if you're
willing to pay the price.

	Chris, if you could add these to your FF&S2 Errata page ...
- -- 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

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1959
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 15 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1960



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: In Orbit
Re: In Orbit
Air Slug
Vampire NPC
mail problems
Re: In the void of space...
Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)
re:Piracy
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1954
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1955
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1958

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:19:29 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Douglas wrote:
> Ummm...I know this may offend the gearheads, but could we come up with
> something I don't need a calculator for?  That, in the midst of a game
> gone wrong, when the players look at me and say "how long will it take for
> the ship to return overhead" (with that particular glaze that says that if
> I don't give a confident answer, I'll be arguing until next week...)
> 
> Like, maybe, 20 * Planet size (in minutes...)?

This is exactly what I'm looking for too, Douglas.  That's why I
suggested something based on the planet's size, more specifically, the
planet's diameter--since size gives up the diameter.

Safe jump distance is the sphere made by 10 diameters of the planet.

I'd like to come up with a standard orbit distance--like 1.5 or 2 times
the planet's diameter--maybe even a range, from 1.5 to 3 diameters,
depending on the starport traffic.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:29:57 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

>
   
   Hi.
   
> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
   
> Ummm...I know this may offend the gearheads, but could we come up with
> something I don't need a calculator for?  That, in the midst of a game
> gone wrong, when the players look at me and say "how long will it take for
> the ship to return overhead" (with that particular glaze that says that if
> I don't give a confident answer, I'll be arguing until next week...)
   
> Like, maybe, 20 * Planet size (in minutes...)?
   
   More like 85 minutes divided by the sqrt of the planet density (earth
   density equals one, GG density equals 1 fifth, etc.)
   The planet size is irrelevent.    

> From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
 
> 	Sounds fine to me. As long as they don't ask what orbital
> altitude they're at ... Unfortunately, my astro book is at work or I'd
> whip up a quick Excel spreadsheet showing planet size along the top,
> and orbital radius (in planetary diameters) along the side, with the
> circular orbital period in the chart.  In fact, I'll do that tomorrow
> during my lunch break (assuming I get one ...).
   
   The complete formula is:
   
   
   T = 85 minutes * sqrt((8*a^3+1)/d)
   
   where T is the orbital period
   a is the altitude in planetary diameters
   d is the density in earth densities
   
   Note that most orbits will have altitudes of `a' close to zero,
   and most densities will be close to earth normal, so the period
   will be about 85 minutes.
   
   -Rob
   

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:14:39 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Air Slug

This test to see if the TML is functioning at all. I have not seen any
message traffic for the last tow days.

Damn how did that basketball get in there.!
Ya but look at it skip across the waves.
- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(c)1997 Sam Thomas  |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|
Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon 
Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions
- -----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:11:54 -0400
From: Lewis Roberts <lewis@chara.gsu.edu>
Subject: Vampire NPC

Hi,
Here is a vampire NPCs that I wrote u.  It is set around the Reformation
world Fija, but atht could easily be changed to any world.  I wrote
up some CIN articles about people finding out about the vampire and their
reactions.  At the end is the write up of the Vampire.
Hope you enjoy it.
Lewis


- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COALINFONET, CLASS: NEWSREPORT DISTRIBUTION: PUSH, AUTHORITY CIN/FIJA SPACE
FORCE COMMAND CENTER, FIJA (0434/AUBAINE, D553754-A), 12/IV/1202 KEYWORDS:
RADIO BROADCAST, EMERGENCY BROADCAST FREQUENCY
NOTICE TO STARFARERS 

Fijan Naval officials reported that an unknown party has begun broadcasting
on the emergency broadcast channel at 1420.5 MHz. The channel is normally
reserved for space vessels to make emergency calls for assistances and aid.
So far the broadcasts seem to consist of single male voice singing love
ballads. Officials assure the public that the broadcasts are purely analog
and there is no danger of Virus contamination. The broadcasts do not seem be
originating from the immediate vicinity of Fija and its two moons. Until
further notice, a new emergency frequency has been established at 1110 MHz.
Fijan Defense force will monitor the situation continuously. Major Thom Ling
of Space Force said "This is serious, it jeopardizes the safety of all
spacegoing vessels, when we find the lummox responsible, he is in a heap of
trouble"

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COALINFONET, CLASS: NEWSREPORT DISTRIBUTION: PUSH, AUTHORITY CIN/FIJA SPACE
FORCE COMMAND CENTER, FIJA (0434/AUBAINE, D553754-A), 25/IV/1202 KEYWORDS:
EMERGENCY BROADCAST FREQUENCY, REGINALD, VAMPIRE


Fijan authorities have determined the source of the mysterious singing heard
on the Emergency Broadcast Frequency. They have been localized to a starship
stranded 1-2 lightyears from Fijan's sun. The voice has identified itself as
Reginald and has professed his undying love for Venticuulor, Fija's primary
star. The ship is almost certainly a Vampire ship, which either misjumped or
otherwise stranded itself in deep space. Space Force is tracking the signal,
so they can better localize the signal, so that warship can be dispatched to
destroy the Vampire. It is estimated that it will take about two weeks to
triangulate the signal well enough that a ship can jump in close.

On a side note, Reginald has gathered quite an audience, many listeners have
tuned to hear his pleasant melodies. Ice miners in the ring system of
Geroas, the largest gas giant in the system are particularly devoted fans.
Jenna Dias'tra is quoted as saying "I listen to him every night, he sings me
to sleep like an angel. In the last week or so he has started to compose his
own songs and even a bit of poetry. Most critics have attacked the lyrics
for being melodramatic and cliched. It is unknown what the news of Reginald
being a Vampire will have on his listeners.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COALINFONET, CLASS: NEWSREPORT DISTRIBUTION: PUSH, AUTHORITY CIN/FIJA, LA
RISA FIJA (0434/AUBAINE, D553754-A), 4/V/1202 KEYWORDS: REGINALD, SAVE
REGGIE SOCIETY, VAMPIRE


While Space Force is about to launch a mission to destroy the Vampire ship
Reginald, his growing legions of fans are protesting his destruction. They
claim he is a threat to no one. Jenna Dias'tra of the "Save Reggie Society"
declared that he was one of the greatest artists of all time, and he is a
treasure of the Fijan people. The fans gathered in Vlack park and staged a
peaceful rally in support of Reginald, or Reggie as his fans call him. It
ended with the crowd listening to a collection of his songs.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COALINFONET, CLASS: NEWSREPORT DISTRIBUTION: PUSH, AUTHORITY CIN/FIJA
GEMSTONE RECORDINGS HQ, FIJA (0434/AUBAINE, D553754-A), 6/V/1202 KEYWORDS:
GEMSTONE RECORDINGS, REGINALD, VAMPIRE


Gemstone Recordings has announced that they will release a vid crystal of
Reginalds most popular songs on 11/V/1202, the songs are originally
broadcast without video, but Gemstone has put scenes of wildlife and natural
beauty to the music. They plan on releasing 25,000 crystals. If it sells
well, more crystals are sure to follow, after all Gemstone doesn't have to
pay the artist any royalties.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COALINFONET, CLASS: NEWSREPORT DISTRIBUTION: PUSH, AUTHORITY CIN/AURORA
AURORAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, AURORA (0535/AUBAINE, B576646-B), 8/V/1202
KEYWORDS: AURORAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REGINALD, VAMPIRE


Professor Lucas Flint of the Auroran Institute for Technology has issued a
statement condemning the pending destruction of the Vampire ship Reginald.
Prof. Flint claims "Here is a perfect opportunity to study the psychology of
a Vampire, without endangering human life. The Vampire is trapped in deep
space and unable to infect anyone. If we study this harmless ship, we can
better learn to cope with its more lethal brethren." Prof Flint announced
that he was taking the next available ship to Fija, to plead his case to
Fijan authorities.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COALINFONET, CLASS: NEWSREPORT DISTRIBUTION: PUSHNEWSREPORT,, AUTHORITY
CIN/FIJA CAPITAL CITY, FIJA (0434/AUBAINE, D553754-A), 21/V/1202 KEYWORDS:
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON CYBERNETIC AFFAIRS, REGINALD, VAMPIRE


Fijan Government announced that they were temporarily suspending a plan to
destroy the Vampire known as Reginald. The Special Committee on Cybernetic
Affairs will study the matter and give it all due consideration. Public
hearings will be held in early Cancer. Interested parties are told to
contact the Special Committee for an appointment.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Reginald is Puppeteer controlling a Subsidized Merchant operating out of
Diaspora sector.  He was never very good at being a Puppeteer, and never
managed to gain control of anything other than the merchant ship.  About
five years ago he suffered a catastrophic failure in the engine room, while
in the Orsk/Promise/Diaspora system. The accident destroyed his heplar
recombustion chamber and heavily damaged his jump drive. There was little
chance of rescue, so Reginald tried to jump to Promise.  The damaged
drive, managed to enter jump space but misjumped to the Fijan system.
 
Reginald is now stranded in deep space, 1.9 lightyears from the Fijan
Primary.  He doesn't have enough fuel to engage his jump drive and it 
probably wouldn't get him anywhere anyway.  With his Heplar destroyed, he
can't even move. His residual velocity is carrying him towards the
inner system, but he has calculated that it will take about 12,000 years,
he is a bit uncertain of the exact date, because of insufficient data about 
the secondary. In a few years he will know with in year or so of when he will 
arrive.  
 
With nothing to do, but wait, he waited.  With his electronic brains operating
at many million times the speed of human thought, he quickly ran out of things
to think about and grew bored.  After three years of boredom, he went insane,
well all Viruses are insane, but Reginald is even more looney than the 
average Vampire. Sometime after this he decided he was in love with
Fija's primary star, Vent.....  This is a much purer love than humans
or other organic lifeforms can feel.  Organics' view of love is all
wrapped up in mating and lust, Reginald's love is pure and noble.  
Reginald wanted to tell his new love what he thought of her, so he
started to broadcast love songs.  At first these were just broadcasts
of songs in Reginald's library, but he felt those didn't have the personal
touch, so he started to record his own song.  Many of the tunes he
sings are classic love ballads, but he also composes his own lyrics and
tunes. He broadcasts non-stop, and often interjects his stream of 
conscious poetry.  He broadcasts on a standard radio band, and there
is no danger of infection from his broadcasts. The broadcasts take
close to two years to get to Fija (depending on where Fija is in her orbit)
 
Reginald has recently decided that the flares of Vent..... are her
arm reaching out to greet him.  He has taken this as a sign that she
returns his affection.   
 
Future Developments:
While many people on Fija regard Reginald as harmless and possibly
friendly, others such as the Templars regard him as a threat to all sentient
lifeforms. While the Fijan military has decided not to destroy Reginald,
they have not taken any steps to stop anyone else from doing so.  It
is likely that the Templars, or survivors of the vampire raid on Nike Nimbus,
Freelancers out to make a name for themselves will probably destroy 
Reginald.  He won't be able to put up much of a fight.  He has two
150 Mj Laser Turrets, and two Sandcasters with 2d10 cans each, but no
MFD and is unable to maneuver. He is the proverbial sitting duck.
Reginald is a standard TL-12 Subsidized Merchant as in TNE:Rulebook.
 
Possible Adventures:
When the Fijan Space Force first hears the messages from Reginald, they
will dispatch several ships to the outer system, to triangulate the
signal. The players maybe one of the ships.  Though it will be somewhat
dull, a week to jump to the outer system, a few days of listening, and
a week to jump back. Perhaps the players actually manage to locate
Reginald and make first contact.
 
The players may also decided to destroy Reginald, or rescue him. 
Either way someone is going to be unhappy. Imagine the Save Reggie Society
picketing the player's ship, with signs that read 'Butchers'. 
 Reginald is Puppeteer controlling a Subsidized Merchant operating out of
Diaspora sector.  He was never very good at being a Puppeteer, and never
managed to gain control of anything other than the merchant ship.  About
five years ago he suffered a catastrophic failure in the engine room, while
in the Orsk/Promise/Diaspora system. The accident destroyed his heplar
recombustion chamber and heavily damaged his jump drive. There was little
chance of rescue, so Reginald tried to jump to Promise.  The damaged
drive, managed to enter jump space but misjumped to the Fijan system.

Reginald is now stranded in deep space, 1.9 lightyears from the Fijan
Primary.  He doesn't have enough fuel to engage his jump drive and it 
probably wouldn't get him anywhere anyway.  With his Heplar destroyed, he
can't even move. His residual velocity is carrying him towards the
inner system, but he has calculated that it will take about 12,000 years,
he is a bit uncertain of the exact date, because of insufficient data about 
the secondary. In a few years he will know with in year or so of when he will 
arrive.  

With nothing to do, but wait, he waited.  With his electronic brains operating
at many million times the speed of human thought, he quickly ran out of things
to think about and grew bored.  After three years of boredom, he went insane,
well all Viruses are insane, but Reginald is even more looney than the 
average Vampire. Sometime after this he decided he was in love with
Fija's primary star, Vent.....  This is a much purer love than humans
or other organic lifeforms can feel.  Organics' view of love is all
wrapped up in mating and lust, Reginald's love is pure and noble.  
Reginald wanted to tell his new love what he thought of her, so he
started to broadcast love songs.  At first these were just broadcasts
of songs in Reginald's library, but he felt those didn't have the personal
touch, so he started to record his own song.  Many of the tunes he
sings are classic love ballads, but he also composes his own lyrics and
tunes. He broadcasts non-stop, and often interjects his stream of 
conscious poetry.  He broadcasts on a standard radio band, and there
is no danger of infection from his broadcasts. The broadcasts take
close to two years to get to Fija (depending on where Fija is in her orbit)

Reginald has recently decided that the flares of Vent..... are her
arm reaching out to greet him.  He has taken this as a sign that she
returns his affection.   

Future Developments:
While many people on Fija regard Reginald as harmless and possibly
friendly, others such as the Templars regard him as a threat to all sentient
lifeforms. While the Fijan military has decided not to destroy Reginald,
they have not taken any steps to stop anyone else from doing so.  It
is likely that the Templars, or survivors of the vampire raid on Nike Nimbus,
Freelancers out to make a name for themselves will probably destroy 
Reginald.  He won't be able to put up much of a fight.  He has two
150 Mj Laser Turrets, and two Sandcasters with 2d10 cans each, but no
MFD and is unable to maneuver. He is the proverbial sitting duck.
Reginald is a standard TL-12 Subsidized Merchant as in TNE:Rulebook.

Possible Adventures:
When the Fijan Space Force first hears the messages from Reginald, they
will dispatch several ships to the outer system, to triangulate the
signal. The players maybe one of the ships.  Though it will be somewhat
dull, a week to jump to the outer system, a few days of listening, and
a week to jump back. Perhaps the players actually manage to locate
Reginald and make first contact.

The players may also decided to destroy Reginald, or rescue him. 
Either way someone is going to be unhappy. Imagine the Save Reggie Society
picketing the player's ship, with signs that read 'Butchers'. 

It is up to the individual referee to decide what Reginald's view
towards Humans is. He may be friendly, indifferent or actively
hostile.  The referee should decide based on what makes the best story.
 

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:29:56 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: mail problems

I haven't had a peep for over 48 hours form the list, have I become
unsubscribed ?  anybody else had this problem.


                                Colin

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:21:54 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

Kevin L. Kitchens wrote:
> 
> In the void of space, free from all gravities, will a moving body truly retain its forward
> velocity and momentum?
> 

Yes. The body will retain its velocity, ignoring miniscule effects from 
space dust, until acted upon by an outside force.

> For example, if I set myself to move at 1000km/h will I maintain 1000km/h in the same
> direction until another force alters that?  Or is there a slower decrease in speed, but
> decrease nonetheless?
> 

Force is mass times acceleration. Velocity doesn't enter into it.
Without a force, you have no acceleration. Acceleration is a change
in velocity during a time interval. Direction change is one way of
changing velocity and is therefore a type of acceleration.

So, you'll coast at 1000km/h, relative to some reference point, until
some force acts upon you.

> I always thought that I would burn fuel to set speed, and then not burn any to maintain
> speed.  Then to change course, I would also burn fuel -- combination of retros and lateral
> engines to bring about a new heading, then increase speed again...
> 

That's right.



- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:13:00 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)

Hello,
>>  Are such aimed shots possible under the T4 rules? (Sorry, I'm CT...)
>
>Don't know, but if I was GMing I would regard suprise attack
>on an unarmed ship to be a special case anway.  Anyway, I
>certainly would let the ship target engineering which is
>going to cut power and prevent a distress call.

  Hmm, assuming a longish range (courtesy of either traffic control
or paranoia) I'd give it real easy DM's for the first attack, and
count it as only a minute or two for the firing turn equivalent.
That helps the hit and time problem; I wouldn't allow aiming (they
probably can't use firecon radar without alerting the target anyways).
With CT/HG, and a lot of Striker derivatives that could be enough to
cripple a merchantman anyways. I wouldn't try it against a warship.

>>In any case, if such a hit represents an event in a 15 or 30 minute
>>turn doesn't it still represent an average 5-15 minutes, say, to SOS?
>
>Well, the problem is that the turn both includes time before
>the shot (when the clock isn't running) and time to cycle
>around to return fire (which irrelvant if you disable in one shot).

  If CT ships have ROF 1, true. But my T4 stuff shows large numbers
for ROF, so it seems that surprise shots aside the cycle period is
a couple of minutes at best.

>>>Actually, you just jam at the time of attack and then you
>>>have about an hour (or more) to transfer the cargo.
>
>>  Is it possible to jam maser comms under current rules?
>
>Maser comms are typically only found on military vessels.

  From Striker, I can do a million klicks for ~60 KCr. I think
the book was a horrible waste of money, but from Starships at
TL 11+ the Advanced Civ ELX suite includes a 1000 AU (!) unit.

>> Also, this
>>may very well work outbound, but inbound that's another hour into the
>>100 diameter limit. A pirate could be justified in considering that
>>to be a high risk.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't see why this would be.  But, in any case,
>you could just attack the outbout ships.

  Do you want to make a habit of jumping from within the 100 D limit?
We can reasonably assume that more than a few million (or thousand...)
stellar tech people on the ground will mean the presence of toys
you don't want to face. Otherwise this would be a smash and grab.
But yes, assuming outbound ships, well, that's another post, but I
do suggest it has merit for the casual pirate.

>>>Except by then you could have sold your ship and bought a new one,
>>>let along just change signature.
>
>>  Isn't interacting with the authorities _within_ the Imperium going
>>to be the basis of the problem?
>
>I am, it's the slow communication in the Imperium that make this possbile.
>
>> You probably just sold your ship at a loss
>
>Not if you do a trade with someone else who has the same problem.

  You just traded stolen ships? On second thought, can I leave the
licensing/Big Brother thread to someone else or a later date? I'm
also not going to touch the sig thing, although I would game it as
relatively easy to change, and very hard to observe accurately.

>>>Well, you are going to need something the size a Kunuir since
>>>a small ship can be ganged up on and suprised.  If you take a
>
>>  Aren't wolf-packs of pirates contra-indicated?
>
>I'm not talking about wolf-packs.  I'm talking about a couple
>smugglers that decide on an adhoc basis to get together than take
>out that scout that the Imperium unwisely sent by itself
>to stop piracy.

  A Scout? That surpasses unwise. Where are the active service
escort vessels if a campaign "to stop piracy." is invoked? The
THUDD/6 output probably has some reasonable stuff that could
cheaply beat the stuffing out of a very tough pirate. Any gravity
well with SDB's or space-fighters is going to be a real pain.

>>  Again, outbound this may very well be valid. In general,
>>and especially inbound, the time to match vectors will put
>>you well within the reach of COACC assets
>
>Well, you can catch them as the arrive and their
>velocity vectors are low, but it may be that outbound
>is better.

  Inbound you're travelling an hour or so into the guns of
people who already can range you. If you match trajectory
with an unpowered vessel, you're a sitting duck. You might
as well be 1000 km from their muzzles, not a million.

  Also, matching an inbound trajectory is difficult, unless
you know how they're jumping in. Matching outbound must be
a great deal easier.

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson,
                        Vancouver, British Columbia

The CT Creed: "There is no Game but Traveller, and High Guard is its' Product"
       
       

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:06:52 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re:Piracy

Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:00:00 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>>No.  Of course neither have you.  But of course you don't have to
>>cut them zero G.  You wait until after to cut gravity.
>
>	Of course, the crew of the ship you've taken over probably cut
>gravity a
>long time ago, if it didn't go out when you shot out the power plants ...

Well, the odds of the powerplant being hit aren't that certain,
nor is it clear that a merchant that is helpless is going
to gratuitously chance making pirates that can kill them all
mad.  Of course mybe you just train you zero G skills up and
use magnetic soles.
>
>>> Still takes time, say a minute
>>>or two.
>>
>>Based on what?  Even webbing comes down to a few anchor points.

>	"A few anchor points" ... per container? And are those anchor points
>conveniently placed for you to cut? How big are your containers?

Of cource they are going to be conviently placed.  They have
to be accessed _every_ time you move cargo, which happens alot
more often than getting attacked by pirates.  In any case, ir
really doesn't matter.   Once around the cargo will access them
all.  Or you just draw a cutting blade along the side of the
web.  It's just not that hard to cut something free.

>>Why?  What mass and intertia problems?  The gravity is on, you
>>free and ready the cargo, and cut power to the gravity....
>
>	... and the cargo just sits there. Now you've got to apply _force_

Which is why you have tied a rope to it.

>Next, you've got to make sure your
>ship's cargo hatch is also perfectly lined up so it actually goes in and
>doesn't bash off your paint and antennas.

Well, the rope is going to pull toward the hatch.  As to hitting
the sides, there are a lot of thing you can do like simply padding
the edges.  And note, I have yet to invoke high tech or specialized
equipment.  Those are going to make it even easier.

>>>>Also, you can just use a rope to pull
>>>>them from ship to ship and hual them in.
>
>	I've been trying for years to figure out how to PUSH a rope. Yes,
>you can
>pull it to get it started. Now mass and inertia come into play--how are you
>going to STOP it from moving?

Just Pad the back of the cargo hatch.  Or use some sort of spring, or
whatever.  Or just turn the gravity on and let it skid to a stop.
Or maybe they even do more than I do and give it more than a few
minutes of thought and come up with [gasp!] and even better answer.

[Points which have been answered deleted.]

>>Well, the pirate is going to be jumping out next, not fighting
>>another battle.  He is going to be concerned about getting
>>way rather than some rare chance of some system failure.
>
>	Unless, of course, he's concerned about the lack of sufficient jump
>fuel
>caused by a fuel hit from the BATTLE he was just in, or the damage to the
>hull grid, or any other kinds of system failures caused by a battle--not
>necessarily rare at all!

We aren't really talking a "battle".
A pirate is not going to go after a fair fight, he is going
to hit unarmed ships (or ones that are so poorly armed that
they have no real chance of taking damage).  In any case,
if the ship has taken the kind of damage you talk about,
it will because he lost the battle, and he won't be loading
cargo anyway.


____________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 03:39:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

Peter Newman wrote:

> The Droyne aesthetic sensability prefers curves & is opposed to straight
> lines.  Because of this Grandfather seeded almost the atmospere of
> almost every planet in known space with nanites that attack the hulls of
> nonstreamlined ships and cause them to crash.  


Hey, I can buy that the Ancients invented jump space--that's it's not a
naturally ocurring phenomona, but this is too much.

But, I get your jest.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:06:35 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1954

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:00:12 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
>From: CardSharks@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Unstreamlined
>
>Strreamlined versus Unstreamlined.
>
>I suppose if the words mean just smooth, then an unstreamlined ship can land
>(using lifters) on a world with atmosphere.
>
>On the other hand, if unstreamlined means you can't (using just lifters)
>landing on a world with atmosphere, then there must be a reason. I can think
>of...
>
>The equipment and sensors placed on the outside of the hull is not hardened
>to resist the drag of atmosphere, including wind speed not from vehicle
>velocity but from weather.

But there are just as many problems (probably more) for "unprotected" sensors
and other external thingies in the *supposed* "hard vacuum" of space ... at the
speeds that the typical Traveller craft get to, even the smallest micrometiorite
will do significant damage to unprotected (and delicate?) sensors. Even
something that qualifies as "dust" will cause *cumulative* damage. In the case
of military rated ships, sensors and the like will have to be protected *anyway*
for obvious combat related reasons.

At the proposed speeds *in atmosphere*, there seems to be less of a problem than
the ships would actually face in "hard vacuum".

Personally, I would suggest that the thread that several people have supported,
to the effect that there is little or no *technical* reason, but that the
reasons have to do with *safety*.

Part of this could simply be that inhabited planets often have atmospheres and
that people are (naturally) worried about USL ships losing power and doing
houise brick "flying" attempts over inhabited areas, whereas SL and AF ships
could make some sort of unpowered landings as they have controls that do not
rely on CG drives. Which means that this reason should be spelled out ... and,
since its part of a *human* system rather than a technical reason, you can't
effectively argue against it on the basis of logic (humans don't necessarily
work by logic, as I'm sure we all know!).

>Similarly, the hull exterior is not made to withstand not only atmosphere,
>but the effects of exotic or corrosive atmosphere, and perhaps the effects of
>water and extremes of temperature.

This would gel with the safety idea ... the vessels don't have the controls for
unpowered flight, so they don't have the safety equipment needed for these
situations. They can do them, and probably do them safely 999 times out of 1000,
but, its the big disasters that happen (inevitably) on that 1000th time that
cause problems.

Perhaps its also a Vilani/Conservative thing? They insisted on the extra safety
factors that this represents? Or a Terran Airforce/Spaceforce thing? The
Spaceforce demanded that all AF and SL ships be under their control and dominate
the COACC interface while the Navy went for USL ships?

All *human* rather than *engineering* reasons -- and hence, they cannot be
argued against on the basis of "logic".

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:09:54 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1955

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:22:40 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:23:53 PST
>From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>Subject: Re: Unstreamlined
>
>In mail you write:
>
>> Phillip McGregor wrote:
>>
>>> >On the landings thread...did we ever decide why an unstreamlined vessel,
>>> >using contra-gravity, could not land on a planet with atmosphere?
>>> 
>>> Yep. (Well, *I* didn't) The consensus was "because it's canon" ... and the
>>> subtext, "even if that doesn't make any sense!" ;-P
>>
>> Nobody came up with a better explanation than that?
>
>We did. Phil just didn't like them. 
>
>Basicly the consensus was that things like wind shear, turbulence, jet
>streams and "microbursts" place stresses on a USL hull that it wasn't
>designed to take. For example, consider what a "measly" 50-75 knot wind
>can do to some pretty sturdy structures. 
>
>Even a ship braced for *rapid* turns will be braced for "bow move
>right, stern moves left (and vice versa) and have the bracings built
>for forces applied by the steering jets and main drive. Wind forces
>will be pushing in other directions. And while drive forces *have* to
>be symettrical about the center of mass of the ship, the wind forces
>((by definition of "unstreamlined!) *won't be*. So you'll get
>"twisting" forces in places where the ship wasn't designed to have
>them. 

And even that if not necessarily true for military vessels -- they have to take
into account the stresses caused by missile or other weapon hits that do not
always oblige by directing the stresses directly along the axis of movement! And
not all military ships are SL or AF. There are other problems as well, but why
go into them again.

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:16:35 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1958

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:36:50 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:13:43 -0700
>From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
>Subject: Re: Unstreamlined
>
>An additional issue for moving unstreamlined ships through the air is
>stability. A streamlined ship is basically stable moving through the air
>at moderate-to-high speeds - deviations from its course will tend to push
>it back on course. 

OK

>An unstreamlined ship is unstable. Imagine a big cube moving through the
>air on a line perpindicular to one side; if the ship deviates slightly from
>that line, the apparent wind will tend to make it deviate more (since the
>orientation with least air resistance is "corner first", and things generally
>want to travel in the orientation with least air resistance.) Even 
>rectangular ships will suffer somewhat from this problem. (Philip's favourite
>analogy - early cars - don't suffer from this since their friction is 
>dominted by the wheels, which provide considerable resistance to sideways 
>motion.) 

Sounds reasonable. However, it depends on how CG works. If the CG drive provides
the "drag" on an axis to the planet, then this may be good enough.

>Obviously this instability can be countered by the pilot with the engines,
>but that's going to be hard, especially in a low-automation universe like
>traveller. Landing a USL ship is probably at least a Formidable task,
>and would require speeds below 50 km/h, I would think. Rounding the corners
>off would help...but that makes the ship streamlined.

I agree that it would be non-trivial, perhaps even formidable. But even
*traveller* computers could assist a pilot in this. And as for "rounding the
corners" being equal to SL ... well, maybe, maybe not. Anyway, a *better*
solution is to assume that a AF or SL design package includes the *software*
necessary to allow control under atmospheric re-entry or takeoff conditions and
that USL vessels *don't* include this.

>In addition, as Marc says (was he speaking Ex Cathedra?) USL ships won't have
>their sensors, antennae, and weapons mounted flush/retractable. For sensors,
>for example, this probably means they can't be used while in the atmosphere.

But, as I have noted, even USL ships will have to have protection from space
debris ... even hard vacuum isn't completely empty.

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1960
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 15 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1961



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: personal copies of TNS releases
Re: Damned Star Trek
Re: In the void of space...
Re: Yet more piracy
Re: magic formular ?
Re: In the void of space...
Re: Damned Star Trek
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
Re: FF&S2 Stuff...
Re: magic formular ?
Re: Damned Star Trek
Re: Piracy
Re: Hmmmm
Re: Rabbits of Oz (was Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants))
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1959
Re: Freight Rates
TML down, or have I been removed?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:35:08 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: personal copies of TNS releases

Please email me with everything you have.  I use the version of Word in
Microsoft Office 97.  I believe it is 8.0.  Viewing your .DOCs should be
a piece of cake.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:37:39 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Damned Star Trek

Ethan Henry wrote:
> 
> OK, I just have to complain for a second.
> 
> There's a big company party organized where I work
> and we've been divided into teams that are all named...
> with Star Trek alien names! Blech! Yuck!
> 
> The humiliation of being on "Team Jem'Hadar".
> I just can't bring myself to go through all
> the explanation necessary for "Team Vargr" or
> "Team Zhodani" (or for an even stranger explanation,
> "Team Sayat") though. *Sigh*.
> --
> Ethan Henry                    ehenry@magma.ca

- -- 
That's the problem with people who aren't really into Sci-Fi; they hang
on the coat tails of mainstream genre stuff like "star Trek", which, in
my opinion, is a wonderful series, but by far doesn't even come close to
summing up the whole Science Fiction genre.
     
                         The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:55:02 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

Unless acted upon by other means, be that mass or gravity well, your
velocity should continue unchecked forever.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:35:27
From: Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
Subject: Re: Yet more piracy

>
>You don't set your corsair on the tarmac, that would not be intelligent.
>You use a Ship's Boat.  A nice, innocous 30 ton craft that is capable of
>*6 G*.  This way, even assuming that you don't use a LasComm, you can get
>out to where the Corsair is (lurking on a moon, or hiding in the asteroid
>belt) with plenty of time to pass course information.  The 6G advantage
>should give the Corsair a reasonable opportunity to jump ahead of the
>victim.  (This is assuming the pirate does not have adequate stealthing
>and wants to take the target in the destination, rather than the origin, 
>system.)
>

I am a bureaucrat in real life. Trust me, if a 6G pinnace shows up at a
starport with no starship attached, bureaucrats will raise eyebrows and run
some checks.

>> >I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
>> >can't see why he would attack anyplace else.
>> 
>> To prevent the merchant from jumping from within the 100 diameter limit,
>> which may not be something a merchant cares to do if he can avoid it, but
>> is still preferrable to losing the whole ship (If a pirate catches a ship
>> with its tanks full, there is no reason why he shouldn't take the ship
too).
>
>If you are smart, you make an offer to 'stand and deliver'.  Open cargo
>bay and dump cargo, don't radio for help, after dumping cargo, jump.  If
>all of the above is true, I don't come within, say, 10 miles of your ship,
>and I don't slam a volley into your hull.  The first indication I get that
>you are not working within these guidelines, bang.

Why cant I jump while dumping what I pretend to be cargo ? Or even better,
dump a cargo of things that will go *bang* when opened. Hey, if the pirates
can run sting operations, so can the anti-pirates ... heck, the shipper
doesnt need to know whats in the cartons, and if we spread enough rumours ...

>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
>Subject: Re: Piracy

>My actual prey were the Type S ships.  I would cut 'em apart and sell the
>components.

Sooner or later, someone is going to check serial numbers. Probably some
Vilani bureaucrat in a starport doing the final checks on the contracted
annual maintainence.

Then things start to unravel ...

For what it's worth, there is a strong-ish political push in Australia for
compulsory numbering of all car parts, in order to make shipping stolen car
parts interstate harder (Oz has primarily state-based police).

And, as has been noted, the 3I is a Vilani-influenced mercantile bureaucracy.

>Date: 14 Oct 1997 20:17:11 GMT
>From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
>Subject: Re: Piracy
>
>traveller@MPGN.COM,Internet writes:
>But the Imperium _does_ have enough
>ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
>system defended against attacks).
>
>But will they?
>
>During WWII the US had enough destroyers etc to stop the German UBoats that
>were sinking ships in US coastal waters.  But they didn't.  They could have
>implemented coastal blackouts so ships weren't silhoetted against the lights.
> But they didn't.  Tankers would survive the trip across the Atlantic,
>through the black hole, down the Canadian coast, and get torpedoed off the
>Texas shore.
>

OK. Reference time ...

John Keegan, The Price of Admirality

"by June the total for 1942 exceeded 600 000 tons. This 'happy time' ...
was the product of a variety of factors, particularily the reluctance of
American skippers sailing in coastal waters to accept convoy, the dearth of
escorts to accompany convoys in any case, the brilliant background lighting
... particularily off the Florida coast" (p277)

"By June 1942 the United States Navy, benefitting from an escort building
program ... had introduced a convoy system on the eastern seaboard, while
blackout measures also reduced the illumination of targets at night." (p278)

>Admiral King didn't assign a priority to stopping the uboats, apparently. 

The decisions above were more strictly political decisions than those of
Admiral King. A better argument for King not considering the u-boat war a
priority is his decision to send the new American long-range bombers to the
Pacific, rather than using them to close the Atlantic Air Gap.

>Possibly the Imperial Admirals would rather fight battle fleets than pirates?

Yes. However ...

(1) the small anti-pirates vessels will make excellent picket and
reconnisance ships. 

(2) the Imperium had very few wars in the Post-Bellum period. In this way,
anti-piracy patrols will be among the little actual action the IN sees.

>From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
>Subject: Re: Ship Identification (was Re: Piracy)
>
>>In the Imperium, where ships are never more than a few hours out of the
>>ports, it is worth seeing who is dropping in.  Every traffic control
>>station can be expected to have an SDB in orbit, and a reasonable sized
>>sensor dish to feed it information, assuming the world has a pop 5 or so
>
>Why can it be expected?  You are falling into the old trap of anything
>that isn't expensive is expected.  The cost of maning all these
>stations will have to exceed the cost of piracy is stops, which
>will be especially hard since ways to work around this have already
>been mentioned and even if they did work, piracy will just tend
>to shift to smaller worlds in the same system or to smaller systems.
>

We bureaucrats want to know *everything*, just in case we need to justify
things later. The facilities are going to be there for customs control and
so on, as well as planetary defense, and if they are there, they will be used.

And if piracy is pushed away from the worlds with traffic, then 

(a) pirates will find very few targets (because they are going *away* from
the trade routes), thus becoming less economic and

(b) if the fixed defenses (the SDBs) are keeping pirates away from the
mildly-populated systems, then the Navy has fewer other systems to keep an
eye on.

>>Further, the larger worlds can afford to export SDBs to the surrounding
>>worlds, if it gives them benefits, for a fairly small price if free, and a
>>fairly small profit if for pay.
>
>Well, the small price is debatable.  A system defense boat trying
>to stop piracy is going to risk (a SDB has to match _any_ situation
>it comes up against, or you are going to start taking losses and
>costs are going to soar).  Many of us feel that one SDB guarding
>a world is laughable, let along guarding a system.

Lets call the "small price" one credit per citizen per system. Assume our
populous trading world has 100 million people on it, and twenty systems to
keep an eye on. Therefore each citizen is paying Cr20 a year in extra naval
taxes, and each of twenty systems gets an annual Naval Budget of MCr 100 -
enough to buy and maintain a quite reasonable force of SDBs, and a couple
of type S scout ships to provide a mail service.

>
>However, this point has already been debated so that I
>will note that this is one of the points that differences
>hinge on.
>
>>Assume that every time you drove into a gas station, they got a copy of the
>>vin, the engine serial numbers, the driver's license number, the serial
>>number on the catalytic converter, and so on.  Further, assume that if you
>>change the numbers, some of them are going to not match.  This is the
>>situation with the small number of Traveller ships out there.
>
>Well, agree that this would make piracy rare.  However, as you
>noted, we disagree that this is likely, or even possible, in
>the Traveller world.  You aren't even close to this with
>you sonar example, and it is not clear how well sonar
>applies to traveller sensors.

When you appear in a system, Starport Control message you, asking for full
details on your ship, manifest, crew, last ten ports of call, planned next
three destinations, serial numbers on power plants, jump drive etc. (this
is actually the short version. The comprehensive Vilani version goes for
about five pages)

You can (a) refuse, (b) co-operate, (c) fib or (d) jump out again.

If you do (a), then we send out a ship to have a chat with you.

If you do (b) everything is hunky dory.

If you do (c), you better pray we dont do a spot check on you when you
reach port. Or that your fib doesnt show up a couple of months later, when
our polite enquiry about you to the starport you were in a month ago shows
up a different answer to what you told us.

If you do (d) we stick you on our "watch list", which then gets passed
around neighbouring systems ASAP. OK, we dont know exactly who you are, but
we should have some data.

Oh, and if you sell your ship, you have a requirement to pass this
information on to the new owner so he doesnt get into problems later.
 

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:06:36 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

At 23:22 14/10/97 +0100, Simon Early wrote:
I wrote...
>>  What about using Pythagoras' Theorem, which as we all know states that the
>> sum of the square of the two sides that are at right angles to each other
>> are equal to the square of the hypotenuse (third side)?
>
>2914 to 3116 is three hexes
>
>By Pythagoras, 2^2 + 2^2 = 8
>
>root (8 + 0.5) is less than 3.
>
>The problem comes because some hexes are on a triagular (60 degrees)
distance 
>rather than a square (90 degree) step, so Pythagoras breaks down.
>
	Oh yeah...

	Well, I tried.

	Anyway, how would knowing the exact distance in between two hexes be of
much use? Many journies of more than a few jumps will not take a direct
route, save for being through a dense main, and would therefore make the
direct distance meaningless. What is needed is a system where a database of
all stellar locations are known, so that a travelling distance is thus
determined.

	If I want to jump from one end of the subsector to another, I'm not going
to take ten hexes, or five jumps in a J2 ship am I?

	Like, driving from London to Newcastle is just about 300 miles, yet if you
were to overlay 1 mile wide hexes on a map of England, the distance there
would be a little less. So when I drive, I never look for the real
distance, just the road distance. Wouldn't this apply to star ship jumps as
well?

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 1997 14:27:32 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

"Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com> writes:
In the void of space, free from all gravities, will a moving body truly
retain its forward 
velocity and momentum?

Yes.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 1997 15:13:22 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Damned Star Trek

>There's a big company party organized where I work
>and we've been divided into teams that are all named...
>with Star Trek alien names! Blech! Yuck!
>
>The humiliation of being on "Team Jem'Hadar".

Well, you _could_ be Team Pak'mara   :-)

Planning on having corn dogs at the party?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:46:14 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>Quick firing solutions, that is what we use them for. An active sensor,
>gives you detailed information quickly. A passive sensor can give you a
>fire solution, but only after lots of time. Time can be deadly in combat.
>
>Thomas Harkless
>ex MM1/SS
>searching for Bradish and Harkless

A few seconds according to Bruce Macintosh calculations. Do not compare
passive sensors on earth to pace. On earth we have a pretty high backgrond
temp plus lots of stuff along the sensorpath (also known as atmosphere).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:02:43 -0400
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: FF&S2 Stuff...

I beleive Andy Akins:
>>3) If you stealth a hull, does the 1.1/1.25 volume/area multiplier for
>>surface fixure contouring  apply PER LEVEL of stealth, or just a flat
>>multiplier no matter what level of stealth?


to which Dave Golden replied:
> For EACH LEVEL!  Thus, two levels of stealth require 1.1x1.1=1.21 times
>the volume, and 1.25x1.25=1.56 times the surface area. Likewise, three
>levels are 1.33 (1.1x1.1x1.1) and 1.95 (1.25x1.25x1.25). Likewise armor
>cost is 5x PER LEVEL ... 2 levels is x25, 3 levels is x125, etc.


Just one additional question about stealth. Doesn't the increase in volume
and surface area represents waste space to make the various systems
stealthy?  The alternative, which I would find excedingly cumbersom, is that
a real increase in the systems volume and surface area and would require
increases in the effected system's other properties, such as mass and price,
that are base on volume and/or surface area.

> Chris, if you could add these to your FF&S2 Errata page ...
You got it, I should have it posted around Noon.

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The FF&S 2 Errata List
(http://users.aol.com/ogerdude/ffs-errata.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:01:20 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: magic formular ?

Bruce E J Lewis wrote:

>         Anyway, how would knowing the exact distance in between two hexes be of
> much use? Many journies of more than a few jumps will not take a direct
> route, save for being through a dense main, and would therefore make the
> direct distance meaningless. What is needed is a system where a database of
> all stellar locations are known, so that a travelling distance is thus
> determined.
>
>         If I want to jump from one end of the subsector to another, I'm not going
> to take ten hexes, or five jumps in a J2 ship am I?
> 
>         Like, driving from London to Newcastle is just about 300 miles, yet if you
> were to overlay 1 mile wide hexes on a map of England, the distance there
> would be a little less. So when I drive, I never look for the real
> distance, just the road distance. Wouldn't this apply to star ship jumps as
> well?

One could go through a list of worlds in a sector and calculate the
number of worlds within J-1 of a world, J-2 of a world, J-3 of a
world... and use this to build a topological "road-map" of the sector.

Computers are dumb. We can easily count the distance between a source
and destination hex. A computer algorithm for calculating distance is
needed for the short "hops" as well as the long. How do you determine
J-1, J-2, J-3 etc. distance without an algorithm?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:06:34 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Damned Star Trek

At 04:37 PM 10/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>OK, I just have to complain for a second.
>
>There's a big company party organized where I work
>and we've been divided into teams that are all named...
>with Star Trek alien names! Blech! Yuck!
>
>The humiliation of being on "Team Jem'Hadar".
>I just can't bring myself to go through all
>the explanation necessary for "Team Vargr" or
>"Team Zhodani" (or for an even stranger explanation,
>"Team Sayat") though. *Sigh*.

"Team Jem'Hadar"?  Have you explained that in order for your team to
function, you'll need a constant supply of a white powdered drug?  Or that
at the first sign of weakness, you'll assassaniate your managers?

Have fun with this!

It could have been worse.. imagine if they had gone with B5 and you had
ended up as Team Vorlon  (VP: "Is the project ready?"  Team Vorlon member:
"You are not ready for the project.")


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengence and the boot that is    |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing thay you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:02:51 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Piracy

Taking a few pot shots from my bell tower:

<snip>
>Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every
>intersection.  But the reason they don't is that this
>would cost more than the crime it stops. ... It matters how
>the cost compares to the cost of piracy. ...
<chop>


Well, I suppose this all depends on how much you value human life (among
other things). How much does crime cost, anyway? ;) What level of tolerance
does a society have for it? The resource-management method of explaining
why things are done has a lot of flaws. Of course, this also applies to
Hans arguments.


<slice>
>2) you keep assuming part of the background (Traffic
>Control, regulated departure points, etc) to justify that
>piracy doesn't exist.  One could indeed argue that if
>anything is using assumptions to prove assumptions, this
>is it ...
<dice>


For the record, everyone is throwing around assumptions here, since there
is no objective method to prove any of this (ideally, what we need to do is
set up several intersteller empires and run an experiment). Since this is a
fictional setting, *everything* is an assumption. ;)


<snicker-snack>
>3) I have never claimed to prove piracy is possible. I
>have claimed that you haven't proven it impossible (I
>know you chafe under this burden of proof, but you assumed
>it voluntarily) ...
<snicker-snack>


The burden of proof lay upon the one making the claim of possibility. To
assume otherwise is to make a logical error, IIRC, the fallacy of the
infinite negative. In essence, it is unreasonable to ask one to prove
something impossible, since to do so requires that person to do so over all
time and space. This is the same error that many creationists make against
evolutionary theory, cigarette manufacturers make against medical
researchers, etc. :/

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:13:15 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Hmmmm

At 06:43 PM 10/14/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:33 pm 10/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>> I'm sorry if I apparently had this wrong, it's just that this is what we
>>> were taught.
>>
>>In America, I was taught that we (the USA) won the war of 1812...imagine my
>>surprise when I learned different.
>
>	Well, the Brits did burn down the White House, didn't they? Doesn't that
>count as a win for us?

One of the solid outcomes of the War of 1812 was that the 7th Infantry got
tagged with the dumbest nickname in military history.  The Cottonbalers.  I
kid you not.  Our distinctive insignia was a bale of cotton with crossed
muskets behind it and the motto "Volens et Potens"  (Willing and Able).

We got it during the Battle of New Orleans, when the 7th broke into
warehouses and dragged out huge bales of raw cotton to make improvised
fortifications.  The 7th does have a distingushed history, with campaign
credits from both sides of the Civil War, and is one of two units in the
Army to hold the battle streamer for Little Big Horn.

But that name.. sheeshh..
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengence and the boot that is    |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing thay you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Rabbits of Oz (was Fishies (was Re: Gas Giants))

At 04:55 PM 10/12/97, you wrote:
>Hello Tim, on Oct 11 you wrote:
>
>> >They only had to bring a few rabbits into Australia and pretty
>> >soon... *BOOM*. (If you've never seen the pictures, at one point
>> >the rabbits were so thick that they completely covered the
>> >ground like a thick blanket of vegetation.) The miracles of
>> >unchecked exponential growth.
>> >
>>         Actually, this off-topic topic might be more interesting than the
>> other --
>>         how did they get rid of all the rabbits, anyway? Not joking here,
I've
>>         really always wanted to know. I mean, you're hip deep in rabbit
>> droppings
>>         -- shotguns are not the answer.
>
>  Well, there have been a number of attempts to eradicate them, but as yet,
>there has been no 100% success rate solution.
>
>  1. I _suspect_ that foxes were partly introduced to keep the rabbits down
>     although, it could be for hunting. At any rate, they have done a much
>     better job on sheep, and wallabies along with other small native
>     mammals, than on the rabbits.
>  2. Then they tried a disease called Mixomitosis. This certainly cut down
>     the population, but didn't finish the job. I suspect an immunity was
>     eventually developed by the rabbits. (vision of lab coated rabbits
>     working away...) It also eliminated much of the market for rabbit meat
>     in Australia pretty quickly too! :-)
>  3. The latest attempt is another disease called Colisii virus. You might
>     have heard about this one - it was CSIROs biggest sc**wup in a long time.
>     It was released before testing was complete and spread of its own accord
>     over much of Australia. The most common suggested transfer method is
>     dead rabbit in back of ute! Strange how it jumps 500-1000Km into an
>     isolated place like Broken Hill!
>
>  At the end of all this, AFAIK, we still have a rabbit problem. It just
>isn't quite as big as before. Oh yes one other method - a big market for
>rabbit meat and fur. Although mainly fur since the 50s/60s when Mixo was
>introduced.
>
>  Anyway, back to your scheduled piracy debate.
>
>  BTW: Any nominations for piracy as a done to death topic? If I grab the
>summaries now, I can put it in the FAQ real quick.
>
>  PS: Apologies for spelling of the various diseases. My Latin is abysmal!
>
>Bye,
>
>James Dempsey
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> email: jamesd@spirit.com.au             | Neptune, Titan, stars can frighten!
> WWW:   http://www.spirit.com.au/~jamesd |   Astronomy Domine - Pink Floyd
>
        You spelled those diseases at least as well as I would unless I looked
        them up.

        I think they've pretty much covered the piracy issue, too. The Imperium
        has the resources to stop it. The question is can any competing group of
        governmental agencies (in any government) actually cooperate
sufficiently
        to do the job properly -- I very much doubt it. As you all well know --
        every man has a plan which will not work. When each group attempts to
        institute it own anti-piracy program, I believe what will be seen is
small-
        scale success and grand-scale chaos. Normal behavior for government.

	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:08:38 -0400
From: Paul Kestner <paully@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1959

Dave Quoted : <from Loren ???>
>In America, I was taught that we (the USA) won the
>war of 1812...imagine my surprise when I learned different.

And then Dave said :
>  Well, the Brits did burn down the White House, didn't they?
>  Doesn't that count as a win for us?
>- -- Dave Golden

To which I reply :
  No...  We lose because we rebuilt it afterwards.
- --- Paul Kestner

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:13:31 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Freight Rates

At 12:34 AM 10/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu> said:
><interesting things about RW shipping snipped>
>> >From this, T4 cargo shipment costs, ignoring all other expenses, are
likely
>> to be perhaps 15 times as much, or $15K/ton. Converting from dollars to
>> credits is always exciting, but I have found using PCGNP a good emasure,
>> and by that, the average is about 10KCr, while it is about $30K in the US.
>> As a result, we should expect , therefore, that if Traveller cargo were to
>> cost what present day cargo does to ship, it would cost ~300Cr/Ton to ship,
>> while the ship cost leads to a price of 4500Cr/Ton.
>
>	Your Trav cargo prices look very high to me.  It's not difficult 
>to design a ship that can carry cargo for less than the canonical 
>1000Cr/Td.  In fact, I designed an integrated shipping system that can do 
>it for almost 350Cr/Td, which isn't far from your approximated RW 
>figure.

Let me be a bit clearer.  For purpose of argument, I assumed that the
primary cost of Traveller cargo was the cost of the vessel.  Traveller
vessels cost roughly 15 times as much, so the cargo should cost that much
more.  Clearly, this is misleading, but it does point out just how good the
financing is. :)

I have moved to making civilian starships cost a lot less, by roughly a
factor of ten.  Essentially, by knocking that expensive ship payment way
down, it becomes a lot easier to make a reasonable profit at 300-400CR/t,
with all of the expenses that apply to RW shipping coming into play.  Right
now, the expenses are of the right order of magnitude, but they are
allocated to incorrect places.

I will be more specific about the expenses, as soon as I can find a
merchant shipping company that is willing to let me know what their
container ships cost to run.  If anyone knows one, let me know.

Let me be clear - I do not demand that Traveller match today, but I do
think that since we are using Traveller merchants and ports that look
identical, that they should be reasonably similar in the ways that matter.
For example, current Traveller cargo prices are roughly $3K/t, while today,
it is roughly $1K.  This is not terrible, and with some fiddling, we can
change that down a bit if we want it closer.

The problem is that the ships carrying the cargo are more expensive by a
factor of 15, and that has ramifications.  Further, the universe implies
that the average person might have taken a star trip once or more in their
life, but a single round trip ticket canonically costs $72K.  This kind of
puts paid to the business traveller

Dropping ship prices, and coming up with a different expense mix, makes it
much easier to truck people from star to star.  My game would run better
that way, even though this would make the default merchant bigger by a fair
amount.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:45:00 CDT
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@cmi.csc.com>
Subject: TML down, or have I been removed?

I seem to have abruptly stopped receiving TML digests...
Is the list having a problem, or was I removed for some reason?


HELP!
- --
=========================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist,              (217) 239-8365 = 
= Computer Sciences Corporation, Champaign, IL     dmckinne@cmi.csc.com =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998 =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org    (217) 469-9917 = 
=========================================================================

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1961
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 15 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1962



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

List down?
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: Yet more piracy
Re: Piracy
Re: Catching a merchant
Another piracy challenge
Re: Algorith (correction)
Re: Hmmm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:58:47 -0600
From: Steven Deemer <stedee@auto-trol.com>
Subject: List down?

Is the list down? I haven't seen a post in about 3 days, I'm wondering if
the trouble is
on my end or if this is global. If anyone sees this, could you please let
me know?

Thanks,
Steve Deemer
stedee@auto-trol.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, David P. Summers wrote:

> >
> >On the other hand, the pirate has to get close to the victim. Which
> >almost certainly involves deviating *greatly* from the flight path
> >assigned it by STC (Space Traffic Control).
> 
> Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in fram
> jump at all system?  I have my doubts.  Such _will_ exist at the
> biggest, crowded systems, but it has already been assumed that this
> isn't where piracy would occur.   Beside, as someone else pointed out,
> you just leave at about the same time and get a path this is similar
> anyway.

Mandatory assigned flight paths?  Wow!  I've thought I was being ambitious
by just having those ships that need to use the starport 'generate'
facility, and those ships filing voluntary flight plans, available for
pirates.  All ships!?

Just how much does a filing clerk in the STC make anyway?  What level
bribery skill do you think it would take?  Do we require mandatory filing
of cargo and passenger manifests as well?  (Well...actually I do - but
it's a separate office!)

> Well, that's not hard, but you don't need to do it that way.  You
> can approach the same point from the planet all fueled up.
> 
> >If they have extra time, they can even try to space the crew and jump
> >the ship out (assuming that the jump drive was intact).
> 
> I'm not sure you space them.  You wouldn't kill gratuitously because
> you want to encourage the idea that it's generally a good idea to
> surrender.

Survival balls work.  I agree that killing the crews and passengers is a
poor idea.  If they know they will survive the experience, they will be
less likely to be willing to 'go down with the ship'.

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Yet more piracy

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Ian or Katts wrote:
> >
> >You don't set your corsair on the tarmac, that would not be intelligent.
> >You use a Ship's Boat.  A nice, innocous 30 ton craft that is capable of
> >*6 G*.  This way, even assuming that you don't use a LasComm, you can get
> >out to where the Corsair is (lurking on a moon, or hiding in the asteroid
> >belt) with plenty of time to pass course information.  The 6G advantage
> >should give the Corsair a reasonable opportunity to jump ahead of the
> >victim.  (This is assuming the pirate does not have adequate stealthing
> >and wants to take the target in the destination, rather than the origin, 
> >system.)
> >
> 
> I am a bureaucrat in real life. Trust me, if a 6G pinnace shows up at a
> starport with no starship attached, bureaucrats will raise eyebrows and run
> some checks.

Think of it in terms of a seaport.  A busy seaport.  Are you going to
closely check every cigarette boat that comes into port while the
freighters that pay the bills and deliver the cargo are waiting?  At a
large Class A,B, or even C starport, you are dealing with inter-system
traffic _and_ intra-system traffic.  A well developed system can easily
support populations in excess of the mainworld (just no single world
larger than the mainworld).  Each of these worlds will have traffic coming
and going.  Also, major industries will have industrial complexes in orbit
and beyond.  If there is a planetoid/asteroid belt, there will be miners
and inhabitants there as well.

A 30-ton standard craft, IMHO, is not going to draw that much attention.

One of the basic disagreements that has kept popping up in the course of
this thread is exactly how much traffic a starport is going to have, both
intersystem and intrasystem.  Until that is resolved, I don't think we are
going to get much further in the piracy thread

> >If you are smart, you make an offer to 'stand and deliver'.  Open cargo
> >bay and dump cargo, don't radio for help, after dumping cargo, jump.  If
> >all of the above is true, I don't come within, say, 10 miles of your ship,
> >and I don't slam a volley into your hull.  The first indication I get that
> >you are not working within these guidelines, bang.
> 
> Why cant I jump while dumping what I pretend to be cargo ? Or even better,
> dump a cargo of things that will go *bang* when opened. Hey, if the pirates
> can run sting operations, so can the anti-pirates ... heck, the shipper
> doesnt need to know whats in the cartons, and if we spread enough rumours ...

(sigh)  I _was_ trying to avoid the stereotypical 'bloodthirsty' pirate.
I suppose an example or two made of merchants who pull this ploy would
need to be made.

You know, when you think about it, it really is pretty easy to kill
merchants...if you are not worried about trying to salvage the cargo
later.  Just pack it in a cargo container and contract him to ship it to
another world...

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:52:18 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy

David P. Summers writes:

>Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:31:35 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>>Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in from
>>>jump at all system?  I have my doubts.
> 
>>Why? It costs nothing and it has at least one benefit: It deters piracy.
>>I don't see why anyone would _not_ assign flight paths.
> 
>No. It does _not_ cost nothing.  Virtually every time I have _ever_ heard
>(in Traveller, GURPS, Harn, etc.) claim that something is "free" or "costs
>nothing" has been dead wrong.  There is not such thing as a free lunch, but
>is seems that people never apply this to roleplaying games.

I can't count the number of times I've seen that mantra ('There is no such
thing as a free lunch') applied erroneously. It is true that _someone_
always pays. But it is most emphatically not true that the person who 
enjoys the free lunch is the same one who pays for it.
 
>Here we are talking about people and equipment to monitor and
>people and equipment to enforce.  And, as others have commented,
>it is not even clear how much this does to deter piracy.

Here is a case in point. If you have someone assigned to run a starport and
the starport has a sensor suite and a communicator, then assigning flight
paths dosen't cost anything _extra_. So for practical purposes it dosen't
cost anything.

Likewise, if you have the military ships anyway (not because you need them
during peacetime, but because you know you're going to need them in case of
war), then getting some use out of them is for all practical purposes free.
I know you think that all active Imperial ships are doing something active
to deter the Zhodani from attacking, but I can't for the life of me figure
out just what you think it is. The primary way a warship deters someone
else from starting a war is by existing. And if its crew have gotten a bit
of training doing piracy suppression, so much the better.

>>>I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
>>>can't see why he would attack anyplace else.
> 
>>To prevent the merchant from jumping from within the 100 diameter limit
> 
>Which he won't do if you get him on the first shot.

Which you certainly can't be sure of, especially since he will be aware of
your existence the moment you do something suspicious. Odds are that he will
be in a position to jump before you're even in range.
 
>>>>They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
>>>>refueling.
>>>
>>>Well, that's not hard,
>>
>>Not unless you are trying to pose as a legitimate trader.
> 
>Why?

Well, I've said it before, but I don't mind repeating it. Its not that you
can't easily carry extra fuel in collapsible fuel tanks. Its that if you
jump into a star system expecting to capture any prey you happen to find,
then you can't use your real transponder signature, which means you can't
do any legitimate business at the system. Registering ships that arrive
at a starport is so easy that it is another one of those things that are
for all practical purposes free. Since the speed of transmission is from
jump-4 to jump-6, while most tramp ships are jump-1 to jump-3, it will be
almost impossible to outrace information about your existence (though it
can, of course, be done in the case of really backwater systems). That 
means that a ship that appears out of nowhere is a suspicious ship and
merits above average attention. And if you use a fake ID of some ship
that does exist, you will be exposed the moment you touch down in the
starport and someone notices that your serial numbers don't match your
transponder ID.

David P. Summers writes:
>Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:15:50 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>[OK, I may not keep up with this.  Hans has used a response
>to another posts to take a swipe at my views.  I will just
>point out some of the basis for disagreement without rehashing
>stuff that Hans an I have already beaten to death.]

David, I assumed you would read it. If I had even considered that you might
not, I would have cc'ed you.
 
>>Tim Connors writes:
>>>Of course, it exists. Yes, the resources to eradicate it exist. Just
>>>as the resources to eradicate mugging in New York City exist -- we
>>>can put a cop every fifteen feet throughout the city.
> 
>>No you can't. New York dosen't have enough cops to put one every 15 feet
>>throughout the city 24 hours a day. But the Imperium _does_ have enough
>>ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
>>system defended against attacks).
> 
>Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every intersection.

Dammit, David, read what I write! NYC _don't_ have the resources to put
a cop at every intersection. They might be able to hire them if the cut
back on something else, but as of today they don't have that many cops.
But if the canonical figures are right, then the Imperium does have that
many 'cops'. You may think they need them for something else, but at
least admit that _according to canon_, they do have them.

>But the reason they don't is that this would cost more than the crime it
>stops. 

I see. That is the reason, is it? They have an accountant sitting and
registering the precise economic losses due to rapes, murders, domestic
spats, and robberies, and every time the figure reaches the salary of a
cop, they hire another one?

Despite what you may think, human beings don't do everything the most
cost effective way (For one thing, it is often impossible to agree on
what is the most cost effective way). The reason NYC don't put a cop
on every street corner is economic all right, but not the way you claim.
Basically, NYC figures out how many cops they can afford and then use
them the best way the can. And according to TCS and _Striker_, the
Imperium figured that they needed a lot of 'cops'.

>It doesn't matter what %age of the military budget it would take to stop
>piracy (though we disagree on that too). It matters how the cost compares
>to the cost of piracy. If 0.000001% of the budget is more than the cost
>of piracy, they aren't going to spend it to stop piracy.

Of course they are. Piracy is more than an economic problem. It's a direct
challenge to everything the Imperium stands for. Besides that, why do you
assume that suppressing pirates wouldn't be economically sound? A starship
is an expensive toy to lose, and a single Free Trader can justify the
operating cost of a rather large patrol ship. In fact, now that I think
about it, by your own logic the mere existence of all those Imperial ships
implies that it is worthwhile to keep them in operation, so evidently
suppressing piracy is economically sound.  

>>Just the other day I
>>realized (or I think I realized) why David refused to accept that this was
>>the case. As far as I can make out, he assumes that no government will use
>>more money to defend against pirates than can be saved by suppressing them.
>>Consequently any money spent on a navy will be less than is needed to fulfil
>>all its other functions PLUS suppressing pirates completely. So propably
>>the Imperial navy is smaller than I claim, but if it isn't, then it needs
>>almost everything it has to keep the Zhodani, Sword Worlds, Vargr, etc. in
>>check. No matter how many ships it has, it needs almost all of them for
>>duties incompatible with piracy suppression, whether or not David can
>>explain just what.
> 
>Well, I _have_ explained, numerous times, how piracy suppression is
>incompatible with military uses.  To win battles, you need concentrate your
>forces (for example, read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu) but to stop piracy,
>you need to disperse your forces for coverage.

You also need information. There isn't a great general, from Sun Tzu to
Clausevitz that didn't know the importance of information about the
enemy's movement. That's why a navy builds ships of different size. Some
are big battleships; they are concentrated. Others are small scouting
vessels; those are dispersed to collect information. Others are smallish
picket ships; they are dispersed to chase enemy scouts. Others are 
medium-sized raiders and escorts; they are respectively sent out to
disrupt enemy supply lines and to protect your own supply lines.

And the fact that the Imperial navy does build destroyers and escorts in
addition to cruisers and battleships proves that your claim that all of
a regular navy will be concentrated is wrong. Now, we don't know what
percentage of the Imperial navy goes to the big ships and how much is
left over for the small ones, but if it is even 1% then the Imperial
navy has more than enough ships to deal effectively with pirates. And
the main point is that they didn't build them to hunt pirates; they
built them to serve various vital roles in the event of war. But if
there _isn't_ a war, then what? Precisely. If there isn't a war then
using them for piracy suppresssion is for all practical purposes free.
Nay, it is better than that, because you get your crews trained for
the same money. Truly a case of a free lunch.

>As to wether they need those ships to stop the Zhodani, etc.  If they
>didn't, why would the build them?

I didn't say the ships wasn't necessary to keep the Zhodani in check. I
questioned the notion that they needed to do much more than exist to do 
so.

>If the answer is piracy, then were are right back to the fact the the costs
>of piracy needs to justify those ships.

Which I think I might even be able to do, but I'm not going to bother,
because the ships _are_ built for the purpose of dealing with the
Zhodani. Most of them are, admittedly, not suitable for patrolling.
But I think you will admit that Chrysanthemums, Fer-de-Lances and
Midu Agashaams are perfectly suitable for the role; P.F.Sloans are
actually rather overkill, and even Gazelles will do admirably, though
they may need to double up.

>>In other words, David uses the assumption that piracy is possible to prove
>>that piracy is possible.
> 
>This is ironic on multiple levels...
>1) this comes after Hans I has an exchange about respecting
>the views of others.  Please don't try and go
>to a message I might never read to spin my points as circular
>reasoning.

David, you are assuming, _a priori_ that any ships built by the navy will
be needed full time by the navy, even in peacetime, and not available for
piracy suppression, because if they were available they would be superfluous
(if that's the word I want) to the navy's need and would therefore not have
been built in the first place. If that isn't using the assumption that
supressing pirates will always be too expensive to prove that there will
not be enough assets to suppress pirates, please explain what it is.
  
>2) you keep assuming part of the background (Traffic Control, regulated
>departure points, etc) to justify that piracy doesn't exist. 

Well, I'm assuming that losing ships and cargoes to pirates is expensive,
if that's what you mean. Consequently I think that any little regulation
that can be implemented with little additional expense will be worthwhile.

1) Traffic control: If you have a starport with a communicator, a sensor
   suite, a computer, and a few employees (which I would say included
   anything above Class E and some of the Class Es too), then traffic
   control is, for all practical purposes free.

   If you have a navy ship stationed in the system the same applies.

2) If you put a navy ship at the 100 diameter limit and informed all
   merchants that it was there, don't you think that if pirates were
   really a threat then the merchants would prefer to aim for that
   point anyway? And if they didn't, even if that would in some way
   cost them more than they would care to spend on security, what would
   it cost the Navy or Ground Control to enforce it? They're not the
   losing this hypothetical money. For them, at least, its a free lunch. 

>One could indeed argue that if anything is using assumptions to prove
>assumptions, this is it.

I've asked you how many ship you think would be necessary to secure a
planet against piracy. If you disagree that two ships could do it, fine!
Tell me how many you think it would take and why you think so. If it
turns out that it is few enough, I may not even need to use the traffic
control scheme.
 
>3) I have never claimed to prove piracy is possible. I have claimed that
>you haven't proven it impossible (I know you chafe under this burden of
>proof, but you assumed it voluntarily).

Not at all. Given that my basic attitude to canon is that whatever
assumptions are needed to make it plausible should be accepted _as long as
they themself makes sense_, I certainly do labor under the burden of proof.

>I am willing to agree that piracy could be pretty rare depeding on what
>assumptions the GM decides to go with.

AHA! And the assumption I base my claim on is that _if_ you go with the naval 
budget figures from TCS and _Striker_ then piracy is well nigh impossible.

>>My argument is that thanks to the way jump drives work,
>>the number of places that you need to guard is proportionally far less
>>than any historical parralel that I can think of, and the assets that
>>canon indicates would be available more than sufficient to cover them.
> 
>Aside from the general disagreement, another problem is that you
>ignore interplanetary traffic.

Well, if you will come up with some figures for interplanetary traffic and
the naval budgets associated with them, then I will take a stab at them.
Of course, the canonical pirates are the ones that prey on Free Traders
like those PCs usually bum around in. You may be able to demonstrate
that pirating interplanetary traffic is feasible (though given the value
of even an interplanetary vessel compared to the cost of a military
vessel, I kind of doubt it), but that's not really the kind of pirates
we're talking about, is it?
 

David P. Summers writes:

>14 Oct 1997 20:17:11 GMT, Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
>>traveller@MPGN.COM,Internet writes:
>>But the Imperium _does_ have enough
>>ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
>>system defended against attacks).
> 
>>But will they?
> 
>>During WWII the US had enough destroyers etc to stop the German UBoats that
>>were sinking ships in US coastal waters.  But they didn't.  They could have
>>implemented coastal blackouts so ships weren't silhoetted against the lights.
>>But they didn't.  Tankers would survive the trip across the Atlantic,
>>through the black hole, down the Canadian coast, and get torpedoed off the
>>Texas shore.
>> 
>>Admiral King didn't assign a priority to stopping the uboats, apparently.

That's your fallacy right there, Rob. You talk of a priority. What could be
more important than hunting submarines along the Texas shore during WWII? I 
bet that if you put your mind to it, you can come up with quite a few
(possibly even the ones Admiral King did). Now compare that to the priorities
of the Imperial navy in peacetime. Can you spot the difference? Bingo! The
Imperial navy isn't involved in a world-spanning life and death struggle.

>>Possibly the Imperial Admirals would rather fight battle fleets than pirates?
> 
>Exactly!

Oh, please! Am I the only one who realize that what the US navy in WWII did
or did not have the resources to do has absolutely nothing to do with what
the Imperial navy is capable of in peacetime?

>Just because it is "possible" for something to happen, doesn't mean it will
>and, as I have endevored to point out, any analysis of what the Imperium
>"could" do has to consider that those making the decisions have a million
>other problems that are all clamouring for the same resources.

It would really help your argument if you could point out just a few of
those million other problems that the Imperial navy have in peacetime. I
don't need a million; a half dozen will do, provided they cost more and
are of a higher negative news value than piracy.




      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
"Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
                - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:30:01 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Catching a merchant

> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> writes:
>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
>>...if you put down at a starport, the port has enough data to identify
>>you, unless you used cleverly forged papers. If you used forged papers you
>>leave another kind of trail. And if you sit around on the tarmac and
>>suddenly decide to leave just after another ship has left, you arouse the
>>suspicions of any patrol vessel stationed at the world. You also arouse
>>the suspicions of your intended prey, losing any chance of surprising him.
> 
>If I might suggest...
> 
>You don't set your corsair on the tarmac, that would not be intelligent.
>You use a Ship's Boat.  A nice, innocous 30 ton craft that is capable of
>*6 G*.  

What's so innocuous about an unknown ship's boat that appear out of nowhere?

>This way, even assuming that you don't use a LasComm, you can get out to
>where the Corsair is (lurking on a moon, or hiding in the asteroid belt)

Here we are back to another of the pirate's big problems. The number of
places you can lurk in a solar system is severely limited and none of
them are close to where any sane merchant will want to venture.

>...with plenty of time to pass course information. 

According to _Imperial Encyclopedia_ it takes a 1G ship 9.5 hours to get
from the ground to the 100 diameter limit of a world of size A. It takes
2.8 hours to get to the 10 diameter limit, where, according to MT rules
(I'm not sure how it is in other versions), it becomes less hazardous to
jump than to get shot at by pirates. Neither timespan gives the pirate
much room to maneuver, now does it?

>The 6G advantage should give the Corsair a reasonable opportunity to jump
>ahead of the victim.  

What's the good of jumping ahead of the merchant if the next system is
guarded by a squadron of patrol ships? (That would be a PatRon, wouldn't
it? ;-)

>(This is assuming the pirate does not have adequate stealthing and wants
>to take the target in the destination, rather than the origin, system.)

Oh, if you can persuade Marc Miller to introduce a cloaking device, then
I'd say a pirate's chances would be considerably improved.

>>To prevent the merchant from jumping from within the 100 diameter limit,
>>which may not be something a merchant cares to do if he can avoid it, but
>>is still preferrable to losing the whole ship (If a pirate catches a ship
>>with its tanks full, there is no reason why he shouldn't take the ship too).
> 
>If you are smart, you make an offer to 'stand and deliver'.  Open cargo
>bay and dump cargo, don't radio for help, after dumping cargo, jump.  If
>all of the above is true, I don't come within, say, 10 miles of your ship,
>and I don't slam a volley into your hull.  The first indication I get that
>you are not working within these guidelines, bang.

a) How do you get within shooting range of him without alerting him?
b) How do you chack that he dosen't use a laser to call for help?
c) How do you prevent a patrol ship from getting the picture when he
   dumps his cargo and you move towards it?
d) You'd better be certain he isn't armed the way all those Free Traders
   we've seen in various adventures have been, because all you've done
   then is to give him time to warm up his turrets. But if he, and all
   your other prospective victims aren't armed, how do you prevent a
   patrol ship from getting suspicious when you turn up with a ship that
   is armed to the gills?

>>>[Regarding coming out of jump and attacking...]
>>> 
>>>>They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
>>>>refueling.
>>> 
>>>Well, that's not hard, 
>> 
>>Not unless you are trying to pose as a legitimate trader.
> 
>What is wrong with collapsible tanks?  Do you haul in every trader who
>uses 'em?
 
No, but I look with grave suspicions on every ship that can't make an
honest living. Using up most of your cargo space to carry fuel is a
very good way to go bankrupt unless you have a supplementary income.


Douglas also writes:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

>>Douglas, if you were a pirate pursuing a merchant, would you really match
>>vectors with any boxes he happened to push out of his cargo hold, allowing
>>him to escape while you checked whether he had left you full cargo containers
>>or empty fold-out boxes that just looked like cargo containers (or just
>>plain tin foil, for that matter)?
> 
>Actually, I am just giving a possible way for pirate to make money without
>taking ships.  A way for merchants to survive the encounter.  Now that you
>have pointed out a possible problem, I would modify the tactic.  The
>merchant isn't allowed to power up the j-drive until a box or two has been
>checked.
> 
>So far as matching vectors, I don't see the problem.  It is just as easy
>to match vectors with cargo as it is to match with a ship.

Far easier, because the cargo isn't accelerating. That's rather the point.
While you are decellerating to match vectors (you were accelerating at 3G
to get within shooting range of the merchant, weren't you?) the merchant
is merrily accelerating for either the jump limit or the patrol vessel
that is coming towards you at full speed (or perhaps not full speed; he
may not want to risk overshooting you). No, I think you'd have to compel
him to 'heave to' and then board him. And if you do (assuming for purposes
of argument that you can), you may as well take the whole ship. So if he
complies it's not just a matter of losing a cargo, its a matter of losing
the whole ship. Which is expensive. Which makes the risk of jumping from
inside the 100 diameter limit a lot more attractive.
 
>My actual prey were the Type S ships.  I would cut 'em apart and sell the
>components.

Recipice for stuffed moose: First you catch a moose. I don't dispute that
you can fence the stuff if you can get it. I just don't think you can get
it in the first place.
 


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:41:52 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Another piracy challenge

In his reply to my posting 'Catching a merchant' of Tue, 14 Oct David didn't
address one of the most crucial problems that I feel that a would-be pirate
would operate under:

>The thing is, you haven't explained how the pirate intercepted the merchant
>in the first place. If he wants to make sure that his prey can't escape by
>a premature jump then he has to go after incoming ships. That means he has
>to lurk either near the jump limit or down on the planet, intercept the
>merchant, disable him, and match vectors with him before a patrol ship can
>get close enough to hit him. (And when you do try to explain, please select
>either a real merchant ship that just turns pirate occasionally or a 
>dedicated pirate ship for your example. Don't use one type of ship when it
>comes to fooling starport, patrols, and prey and another kind when it comes
>to catching and fighting the prey).

Now, I know that is because he feels that he has explained that a lot of
times already, not that he can't explain it, but I must have missed it all
the previous times, and I really can't figure it out for myself. So if David
(or one of the other pro-pirate people) would do me the favor of summing up
the correct way for a pirate to catch a merchant at a planet defended by
a single patrol ship of sufficient size to defeat said pirate, I'd be most
grateful. 
 
 
 
       Hans Rancke
 University of Copenhagen
      rancke@diku.dk
 - ------------
 "Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
                 - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"
 

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 04:50:35 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Algorith (correction)

Moin Glenn Hoppe,

> If |deltax| >= |2*deltay|-1  then  D=|deltax|
>                              else  D=|deltax|/2 (round down) + |deltay|
> 
> In english: If the absolute value of delta-x equals or exceeds the 
> absolute value of delta-y minus 1, then the distance is equal to the 
> absolute value of delta-x. Otherwise the distance is equal to half the 
> absolute value of delta-x (dropping fractions) plus the absolute value of 
> delta-y.

	something like this was, what I've thought about when asking
	for the "Magic Formular", hope to implement it in the scenario
	version of my viewer.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:34:28 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Hmmm

Mark Urbin wrote:

>Loren Wiseman typed:
>>> I'm sorry if I apparently had this wrong, it's just that this is what we
>>> were taught.
>>In America, I was taught that we (the USA) won the war of 1812...imagine my
>>surprise when I learned different.
>
>At the US Military Academy at West Point, the Museum of American Warfare
>has an exhibit that starts off, "At best, the War of 1812, can be
>considered a draw."

   It was basically a draw.  

   While the British clearly commanded the seas (individual American
ships make a good showing, but the USS Constitution was in no danger of
sailing up the Thames and bombarding London), they couldn't not muster
sufficent land forces do much of anything but raid the American coast. 
While the burning of Washington was somewhat demoralizing, the raid
didn't knock the U.S. out of the war--the fact is that Washington wasn't
all that important yet.  The raids that followed on Balitmore and New
Orleans had far more negative implications had they succeeded because
Baltimore and New Orleans were important seaports.

   As for the Niagara front, clearly a British victory.  However, the
British were in no danger of taking over any territory.  American
offensive efforts here failed in part because of the incompetence of New
York militia forces (for some reason some of them decided that if war
involved invading enemy territory they weren't interested).  Another
example of why you have at least a modest-sized standing army.

   Where the Americans had their greatest success was in the Midwest,
where American forces pushed the British out of American territory and
once and for all defeated their Native-American allies at the Battle of
the Thames in Ontario (my high school was named for the Shawnee war
chief Tecumseh--imagine figuring out some years later that your high
school was named after a traitor--of course most historians don't see it
that way).  After Perry's victory on Lake Erie, the Great Lakes were
also secured.

   Reading Ohio history, it wasn't a bad little war afterall actually...

Scott Nolan writes:

>The only reason that the U.S. wasn't pounded into oblivion during that war
>is that the British had a little fellow named Napoleon to worry about.

   While the prospect of Wellington marching troops through the American
countryside isn't a pleasant one, I would argue that even he would have
found trying to subdue the "former colonies" as frustrating an
experience as Cornwallis did.  Given his experience in Spain, he would
have realized that long term British prospects weren't good.

>We were a sideshow.  "Win" or "Lose" are unhelpful labels.  They didn't defeat
>us, but we didn't drive them off, either.  They left because there were
>bigger fish to fry.

   The Americans left like they had to prove a point, and to a certain
extent they were successful.  I don't recall any further problems in the
Midwest or elsewhere with the British stirring up Native-Americans,
something they had been doing for many years prior.

   If anything, the war actually improved American-British relations. 
Note that later border disputes were settled by diplomats, not generals.

>Who won?  The only clear victory is for Canadian bar-goers, who now have
>something to respond when Americans visit Canada and call it the 51st state.

   The Canadians had their day at Lundy's Lane, a battle fought on the
Canadian side of the border.  Once again, the New York militia decided
not to show up, and American forces were defeated.  Had the Americans
won that one, the history of Canada would have been considerably
different.

David J. Golden writes:

>   Well, the Brits did burn down the White House, didn't they? Doesn't 
>that count as a win for us?

   Only if that <censored> who resides there now is trapped inside. 
Since we are talking about the War of 1812, the point is moot.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1962
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 16 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1963



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: T4 and Silent Death
Re: Damned Star Trek
Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)
Re: Death Star Basic Stats
Gas Giants
Re: Yet more piracy
Re: In orbit
Re: Yet more piracy (P.S.)
Re: Piracy
Re: Piracy
FF&S Missile Design
Re: Piracy
Re: FF&S Missile Design
re:Piracy
Re: FF&S2 Stuff...
Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:38:45 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: T4 and Silent Death

Alan M. Nuss writes:

>>A brief mention in Allen Varney's Current Clack (Dragon #240) ways 
>>that IG and ICE have been talking for almost a year and a Traveller 
>>version of Silent death will be released as the new ship-to- ship 
>>space combat system.  Of course there is j0 word on IG's web site 
>>about this.
>
>I play test Silent Death for ICE and no one in our group has heard a
>thing about this.

   At GenCon 1996, Ken Whitman concluded a tenative agreement with ICE
for a "Silent Death Traveller" product.  I know, because he walked up to
a group of playtesters (myself included) and told them as much.

   As to where things are now with that, I have no idea, but it would
make sense if IG had continued the negotiations until a final agreement
was reached.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:45:50 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Damned Star Trek

Ethan Henry writes:

>There's a big company party organized where I work
>and we've been divided into teams that are all named...
>with Star Trek alien names! Blech! Yuck!

   There are worse things...Care Bears, Power Rangers, and Beanie Babies
all come to mind...

>The humiliation of being on "Team Jem'Hadar".
>I just can't bring myself to go through all
>the explanation necessary for "Team Vargr" or
>"Team Zhodani" (or for an even stranger explanation,
>"Team Sayat") though. *Sigh*.

   The Jem'Hadar are addicts who are kept under control with a white
substance that keeps them from killing every one around them and finally
themselves.

   If you there isn't a better reason for a better name say TEAM
KLINGON, I don't know of any.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:44:57 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)

Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:13:00 -0700, shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
>>Don't know, but if I was GMing I would regard suprise attack
>>on an unarmed ship to be a special case anway.  Anyway, I
>>certainly would let the ship target engineering which is
>>going to cut power and prevent a distress call.

>  Hmm, assuming a longish range (courtesy of either traffic control
>or paranoia) I'd give it real easy DM's for the first attack, and
>count it as only a minute or two for the firing turn equivalent.
>That helps the hit and time problem; I wouldn't allow aiming (they
>probably can't use firecon radar without alerting the target anyways).
>With CT/HG, and a lot of Striker derivatives that could be enough to
>cripple a merchantman anyways. I wouldn't try it against a warship.

Actually I would also assume short range, since I don't believe
in traffic control from that far out (and which doesn't appear
in the backgroud).  But that would just make it easier.  I
wouldn't try it against a warship that had a significant edge
in power (like a Kuninuir) but a measly system defense boat
would be doable.

>>>In any case, if such a hit represents an event in a 15 or 30 minute
>>>turn doesn't it still represent an average 5-15 minutes, say, to SOS?
>>
>>Well, the problem is that the turn both includes time before
>>the shot (when the clock isn't running) and time to cycle
>>around to return fire (which irrelvant if you disable in one shot).

>  If CT ships have ROF 1, true. But my T4 stuff shows large numbers
>for ROF, so it seems that surprise shots aside the cycle period is
>a couple of minutes at best.

OK, I haven't gone through T4 space combat.

>>Maser comms are typically only found on military vessels.
>
>  From Striker, I can do a million klicks for ~60 KCr. I think
>the book was a horrible waste of money, but from Starships at
>TL 11+ the Advanced Civ ELX suite includes a 1000 AU (!) unit.

The point is that would a merchant buy one that he might use
once?  It might be cheaper to get insurance.

>>I'm sorry, I don't see why this would be.  But, in any case,
>>you could just attack the outbout ships.

>  Do you want to make a habit of jumping from within the 100 D limit?

I would attack just before you you reach the limit, then pop
out and jump.

>  Also, matching an inbound trajectory is difficult, unless
>you know how they're jumping in. Matching outbound must be
>a great deal easier.

Not if inbound trajectories are low (it there isn't much to
match).  Of course this gets into the question of how you
handle velocity conservation when you jump.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:05:10 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Death Star Basic Stats

6G ????

The Death Star was a huge lumbering beast with a 0.1G M-drive, in my 
opinion.  besides, this will let the ship have a much bigger main 
weapon ... the odd 100,000 GigaWatt beam with a ROF of (say) 1 will 
need one or two HPG's!

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:00:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: SignalGK@aol.com
Subject: Gas Giants

Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?

I've assumed that it would result in combustion of the atmosphere probably
lasting for hundreds of years but would appreciate other people's views on
this..

Also re Piracy - I vote for Ref's decision.. I roleplay primarily in
Dagudashaag (after all I've completely mapped the bloody sector over the last
few years in Signal GK - my UK fanzine) and I've two areas that still have
fairly heavy piracy - I base my decision on the fact that piracy is still
fairly rampant in certain parts of the world but generally focuses its
attention of going for the smaller private craft rather than the fleet ships.
I've a friend who's boat was waylaid off-shore of  Singapore and was lucky to
survive with his skin intact.. Just 10 miles away from one of the busiest
ports in the world..

So, I think Ref's have the right to have piracy exist if they want it though
it will most likely target smaller ships the closer to the Imperial core you
get.

Cheers ;)

Jae

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:26:14 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Yet more piracy

Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:35:27, Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
>>Why can it be expected?  You are falling into the old trap of anything
>>that isn't expensive is expected.  The cost of maning all these
>>stations will have to exceed the cost of piracy is stops, which
>>will be especially hard since ways to work around this have already
>>been mentioned and even if they did work, piracy will just tend
>>to shift to smaller worlds in the same system or to smaller systems.


>We bureaucrats want to know *everything*, just in case we need to justify
>things later.

Well, no they want to know everything that the rules say they
should know.  If the Imperium decides that making sure that
every bureaucrat knows something costs too much, they will stop
requiring it.  Now this isn't to say that money doesn't get
wasted, but it doesn't cover everything that could be known.

>The facilities are going to be there for customs control and
>so on, as well as planetary defense, and if they are there, they will be
>>used.

Well, most worlds don't that much in the way of planetary defenses
(it just doesn't make sense to try and guard every world) and
custom controls people are going to be busy with their own
duties without having to cover additional needs for equipment
and manpower that tracking every ship will take.

Similarly on the seperate point of registration numbers, they
are not a fool proof method and in an Imperium where records
can easily lag way behind, this will be more of nightmare.

>And if piracy is pushed away from the worlds with traffic, then
>
>(a) pirates will find very few targets (because they are going *away* from
>the trade routes), thus becoming less economic and

Well, in fact, such crimes have an optimal traffic that is
_not_ the max.  Muggings don't occur in front of Tiffany's
in the middle of the day in spite of the high volume of
choice targets.  It occurs on side streets where targets
of opportunity do present themselves but for which the
cost is less.

>(b) if the fixed defenses (the SDBs) are keeping pirates away from the
>mildly-populated systems, then the Navy has fewer other systems to keep an
>eye on.

Well, in fact the point is that piracy would shift to these midly
populated systems where there are only a few ships a day (or
week) and mainting a base to check every registration
and track every ship means people spending a lot of time
sitting around.

>>Well, the small price is debatable.  A system defense boat trying
>>to stop piracy is going to risk (a SDB has to match _any_ situation
>>it comes up against, or you are going to start taking losses and
>>costs are going to soar).  Many of us feel that one SDB guarding
>>a world is laughable, let along guarding a system.

>Lets call the "small price" one credit per citizen per system. Assume our
>populous trading world has 100 million people on it, and twenty systems to
>keep an eye on. Therefore each citizen is paying Cr20 a year in extra naval
>taxes, and each of twenty systems gets an annual Naval Budget of MCr 100 -
>enough to buy and maintain a quite reasonable force of SDBs, and a couple
>of type S scout ships to provide a mail service.

>When you appear in a system, Starport Control message you, asking for full
>details on your ship, manifest, crew, last ten ports of call, planned next
>three destinations, serial numbers on power plants, jump drive etc. (this
>is actually the short version. The comprehensive Vilani version goes for
>about five pages)

All of which can easily be faked.  Or in fact, you can simply
be someone who does both legit trade (and has suitable
registration) and also commits crime on the side.

So you jump in.  If you spot a juicy target you just give
a fake ID and take out the merchant (after all, the odds
that you could be arriving ahead of the records are good).
If not you give your real ID.  Or maybe you just give
your real ID, take the ship, and jump out of system and
get a new ID before records catch up.  Or you use one
of the other routes that people have used for centuries.
The fact is that these scheme can be used to manage
crime but they almost never succeed in eliminating it.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: In orbit

> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
> 
> Ummm...I know this may offend the gearheads, but could we come up with
> something I don't need a calculator for?  That, in the midst of a game
> gone wrong, when the players look at me and say "how long will it take for
> the ship to return overhead" (with that particular glaze that says that if
> I don't give a confident answer, I'll be arguing until next week...)
> 
> Like, maybe, 20 * Planet size (in minutes...)?

OK, I derived the following expression for an orbiting object's period:

  P = 2 pi sqrt(r/a)

where P is the period, r the radius from the center of the planet, and a
the acceleration due to gravity at that radius.

We can assume a parking orbit is at 1.1 times the planet's own radius; 
this gives 640 km orbital altitude above the surface for a size-8 world,
which seems reasonable, though it turns out this analysis isn't very
sensitive to changes in radius between 1.0 and 1.2.  Just for comparison,
the Shuttle orbits at around 200 km.

For a world of Earthlike density, a is proportional to r...so that r/a
term is a constant -- yielding the counterintuitive result that a close
parking orbit around an Earthlike world *always* has a period of about 90
minutes, regardless of the size of the world!

Now, how's that for simplicity? :)

By the way, in qualitative terms, what's going on here is that smaller
planets have lower gravities, resulting in lower close-orbit velocities,
but they're also less far around -- and the two factors neatly cancel out. 

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:41:09 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Yet more piracy (P.S.)

[OK, I sent my other reply prematurely, this point didn't get covered.
I'm not going to go into it too much since it has been covered
before in discussions with differnt posters.  Before they jump
in and try and prove me wrong all over again (we don't need
to beat the dead horse into a pulp) I will acknowledge that
there are those who don't agree with this.  Thus, on many
of the key points regarding piracy, the answer is "it depends
on who you ask and what your guesses are".]


Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:35:27, Ian or Katts <ianw@orac.net.au>
>>Well, the small price is debatable.  A system defense boat trying
>>to stop piracy is going to risk (a SDB has to match _any_ situation
>>it comes up against, or you are going to start taking losses and
>>costs are going to soar).  Many of us feel that one SDB guarding
>>a world is laughable, let along guarding a system.

>Lets call the "small price" one credit per citizen per system. Assume our
>populous trading world has 100 million people on it, and twenty systems to
>keep an eye on. Therefore each citizen is paying Cr20 a year in extra naval
>taxes, and each of twenty systems gets an annual Naval Budget of MCr 100 -
>enough to buy and maintain a quite reasonable force of SDBs, and a couple
>of type S scout ships to provide a mail service.

First of all, SDBs or undergunned for the task.  A decent sized
armed merchant can, especially if he has a buddy and/or attacks by
suprise, take one out.   If you use them you are going to
have to start paying replacement costs which will add up in
a hurry.  In any case, if you use Hans' (a noted supporter
of the idea that piracy can't exist) view that ship costs
10% of it's purchase price to operate/year, and assume that
we have a 5/1 ratio of front line units to support
(conservative, 10/1 is a more common number historically),
and use Kuninuir types ships, you 100 million poeple can
support 2 ships (not enough to cover their own system).
You are going to need more than one ship per world
(an hour and 1/2 is too slow a response time, you need
shifts (american warships spend 30% of their time at
sea) so I would go with 6 on patrol in 3 shifts for
a total of 18).  Then you have the fact that you are
going to have something like 5 worlds per system with
traffic and you also have to cover interplanetery traffic.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:30:30 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Piracy

In mail you write:

>>If you are under gravity it'd be faster, but you have more mass and
>>inertia problems, and have to control the crippled ship's computer.
>
> Why?  What mass and intertia problems?  The gravity is on, you
> free and ready the cargo, and cut power to the gravity....

Mass and inertia are the same thing. And they are *not* the same thing
as *weight*. Cutting gravity will eliminate weight, but the mass
remains. 

To quote a "safety sign" from one of H. Beam Piper's stories:

	Weight is what you lift.
	Mass is what hurts when it hits you.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:13:58 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:02:51 -0500, yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
>Taking a few pot shots from my bell tower:
>
><snip>
>>Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every
>>intersection.  But the reason they don't is that this
>>would cost more than the crime it stops. ... It matters how
>>the cost compares to the cost of piracy. ...
><chop>

>Well, I suppose this all depends on how much you value human life (among
>other things). How much does crime cost, anyway? ;) What level of tolerance
>does a society have for it? The resource-management method of explaining
>why things are done has a lot of flaws. Of course, this also applies to
>Hans arguments.

Exactly!  Give the man a prize!

>For the record, everyone is throwing around assumptions here, since there
>is no objective method to prove any of this (ideally, what we need to do is
>set up several intersteller empires and run an experiment). Since this is a
>fictional setting, *everything* is an assumption. ;)

Right on again!  There are too many assumptions to prove that
either piracy does, or doesn't, exist.  Thus, it all depends
on what the GM assumes when he sets up the campaign.

><snicker-snack>
>>3) I have never claimed to prove piracy is possible. I
>>have claimed that you haven't proven it impossible (I
>>know you chafe under this burden of proof, but you assumed
>>it voluntarily) ...
><snicker-snack>

>The burden of proof lay upon the one making the claim of possibility. To
>assume otherwise is to make a logical error, IIRC, the fallacy of the
>infinite negative. In essence, it is unreasonable to ask one to prove
>something impossible, since to do so requires that person to do so over all
>time and space

And you were so close!  First of all, if ones position is
impossible to prove, that doesn't mean one if forced to
accept it if they can't prove it wrong.  The fact that
it can't be proved to be true means that it can only
be possible even, if the other side makes no arguements
(ie the thesis is reduced to "it is possible that piracy
is impossible").  (The fact that one has impossible burden
of proof doesn't mean the burden shifts to the other
side, it just means you automatically loose :-)  However,
in fact proving things impossible is not impossible.
The typical approach is to prove that one alternative
is the only possible one (which most people choose
over trying to prove infinite alternatives impossible :-)
arising out of whatever principles one is operating from
(in this case the setting).

Second, the burden of proof in any proactive postion (be it
that piracy can't exist or that it absolutely does exist)
is greater than it is for a lesser postion (such that either
postion hasn't been proven).  Because the latter only has
to show that there are flaws in one's postion, while the
former has to construct a postion and prove every
bit of it.  You can't use assumptions to support the
postion because assumptions are (by defination) not
proof.  However, using an assumption

>. This is the same error that many creationists make against
>evolutionary theory, cigarette manufacturers make against medical
>researchers, etc. :/

Yes, creationists and cigarette manufacturers have an easier
time because they only seek to prove (sometimes) that
something is possible. .  That means that if they only
show a fundamental flaw in their opponents position, they
have done what they set out to do (wether they have, in a
fact, done this to one's satisfaction is another matter)
They do make errors, but it is not in their burden of proof
(sometime, othertime they are, in fact, trying to prove
things like evolution is wrong).

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:22:53 -0500
From: Andrew Akins <igor@ames.net>
Subject: FF&S Missile Design

I'm busy working on my FF&S worksheet...it's almost done.

I'm working on the custom missile design sequence, and I'm curious - how
many G-hours of thrust SHOULD a missile have?

In SSDS, Missiles would be rated 6G12 - meaning 12 6-G "burns". How long is
a burn? I cannot build a missile that has 12 G-hours of thrust...the only
drive that will do it is HEPlaR (Thrusters have too large a minimum size,
and primitive rockets are either too fuel greedy or radioactive (fusion
rockets) ). But HEPlaR requires a standard fusion reactor, and at TL 12,
you can't put one of these in a missile (again, size...).

Any thoughts or comments?

For those interested, my spreasheer does the following:
  - Any hull, any size
  - Realistic thrust or idealized thrust
  - Primitive and futuristic drives
  - All electronics
  - Custom weapons - slots available for 4 laser weapons, two
    missile weapons, two particle weapons, and two meson weapons.
  - All systems pertaining to spacecraft/starships.

Once the sheet is available, I'll post its web location to TML.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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, 15 Oct 1997 19:34:27 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

I am weighing out of most of this thread, as one would have to be stone
deaf not to know what my opinions are, but there is one misconception that
I think needs adressing:  ship costs.

Dave Summers wrote:
>Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:15:50 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>Tim Connors writes:
>>>Of course, it exists. Yes, the resources to eradicate it exist. Just
>>>as the resources to eradicate mugging in New York City exist -- we
>>>can put a cop every fifteen feet throughout the city.
>
>>No you can't. New York dosen't have enough cops to put one every 15 feet
>>throughout the city 24 hours a day. But the Imperium _does_ have enough
>>ships to put a lot in every system (And still leave every important
>>system defended against attacks).
>
>Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every
>intersection.  But the reason they don't is that this
>would cost more than the crime it stops.

The situation changes when the numbers get large.  If a dollar from every
car could stamp out all car theft, we all might have security systems.  A
thousand is not worth it, and a penny is a shoe-in.  Clearly, this is not a
linear relationship, rather, it is a threshold one.  If the cost goes below
the noise floor, people will pay the cost, whereas if it is large enough to
be spotted, people tend to stop, consider, and vote against it, whatever it
costs.  I submit that <1% of the Naval budget taking out all pirates is
likely below the noise floor, but that is an argument for another time.

> It doesn't matter
>what %age of the military budges it would take to stop
>piracy (though we disagree on that too).  It matters how
>the cost compares to the cost of piracy.  If 0.000001% of
>the buget is more than the cost of piracy, they aren't
>going to spend it to stop piracy.

Look at what military ships cost, with respect to the ships they protect.
A factor of two or three different, in general.  Since we want beefy
anti-piracy forces, assume the defender ships are ten times as expensive
(three times as big) as the merchant.  Given what ships cost to maintain,
this means that the potential loss of one ship a year would justify a SDB
to the insurance companies.

Scott

- -------
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu.  http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz/
"You die, she dies, EVERYbody dies" - Heavy Metal
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results" -
Calvin Coolidge, attrib. by Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:40:19 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: FF&S Missile Design

At 09:22 pm 10/15/97 -0500, Andrew Akins wrote:
>I'm busy working on my FF&S worksheet...it's almost done.
>
>I'm working on the custom missile design sequence, and I'm curious - how
>many G-hours of thrust SHOULD a missile have?
>
>In SSDS, Missiles would be rated 6G12 - meaning 12 6-G "burns". How long is
>a burn? I cannot build a missile that has 12 G-hours of thrust...the only
>drive that will do it is HEPlaR (Thrusters have too large a minimum size,
>and primitive rockets are either too fuel greedy or radioactive (fusion
>rockets) ). But HEPlaR requires a standard fusion reactor, and at TL 12,
>you can't put one of these in a missile (again, size...).

	Unfortunately, EAPlaC didn't make it into FF&S2, and that was really the
only way to have a decent-sized missile with any performance under FF&S1.
It wasn't deliberately left out; it was set aside to come back and look at
later, and before later came around the draft was printed ...
- -- 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: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:57:04 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: re:Piracy

At 12:06 am 10/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:00:00 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>Which is why you have tied a rope to it.
>
>>Next, you've got to make sure your
>>ship's cargo hatch is also perfectly lined up so it actually goes in and
>>doesn't bash off your paint and antennas.
>
>Well, the rope is going to pull toward the hatch.  As to hitting
>the sides, there are a lot of thing you can do like simply padding
>the edges.  And note, I have yet to invoke high tech or specialized
>equipment.  Those are going to make it even easier.

	If you want to get any decent transfer rate between ships, you're going to
have to move them fairly fast. Which means that padding the sides won't do
dingleberry when a multi-ton object impacts either the edges of the
victim's cargo hatch, the outside of your hull, or the inside of your cargo
bay. ZeroG isn't forgiving, and momentum is a bitch. 

>>>>>Also, you can just use a rope to pull
>>>>>them from ship to ship and hual them in.
>>
>>	I've been trying for years to figure out how to PUSH a rope. Yes,
>>you can
>>pull it to get it started. Now mass and inertia come into play--how are you
>>going to STOP it from moving?
>
>Just Pad the back of the cargo hatch.  Or use some sort of spring, or
>whatever.  Or just turn the gravity on and let it skid to a stop.

	Again, neither option will be very useful ...

>Or maybe they even do more than I do and give it more than a few
>minutes of thought and come up with [gasp!] and even better answer.

	If you're arguing a point, it's rather poor taste to tell the other side
in a debate they have to come up with justification for your position. If
you're going to try to convince somebody else of your position, you're
supposed to provide the justification. If you're not trying to either
convince somebody of your position, or explore the general subject, why
waste time even bringing it up.

>[Points which have been answered deleted.]
>
>>>Well, the pirate is going to be jumping out next, not fighting
>>>another battle.  He is going to be concerned about getting
>>>way rather than some rare chance of some system failure.
>>
>>	Unless, of course, he's concerned about the lack of sufficient jump
>>fuel
>>caused by a fuel hit from the BATTLE he was just in, or the damage to the
>>hull grid, or any other kinds of system failures caused by a battle--not
>>necessarily rare at all!
>
>We aren't really talking a "battle".

	OK, so the pirate is just going to show up, and the poor merchie is going
to surrender? I think not. If piracy exists, then there won't be many
unarmed merchies. If you're arguing for the canonical pirates, in fact,
most of the pirates will _be_ merchies, so it will probably be a fair fight.

>A pirate is not going to go after a fair fight, he is going
>to hit unarmed ships (or ones that are so poorly armed that
>they have no real chance of taking damage).  In any case,
>if the ship has taken the kind of damage you talk about,
>it will because he lost the battle, and he won't be loading
>cargo anyway.

	How much damage does it take to lose just enough jump fuel that you can't
jump? Damage the hull grid? Take a shot through the j-drive?
- -- 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: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:38:48 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: FF&S2 Stuff...

At 12:02 pm 10/15/97 -0400, Chris Cox wrote:
>I beleive Andy Akins:
>>>3) If you stealth a hull, does the 1.1/1.25 volume/area multiplier for
>>>surface fixure contouring  apply PER LEVEL of stealth, or just a flat
>>>multiplier no matter what level of stealth?
>
>
>to which Dave Golden replied:
>> For EACH LEVEL!  Thus, two levels of stealth require 1.1x1.1=1.21 times
>>the volume, and 1.25x1.25=1.56 times the surface area. Likewise, three
>>levels are 1.33 (1.1x1.1x1.1) and 1.95 (1.25x1.25x1.25). Likewise armor
>>cost is 5x PER LEVEL ... 2 levels is x25, 3 levels is x125, etc.
>
>
>Just one additional question about stealth. Doesn't the increase in volume
>and surface area represents waste space to make the various systems
>stealthy?  The alternative, which I would find excedingly cumbersom, is that

	Exactly right--the components themselves don't magically become larger,
but there's space wasted providing the proper contouring, etc.
- -- 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: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:38:54 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

<TML POST MODE>

I had planned to write a review of Emperor's Vehicles, and post to both TML
and HIWG list.  Instead, Mr. Boulton had some pointed questions that he
claimed I was ducking.  I wasn't, but I think you'll see why I was reluctant
to directly answer his questions.  Read on and you'll understand.

I think this will do as a review of the most excellent, and latest book
from Imperium Games.


On Sun Oct 12 12:14:30 1997
aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton) wrote:
>
>Leroy,
>
>> It is one helluva good book.
>
>Well, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion (no matter how stupid it 
>might be), but IMHO IG have once again ruined what could have been an 
>excellent book. You don't believe me?


As I pointed out, I had answered all of Andrew B.'s questions dismissing them
with it is the domain of the referee.  (Admittedly, an edit that I had not
caught before posting did not make this clear.)  But I decided that I could
use this as the _perfect_ opportunity to convince someone who disagrees with
me. I can seldom pass on these. :)


>Okay, let's pick a vehicle: Grummond TC Carrier (p67).
>What TL is it (ie on which worlds can I find one)?


Not relevant, though the book does say it is Imperial Surplus Dept. as
outlined in the CSC.  Since in Milieu 0, the Imperial max tech is 12-13,
it is clearly _not_ higher.  Personally, I would say that since it is
clearly _not_ grav-propelled, it is TL 8 or less, but probably 8.

As for which world, you can probably find it anywhere an Imperial mechanized
batallion might have demobilized, any world a FreeTrader captain may have
taken it to, to sell for a profit, or any lower tech world (<TL8) where it
may have fallen into disuitude do to lack of suitable maintenance parts.

As a counterpoint, are Air/Rafts or Scout ships *only* found on worlds of
*their* TL?


>How many crew does it need?


Sorry, but that is pretty obvious looking at the picture.  A driver,
a gunner (if it is to be used), and a maintenance guy not necessarily
carried.


>How much damage do its weapons do, and what's their max range?


Well, since no weapon has been fired in my campaign in years, the standard
answer is, "If you are out to kill and break things, you're not role-playing
(in my campaign) and aren't interested in character development, something
which I consider *far* more important."

However, since I don't think you will like that one, how about, "Whatever
combat/design system you are using."

This last one really illustrates the beauty of the book, in my opinion.
The *fact* that *no* design system was included really is a testimonial
to *how* useful it is to someone that is looking hard enough to see that
it is useful.


>When I run out of fuel, how much do I need to find to 
>refill the tank?


Mostly irrelevant.  It happened *once* in my campaign, and that was due
the creature that was _inside_ the fuel tank--once the L-Hyd drained out,
the creature thawed out from engine heat.


>How many wheels does it have? 


Six, or didn't you actually *look* at the book?


>Now let's try a different vehicle: Daedalus 'Roughrider' (p27). Again, the 
>TL and fuel questions apply (say I'm on a TL 6 world - can I buy one here? 


The same answers as above apply here.


>If I take it to a TL1 world for a week, how much fuel should I take with 
>me?)


That depends on how you (the referee) see the universe you are running.
Were you playing in my campaign, the standard answer is: fusibles (i.e.
H20), fossil fuels, alcohol, or anything else you can probably put in
your Hum-Vee.


>Also, what *in game terms* does Ease +1, Reliability -2, Hazard +1 
>mean?


See pg. 110.


>Last vehicle: The gunship at the bottom of p91. This is a joke, right?


Again, as the book says, that one is classified.  That means the referee
should use *imagination*, which is what this game is about.


>Yes, I *could* try to reverse engineer them and work out these things for 
>myself, or just pull numbers out of thin air, but if I'm going to start 
>doing that, what the f*ck is the point of buying the book in the first 
>place? I might as well make up the whole bloody thing myself and save my 
>money.


Didn't you say something awhile back about throwing away your books?
Well, that is the same idea.  Do you get pissed that there is no floor
plans of the Virgin superstore in London too?  Look, if I'm unemployed
and can buy these books, it can't be that hard for someone else.

Besides, I've played Traveller from the start, and refereed almost as
long.  There is _no_ supplement, sourcebook, adventure, what have you
that has ever been the _final_ word in how I run my campaign, but I
run an incredibly *detailed* universe.  My players think it is as complex
as the *real* one, and not even a 96-page book is going to provide *that*
kind of detail.

I'm sorry, but if you are looking for *every* answer to be in *every* book
from IG, you're playing the wrong game.  You might as well move to Denver
and take up an apprenticeship under my wing, because that is probably the
only place you are going to get a feel and understanding for why I am
perfectly happy with _Emperor's Vehicles_.


>And the problems don't stop there. The text at the start of each section 
>has only the most tenuous of connections with the vehicles featured (and 
>often contradicts them). No blank vehicle sheets are included.


Hmmm...Looking at page 112 of the Classic Traveller, Traveller Book, at
the ATV entry.  You could just as easily say the above things about CT,
but you're missing the *whole* point.


>What annoys me so much is how trivial it would have been to fix these 
>problems: an extra TL box on the vehicle sheets, a page of blank forms... 
>not exactly things that would have had the whole of IG working overtime 
>for a month. A little bit of extra thought on their part, and I'd be here 
>saying what a great book it is, how everyone should buy one, and isn't it 
>great how much IG have improved. Instead, this. 


Broken record.  Like I said, you _define_ it to be a problem, but the
problem is _you_ don't know *how* to use this *PERFECTLY* good Traveller
supplement.  I would guess that you have grown too accustomed to using
T:TNE sources and have forgotten what some of us *still* know.


>Andrew M J Boulton
>


Please Andrew, no more brouhaha.  I refuse to believe that I am the only
referee that can handle these kinds of questions.

I say again because it bears repeating, "The best thing about this book
(_Emperor's Vehicles_) is its lack of a *design* system.  We need to turn
the game back to role-playing.  It is shameful that WW is the company with
the reputation of role-playing.  I haven't stopped doing RPG, and neither
should *any* Traveller players/referees.  Take our game back to its origins."

</TML POST MODE>


Leroy


Leroy Guatney - lwlg@usa.net
 University of Mars, NorthAm Campus
 Class of '98

Barring that natural expression of villainy which we all have, the
man looked honest enough.                         --Mark Twain

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1963
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 16 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1964



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Challenge 75 - thanks
re: Piracy - VOTE!
RE: Freight Rates
FW: Piracy - VOTE! - 10/15 update
Re: Piracy
re: orbits
Re: Gas Giants
re: The cost of starship paint
Re: Piracy
Re: In the void of space...
Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)
Re: Death Star Basic Stats

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:46:54 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Challenge 75 - thanks

Thanks to all you nice people on the TML who offered to help with the FF&S 1
to 2 upgrade from Challenge 75, and a special thanks to Paul from whom I
obtained the errata.  Now 'back to the drawing boards Igor'.

                        Colin

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:16:18 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: re: Piracy - VOTE!

>   Interpretation of canon is not the issue.  No-one believes that piracy
>   (past, present, and future) is not canonical.  Just that the rules
>   regarding piracy, economics, and space combat are not mutually
>   compatable.

This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,
but are these "pirates" lone shipowners attacking free traders? I think not.

Just what "rules" regarding piracy and economics are mutually incompatible?
I don't see any special rules for pirate attacks in my copies of the
Traveller book or MMT. I don't have TNE, and the MT setting is sufficiently
different that I don't think the M:0 or CT rules apply.

I posted this before, but all the "pirates" in the JTAS articles,
sourcebooks, and adventures I have from GDW, DGP, and IG are actually
terrorist or military organizations funded by hostile governments or
organizations. I could not find a single example of a lone ship making a
career of attacking trade vessels inside the Imperium.

I asked on the TML for canon examples of Bluebeard-style space
swashbucklers. One reply mentioned a TAS article about megacorporations
financing attacks on competitor's ships. I don't think this is what most
Traveller players think of when they hear of space pirates. The Vargr
corsair rampaging around the Spinward Marches after the 5FW was a renegade
member of an attacking fleet which was pursued relentlessly by the Imperial
Navy and garnered an awful lot of press coverage for something which some
would have us believe is an everyday occurance. Another poster mentioned a
TNE Pirate/Corsair career. This could easily be membership in a
terrorist/paramilitary/dirty tricks/corporate strike force and not a lone
space buccaneer. The "Pirates of the New Order" from the Rubicon Cross
adventure use industrial espionage and moles to hijack ships. DGP's Castran
Marauders are actually trained naval personnel flying warships built and
maintained by an enemy pocket empire, their targets just happen to be
foreign shipping.

Not one of these "canon" space pirates fly around the Imperium blasting
free traders at will. All of them have some external base or protection.
All of them have a *reason* to be attacking other ships other than just
hoping they can recoup their battle damage through plunder. IMHO, this
makes all of them much more interesting and plausible that the Star-Wars
variety of space pirate.

Now, I don't have all the Traveller books published, so I could easily be
ignorant of all the references to renegade starship owners plundering free
traders under the noses of Imperial authorities. However, even if I assume
every single adventure I don't have includes one, the actual incidence of
such pirates would be roughly the same as that of finding operational
Ancient bases, secret Zhodani plots, or lost alien starships. All this is
canon, yet we don't demand the rules be interpreted so that they become
commonplace.

Overall, I think that "canon" piracy is far less common and of a different
nature than what some others claim. I have a pirate gang in my campaign,
but they operate outside of Sylean-controlled space and are supported by an
enemy government.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:14:55 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Freight Rates

Every post I read uses 1,000 credits per ton as the freight rate.  I know 
that was correct pre-T4, but unless I missed an errata, isn't the T-4 
freight rate 4,000 credits per ton?  (T4 book 1, p97)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:16:19 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: FW: Piracy - VOTE! - 10/15 update

__6__	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
stamp it out.)

__6__  	2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
longer a threat)


_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:33:51 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

[OK, this piracy thread and a dead horse are looking to much a like.
This is my last "full" response (and even then I don't adress some
repetative points.)  After this, if I don't respond to part, or
all, of a post it is because I don't have time to rehash.]

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:52:18 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>I can't count the number of times I've seen that mantra ('There is no such
>thing as a free lunch') applied erroneously.

Yeah, and I can't count the number of times people have tried
to gloss over what is really a free lunch.

> It is true that _someone_
>always pays.

Well, that is progress.

> But it is most emphatically not true that the person who
>enjoys the free lunch is the same one who pays for it.

OTOH, it doesn't explain why the Imperium would spend more
to stop piracy than the piracy costs.  Maybe one can
see how it _might_ happen, but that doesn't prove piracy
wouldn't exist.

>Here is a case in point. If you have someone assigned to run a starport and
>the starport has a sensor suite and a communicator, then assigning flight
>paths dosen't cost anything _extra_. So for practical purposes it dosen't
>cost anything.

Well, why does he have the equipment?  And who is paying to man
it 24 hours a day?  Assuming that what ever you need just happened
to be there anyway sounds like a free lunch to me?

[Note: I still agree with other posters that even if you can
track every ship, it doesn't stop piracy.]

[Regarding war ships being a free lunch....]
>The primary way a warship deters someone
>else from starting a war is by existing.

By existing in a deployment that can stop an invasion, not
existing in some impotent configuration.  Like being
spread thinly to every planet.

>>Which he won't do if you get him on the first shot.
>
>Which you certainly can't be sure of

And that is when you don't engage in piracy.

>>>Not unless you are trying to pose as a legitimate trader.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Well, I've said it before, but I don't mind repeating it. Its not that you
>can't easily carry extra fuel in collapsible fuel tanks.

You don't need anything like that.  Any jump 2, or greater, ship
can jump into many system with enough fuel to jump immediately.

[More stuff on transponders.  There is nothing new and I don't
agree anymore than I did before.]

>David, I assumed you would read it. If I had even considered that you might
>not, I would have cc'ed you.

I spend more time than I should on messages posted to me, I don't
read all the others.

>>Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every intersection.
>
>Dammit, David, read what I write! NYC _don't_ have the resources to put
>a cop at every intersection.

I did read what you said.  And I didn't agree with it.

> They might be able to hire them if the cut
>back on something else, but as of today they don't have that many cops.

Well, if you take 1% of what NYC taxes for defense (average taxes
are about $4000 (actually that would be higher because of NYC higher
cost of living, but we will ignore that), and about 1/3 has typically
gone for defense)  with 18 million people that is 240 million dollars.
If cops make $30,000, then that's 8000 cops.  I can then claim that
this would make street crime impossible just as you claim your
calculations make piracy impossible.  (And the fact that the
income tax system is progressive, and I haven't included any
local or state taxes means the number could be a lot higher).

>But if the canonical figures are right, then the Imperium does have that
>many 'cops'. You may think they need them for something else, but at
>least admit that _according to canon_, they do have them.

Well, if you use the same sort of analysis, then NYC has a cop
on every intersection.

>>But the reason they don't is that this would cost more than the crime it
>>stops.

>I see. That is the reason, is it? They have an accountant sitting and
>registering the precise economic losses due to rapes, murders, domestic
>spats, and robberies, and every time the figure reaches the salary of a
>cop, they hire another one?

Do they do it on a cop by cop basis?  No.  What's your point?

>Despite what you may think, human beings don't do everything the most
>cost effective way (For one thing, it is often impossible to agree on
>what is the most cost effective way).

Nor do they do everything in wastefull way.  You are proposing to
prove that piracy couldn't exist.  Not that the Imperium might
be willing to waste money putting in ordinate resources into
stopping it.

>Of course they are. Piracy is more than an economic problem. It's a direct
>challenge to everything the Imperium stands for.

Again, you are assuming they would see it that way.  OTOH, they also
might just see some piracy as an inevitable evil.

>Besides that, why do you
>assume that suppressing pirates wouldn't be economically sound? A starship
>is an expensive toy to lose, and a single Free Trader can justify the
>operating cost of a rather large patrol ship.

OTOH, the pirates might just happen realize this and only take
cargoes so the Imperium doesn't feel obligated to slap them down.

>>Well, I _have_ explained, numerous times, how piracy suppression is
>>incompatible with military uses.  To win battles, you need concentrate your
>>forces (for example, read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu) but to stop piracy,
>>you need to disperse your forces for coverage.

>You also need information. There isn't a great general, from Sun Tzu to
>Clausevitz that didn't know the importance of information about the
>enemy's movement.

Which can be handled by a few unarmed scout ships covering just the
systems within jump 6 of the border, a far cry from a fleet of
patrol ships in every system.

>David, you are assuming, _a priori_ that any ships built by the navy will
>be needed full time by the navy, even in peacetime, and not available for
>piracy suppression

Actually, I'm not.  I'm willing to postulate that in the places
where the fleet is concentrated piracy won't exist.  But that
is going to be a the clear minority of places (otherwise you
aren't concentrating forces) and will leave most places unguarded.
OTOH, postulating fleets of patrol vessels in every system is
pulling a lot of resources away.

>Well, I'm assuming that losing ships and cargoes to pirates is expensive,
>if that's what you mean. Consequently I think that any little regulation
>that can be implemented with little additional expense will be worthwhile.

Except you regulation occurs _every_ time and may not seem worthwhile
to a merchant that, odds are, may never see a pirate.

>I've asked you how many ship you think would be necessary to secure a
>planet against piracy. If you disagree that two ships could do it, fine!
>Tell me how many you think it would take and why you think so. If it
>turns out that it is few enough, I may not even need to use the traffic
>control scheme.

I really have answered this several times already.  You need maybe
12-18 ships per world and will have maybe 5 worlds per system.  I
am not going to adress replies to this because we have beaten this
death before and I simply don't have time to it all over again.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:07:29 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: re: orbits

Craig wrote:
>For a world of Earthlike density, a is proportional to r...so that r/a
>term is a constant -- yielding the counterintuitive result that a close
>parking orbit around an Earthlike world *always* has a period of about 90
>minutes, regardless of the size of the world!
>Now, how's that for simplicity? :)
>By the way, in qualitative terms, what's going on here is that smaller
>planets have lower gravities, resulting in lower close-orbit velocities,
>but they're also less far around -- and the two factors neatly cancel out.

Ah, so finally a response that wasn't beyond my desire for a quick answer.

So Kenneth, in view of the above, how about the following:

For any given orbit roll 2D6. (one colored die)
If the colored die is 1-3 subtract the other die from 90.
If the colored die is 4-6 add the other die to 90.
Answer: orbit in minutes

No formula, little math, quick result.

HTH


tc

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:31:32 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

It depends on the payload of the nuclear missles.  I would assume that
fission warheads wouldn't be enough to ignite the ambeint gas mixtures,
however fusion warheads might possible start a limited chain reaction.

I would still think it would burn itself out quickly though, because
self-sustained thermonuclear reactions require intense amounts of
gravity.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:17:34 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <Philk@btinternet.com>
Subject: re: The cost of starship paint

>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:20:17 -0700
>From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
>>So in other words by TL10 all practical hulls are free - you only have to
>>pay for the paint?
>Oops. I underestimated how much armour costs when I put in the discount for
>bare metal hulls...I guess it should be reduced to Cr 50 per m2.

seems reasonable

>>"military black hull" for MCr0.01 per m2 or ultrablack for MCr0.1 per m2.
>>Although these seem amazingly expensive, they do have to deal with
>>gas giants, ocean refuelling...
>Note that military black and ultrablack aren't paint, but enhanced chameleon
>coatings - and that they're pretty amazingly black. A normal chameleon
>hull set black has a reflectivity of only 0.01; military black is 0.001 and
>ultrablack is 0.0001. It has to be that black all the way from the UV to the
>near-IR. This is extremely hard to do.
>
I didn't really have a problem with the expensive coatings, it was the
discount
for not having the cheap one - I seems to recall that after some "friendly"
Brits daubed some white paint slogans on an SR71 that cost a few million to
recoat - would the SR71 coating would even make your TL8-9 "black paint"
standard?
- --
  Mailto:Philk@btinternet.com (don't blame BT - they only pay me:)
  Interested in a wargames show in Colchester, Essex, UK?
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:08:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Piracy

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> David P. Summers writes:
> 
> >Here we are talking about people and equipment to monitor and
> >people and equipment to enforce.  And, as others have commented,
> >it is not even clear how much this does to deter piracy.
> 
> Here is a case in point. If you have someone assigned to run a starport and
> the starport has a sensor suite and a communicator, then assigning flight
> paths dosen't cost anything _extra_. So for practical purposes it dosen't
> cost anything.

No and yes. It really in my view depend on how many you have to work on a
starport. If you have one guy running the starport, he will not assign
flight pats even though there might be a sensors and communications there.
You need to hire on new people to do these duties, and this cost money.
For this discussion to become fruitful again we really have to define what
the ports have hired workers to do, find out how many employees the
starport then needs, and then decide if this makes the starport economicly
viable. Assigning to many duties to the starport is going to make its 
budget see som pretty red numbers.
 
> Likewise, if you have the military ships anyway (not because you need them
> during peacetime, but because you know you're going to need them in case of
> war), then getting some use out of them is for all practical purposes free.
> I know you think that all active Imperial ships are doing something active
> to deter the Zhodani from attacking, but I can't for the life of me figure
> out just what you think it is. The primary way a warship deters someone
> else from starting a war is by existing. And if its crew have gotten a bit
> of training doing piracy suppression, so much the better.
>

But paying soldiers, fuel, missiles, repairs, supply lines and so on
is going to cost. It would be much cheaper for the Navy to rotate the
ships so that about half and half are at port/at sea, so to say. This
means that you save money, while still maintaining battle readinees.
A nations wartime strength is much higher than the readiness it has in
peacetime, a point no one so far has considered.
 
> 
> Which you certainly can't be sure of, especially since he will be aware of
> your existence the moment you do something suspicious. Odds are that he will
> be in a position to jump before you're even in range.

This really depend on how structured the inter-planetary travel outside
the jump level is. In a low structured system the ships coming from outer 
worlds, asteroid belts and gas giants will be likely to come in on the
planet from all sides, a ship coasting in from outer system towards the
jump limit close by where a merchant is heading out towards it is not
suspicious. Its just there on its way to the planet for some reason or
other. In high structured systemes all interplanetary travel will follow
assigned paths, but this in my view is an economical question.

> 
> Well, I've said it before, but I don't mind repeating it. Its not that you
> can't easily carry extra fuel in collapsible fuel tanks. Its that if you
> jump into a star system expecting to capture any prey you happen to find,
> then you can't use your real transponder signature, which means you can't
> do any legitimate business at the system. Registering ships that arrive
> at a starport is so easy that it is another one of those things that are
> for all practical purposes free. Since the speed of transmission is from
> jump-4 to jump-6, while most tramp ships are jump-1 to jump-3, it will be
> almost impossible to outrace information about your existence (though it
> can, of course, be done in the case of really backwater systems). That 
> means that a ship that appears out of nowhere is a suspicious ship and
> merits above average attention. And if you use a fake ID of some ship
> that does exist, you will be exposed the moment you touch down in the
> starport and someone notices that your serial numbers don't match your
> transponder ID.

How many ships do the Imperium have? Well for it to cover all worlds with
military ships as you have postulated it should have it certainly has to
have many. Now has it ever occured to you that the records of the ships
codes could be tampered with. These are records handled by hundreds of
burocrats, somewhere along the line someone can change the name, the
numbers, the mission, and this could be done on purpose for money,
beacause of blackmail or on accident. The ship-records will have errors,
just like any record on Earth today will contain if it is large enough.

Example:
   "MS Pirate" using a modified transpondered that an offical at a
   neighbouring has made an false record on for money coasts in from
   the gas giant where it has refuled. The starport checks its
   transpondersignal and according to its records it is the armed 
   merchant "MS Flower Power" carrying spice from the neighbouring 
   system. Since the planet is low tech and with not to much money to
   spare, and with extensive trading with the to outer colonies and the
   asteroid field, there are no assigned flight path towards the planets
   100 diameter limit from the outside. According to the sensorops, who is
   a underpaid local boy, that is bored out of his mind and really wanted
   to join the join the navy, the ship will reach the jump limit near the
   exitpoint of "MS Goldcarrier", but this has happend before and there
   are much traffic inside the 100-diameter limit that has to be
   monitored.

According to this senario, which I think is quite plausible in the
Imperium, I have no problem seeing the pirates ussering a distress signal
when the MS Goldcarrier is the closes ship and hijack it when it comes to
help. Or using a tightbeam transmission to the merchant that if he dosn't
fake a power failure so that the pirate ship can come to its aid, he'll be
blown to kingdom come.   

> 
> Dammit, David, read what I write! NYC _don't_ have the resources to put
> a cop at every intersection. They might be able to hire them if the cut
> back on something else, but as of today they don't have that many cops.
> But if the canonical figures are right, then the Imperium does have that
> many 'cops'. You may think they need them for something else, but at
> least admit that _according to canon_, they do have them.

But it really dosn't matter. If a pirate got close enough to a merchant,
and there is a cruiser, defence boat or other military ship, would it fire
if both ships has unsuspicous records as indicated over. It would need a
visual identifiactaion on who is rading who, which is really hopeless in
space.

> I see. That is the reason, is it? They have an accountant sitting and
> registering the precise economic losses due to rapes, murders, domestic
> spats, and robberies, and every time the figure reaches the salary of a
> cop, they hire another one?

Don't be silly. Every nation has a budget, as does every city. And when
the taxes fall, emergency hospital bills rise, insurancecompanies go
bankrupt and so on it knows that it has to hire more cops, but as long as
the crime and corruption doesn't really effect business it will nly use
what it has to spare on the budget towards crimefighting. You knew that
this was what was meant. You should really drop this kind of ridiculing of
other posters. 

> Of course they are. Piracy is more than an economic problem. It's a direct
> challenge to everything the Imperium stands for. Besides that, why do you
> assume that suppressing pirates wouldn't be economically sound? A starship
> is an expensive toy to lose, and a single Free Trader can justify the
> operating cost of a rather large patrol ship. In fact, now that I think
> about it, by your own logic the mere existence of all those Imperial ships
> implies that it is worthwhile to keep them in operation, so evidently
> suppressing piracy is economically sound.  

Your point is sound, and I see from where it comes, but as I indicated
above I think that there is no real way to stop piracy as long as there is
crime and curroption in the Imperium. What then is needed is a close
escort to each and every ship, which even by your numbers the Imperium
can't afford.

> built them to serve various vital roles in the event of war. But if
> there _isn't_ a war, then what? Precisely. If there isn't a war then
> using them for piracy suppresssion is for all practical purposes free.
> Nay, it is better than that, because you get your crews trained for
> the same money. Truly a case of a free lunch.

But whan its not war, the citizens would like the navy to save smoe money.
Soldiers expect more free time, more leaves, less danger. Supply personel
needs the time to go over depots, check inventory, redistribute material.
In peactime there is much to use money on, and using ships by the numbers
to suppress piracy might not be it. And even if it is, as I indicated by
my example there still might be pirates, they just have to use the
byrocracy of which the navy is a hostage.

> I didn't say the ships wasn't necessary to keep the Zhodani in check. I
> questioned the notion that they needed to do much more than exist to do 
> so.

But remeber that most of the ships needed to keep the Zhodani in check
need to be in the bases near Zhodani base. Requireing your ship to travel
a sector or two to get to the front lines, might loose you a couple of sub
sectors or more. This collides with the even distribution of ships that I
have seen you advocate.
 
> Which I think I might even be able to do, but I'm not going to bother,
> because the ships _are_ built for the purpose of dealing with the
> Zhodani. Most of them are, admittedly, not suitable for patrolling.
> But I think you will admit that Chrysanthemums, Fer-de-Lances and
> Midu Agashaams are perfectly suitable for the role; P.F.Sloans are
> actually rather overkill, and even Gazelles will do admirably, though
> they may need to double up.

But many of these ships need to stay in key system to be there when the
Zhodani strike. Even if it is in the neighbouring system it will use seven
days to get to the fight, which might be over and it jumps into a system
full of Zhodani Battle Cruiser, and boom it is dead. I think that about
95% of the ships needed for battle against the Zhodani will sit still in
systems needed to stop a Zhodani advance, beacuse of the inforamtion and
travel times of the Traveller Universe.

> David, you are assuming, _a priori_ that any ships built by the navy will
> be needed full time by the navy, even in peacetime, and not available for
> piracy suppression, because if they were available they would be superfluous
> (if that's the word I want) to the navy's need and would therefore not have
> been built in the first place. If that isn't using the assumption that
> supressing pirates will always be too expensive to prove that there will
> not be enough assets to suppress pirates, please explain what it is.

But how can they be superfluous when the Zhodani is always a treath. The
Navy needs its ships to be massed together in large fleets near Zhodani
space raedy to jump into system reported to be the next striking point of
the Zhodani. If these fleets need one or two weeks to amass the system
might already be lost. The Zhodani has installed their Deep Meson Sites,
mines and so one throuout the system. Availability and readiness is the
key factors for the Navy to be efficent. It dosen't have time to run
around chasing pirates. Thats the job of the system defence boats and what
might be the Imperial Costal Guard, or Interstellar Police.
 
> Well, I'm assuming that losing ships and cargoes to pirates is expensive,
> if that's what you mean. Consequently I think that any little regulation
> that can be implemented with little additional expense will be worthwhile.
> 
> 1) Traffic control: If you have a starport with a communicator, a sensor
>    suite, a computer, and a few employees (which I would say included
>    anything above Class E and some of the Class Es too), then traffic
>    control is, for all practical purposes free.

This really depends on the level of traffic and the level of
interplanetary travel. Like I said in the example above, if regulation of
traffic outside the 100-diamter limit is not economical viable, which I
think it isn't in most systems, there will be this small but real chance
for the pirate to strike as the traffic control gives you a route when you
have raeched the 100-diameter limit.
 
> 2) If you put a navy ship at the 100 diameter limit and informed all
>    merchants that it was there, don't you think that if pirates were
>    really a threat then the merchants would prefer to aim for that
>    point anyway? And if they didn't, even if that would in some way
>    cost them more than they would care to spend on security, what would
>    it cost the Navy or Ground Control to enforce it? They're not the
>    losing this hypothetical money. For them, at least, its a free lunch. 

This falls apart as before if the Naval ship doesn't know who the pirate
and the victim is, which I think is really hard as given above.

> I've asked you how many ship you think would be necessary to secure a
> planet against piracy. If you disagree that two ships could do it, fine!
> Tell me how many you think it would take and why you think so. If it
> turns out that it is few enough, I may not even need to use the traffic
> control scheme.

Only way to avoid piracy is to have a close escort by every ship, else
there will always be a chance for the ship to become a victim.

> AHA! And the assumption I base my claim on is that _if_ you go with the naval 
> budget figures from TCS and _Striker_ then piracy is well nigh impossible.

But that depends on how the Navy is deployed. And here there is
disagreement. You tell me how large scale defence from invasion happens in
the Imperium when parts of the ships needed to defend against the invaders
are out hunting pirates. 
 
> That's your fallacy right there, Rob. You talk of a priority. What could be
> more important than hunting submarines along the Texas shore during WWII? I 
> bet that if you put your mind to it, you can come up with quite a few
> (possibly even the ones Admiral King did). Now compare that to the priorities
> of the Imperial navy in peacetime. Can you spot the difference? Bingo! The
> Imperial navy isn't involved in a world-spanning life and death struggle. 

No they are not, but securing their border against the outsides enemies
requires there to be large fleets in key systems. If they are scattered
around the system the invading force will just walk in and take the
Imperium. Its like defending NYC by putting a soldier on every corner. No
problem really as there are enough soldiers to do it in the USA. But then
the Europeans land a massive army on the beach and kills the few soldiers
there. The soldiers on the corners of the street running along the beach
uses on week to run down to the beach, and if they do this they will just
be horribly outnumbers, so they have to wait for the soliders in the city
running to the beachstreet corners, which is going to take weeks and even
months. This is in my view not a way to defend a border in the Traveller
Universe.  

> Oh, please! Am I the only one who realize that what the US navy in WWII did
> or did not have the resources to do has absolutely nothing to do with what
> the Imperial navy is capable of in peacetime?
> 
> It would really help your argument if you could point out just a few of
> those million other problems that the Imperial navy have in peacetime. I
> don't need a million; a half dozen will do, provided they cost more and
> are of a higher negative news value than piracy.

The treath of their neighbours, Gerilijas in sytems, Systems that dosn't
want to join in and so on 

 
>       Hans Rancke

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: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:14:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

>Force is mass times acceleration. Velocity doesn't enter into it.
>Without a force, you have no acceleration. Acceleration is a change
>in velocity during a time interval. Direction change is one way of
>changing velocity and is therefore a type of acceleration.

Note that the mass is involved here. "But at zero-g objects have no mass?"
you might ask. Wrong. They do. To accelerate an object of 1 ton at 1G you
will need half the force you need to accelerate an object of 2 tons to 1G,
even if you are at zero-g.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:30:44 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

>Please Andrew, no more brouhaha.  I refuse to believe that I am the only
>referee that can handle these kinds of questions.
>
>I say again because it bears repeating, "The best thing about this book
>(_Emperor's Vehicles_) is its lack of a *design* system.  We need to turn
>the game back to role-playing.  It is shameful that WW is the company with
>the reputation of role-playing.  I haven't stopped doing RPG, and neither
>should *any* Traveller players/referees.  Take our game back to its origins."
>
></TML POST MODE>
>
>
>Leroy

So you're basically saying that EV is a book with pictures and prices of
vehicles? I can get far better artwork at far better prices in any SF shop.
Hell, I can even use the Foss illos in the older T4 books as vehicles if
stats/TL etc are irrelevant.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:54:05 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Death Star Basic Stats

Simon Early wrote:
> 
> 6G ????
> 
> The Death Star was a huge lumbering beast with a 0.1G M-drive, in my
> opinion.  besides, this will let the ship have a much bigger main
> weapon ... the odd 100,000 GigaWatt beam with a ROF of (say) 1 will
> need one or two HPG's!
> 
> Simon

Thinking back to first movie, it didn't seem to take very long
for the Death Star to travel from the spot where it emerged from
hyperspace to Yavin. It must be capable of better than 0.1G.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1964
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 16 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1965



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Gas Giants
Re: Damned Star Trek
Re: Piracy
Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)
Re: T4 and Silent Death
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Piracy - VOTE!
Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Not exactly about piracy...
Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Another piracy challenge
Re: Piracy
Re: Piracy
Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:06:34 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

> From: SignalGK@aol.com
> 
> Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
> volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?

Well, no one really knows, but it would probably blow a lot of gas
off into space. Remember that comet that hit one of our local gas giants
earlier this year? (or was it last year? and which gas giant was it? I forget.)
A comet has at least as much energy as a good-sized load of nuclear missiles
but it didn't really do much, except create a few storms where it hit. 

> I've assumed that it would result in combustion of the atmosphere probably
> lasting for hundreds of years but would appreciate other people's views on
> this..

Combustion requires oxygen. There's no oxygen in a gas giant. Sorry.

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                      ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:01:35 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Damned Star Trek

Harold Hale writes:
>    There are worse things...Care Bears, Power Rangers, and Beanie Babies
> all come to mind...

Heh, Beanie Babies would actually be funny at least.
You're a funny guy, Harold.

>    The Jem'Hadar are addicts who are kept under control with a white
> substance that keeps them from killing every one around them and finally
> themselves.

Yeah and you can tell them apart by (my gosh) the wierd spiky things
on their faces. I just have trouble with Star Trek aliens as the
major differentiating feature is their noses & foreheads.

>    If you there isn't a better reason for a better name say TEAM
> KLINGON, I don't know of any.

Well, someone else got to be Team Klingon. Which, personally,
I don't mind, as Klingons appear to exist mainly to bug people
in the gift shops at Paramount amusement parks.

Anyhow, I figure someone has to be of the opinion that
Star Trek is generally dumb and at best, cheesy.

Ethan "400 quatloos on the newcomer" Henry
- --
Ethan Henry                     ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:12:14 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Ok, I'm not going to get embroiled in this debate seriously, 
however I have noticed something coming up over and over again:

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> And according to TCS and _Striker_, the
> Imperium figured that they needed a lot of 'cops'.

Has it ever come up that TCS and Striker might
just be wrong? I mean, I know they're canon, but
who says that either of them make the slightest bit
of sense? Hans' arguments seem to center on extrapolations
from rules in two supplements that have nothing
to back them up save their "canon-ness".

Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
accepted?

To me, this seems to be the root of a lot of disagreements.

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                      ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:23:33 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:30:44 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)
>
>So you're basically saying that EV is a book with pictures and prices of
>vehicles?


Not really.  What I am _basically_ saying is that I have run a campaign for
years and _never_ had the time to design/dream/etc the number of vehicles
that Emperor's Vehicles provides.  It is the perfect addition for my campaign
right now.  It doesn't get much better than that.


>I can get far better artwork at far better prices in any SF shop.


I didn't buy it for the artwork, but of course having more copies of Foss
doesn't hurt.  I bought it for the value that this book has inherent to it.


>Hell, I can even use the Foss illos in the older T4 books as vehicles if
>stats/TL etc are irrelevant.


Stats aren't irrelevant.  They just aren't needed that badly.  The overall
response does make me think of that anti-hunting bumper sticker I see here in
Colorado from time to time:  "Ask first if the animal wants to be killed."

I'm not an anti-hunting advocate, just a _role_ _playing_ advocate.  Don't
just shoot first and ask questions later. :)


>/Anders Backman
>


Leroy Guatney - lwlg@usa.net
 University of Mars, NorthAm Campus
 Class of '98

Proud owner of Traveller Books 1-C
  (as a Computer Scientist, I wonder what happens when we get to one past "F" :)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:00:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4 and Silent Death

In a message dated 97-10-16 07:52:34 EDT, you write:

<< 
 I play test Silent Death for ICE and no one in our group has heard a
 thing about this.
 
  >>
But I am sure a playtest gorup wouldn't get anything until well after there
was a completed agreement between IG and ICE.

Marc

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:58:19 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

SignalGK@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
> volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?
> 
> I've assumed that it would result in combustion of the atmosphere probably
> lasting for hundreds of years but would appreciate other people's views on
> this..

Not likely.

Remember, just a few years ago we saw a chain of comets striking
Jupiter, I'm sure the equivilent megatonnage was quite high.

It would likely mess up the gg's "weather" patterns for a while. I'm
really not sure exactly how much energy it would take to cause permanent
damage.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:58:27 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Piracy - VOTE!

Richard Hough wrote:
> 
> >   Interpretation of canon is not the issue.  No-one believes that piracy
> >   (past, present, and future) is not canonical.  Just that the rules
> >   regarding piracy, economics, and space combat are not mutually
> >   compatable.
> 
> This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
> lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,
> but are these "pirates" lone shipowners attacking free traders? I think not.

Me neither.

Lone pirates operating near virtually any world in the Imperium would be
so rare as to be non-existant. I don't see pirates of this type anywhere
in canon.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:57:31 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

David P. Summers wrote:
> 
> [Regarding war ships being a free lunch....]
> >The primary way a warship deters someone
> >else from starting a war is by existing.
> 
> By existing in a deployment that can stop an invasion, not
> existing in some impotent configuration.  Like being
> spread thinly to every planet.

I've resisted becoming involved in this piracy thread since I feel so
sorry for this poor dead horse... but this basic assumption you make to
argue against patrol ships being present at every planet is something I
can't agree with. So, I'm renaming the subject and spawning another
thread in order to get a fresh horse. ;)

What would happen if the Zho's created a fleet of J-5 or even J-4
vessels, supported by some very large tankers; who jumped to cometary
fringes of systems, sneaking their way to the heart of the Marches, and
whipped ass at some undefended system?

The fact that ships are undetectable in jump, and that information
*cannot* travel than warships, means that it is *imperative* that a
fairly sizable defence is required at every major population world, and
that a modest force is required for even the smaller population centres.

Places too small to support a system defence force would have
insignificant trade to support piracy.

Therefore, I contend that any system with significant trade or resources
has its own planetary navy, even if it's a modest one, equivalent to the
"coast guard". If this denfence force isn't suppressing piracy during
peacetime, what the heck are they doing?

> >>Well, I _have_ explained, numerous times, how piracy suppression is
> >>incompatible with military uses.  To win battles, you need concentrate your
> >>forces (for example, read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu) but to stop piracy,
> >>you need to disperse your forces for coverage.
> 
> >You also need information. There isn't a great general, from Sun Tzu to
> >Clausevitz that didn't know the importance of information about the
> >enemy's movement.
> 
> Which can be handled by a few unarmed scout ships covering just the
> systems within jump 6 of the border, a far cry from a fleet of
> patrol ships in every system.

You'll have to patrol a bit deeper than jump-6 for reasons outlined
above. You *cannot* detect ships in jumpspace, and light doesn't travel
fast enough to track movements through an entire system. Your
information about their movements will rarely outpace the movements of a
high-jump capable fleet.

> >David, you are assuming, _a priori_ that any ships built by the navy will
> >be needed full time by the navy, even in peacetime, and not available for
> >piracy suppression
> 
> Actually, I'm not.  I'm willing to postulate that in the places
> where the fleet is concentrated piracy won't exist.  But that
> is going to be a the clear minority of places (otherwise you
> aren't concentrating forces) and will leave most places unguarded.
> OTOH, postulating fleets of patrol vessels in every system is
> pulling a lot of resources away.

"Concentration of forces" == "big-ass ships". A whole fleet of puny
patrol vessels isn't going to mean squat when a Tigress jumps in. Sun
Tzu wrote about land battles, he knew naught of battleships and
dreadnaughts.

Smaller-sized ships are necessary in the navy for patrol, protection,
and smaller skirmishes; but in a major battle their role is limited, so
they don't need to be concentrated.

So I take the opposite view. The *majority* of places will have some
sort of defence fleet. Otherwise small, high-jump enemy warships will
kick your butt six ways from Sunday, and probably as many days a week.

In further defence of my assumption, realize that the Imperium is a
feudal system, with each planet being quite independent and likely to
maintain its own fleet, especially if it's population is sizable. The
very fact that there is such a high degree of information lag requires
that forces be relatively dispersed.


Here's my assumptions about naval deployment in the Traveller Universe,
which I believe are supported by canon:

- - Each planet has its own "planetary navy", composed mainly of small
escort vessels, SDB's, and patrol vessels. HiPop planets would even have
a few small cruisers.

  For the most part, these local "coast guard" type navies are more than
sufficient to stamp out lone pirates (ie. small merchant type vessels
outfitted with weaponry) Only larger vessels (corsairs etc.) supported
by other governments or corporations would have any chance of succeeding
in a piracy operation.

- - Each planet also supports the sector or subsector's Imperial navy, and
the Scout service.

- - The Imperial navy consists of mainly larger line of battle ships,
support vessels, some escorts, and high-jump rapid deployment warships.

- - Larger line-of-battle ships are deployed at naval bases during
peacetime and strategic hot-spots where threats are anticipated.

- - Rapid-deployment fleets are situated at naval bases and other
locations, always within one jump of every world aligned with the
Imperium. When news reaches them of a skirmish or major fleet movement,
they have a week to engage the enemy or deploy to the enemy's
anticipated target.

- - Scouts are deployed haphazardly and monitor fleet actions in systems
throughout the Imperium, paying particular attention to border areas.
During wartime, some even look in on enemy worlds past the border,
jumping in, taking a picture, refeuling if possible, and jumping out.
Perhaps 70% of these scouts are detatched duty scouts, who check in
every month or so at a scout base and download their sensor logs for the
edification of the IISS.


As I said, many of these thoughts come from absorption of traveller
sourcebooks, and my distant misty memories of the 5th Frontier War
boardgame... *sigh* it sure would be neat to see that game again.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:49:18 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Not exactly about piracy...

>Personally, I'm less concerned about piracy and more concerned about
>getting a game environment that I like. In my case, that environment
>just happens to be such that ships are vulnerable to attack while
>travelling to and from the jump-points...whether by pirates, privateers,
>customs agents, warships or even "big hairy space monsters." Ok, the
>last one was a joke. ;->

I should hope so! Everyone know that "big space monsters" are slimy,
not hairy...


**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:46:13 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

I am forced to go along with those who do not believe that the Imperium
would be able to act as efficiently as having a complete registry of every
ship flying available to every commander of every podunk little SDB 
out in the Hicksville System. I can't remember any bureaucracy of any
size that was able to function in anything resembling an efficient and 
timely manner. I'm sure that Piracy Reports do go out through the XBoat
network, it's just that they go out after the proper papers (Document 1137-
49j  "Commander Involved in SpaceLane Incident" [as opposed to Form
89445/J67.3.4 "Commander Involved in StarLane Incident"]) have been filed
by both the victimized captain and the respondent captains, Form SJ37/
X9b "Witness to a Traumatic Event" has been filled out by each and
every crew member and passenger aboard all involved ships, the asso-
ciated forms are filled out by any ground or listening station personnel 
involved with the sensor readings, etc., all in triplicate of course, filed
with
the proper authorities and with the correct signatures and seals, "filed,
lost,
filed again, and finally buried in peat for 6 months and recycled as fire
lighters."

Some members of the List seem to run campaigns in which the 3I is a 
omnipresent, omniscient presence in day to day affairs, which is alright 
if it works in your campaign. I thought 1984 was a great book and movie
but I wouldn't want to play in such a controlled society. My Third I is
much more like the Computer in Paranoia, a bumbling, autocratic, con-
fused favorite strange uncle who can't admit that it really doesn't have 
much of a clue :)

Such an omnipresent 3I also puts the lie into other standards in the game 
such as running from bounty hunters (if the 3I knows each and every 
ship down to the name of the 3rd Engineer's Mate's Dog, it certainly
can get accurate passenger lists) and the secret research bases and 
derelicts that litter most adventures (if you believe the 3I has the will
to place enough ships in every system to counteract pirates, it doesn't
take that much more of a leap to have charted every rock and piece of
debris in the system large enough to be a hazard, not to mention the 
fact that if Big Brother is watching every ship to be sure it doesn't get
mercenary twitches, it is certainly going to wonder why certain Belter
ships keep visiting a certain asteroid...)

Which brings up a point I've been wishing to review for a while now: Just
how many ships *are* out there? We've seen a bunch of capacity thrown 
about in the recent discussions using TCS (which I don't have :( ) and PE
(which I do); would anyone be interested in helping figure out how many
ships have been constructed (roughly) of various tonnages and what 
the likelihoods of running into them are? I've wanted to do something like
this for a long time now, as I'd like to get a more accurate impression of
just what one is likely to see parked/lifting off from your local spaceport
and flying in the local starlanes. I know of several charts that give chances
of running into ship to ship encounters when approaching planets, but 
given the massive amount of tonnage capacity that members keep 
throwing about on the List, it seems at times that the spacelanes ought to
look like I-285 during rush hour.

- -- Paul Darius Owensby [who has been saying for years that Traveller
is much more Space Opera than pseudo-hard SF, but no one ever seems
to want to listen... :) ]

**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 03:11:56 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Another piracy challenge

Moin Hans Rancke-Madsen,

> Now, I know that is because he feels that he has explained that a lot of
> times already, not that he can't explain it, but I must have missed it all
> the previous times, and I really can't figure it out for myself. So if David
> (or one of the other pro-pirate people) would do me the favor of summing up
> the correct way for a pirate to catch a merchant at a planet defended by
> a single patrol ship of sufficient size to defeat said pirate, I'd be most
> grateful. 

	first of all TNE : after a term as corsair a chacter has to roll
	a lower than INT to avoid, that the next term is prisoner.

	So dont asume that pirates are stupid. If a SDB is in system the
	pirate will be either a normal trader, or big enough to attack
	the SDB first.

	Catching a merchant :

	- Get a high passage, intrude the computer befor jump, so that
	  the ship missjumps to a GG the pirate is waiting.
	- Destroy the SDB first, and wait for ariving merchants
	- Wait on a system without an SDB.

	IMHO piracy did not happen in the civilised areas. But can you
	tell me any campain playing in a civilised area. CT was frontier,
	MT was civil war, TNE was dark, and M0 is frontier again.

	Of course the 3I had SDBs to stop pirates most of its time,
	but those peacefull and secure times are considered boring, and
	not used for any of the canon backgrounds.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:39:56 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Piracy

<Hussan chop!>
>And you were so close! ...
<Hussan chop!>


You are correct. Sloppy reading of a post on my part. Although ...


<snipity-snip>
>Yes, creationists and cigarette manufacturers have an easier
>time because they only seek to prove (sometimes) that
>something is possible. That means that if they only
>show a fundamental flaw in their opponents position, they
>have done what they set out to do (wether they have, in a
>fact, done this to one's satisfaction is another matter)
>They do make errors, but it is not in their burden of proof
>(sometime, othertime they are, in fact, trying to prove
>things like evolution is wrong).
<clipity-clip>


Creationists make certain claims. The burden of proof is upon them to prove
these claims. Showing a flaw in evolutionary theory would not be enough to
prove their claims.

Cigarette manufacturers seem to claim that since research is not absolute
proof, it is invalid. This is incorrect. All that is required is reasonable
proof, not absolute proof (since absoulute proof is unattainable, except in
the case of logical impossibilities where there is only one possible
answer).

However, even if they were correct in saying what they do, they could not
claim cigarettes did not cause cancer (or whatever). They would have to
prove this claim themselves. Refutation of evidence is no more proof than
absence of proof.

Which brings me to the problem with the piracy thread. It is based on too
many assumptions. So many, it seems, that no one can argue either for or
against piracy logically. To do so would require objective proofs, not
subjective assumptions. Furthermore, taking the position "You can't prove
it, so nyahh!" proves nothing in itself. It is the equivalent of no
position.

When thinking of piracy, a clearly-written list of variables would be
helpful. Determining the psuedo-facts -- "canonizing" all of the variables
involved -- and then coming to a conclusion about piracy would be the way
to go. However, while this would be interesting to me personally, I doubt
that this method would work, because of differences of opinion on what is
"correct."

Without this, what do we have? An entertaining argument that is
philosophical in nature but unsolvable.

In any event, it seems both sides are at an impasse (and the middle is
having a field day saying "Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh!" <g>).

That is, unless anyone has a plan by which we can set up several
interstellar empires and run an experiment.

Hmm. Maybe Grandfather allowed access to jump space just to see how to
handle piracy in his game...

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:39:54 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Piracy

>Only way to avoid piracy is to have a close escort by every ship, else
>there will always be a chance for the ship to become a victim.


Wouldn't be easier (and less expensive) to arm every ship?

My questions (which I am sure was answered in one of the increasingly long
essays on piracy in the Imperium):

1) What is the average value of a ton of cargo (interstellar and/or
   interplanetary)?

2) How much does it cost to buy a ships' weapon and crew it?

3) Would the cost of arming the ship and crewing the weapons be more than
   the cost of lost cargo (especially if piracy was a problem)?

4) How frequent is piracy? What are the odds of said ship leaving a port being
   asked to "heave to and prepare to be boarded?"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:47:13 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

At 10:38 PM 10/15/97 -0600, Leroy wrote:

<Does it appear to anyone else that Leroy is posting a private email form
Andrew?  To quote Captian Hook, Bad Form!>

>I had planned to write a review of Emperor's Vehicles, and post to both TML
>and HIWG list.  Instead, Mr. Boulton had some pointed questions that he
>claimed I was ducking.  I wasn't, but I think you'll see why I was reluctant
>to directly answer his questions.  Read on and you'll understand.
>
>I think this will do as a review of the most excellent, and latest book
>from Imperium Games.
>
>
>On Sun Oct 12 12:14:30 1997
>aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton) wrote:
>>
>>Leroy,
>>
>>> It is one helluva good book.
>>
>>Well, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion (no matter how stupid it 
>>might be), but IMHO IG have once again ruined what could have been an 
>>excellent book. You don't believe me?
>
>
>As I pointed out, I had answered all of Andrew B.'s questions dismissing them
>with it is the domain of the referee.  (Admittedly, an edit that I had not
>caught before posting did not make this clear.)  But I decided that I could
>use this as the _perfect_ opportunity to convince someone who disagrees with
>me. I can seldom pass on these. :)
>
>
>>Okay, let's pick a vehicle: Grummond TC Carrier (p67).
>>What TL is it (ie on which worlds can I find one)?
>
>
>Not relevant, though the book does say it is Imperial Surplus Dept. as
>outlined in the CSC.  Since in Milieu 0, the Imperial max tech is 12-13,
>it is clearly _not_ higher.  Personally, I would say that since it is
>clearly _not_ grav-propelled, it is TL 8 or less, but probably 8.

I hope that you instuctors apply a similar attitude towards grading you
work.  Tech level is the single most impotant thing to know about any
piecce of equipment.  Your Grummond breaks down on a world.  Are repair
parts avalible?  Does the local mechanic even know how to fix it?  If the
world is TL8 and the vehicle is TL9 I can say with a little authority that
the cahnces are low.  If the world is TL6 and the vehicle TL12, I can say
fat chance.

>As for which world, you can probably find it anywhere an Imperial mechanized
>batallion might have demobilized, any world a FreeTrader captain may have
>taken it to, to sell for a profit, or any lower tech world (<TL8) where it
>may have fallen into disuitude do to lack of suitable maintenance parts.

Leaving aside the inanity of the TL12 Imperium having *mechanized* units, I
ask you how often do we leave behind equpment?  What if the PC's want to
buy a new vehicle?  What if they want to order a custom version from the
factory?

>As a counterpoint, are Air/Rafts or Scout ships *only* found on worlds of
>*their* TL?

No, but then I once carried a Sony Walkman into the jungles of Honduras.
Doesn't mean that I could get it repaired, or that the locals could
duplicate it.  Knowing the TL of manufacture is vital.

>>How many crew does it need?

>Sorry, but that is pretty obvious looking at the picture.  A driver,
>a gunner (if it is to be used), and a maintenance guy not necessarily
>carried.

Quick.  How many crew does a M1A2 need?  A T-72M?  They're both main battle
tanks, and the M1 is of a higher tech than the T-72.

Surprise!  The M1A2 requires a crew of four.  Driver, gunner, loader, and
commander.  The T-72 only needs three.  It has an autoloader.  These facts
are not immediately obvious by looking at the vehicle.  How about an
AC-130? M-110 artillery vehicle?  A LAV-25?  How many modern vehicles still
require a radio operator?

I might also point out that most of the vehicles in EV do not have
illustrations.  Now, how do you kmow that the picture is of the Grummond?
The description states that the vehicle is armed with a 25mm cannon, and
that turret is far too small to accomidate that kind of firpower.  Judging
form the look, it appears that the vehicle illustrated is aremd with a
small MG and a 40-60mm grenade launcher.

>>How much damage do its weapons do, and what's their max range?

>Well, since no weapon has been fired in my campaign in years, the standard
>answer is, "If you are out to kill and break things, you're not role-playing
>(in my campaign) and aren't interested in character development, something
>which I consider *far* more important."

Forgive me for not being as highly evolved as you.  However, since I do
this for fun, combat is a part of my gae, and in over twenty years of
gaming experience I have never seen a game that didn't resort to combat at
one point or another.

So for 99.9% of the gaming community, the stats for the weapons are of some
importance.

>However, since I don't think you will like that one, how about, "Whatever
>combat/design system you are using."
>
>This last one really illustrates the beauty of the book, in my opinion.
>The *fact* that *no* design system was included really is a testimonial
>to *how* useful it is to someone that is looking hard enough to see that
>it is useful.

Nice dodge.  However, this wasn't "Big Gay Al's Big Book o'Generic
Vehicles", this was supposed to be a collection of vehicles for Marc
Miller's Traveller.  I expect a product supporting a specific game system
to do it correctly.

>>When I run out of fuel, how much do I need to find to 
>>refill the tank?

>Mostly irrelevant.  It happened *once* in my campaign, and that was due
>the creature that was _inside_ the fuel tank--once the L-Hyd drained out,
>the creature thawed out from engine heat.

And when I'm running "Trail of the Sky Raiders" and the characters are
fleeing across the desert with Dr. Messandi and the memory cores, pursued
by the Desahke Army, the amount of fuel in the gas tanks is irrelelvant?

>>How many wheels does it have? 

>Six, or didn't you actually *look* at the book?

And for the vehicles that *aren't* illustrated?

>>Now let's try a different vehicle: Daedalus 'Roughrider' (p27). Again, the 
>>TL and fuel questions apply (say I'm on a TL 6 world - can I buy one here? 

>The same answers as above apply here.

>>If I take it to a TL1 world for a week, how much fuel should I take with 
>>me?)

>That depends on how you (the referee) see the universe you are running.
>Were you playing in my campaign, the standard answer is: fusibles (i.e.
>H20), fossil fuels, alcohol, or anything else you can probably put in
>your Hum-Vee.

You didn't answer his question ref.. "How much fuel are we gonna need to
support us for a week?"  If I don't like your answer, I'm going to ask
where you got the answer from.  Then I'm going to start argueing fuel
efficiencies, real-world engine output, and anything else I can think off
to get the advantage.

(Note: I wouldn't do this, but I've met players who would.  That's why I
find the lack of detail in EV appaling.)

>>Also, what *in game terms* does Ease +1, Reliability -2, Hazard +1 
>>mean?

>See pg. 110.

OK, so I'm Wheeled Vehicle-3, Dex 8, and I'm driving a vehicle with Ease
+2.  What does that mean?  Does the number affect my target number for
tasks? Or does it change the difficulty?  Or does it affect my skill?  It's
not in there, so I guess that we have to make it up.  

>>Last vehicle: The gunship at the bottom of p91. This is a joke, right?

>Again, as the book says, that one is classified.  That means the referee
>should use *imagination*, which is what this game is about.

I'm a little pissed that they basicly wasted a space on an essitialy blank
card.  I'm more than capable of imagining a classified gavernment project
all on my lonesome.

>>Yes, I *could* try to reverse engineer them and work out these things for 
>>myself, or just pull numbers out of thin air, but if I'm going to start 
>>doing that, what the f*ck is the point of buying the book in the first 
>>place? I might as well make up the whole bloody thing myself and save my 
>>money.

>Didn't you say something awhile back about throwing away your books?
>Well, that is the same idea.  Do you get pissed that there is no floor
>plans of the Virgin superstore in London too?  Look, if I'm unemployed
>and can buy these books, it can't be that hard for someone else.

If the book had promised floorplans for the Virgin megastore, I would have
been upset to find some vague architechs plans.  As written, these vehicles
are almost unusable.

>Besides, I've played Traveller from the start, and refereed almost as
>long.  There is _no_ supplement, sourcebook, adventure, what have you
>that has ever been the _final_ word in how I run my campaign, but I
>run an incredibly *detailed* universe.  My players think it is as complex
>as the *real* one, and not even a 96-page book is going to provide *that*
>kind of detail.

The whole point of supplements like these is to provide the Ref with an aid
to his/her game.  There has never been a supplement that I've used
unaltered, and I've been running Traveller just as long as you have.

>I'm sorry, but if you are looking for *every* answer to be in *every* book
>from IG, you're playing the wrong game.  You might as well move to Denver
>and take up an apprenticeship under my wing, because that is probably the
>only place you are going to get a feel and understanding for why I am
>perfectly happy with _Emperor's Vehicles_.

I'd sooner volunteer for a bone marrow transplant.  Compare this book to
Emperor's Arsenal.  Every weapon was listed with the correct, complete
stats, every weapon had a good illustration, and the book included useful
rules.  Emperors' Vehicles has very few of the vehicles illustrated,
horribly incomplete stats, and no rules to speak of.

>>And the problems don't stop there. The text at the start of each section 
>>has only the most tenuous of connections with the vehicles featured (and 
>>often contradicts them). No blank vehicle sheets are included.
>
>Hmmm...Looking at page 112 of the Classic Traveller, Traveller Book, at
>the ATV entry.  You could just as easily say the above things about CT,
>but you're missing the *whole* point.

No, you are.  The Traveller Book was published seventeen years ago.  I'd
like to think that we've progressed a little beyond that level.  Also, CT
didn't have design tracks like FFS and the vehicle system from CSC.  We had
to kludge things together, at least until Striker came out.  (Craig can
probably remember that I vanished into my room, emerging days later with
about a hundred vehicle designs.)

>>What annoys me so much is how trivial it would have been to fix these 
>>problems: an extra TL box on the vehicle sheets, a page of blank forms... 
>>not exactly things that would have had the whole of IG working overtime 
>>for a month. A little bit of extra thought on their part, and I'd be here 
>>saying what a great book it is, how everyone should buy one, and isn't it 
>>great how much IG have improved. Instead, this. 

>Broken record.  Like I said, you _define_ it to be a problem, but the
>problem is _you_ don't know *how* to use this *PERFECTLY* good Traveller
>supplement.  I would guess that you have grown too accustomed to using
>T:TNE sources and have forgotten what some of us *still* know.

As Leroy gets insulting again.  Fine.  I have been playing Traveller for
twenty years.  My first gaming purchase of any sort was 1001 Characters,
and I have an extensive collection of Traveller products that fills an
entire bookcase.  I find Emperor's Vehicles to be recycled puppy chow.

>Please Andrew, no more brouhaha.  I refuse to believe that I am the only
>referee that can handle these kinds of questions.

I'm speechless.  Does your fecal matter not trigger olfactory responces also?

>I say again because it bears repeating, "The best thing about this book
>(_Emperor's Vehicles_) is its lack of a *design* system.  We need to turn
>the game back to role-playing.  It is shameful that WW is the company with
>the reputation of role-playing.  I haven't stopped doing RPG, and neither
>should *any* Traveller players/referees.  Take our game back to its origins."

The very first adventure for Traveller featured a> a break-in at a
shipyard, b> a break out from an orbital prison, c> a hunting expadition,
and d> a semi-intellegent starship that tries to kill the characters.  The
first rules expansion was Book 4: Mercenary, which was nothing but detailed
rules for the military.  The original character generation process had
three military, one semi-military, one criminal, and *one* civilian career
paths.

I think that I remember our roots a little better than you..

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing thay you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1965
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 16 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1966



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: The March Harrier: Sensors
re: Piracy - VOTE!
Re: Art
Re: Piracy
Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Piracy
Spofulam TL-12 heavy assault rifle/wigl
Re: Piracy
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Re: Piracy
Re: Piracy
re: Piracy - VOTE!
Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill
re: Gas Giants
re: FF&S Missile Design
re: The cost of starship paint
Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: The March Harrier: Sensors

In a message dated 97-10-16 08:04:29 EDT, bmac@astro.ucla.edu writes:

<< I'm pretty sure the BL version of the Scout had a folding array, which 
 was allowed to use as little surface area as you liked >>

You are correct...I had not taken that into account in my design...I will
redo it w/ a folding array and see how that works, thanks!  :-)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: re: Piracy - VOTE!

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Richard Hough wrote:

> This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
> lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,
> but are these "pirates" lone shipowners attacking free traders? I think not.

Source: Book 2 Starships (CT), p36

Ship Encounters
8 or less	No encounter
9		Free Trader
10		Free Trader
11		Free Trader
12		Pirate       <-------------------------------
13		Subsidized Merchant
14		Patrol
15		Subsidized Merchant
16		Yacht
17		Yacht
18		Patrol

I can't seem to find the starship encounter table for T-4...

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:20:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Art

In a message dated 97-10-16 16:05:19 EDT, you write:

<< There were two "declassifed" speculative designs. SF101SW looks like one
of
 the Chris Foss illustrations. Lots of curves, humps and bumps that don't
 really seem to go anywhere. Does not resemble the Enterprise D any more than
 Tuna Factory resembles the Missouri.  >>

thanks a lot...wondered for years about that.  It was quite a few years back
that I had the book, and can't find it now ANYWHERE!  Even the Trek
conventions usually don't have it (most people I've talked w/ have never
heard of it.)  They used a few of the designs as background for the ST RPG if
I recall right...mailly for the Rom War and 4-Years war supplements.

Anyway, thanks again!

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:41:02 -0700
From: scharlto@ifsna.com
Subject: Re: Piracy

At this point, I can come two one of two conclusions:

1.  Joe watches too many Warner Bros cartoons
2.  Since I recognized it, I watch too many Warner Bros cartoons

These two conclusions are not mutually exclusive...


Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:39:56 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Piracy

<Hussan chop!>
>And you were so close! ...
<Hussan chop!>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:58:20 -0700
From: scharlto@ifsna.com
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

Doug had two things to say that brought me great reminiscent pleasure:

Quote 1
> And when I'm running "Trail of the Sky Raiders" and the characters
> are fleeing across the desert with Dr. Messandi and the memory cores,
> pursued by the Desahke Army, the amount of fuel in the gas tanks is
> irrelelvant?

For my players, the amount of fuel was largely irrelevant, simply becuase I
wanted them to be stuck in the middle of the desert, and so the Gray Death
legion shot the crap out of their jeeps, and all three had holed fuel
tanks!  Later, however, the fuel capacity was VERY important. Like Doug, I
prefer to have the information provided.

Quote 2
> We had to kludge things together, at least until Striker came out.
> (Craig can probably remember that I vanished into my room, emerging
> days later with about a hundred vehicle designs.)

This is somewhat related to the above; when I got Striker, I immediately
scurried off into the darkness and designed a whole panoply of vehicles
based on WWII German designs, which I used to equip the Gray Death Legion
for the above-mentioned adventure (which became a long-running campaign in
its own right, with at least four encounters on separate worlds with the
GDL over a four year period).  This was very conventient for me, as I had a
butt-load of 1/48 scale german vehicle models that I repainted as GDL
vehicles, and which were a staple of our game sessions for quite a long
time.

I was cleaning out my shed over the weekend and found a box with some of
these models.  Alas, the Arizona heat and the heavy box stacked on top of
this one had put most of the models to an untimely end, but I did retreive
three (a command car, an APC and a tank destroyer) which I hope to clean up
and spring on my players again in the near future!  Since the current party
is mostly the sons/daughters of the group that fought the GDL (its nearly
50 years later!), it should raise some surprised eyebrows.



Regarding the Emperor's Vehicles book; I created a number of the designs in
that book, and I had a heck of a time trying to figure out which ones were
mine, and what had been done to them.  There were some changes, but mostly
the missing information made it difficult to tell what was what.  The
original models for my designs were the M-113, the LAV-25, the M1A2 and the
M-2 Bradley, plus some "independant" designs.  Ah well; the book is not too
bad, but I am going to have to mark it up to include the data I need (which
will entail making some assumptions which may or may not be correct).

Steve Charlton

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:14:25 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:00:56 -0400 (EDT), SignalGK@aol.com
>Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
>volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?

Not much.  Certainly less than the transitory changes the comet
Shoemaker-Levy caused.

>I've assumed that it would result in combustion of the atmosphere probably
>lasting for hundreds of years but would appreciate other people's views on
>this..

There is no oxygen to react with so no combustion.

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:18:08 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:30:30 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>> Why?  What mass and intertia problems?  The gravity is on, you
>> free and ready the cargo, and cut power to the gravity....

>Mass and inertia are the same thing. And they are *not* the same thing
>as *weight*. Cutting gravity will eliminate weight, but the mass
>remains.

Yes, Yes.  I know that.  The point is not that mass and inertia
wouldn't exist.  The point was that I saw nothing in the post
that described any problems with mass and inertia that hadn't
been addresses (inertia is a pretty straight forwared problem).

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:20:45 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Spofulam TL-12 heavy assault rifle/wigl

	Sent this a little while ago, but I think it got lost in the
shuffle as I changed ISP's...

	Here's a little something I did up a few days back.  Visualize a
large plastic bullpup assault rifle with an integral pump-action grenade
launcher inspired by The Sound of Music.  Think multiple, evil-looking
muzzlebrake/flash hiders.  However, all things considered, it's not quite
as over the top as the usual Spofulam designs, so no press release :).

Name: Famille Spofulam Armaments TL-12 GBH* Rifle/Grenade Launcher.

T4 stats:


Combined eval:
Length: 		95 cm
Bulk: 			6.3
Price:			13,561 cr
Reloads (rifle):	82.25 (100-round box) cr
Reloads (gl):		167.1 (5-round tube) cr
Reload mass (rifle):	1.85 kg
Reload mass (gl):	1.54 kg
Mass (empty):		7.83 kg
Mass (loaded):		10.6 kg
Range (rifle): 		67.3 m (Medium)
Range (gl):		102 m (Medium)
Damage (rifle):		5
Damage (gl):		4
Pen (gl):		7
Burst radius (gl):	11 m
Recoil (rifle):		0.78/1.95/3.9
Recoil (gl):		2.65

Rifle round:		7.5 mm X 47.5 mm caseless
Rifle barrel: 		49 cm heavy rifled TL-12 Advanced Materials,long
flash
			hider/muzzle brake, bayonet lug, RG adapter
Reciever: 		SA/Bo3/FA Heavy, TL-12 Advanced Materials,Bullpup
			plastic stock, gyro comp, Electronic sights (+20m),
			laser dot sight
GL round:		33.3 mm X 90 mm low-velocity propelled
GL barrel: 		50 cm TL-12 AM smoothbore, long muzzle brake
GL reciever: 		TL-12 AM pump


* GBH stands for Grievous Bodily Harm, which is a criminal charge in the UK
that corrseponds to aggravated assault in North American terms.  It's one
step worse than assault**.  There was this punk band in the early '80's
called Charged: GBH.  Had one of their T-shirts.

** Ok, it seemed funny at the time :).


Worksheet (rifle)
Heavy Assault Rifle (TL-12)

Round: 7.5 mm X 47.5 mm caseless
Cal:	 		7.5 mm
Rated Energy: 		2760 joules
Base area:		44.18 mm^2
Prop. Volume:		2297 mm^3
Round length:		15 mm
Case length: 		32.5 mm
Round length:		47.5 mm
Round Mass:		15.74 gr
IBL:			49 cm
Price:			0.63 cr

Barrel: 49 cm heavy rifled TL-12 AM, long flash hider/muzzle brake, bayonet
lug, RG adapter
ModBlen:	0.14
Mass:		0.805 kg
Price:		2065 cr
AME:		2760
Actual length:	62 cm
ModRecoil:	0.6

Reciever: SA/Bo3/FA Heavy, TL-12 AM, Bullpup, plastic stock, gyro comp,
Electronic sights (+20m), laser dot sight

Min length: 	26 cm
Mass:		2.405 kg
Price:		3770.5 cr
ModRecoil:	0.5

Feed: 100-round box, TL-12 AM
Mass:		0.275 kg
Price:		19.25 cr
Mass loaded:	1.85 kg
Price loaded:	82.25

Evaluation:
Length:		88cm
Bulk:		5
Mass (empty):	3.45 kg
Mass (loaded):	5.03 kg
Price:		5855 cr
Basic range:	67.3 m (Medium)
Damage:		5
Recoil:		1.02/1.53/5.1

Worksheet (gl)
Grenade launcher

Round: 33.3 mm (3.33 cm) low-velocity propelled

Explosive damage value: 4
Burst radius: 11.667 meters
Explosive pen: 7
Mass: 0.1776
Barrel length: 50 cm
Propellant mass: 0.06

Launcher:
Cal: 3.33
length: 15 cals
barrel mass: 0.07326
Muzzle energy: 10,000 joules
Indirect range: 6 km

Bullet base area: 870.92
Volprop: 8333.333
Blen:  ??
Case length: 5.98 mm
Round length: 90mm
Mass: 237 grams
IBL: 36 cm
Price: 28.44 cr
Recoil:
Damage: concussion: 4, pen 7 burst radius 11 m

Barrel: 50cmTL-12 AM smoothbore, long muzzle brake
ModBlen: 0.3888
Mass: 0.95 kg
Price: 1225 cr
AME: 11944 j
Actual length: 58 cm
modrecoil: 0.6

Reciever: TL-12 AM pump
length: 40 cm
mass: 3.07
price: 6457

Mag: tubular, 5 rounds, TL-12 adv mat
Mass: 355.5 gr
Price: 24.885

Eval:
length: 90 cm
mass: 4.375 kg
Mass (loaded): 5.56 kg
Range: 102 m


Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:18:32 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:34:27 -0700, Scott Ellsworth
<Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
>The situation changes when the numbers get large.  If a dollar from every
>car could stamp out all car theft, we all might have security systems.  A
>thousand is not worth it, and a penny is a shoe-in.

Right, the cost can't exceed the odds of the loss it intends
to prevent.

>  Clearly, this is not a
>linear relationship, rather, it is a threshold one.  If the cost goes below
>the noise floor, people will pay the cost, whereas if it is large enough to
>be spotted, people tend to stop, consider, and vote against it, whatever it
>costs.  I submit that <1% of the Naval budget taking out all pirates is
>likely below the noise floor

This, as I have said, is the mistake people keep making
over and over again when looking at Imperial budgets.
As you said above, things do change when the numbers
get large, but it goes the other way.

Large organization don't have a "noise floor".  It is often
true that a large organization tracks expenses down to a
more detailed level, both in terms of absolute money and in
%age of budget, because they can and they need to.  <1%
is not in the "noise floor" for the Federal Government
and, while it wastes money because of politics, it doesn't
waste money because it can't be bothered with deciding
what to do with it.  The Imperium in not going to blow
thousands to millions of megacredits on piracy if it's
not justified, regardeless of what %age of the budget
that is.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:43:03 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

> Which brings up a point I've been wishing to review for a while now: Just
> how many ships *are* out there? 

Good question. I'll throw out a related one -- what is the ratio of
military to civilian ships?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:34:11 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:57:04 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>	If you want to get any decent transfer rate between ships, you're
>going to
>have to move them fairly fast.  Which means that padding the sides won't do
>dingleberry when a multi-ton object impacts either the edges of the
>victim's cargo hatch, the outside of your hull, or the inside of your cargo
>bay.

You need a "decent transfer rate".  You don't need to rocket
them accross, turning them into missles.  You just start moving
one accross at a brisk walk, after all it's not like you have
to wait for the previous one to be fully transfered to start
the next one.

What is more, they will be pulled toward the winch and so
that is where they will end up.  They are not going to
hitting the ship in random places.  A shock absorber at
the winch is likely sufficient.

>>Or maybe they even do more than I do and give it more than a few
>>minutes of thought and come up with [gasp!] and even better answer.
>
>	If you're arguing a point, it's rather poor taste to tell the other
>side
>in a debate they have to come up with justification for your position.  If
>you're going to try to convince somebody else of your position, you're
>supposed to provide the justification.

The fact is when you start training for a problem and
creating specialized equipment, it _does_ become easier than
if you are doing it on an ad hoc basis.  If you want to
really look at how hard the problem is, you have to take
it into account.   The fact that we have been discussing
pretty crude methods (which, none the less, are still
reasonable solutions) means that someone who is prepared
like a pirate _will_ tend to have an easier time.

Unless you want to arbitrarly say that only pirates that
are unprepared will engage in piracy, then the point that
we haven't even explored more than the obvious solutions
is a germain one.

>	OK, so the pirate is just going to show up, and the poor merchie is
>going
>to surrender?

Maybe.  Or he shows up and knocks him out in one shot.

> I think not. If piracy exists, then there won't be many
>unarmed merchies.

Again, you are assuming that any cost is justified.  If
piracy is, like most crimes, a something that a merchant
is likely to never presonally encounter, then he won't be
armed because it is expensive and the cost probably
exceeed his most probably amount of loses.

This is, after all, why the average person doesn't go
around armed.
 If you're arguing for the canonical pirates, in fact,
>most of the pirates will _be_ merchies, so it will probably be a fair fight.

>>A pirate is not going to go after a fair fight, he is going
>>to hit unarmed ships (or ones that are so poorly armed that
>>they have no real chance of taking damage).  In any case,
>>if the ship has taken the kind of damage you talk about,
>>it will because he lost the battle, and he won't be loading
>>cargo anyway.

>	How much damage does it take to lose just enough jump fuel that you
>can't
>jump? Damage the hull grid? Take a shot through the j-drive?

I'm sorry.  What is the point here?  This is indeed the kind
of damage he will avoid.  So that if he takes this kind of
damage he is not going to be worring about shifting cargo
because he has already screwed up....

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:35:35 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

[This response has been trimmed to wean me out of this debate....]
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:57:04 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>	If you want to get any decent transfer rate between ships, you're
>going to
>have to move them fairly fast.  Which means that padding the sides won't do
>dingleberry when a multi-ton object impacts either the edges of the
>victim's cargo hatch, the outside of your hull, or the inside of your cargo
>bay.

You need a "decent transfer rate".  You don't need to rocket
them accross, turning them into missles.  You just start moving
one accross at a brisk walk, after all it's not like you have
to wait for the previous one to be fully transfered to start
the next one.

What is more, they will be pulled toward the winch and so
that is where they will end up.  They are not going to
hitting the ship in random places.  A shock absorber at
the winch is likely sufficient.

>>Or maybe they even do more than I do and give it more than a few
>>minutes of thought and come up with [gasp!] and even better answer.
>
>	If you're arguing a point, it's rather poor taste to tell the other
>side
>in a debate they have to come up with justification for your position.  If
>you're going to try to convince somebody else of your position, you're
>supposed to provide the justification.

The fact is when you start training for a problem and
creating specialized equipment, it _does_ become easier than
if you are doing it on an ad hoc basis.  If you want to
really look at how hard the problem is, you have to take
it into account.   The fact that we have been discussing
pretty crude methods (which, none the less, are still
reasonable solutions) means that someone who is prepared
like a pirate _will_ tend to have an easier time.

Unless you want to arbitrarly say that only pirates that
are unprepared will engage in piracy, then the point that
we haven't even explored more than the obvious solutions
is a germain one.

>	OK, so the pirate is just going to show up, and the poor merchie is
>going
>to surrender?

Maybe.  Or he shows up and knocks him out in one shot.

> I think not. If piracy exists, then there won't be many
>unarmed merchies.

Again, you are assuming that any cost is justified.  If
piracy is, like most crimes, a something that a merchant
is likely to never presonally encounter, then he won't be
armed because it is expensive and the cost probably
exceeed his most probably amount of loses.

This is, after all, why the average person doesn't go
around armed.
 If you're arguing for the canonical pirates, in fact,
>most of the pirates will _be_ merchies, so it will probably be a fair fight.

>>A pirate is not going to go after a fair fight, he is going
>>to hit unarmed ships (or ones that are so poorly armed that
>>they have no real chance of taking damage).  In any case,
>>if the ship has taken the kind of damage you talk about,
>>it will because he lost the battle, and he won't be loading
>>cargo anyway.

>	How much damage does it take to lose just enough jump fuel that you
>can't
>jump? Damage the hull grid? Take a shot through the j-drive?

I'm sorry.  What is the point here?  This is indeed the kind
of damage he will avoid.  So that if he takes this kind of
damage he is not going to be worring about shifting cargo
because he has already screwed up....

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:49:23 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re: Piracy - VOTE!

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:16:18 -0800, Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
>This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
>lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,

Pirates also appear in encounter tables in CT and MT (at least).

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:13:49 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Sensors and the "Sensors" skill

>A few seconds according to Bruce Macintosh calculations.
I should admit that that particular calculation is fairly
back-of-the-envelope. I know that  passive sensors will *detect* targets
at high enough signal-to-noise to get their position very prprecisely in a
second or less. What they won't get quite as preciesly is a range. You can get
coarse ranges from parallax - comparing the position given by the
left half of the sensor to the right half - but how
precise this is, and how much you can refine it using the target's 
motion and your motion, I don't know; it's another one o ft hose  questions
I may not answer until someone pays me :-). I also don't know how
preceisly you have to get the range - back-of-the envelope 
if you have the range wrong you'll miss by (target V/c)*(range error),
which means you'll be happy knowing the range to 10-100km or so...

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:23:16 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Gas Giants

>Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
>volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?

Why on earth would a battle cruiser be carrying nuclear Volvos? Boy, that's a
frightening image...better not let the FS get ahold of it...

>I've assumed that it would result in combustion of the atmosphere probably
>lasting for hundreds of years but would appreciate other people's views

Not much would happen. There's nothing there to burn - hydrogen requires
oxygen or carbon or *something* to burn, and all the carbon etc. is already 
burnt (locked up in methane, etc.) No number of nuclear missiles will manage to
comrpess the hyrdogen enough to istart fusion - and even if it did, the fusion
would stop when the compression did. basically you get a big bang, some
serious weather effects, maybe some long-lasting scars, not much else. 
(Compare to the SL/9 impact on Jupiter, which is oprobably more energetic 
than a typical load of missiles.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:24:50 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: FF&S Missile Design

>In SSDS, Missiles would be rated 6G12 - meaning 12 6-G "burns". How long is
>a burn? I cannot build a missile that has 12 G-hours of thrust...

Thisis an embarassing flaw in FFS2 - we're working on it (probablycoming upw ith some sort of lightweight fusion rocket with moderat fuel consumption.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:35:03 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: The cost of starship paint

>would the SR71 coating would even make your TL8-9 "black paint"
>standard?

Probably not - it's slightly too blue. Maybe the F-117 coating would...

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:53:46 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

>Broken record.  Like I said, you _define_ it to be a problem, but the
>problem is _you_ don't know *how* to use this *PERFECTLY* good Traveller
>supplement.  I would guess that you have grown too accustomed to using
>T:TNE sources and have forgotten what some of us *still* know.
>
>
>>Andrew M J Boulton
>>
>
>
>Please Andrew, no more brouhaha.  I refuse to believe that I am the only
>referee that can handle these kinds of questions.
>
>I say again because it bears repeating, "The best thing about this book
>(_Emperor's Vehicles_) is its lack of a *design* system.  We need to turn
>the game back to role-playing.  It is shameful that WW is the company with
>the reputation of role-playing.  I haven't stopped doing RPG, and neither
>should *any* Traveller players/referees.  Take our game back to its origins."
>
></TML POST MODE>
>
>
>Leroy

No tech level, no fuel usage, hmmm.... I see that as a problem. I buy a
book for statistics, that uses design system I paid for, so that I can use
it as a cross check for my own designs or inspiration for others.

I don't need to buy a book that lacks a design system in order to roleplay.

My imagination does a perfectly fine job as it is, and can come up with the
detail (or lack of detail) that exists in Emperor's Vehicles at a moments
notice, and I don't have to pay A$30 for it.

By your analogy Leroy, Emperors vehicles is a perfectly good supplement for
Space Opera, Mechwwarrior, Rifts, or any other science fiction system. I
sometimes wonder if this is the purpose of the book. T4 being the hopeless
system that it is maybe IG are trying to make their products more generic
so that they can be sold for use with other roleplaying games (GURPS?). 

Anyway, that's just my opinion. 


Harry

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1966
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 17 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1967



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech
Re: Navies?
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Piracy
Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)
TL-12+ Search and Rescue gear?
Pirate ships
Re: Piracy mechanics (long)
Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)
Re: Piracy
Re: Damned Star Trek
Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:07:40 -0400
From: Tom Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Robert Ringrose
> Subject: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech
>

<snip much walking stuff>


> - Robert Ringrose
>           ringrose@ai.mit.edu
>           MIT Leg Lab
>           MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
>
OK for those of you annoyed at my late questions well here's another
one....I'm on Oct 7 TML's and will remain at some state of TML
regression until I am finished with my orals on Nov. 4......then all
will be sunshine and light....yeah right....until then I hope you will
continue to put up with me. :->

Anyway Rob,  you keep saying that walking speed is a function of gravity
(I assume because the higher the gravity the faster you "fall" into the
position to take the next step) so I have two questions:

1) If strength were not a factor....does this mean that you can walk up
a hill faster than you can on flat terrain (the ground rising to meet
your foot as opposed to falling toward the ground faster)

2) From the MIT Leg Lab.....is there any idea of the optimum gravity for
the fastest walking speed given that a person has a given strength and
endurance.  (I know this question is not well phrased...but what I am
looking for is....well...if gravity increases you can walk faster....but
it takes more effort.  Increase gravity again and you can go still
faster but now you are struggling to get the strength to do it so you go
slower.  Is there and optimal range for a healthy, unassisted
human.......or did Goldielocks find out that 1G is "juuuuust right"?)

Thanks

TT

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:36:12 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: Navies?

Hello,
>But paying soldiers, fuel, missiles, repairs, supply lines and so on
>is going to cost. It would be much cheaper for the Navy to rotate the
>ships so that about half and half are at port/at sea, so to say. This
>means that you save money, while still maintaining battle readinees.
>A nations wartime strength is much higher than the readiness it has in
>peacetime, a point no one so far has considered.

  Is that referring to (forward?) deployed elements or the number of
ships in being? Certainly most of the large ships used in a war of
less than four or five years length (varies by tech, size) will be
those already existing at the outbreak of hostilities, whether in
active/reserve service or in storage. That appears to be the pattern
in the T* universe, and matches most historical scenarios (post-galley).

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:47:46 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:57:31 -0600, Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
>What would happen if the Zho's created a fleet of J-5 or even J-4
>vessels, supported by some very large tankers; who jumped to cometary
>fringes of systems, sneaking their way to the heart of the Marches, and
>whipped ass at some undefended system?

>The fact that ships are undetectable in jump, and that information
>*cannot* travel than warships, means that it is *imperative* that a
>fairly sizable defence is required at every major population world, and
>that a modest force is required for even the smaller population centres.

Well, if I remember, you do give off radiation when you come
out of jump (is that a recent T4 thing?).  In any case, it
depends on how "canon" you want to be.  You don't, in
fact, see navies typically (at all?) using the Ort cloud
(or the Kieper Belt) to pull water out of comets in histories.
I've hear it claimed that this would be detected too.
OTOH, there are those who argue passionately that this
is dumb, and that this should be happening all the time.
I have seen flame wars over this and didn't follow them
close enough to have a good idea which side I believe.

In any case, if you believe in this, the best response
is still not a fleet in every system.  It is a fleet
concentrated in a few high value systems and have a
small scout ship in each system (maybe one patrolling
through 2 or 3 systems).

>Places too small to support a system defence force would have
>insignificant trade to support piracy.

Well, no.  First, trade from big systems has to pass through
small systems.  Also, you only need to be middling sized before
you don't have a fleet sitting around protecting you...

>Therefore, I contend that any system with significant trade or resources
>has its own planetary navy, even if it's a modest one, equivalent to the
>"coast guard".

Well, I agree that they will have enough ships that any
armed ship can't just show up an terrorize they system
for weeks on end.  But that is a long way from being
able to stop hit an run attacks in every part of the
system.

>"Concentration of forces" == "big-ass ships". A whole fleet of puny
>patrol vessels isn't going to mean squat when a Tigress jumps in. Sun
>Tzu wrote about land battles, he knew naught of battleships and
>dreadnaughts.

Actually, this is a fundamental principal that has held
up in all types of warfare through the ages (that is
why he is still studied).  Also concentration means
_both_ big ships, and concentrating the ships
you have.  A bunch of Cruisers might be able to defeat
a deadnaught together, but if the dreadnaught can
hit them one by one they are toast.

>Smaller-sized ships are necessary in the navy for patrol, protection,
>and smaller skirmishes; but in a major battle their role is limited, so
>they don't need to be concentrated.

Small ships are necesary for patrol, but the firepower needed
for patrol is a fraction necessary to stop piracy (actually
it's not clear that you bother to arm them at all since their
only mission will be to leave immediately).  There
is also a need to escort but you will group your merchants
into convoys so you probably will used at least modest
sized fleets and you don't need that manys. You aren't going
to be sending small forces out to seek out battle
because they will get squashed.  All this is a long
way from having a small fleet in every system.

>So I take the opposite view. The *majority* of places will have some
>sort of defence fleet. Otherwise small, high-jump enemy warships will
>kick your butt six ways from Sunday, and probably as many days a week.

Neah, what ends up happening is that the small ship runs
around bothering small, low value targets (which have few fixed
instalations and your small ships isn't going to sieze and hold
a planet, besides something like 90% of the Imperiums pop
and resources are in a few high pop worlds so it really isn't
a big deal if he does) until it happens  to run into a larger
force or a world that was bigger than he thought, and get squashed.
The problem with one small ship is he only survives as long
he has a perfect record in picking where to go next, which is
tough even without the slow communications we see in
Traveller.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:53:15 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Piracy

>
   
   Hi.
   
> From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
   
> Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
>> And according to TCS and _Striker_, the
>> Imperium figured that they needed a lot of 'cops'.
   
> Has it ever come up that TCS and Striker might
> just be wrong? I mean, I know they're canon, but
> who says that either of them make the slightest bit
> of sense? Hans' arguments seem to center on extrapolations
> from rules in two supplements that have nothing
> to back them up save their "canon-ness".
   
> Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
> accepted?
   
   Because they are quite compatable with real life, so there is
   no real reason not to accept them.  TCS assumes that the naval
   budget per citizen is about Cr 250.  In the US today, the naval
   budget comes out to about $360 per citizen.  These values are
   roughly comparable.  TCS assumes a fleet size with a value 10
   times the annual budget.  In the US today, the price tag on our
   fleet is roughly 5 to 10 times the annual budget.  Again, these
   values are roughly comparable.  In his arguments, Hans assumes
   that piracy suppression gets about 0.2% of the fleet budget.
   In the US today, our Coast Guard gets a whole lot more than 0.2%
   of the naval budget, so clearly this value is EASILY credible.
   
> To me, this seems to be the root of a lot of disagreements.
   
   I am not sure whether this is the root of the problem, but if
   it is, it shouldn't be.
   
   -Rob

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:58:35 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)

Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:39:56 -0500, yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
>Cigarette manufacturers seem to claim that since research is not absolute
>proof, it is invalid. This is incorrect.

Well, the one I've seen claim not that research can never be
abolute proof, but the the research done so far hasn't proven
that cigarets cause cancer.

>However, even if they were correct in saying what they do, they could not
>claim cigarettes did not cause cancer (or whatever). They would have to
>prove this claim themselves. Refutation of evidence is no more proof than
>absence of proof.

Right, this why it depends on what you claim.  If you seek to claim
that cigarettes don't cause cancer you have a much higher burden
of proof than if you a content to mearly contend that cigarettes
have not been proven to cause cancer, since the later means that
you don't have to prove a postion, only show that another
postion is flawed.

>Which brings me to the problem with the piracy thread. It is based on too
>many assumptions. So many, it seems, that no one can argue either for or
>against piracy logically.

Which is good for me since my postion is that you can't say piracy
is either impossible or required by the background.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:24:15 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: TL-12+ Search and Rescue gear?

	This likewise seems to have been lost in the shuffle.  Comments?

	A question to ponder: what sort of cutting tools and similar gear
equipment would a SAR crew be packing circa 1100?  I've thought of the
following:

* slaplocks,
* breaching charges,
* laser cutters,
* fusion lances,
* crystaliron de-aligners,
* rivet guns,
* cable,
* cable tools and winches,
* telescoping door/iris valve jammers,
* waterknives,
* hydraulic jacks,
* jackhammers,
* Fusion+-powered rotary saws with superdense blades with fractal cutting
edges,
	(I _LIKE_ that one!)
* large Fusion+ power drills with superdense bits,
* large power-assisted hydraulic boltcutters/Jaws Of Life(tm).

	Is there anything else anybody else can suggest?  Basically, I'm
thinking about salvage gear; the kind of stuff you need to hack into
hulls/pick apart wreckage/so forth.

	A big waldobot equipped with all of the above :)?

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:44:36 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Pirate ships

Hello,
  I don't recall a definition for the sort of ship that
the armed external piracy thread is based on. Is it meant
to be an armed merchant, and if so what size, or is it a
light warship of some sort with low Jump and moderate
cargo capacity?

        Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:44:29 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (long)

Hello again,
>Actually I would also assume short range, since I don't believe
>in traffic control from that far out (and which doesn't appear
>in the backgroud).  But that would just make it easier.  I
>wouldn't try it against a warship that had a significant edge
>in power (like a Kuninuir) but a measly system defense boat
>would be doable.

  Maybe we should clarify what sort of ship gobbles up an SDB,
even under near-ideal conditions? Remember, the SDB doesn't
have 20%+ wasted on J-fuel/drives, let alone cargo, nor does
it require commercial rates of return on its' military gear
costing. For distances, I'll ignore traffic control, but on
inbound ships "accidentally" matching their in-Jump is quite
astronomically unlikely, and I'm going to be very suspicious
of any ship that seems to be approaching me and not the world
I'm heading for. The authorities may share this approach.

>>  If CT ships have ROF 1, true. But my T4 stuff shows large numbers
>>for ROF, so it seems that surprise shots aside the cycle period is
>>a couple of minutes at best.
>
>OK, I haven't gone through T4 space combat.

  Problem is that I haven't either, and most earlier versions never
seem to spell out ROF meaningfully. The 100% draw on power and long
turns are documented, but not explained.

>>>Maser comms are typically only found on military vessels.
>>
>>  From Striker, I can do a million klicks for ~60 KCr. I think
>>the book was a horrible waste of money, but from Starships at
>>TL 11+ the Advanced Civ ELX suite includes a 1000 AU (!) unit.
>
>The point is that would a merchant buy one that he might use
>once?  It might be cheaper to get insurance.

  If insurance is cheaper than a one-time investment of a couple
hundred KCr, then piracy doesn't exist, as it doesn't seem to
affect insurance rates. I feel that there are some (possibly
specialized) circumstances where piracy exists (not just hijacking,
skipping, fraud, etc.), but this thesis would eliminate that.

>>>I'm sorry, I don't see why this would be.  But, in any case,
>>>you could just attack the outbout ships.
>
>>  Do you want to make a habit of jumping from within the 100 D limit?
>
>I would attack just before you you reach the limit, then pop
>out and jump.
...
>>  Also, matching an inbound trajectory is difficult, unless
>>you know how they're jumping in. Matching outbound must be
>>a great deal easier.
>
>Not if inbound trajectories are low (it there isn't much to
>match).  Of course this gets into the question of how you
>handle velocity conservation when you jump.

  IIRC, you can jump in (accurately) with a relative velocity.
If there's a danger of piracy, they would. This means that to
match becomes almost impossible randomly, and would occur well 
within security forces "my-what-fun" zone. I'd have to check
the canon jump stuff, though.

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:48:34 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)

> Which is good for me since my postion is that you can't say piracy
> is either impossible or required by the background.


Unfortunately, this position is of little help to a referee looking for
advice. :)

On another note, one of my concerns is that people are starting to get a
little ... touchy ... about this subject. To me, many of the arguments are
enjoyable to read, and it would be a real shame if people got bent out of
shape and stopped contributing. Both sides have made excellent points,
things that I would not have thought of myself. This concern is motivated
out of self-interest, of course -- I would like to hear more good points.
:)

Perhaps we can clarify and simlify this thread by breaking it down into
it's component arguments. Any clear thinkers with an archive of this Piracy
thread want to make up a laundry list of variables to consider? It might be
a good exercise of "universe building 101." No opinions, just the
variables? I am too lazy (and without an archive) to do it myself.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:29:17 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Piracy

>Ok, I'm not going to get embroiled in this debate seriously, 
>however I have noticed something coming up over and over again:
>
>Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
>
>> And according to TCS and _Striker_, the
>> Imperium figured that they needed a lot of 'cops'.
>
>Has it ever come up that TCS and Striker might
>just be wrong? I mean, I know they're canon, but
>who says that either of them make the slightest bit
>of sense? Hans' arguments seem to center on extrapolations
>from rules in two supplements that have nothing
>to back them up save their "canon-ness".
>
>Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
>accepted?
>

I think you get the same problem in PE.  I picked a copy of PE the other
day, and have been working on harmonising the military system with WTH,
Striker, INH, TCS, & a host of other MT/CT/TNE material.  I have not got far
yet, but I think at this stage that any consistency will be purely
coincidental:  
For what its worth, at TL15 on an appropriate world, an RU = 5000 MCr, and a
(puny) A1D1T0J4 Starship unit will cost (1*50+1*50+8*50)= 500 Ru or approx 2
500 000MCr.   Enough for lots of little ships, or  a couple of Batrons of
old Tigress class BBs (CT) or about 6-8 really big BBs in TNE, or 1-4 BBs
from Starships of the Imperium (or whatever it was called) in MT.  
Interestingly, Since all units in PE have the same strength across TL, the
smae units costs 2,275,000MCr at TL14, and 3, 000,000 MCr at Tl 13.  Whilst
it is true that as TL decreases, effectiveness decreases AND cost increases,
(in accordance with FF&S v1/2), I do not know if this works out in any of
the starship combat rules in the same proportion as it does in PE, but I may
check this out with BL and BR.
If you only want to build SDBs they cost (for A1D1) 100 RU or about 50 000
MCr worth.  

To put this into perspective: for a Tl 13 Pop 9 (actually 2x10exp9) world
(all calculated according to PE) which had about 4% spent GWP on Military
gave approx 648 RU spent on maintenance, or a force size of 216 RU.  If only
.3 of this were assigned to the imperial navy (see below) for consistency's
sake, this would be 64.8 Ru on maintenance if inerstellar military.  If we
were maintaining A1D1J8 (Jump 4 capable starfleets)which cost 30 Ru each we
could maintain 2 of them, call it A2D2J16, This has a value (see above) of 2
x 3 000 000 MCr or 6 000 000 MCr (in local credits, starport Type A)[If all
was spent on interstellar military, approx 21 000 000]

The same figure for TCS are approximately 2 000 000 000  x 500/1 000 000 or
1 000 000 MCr and can be multiplied by up to 10 to account for the gradual
construction of the fleet or 10 000, 000 MCr.  (Imperail navy only)

For striker/INH these figures are:
2 000 000 000 x 3/100 (3%) x 18 000/1 000 000 x .3 (for imperial forces
only- not including system defence of this world) or 324 000MCr or for the
biuggest fleet (as per TCS above) 3 240 000 MCr.

Note that this is only a 2x10EXP9 world...
ERRORS PROBABLE

 It doesn't seem to matter what system you use, the imperium has ENORMOUS
resources at its dispposal. 
>                                Cheers,
>                                        Colin
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:44:51 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Damned Star Trek

Ethan Henry writes: 

>Heh, Beanie Babies would actually be funny at least.
>You're a funny guy, Harold.

   I have my moments.  This probably wasn't one of the best, but I do
have them.

>>    The Jem'Hadar are addicts who are kept under control with a white
>> substance that keeps them from killing every one around them and finally
>> themselves.
>
>Yeah and you can tell them apart by (my gosh) the wierd spiky things
>on their faces. I just have trouble with Star Trek aliens as the
>major differentiating feature is their noses & foreheads.

   And their ability to disappear on command, sort of like everyone does
when the boss comes out of his office looking to assign someone a
project.  Hey, I'm just trying to keep in the spirit of the business
discussions!  :-)

   Attaching rubber pieces to the face is a cheaper, easier way to
create aliens.  It's one step above putting humans in funny clothes and
pretending that they are from another planet.  Many sci-fi shows were
guilty of that, including old Star Trek and most episodes of Dr. Who.   

>Well, someone else got to be Team Klingon. Which, personally,
>I don't mind, as Klingons appear to exist mainly to bug people
>in the gift shops at Paramount amusement parks.

   If Klingons really existed I'm sure they'd nuke the sites from orbit.

>Anyhow, I figure someone has to be of the opinion that
>Star Trek is generally dumb and at best, cheesy.

   Star Trek at its best is the some of the best sci-fi around.  At its
worst, it is some of the worst.  Don't get me started on the *major*
issues I have with the latest incarnation "Voyager", or as I like to
call it, "the aircraft carrier that would not die, though everyone
wishes Nelix would".

   Regardless of our opinion, it is a billion dollar enterprise (pardon
the pun).  Star Trek is extremely popular with sci-fi fans in particular
and the public in general.  If only Traveller had 10 percent of the
success Star Trek has had over the years.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 04:16:03 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

Leroy William Lu Guatney wrote:

>I think this will do as a review of the most excellent, and latest book
>from Imperium Games.

   From what I've seen of your reviews Leroy, IG could print a book with
50 blanks pages in the middle, and you would compliment IG on how
thoughtful they were to include space for referees and players to write
notes about their ongoing campaigns.

>aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton) wrote:
>>
>>Leroy,
>>
>>> It is one helluva good book.
>>
>>Well, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion (no matter how stupid it 
>>might be), but IMHO IG have once again ruined what could have been an 
>>excellent book. You don't believe me?
>
>As I pointed out, I had answered all of Andrew B.'s questions dismissing them
>with it is the domain of the referee.

   So is deciding whether or not to purchase a sourcebook based upon if
it provides enough information to justify its purchase, or whether the
referee would be better off going to the public library, looking some
vehicles up in a Jane's yearbook, and then fudging the numbers for his
own campaign.

>>Okay, let's pick a vehicle: Grummond TC Carrier (p67).
>>What TL is it (ie on which worlds can I find one)?
>
>Not relevant, though the book does say it is Imperial Surplus Dept. as
>outlined in the CSC.

   As listing the tech level at which something is constructed is a
Traveller tradition dating back over 15 years (and three game systems)
why suddenly stop now?  Looking through my copy of "The Traveller Book"
(copyright 1982), the tech level is listed for all vehicles.

>As a counterpoint, are Air/Rafts or Scout ships *only* found on worlds of
>*their* TL?

   Of course not, but their tech level is listed anyway (at least up
until now).

>>How many crew does it need?
>
>Sorry, but that is pretty obvious looking at the picture.  A driver,
>a gunner (if it is to be used), and a maintenance guy not necessarily
>carried.

   So I now have to guess crew requirements by looking at pictures of
vehicles.  Well now there's an elegant solution for you.  BTW, TTB lists
the crew requirements for the vehicles listed there.

>>How much damage do its weapons do, and what's their max range?
>
>Well, since no weapon has been fired in my campaign in years, the standard
>answer is, "If you are out to kill and break things, you're not role-playing
>(in my campaign) and aren't interested in character development, something
>which I consider *far* more important."

   I never figured you for a pacifist Leroy, especially given the
personal attacks you have launched against people over the Internet
(myself included).  However, just because *you* don't like to give your
characters access to anything larger than handguns and the occasional
gauss rifle doesn't mean that everyone else should be forced to run
their game that way.  Some of the *best* pure role-playing sessions I
ever ran involved people running around in battledress and grav APCs,
hunting down bad guys with some serious TL 12 firepower.

>However, since I don't think you will like that one, how about, "Whatever
>combat/design system you are using."
>
>This last one really illustrates the beauty of the book, in my opinion.
>The *fact* that *no* design system was included really is a testimonial
>to *how* useful it is to someone that is looking hard enough to see that
>it is useful.

   Lack of relevant information as a design feature.  Oh boy.  Who would
have thought that having to do everything myself made the product
superior?  and here all this time I thought that the best products were
ones that saved the referee time.  Thanks for clearing that up.

>>When I run out of fuel, how much do I need to find to 
>>refill the tank?
>
>Mostly irrelevant.  It happened *once* in my campaign, and that was due
>the creature that was _inside_ the fuel tank--once the L-Hyd drained out,
>the creature thawed out from engine heat.

   Mostly irrelevant to you, **very** relevant to the majority of
everyone else.

>>How many wheels does it have? 
>
>Six, or didn't you actually *look* at the book?

   Should he have to?

>>Last vehicle: The gunship at the bottom of p91. This is a joke, right?
>
>Again, as the book says, that one is classified.  That means the referee
>should use *imagination*, which is what this game is about.

   Or just go down to the local public library and get the relevant
information for free and save US$30.  For a gunship, I recommend the
AH-64 Apache.  Figuring out some butt kicking TL 12 stats for the grav
equivalent shouldn't be that hard if you have a few hours to kill.

>>Yes, I *could* try to reverse engineer them and work out these things for 
>>myself, or just pull numbers out of thin air, but if I'm going to start 
>>doing that, what the f*ck is the point of buying the book in the first 
>>place? I might as well make up the whole bloody thing myself and save my 
>>money.

   The correct answer Andrew is that you decide whether or not you are
getting your money's worth, and if not, don't buy it.  It sounds like
this book is just fine for people like Leroy, but if you want more
detail and you don't want to have to work for it, look for something
else.

>Look, if I'm unemployed
>and can buy these books, it can't be that hard for someone else.

   Speaking as someone who was until very recently unemployed, I find
that the whole IG product line is unaffordable, and even if it were,
unjustifiable given that I already own three versions of the game.  In
other words, speak for your damn self.

>Besides, I've played Traveller from the start, and refereed almost as
>long.  There is _no_ supplement, sourcebook, adventure, what have you
>that has ever been the _final_ word in how I run my campaign, but I
>run an incredibly *detailed* universe.  My players think it is as complex
>as the *real* one, and not even a 96-page book is going to provide *that*
>kind of detail.

   Andrew is not looking for the final word on anything, just some
answers to some *very* relevant questions that the book simply does not
provide.

>I'm sorry, but if you are looking for *every* answer to be in *every* book
>from IG, you're playing the wrong game.  You might as well move to Denver
>and take up an apprenticeship under my wing, because that is probably the
>only place you are going to get a feel and understanding for why I am
>perfectly happy with _Emperor's Vehicles_.

   No doubt this will also involve a frontal lobotomy.

>>And the problems don't stop there. The text at the start of each section 
>>has only the most tenuous of connections with the vehicles featured (and 
>>often contradicts them). No blank vehicle sheets are included.
>
>Hmmm...Looking at page 112 of the Classic Traveller, Traveller Book, at
>the ATV entry.  You could just as easily say the above things about CT,
>but you're missing the *whole* point.

   Andrew didn't miss any points.  You on the other hand Mr. Guatney
seem to be missing a great deal.

>Broken record.  Like I said, you _define_ it to be a problem, but the
>problem is _you_ don't know *how* to use this *PERFECTLY* good Traveller
>supplement.  I would guess that you have grown too accustomed to using
>T:TNE sources and have forgotten what some of us *still* know.

   Leroy is right Andrew, you must learn to lower your expectations when
it comes to IG products.  Accept that you will be charged more and will
get less for your money.  Until you can, you're just going to have to
use those heretical TNE manuals Leroy so detests.

>Please Andrew, no more brouhaha.  I refuse to believe that I am the only
>referee that can handle these kinds of questions.

   Which shows how out of touch you are.  The majority of Traveller
referees *want* to be told the answers up front, and then decide if the
numbers provided fit with their campaigns.  All too frequently referees
don't have time to fudge up a bunch of numbers themselves.

>I say again because it bears repeating, "The best thing about this book
>(_Emperor's Vehicles_) is its lack of a *design* system.  We need to turn
>the game back to role-playing.  It is shameful that WW is the company with
>the reputation of role-playing.  I haven't stopped doing RPG, and neither
>should *any* Traveller players/referees.  Take our game back to its origins."

   One problem: even in classic Traveller information about vehicles
such as TL and crew requirements were included in the description.

   As for WW, it is a game that generally appeals to people who would
not otherwise not be playing RPGs.  The typical user of WW products
around here (Ohio) is part of the fine arts crowd, who sees their gaming
sessions as an excuse to practice their acting skills.  There are also
what I like to call "The Geeks In Black", but that's another story--even
they wouldn't be caught dead (or undead) playing Traveller.

- --Harold

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:58:28 +0100 (BST)
From: Ewan Quibell <E.D.Quibell@bton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

>> Which brings up a point I've been wishing to review for a while now:
>> Just how many ships *are* out there?
>
>Good question. I'll throw out a related one -- what is the ratio of
>military to civilian ships?

I'll go for what I know in the Marches ...

Lets have a go at IN shipping ... approx 12 ships per squadron, one
squadron per naval base, 5 navel bases per subsector. So in the Marches
the IN has approximatly 660 ships in squadrons , given that the 3I only
approximatly 11 subsectors of the Marches.

Now lets have a go at large civilian shipping, Al Mora, has around 60 
(Spinward marches campain) and whachmacallem lines (the one in the
Traveller Adventure) has over 100 ships and works out of three
subsectors.

Now add the ships of the MegaCorps, the Subsector Lines, the fledgling
lines, the interface lines, and the free traders, and civilian shipping
starts to catch up.

The Navy get to add the reserve fleet (equal number), the colonial fleets
(perhaps double the number) and the system squadrons (5 times the number
?) this, if my number assumptions are feasable, comes to approximatly
6000 ships, and this dosn't include non squadron ships, (perhaps double
this number ?). So if we settle for 12000 ships in some navy or another in
the Marches, and then say that there are 300 Imperial worlds in the
Marches, that makes 40 Navy ships per system ( ...... Wow ...... )

I get to a slight problem with Merchant shiping cos I don't know how or
where to base the numbers on, how many subsector lines per subsector ? how
manyn interface lines (one per subsector border, approx 12) ? Only one
Sector Line (Al Mora), and what 10 MegaCorps with shipping interests ...
This overlooks fledgling lines, and free traders ....... Mind numming ...

Now we come to the real good bit .... Are Scouts Civilian or Military ? ...
cos the scouts probably have more ships in the Marches than anyone else
... let me see .... one ship at least per day arriving in each direction
allong the Xboat routes, say two per station spare incase the incomming
Xboat is faulty .... one station per direction, per system, one xboat
tender per station.

Way stations .... ? Scout stations .... ? And not to mention that the
scouts have soo many ships that they regulaly give one away for good
service to x personel on detached duty .... (one in six times ? mustering
out)  Who whants to add these figures up ? .... ;-)

Lots, and Lots, and Lots or starships ... they say the air is a crouded
place, well in the Marches space is chocker block ...

Ewan

	Ewan Quibell
	Data Communications Technician        The Game's afoot:
	Computer Centre                       Follow your spirit, and apon
	University of Brighton                  this charge
                                              Cry 'God for Harry, England,
	E.D.Quibell@brighton.ac.uk              and Saint George !'
	http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/~edq/
                                                    Henry V 3:1
	#include<stddisclamer.h>                    W. Shakespeare

	My spelling is entierly due to dyslexia, typoes and poetic license

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1967
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 17 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1968



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: In Orbit
Julian War
Julian War
Piracy and the Individual campaign
Re: Piracy
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller
Re: Piracy and naval budgets
Re: In Orbit
Re: In Orbit
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:29:02 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

In mail you write:

> The best way to resolve this, IMHO, is to just slightly modify the USL
> configuration to one that is not intended to land on a planet.  No landing
> [claw/wheels/skids/etc], frame only braced for acceleration stresses,
> sensor/equimpent antenna stuck all over.

Excuse me? What do you mean "modify"? That *is* the "definition" of USL!


- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:30:34 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

In mail you write:

> Depending on size, would the landing gear be able to support the weight of 
> the ship?

It depends. Some USL ships will be intended to land on airless worlds
(like the moon). So they'd have landing gear strong enough for such
landings. But such worlds are almost always low g (I don't feel like
digging thru the books to see what the max world size is that can have
a vacuum atmosphere). So even ignoring atmospheric effects, they
wouldn't be able to land on some worlds.

But many (most?) USL ships aren't even *intended* to land. They are
built that way because it's *cheaper* to build  them that way for
shuttling cargo between highports at civilized worlds. Sort of like the
supertankers that can't even enter most ports because they've got too
deep a draft.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:43:11 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

In mail you write:

> I don't know what I mean.  I know what geo-stationary orbit is, but I'm
> not sure if it is standard practice unstreamlined ships to hover, in
> orbit, above the starport.

It makes it easier to deal with the ground, but it also means being a
*long* ways from the planet (the orbits that the Shuttle, Mir, and a
lot of other stuff use are around 200-500 km up, synchronous orbit is
about 37,000 km up). Call it 100 times as far away. 

Planets that have highports wiull tend to have at least one part of it
in synchrounous orbit, simply because that's convenient for the
*planet*. (It also gives them more time to try an intercept if a
terrorist type snewaks in).

> I'm guessing that can get too crowded, and eventually you'll run out of
> logical heights of orbit, so I'm thinking that geo-stationary oribit is
> not normal parking orbit for Traveller starships.

Not unless they are docked with a highport. That orbit is too useful
for planet oriented sattellites like commsats and weather sats.

> If you have a busy starport, you'll probably need various distances from
> the surface of the planet, and various courses around the planet.

Actually, the orbits will be contsatrained in a couple of ways. First,
you have the problem that if the port isn't on the equator, an orbit
that passes over it on one pass, will pass quite a ways to one side of
the port on the next. It *is* possible to set up orbits that pass over
it more frequently, but it gets harder. Essentially, you either wind up
with a tilted syncronous orbit (and pass over the port once a day) or
you can pass over it more often, but it requires a lot of calculating I
don't feel like doing right now!

If the port is on the equator, it gets easier as *any* equatorial orbit
will pass over it regularly.

Since the port probably *isn't* on the equator, then the orbit of the
ship is likely inclined to the equator by at *least* the latitude of
the port (ie if it's at 30 degrees north, then the orvit *has* to be
inclined by at least 30 degress or else it'll never pass over the
port). It can be inclined by more. 

The other constraint on things is that people like things to be "even"
So orbital periods that work out to convenient units of time. Either
even faractions of the planet's day, or "round" numbers (90 min, 2
hours, that sort of thing).

> As long as the other ship doesn't break orbit and come after them,
> they'll be able to hide from this guy as soon as he goes over the
> horizon--but, they'll have to follow him as you suggest.

A lot depends on what sort of sensors there are on the ground, and what
kind of communications system the people on the ground have. After all,
if they even have 1920s tech, they can merely make a phone call to a
radio station that has line of sight on the other ship and radio for
help from there! The good news is that even if he makes a major effort,
it's going to take *time* to get his ship there. Many minutes. Figure
it'll take him between 1.2 and 1/4 of the period of the orbit you have
him in (ie for a 90 minute orbit, between 45 minutes and 23 minutes)

> Now, what about when they go down to the city to rescue their crewmate? 
> The other ship might scan if he is in on it--because he'll know the city
> the Harrier's crewmember is held in.

If he's below the horizon he can't scan. And in low orbit, the time
when you can scan a given chunk of the planet is pretty short. For
example, a few weeks back, Mir was visible from Portland. It crossed
from horizon to horizon in something like 5 minutes!

Also, since he's likely in an inclined orbit, there are going to be
extended periods when he's below the horizon from a given point for a
*long* time. 

> This brings me back to my first question.  I still need to figure out
> how long it takes this guy to circle the planet.  If I know that, I can
> figure out the earliest possible time for his first scan--and I can
> figure out how long the characters have before that ship reaches
> scanning position of the city.

Given that the crew is supposed to be experienced spacers, anybody who
can do astrogation can figure out the other ship's orbit and how long
it'll be out of sight from a given place on the ground. 

> If I had a general rule for ship's orbiting planets (distance and
> speed), it would be easy to figure this out.

The general rule involves math and a calculator. Sorry, but that's the
way it works. Speed depends on distance from the planet's center *and*
on how massive the planet is.

The mass of the Earth times the Gravitational constant (GM) is
approximately 4e14 m^3/s^2 (3.986e14). In Traveller, non gas-giants are
assumed to have the same density as Earth. And a Size 8 planet is
assumed to have the same mass as Earth.

				
size	Radius 	M (earth)  GM
- -----	-----	---------  -------
1	8.0e5	1.95e-3	   7.79e11
2	1.6e6	1.56e-2	   6.23e12	
3	2.4e6	5.27e-2	   2.10e13
4	3.2e6	1.25e-1	   4.98e13
5	4.0e6	2.44e-1	   9.73e13
6	4.8e6	4.22e-1	   1.68e13
7	5.6e6	6.70e-1	   2.67e14
8	6.4e6	1	   3.99e14
9	7.2e6	1.42	   5.68e14
A	8.0e7	1.95	   7.79e14	


Orbital velocity = sqrt(GM/r)
Orbital period   = 2 pi/(Sqrt(GM/r^3))

The r in the equations is the orbital radius, which has to be bigger
than the R in the table (the radius of the planet).

Since you may want to run the orbital period calc backwards, I'll
re-write the equation for you.

r=cuberoot(GM/(2pi/P)^2)

P= orbital period

so for a 90 minute orbit around a size 8 planet, you need a radius of:

r=cuberoot(3.99e14/(6.28/5400)^2)   (90 min=5400 sec)
r=6.66e6 meters or 260 km above the surface.


But as I noted above, if anybody has the required skill in astrogation
(or whatever they are calling the skill these days) then he can figure
things out (an "average" task). The hard part will be that depending on
where the other ship is in relation to the planet you may have to wait
several days for a favorable configuration (ie something where you've
got a couple of hours or more "clear").

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:31:09 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Julian War

A little while ago, Martin Laurie posted some comments about the Julian
war.

If you're still there, Martin, could you please clarify your position?

Martin claims that Martin I would have studied Clauswitz, Sun Tzu etc.
Fine. He probably did. But Clauswitz was talking only about Eurpoean
warfare in a particular period and has ALREADY been proven to be, well,
less than perfectly correct in some circumstances. Now, why should the
strategies propounded by primitive Terran thinkers be perfectly suitable to
warfare over HUNDREDS of lightyears?

Perhaps there are significant new variables. It's all very well to handwave
and say 'space warfare isn't like armoured warfare on the eastern front'.
It probably isn't. But how does that mean that a dounble envelopment (a
maneuver favoured by great military thinkers throughout history, INCLUDING
some of the ones Martin says that Martin I should have studied
(concentrate. The names are going to be a problem)) is suddenly invalid?
Sure, it's risky. Martin I found that out. But it's not stupid. 

I do have reservations about where the enemy got all those ships from, and
how the Imperial fleet managed to get ambushed refuelling, but the latter
is a TACTICAL disaster, Martin, not a strategic blunder. I'd shoot the
admiral who let it happen, but it does not make the overall strategy
invalid.

Perhaps you'd have preferred to drive down a single wide axis of advance,
such that the enemy could predict your destination and not only mass forces
to meet you but also attack your long and vulnerable supply line from the
flanks. Fleet strength would be nibbled away all the way to the target
worlds, and what then?

Martin I's double envelopment was a bold attempt at a knockout blow,
intended to win the camapign beofre the strrain of fighting at a distance
from base told on the Imperial fleet. While I have reservations about some
of the details (I'd like to see some reasons - there may be ggod ones) I
find this out-of-hand dismissal too much. The strategy was risky, yes.
Stupid? No. Who would have hailed Martin I a genius for using the same
strategy? 'If I had succeeded, All of France, and All of you!' 
	(gen.Moreau. at his trial).

	Martin 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:31:09 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Julian War

A little while ago, Martin Laurie posted some comments about the Julian
war.

If you're still there, Martin, could you please clarify your position?

Martin claims that Martin I would have studied Clauswitz, Sun Tzu etc.
Fine. He probably did. But Clauswitz was talking only about Eurpoean
warfare in a particular period and has ALREADY been proven to be, well,
less than perfectly correct in some circumstances. Now, why should the
strategies propounded by primitive Terran thinkers be perfectly suitable to
warfare over HUNDREDS of lightyears?

Perhaps there are significant new variables. It's all very well to handwave
and say 'space warfare isn't like armoured warfare on the eastern front'.
It probably isn't. But how does that mean that a dounble envelopment (a
maneuver favoured by great military thinkers throughout history, INCLUDING
some of the ones Martin says that Martin I should have studied
(concentrate. The names are going to be a problem)) is suddenly invalid?
Sure, it's risky. Martin I found that out. But it's not stupid. 

I do have reservations about where the enemy got all those ships from, and
how the Imperial fleet managed to get ambushed refuelling, but the latter
is a TACTICAL disaster, Martin, not a strategic blunder. I'd shoot the
admiral who let it happen, but it does not make the overall strategy
invalid.

Perhaps you'd have preferred to drive down a single wide axis of advance,
such that the enemy could predict your destination and not only mass forces
to meet you but also attack your long and vulnerable supply line from the
flanks. Fleet strength would be nibbled away all the way to the target
worlds, and what then?

Martin I's double envelopment was a bold attempt at a knockout blow,
intended to win the camapign beofre the strrain of fighting at a distance
from base told on the Imperial fleet. While I have reservations about some
of the details (I'd like to see some reasons - there may be ggod ones) I
find this out-of-hand dismissal too much. The strategy was risky, yes.
Stupid? No. Who would have hailed Martin I a genius for using the same
strategy? 'If I had succeeded, All of France, and All of you!' 
	(gen.Moreau. at his trial).

	Martin 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:48:41 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Piracy and the Individual campaign

Piracy is business. Business has booms, recessions and steady periods in
different areas and times. 

The Imperial Navy has the resources to stop all piracy, everywhere. I'm now
convinced of that. But at what price? Not just the credits, but the price
of ships that could be elsewhere doing other things, like being cheap to
maintain in mothballs, or exercising for fleet operations in the Umpteenth
Frontier War. 

In every campaign, the referee will have to make a decision: Is piracy
really feasible in this place at this time? Yes/No. Or are there better
ways for would-be pirates to make their money (merchanting, smuggling,
mercenary work, hiring out as High Guard for undeveloped worlds.... etc).

At some times in some places the Imperial interest will be distracted.
Piracy may have a boom. Then Measures Will Be Taken - Convoy, Escorts,
Battleship Deployments (!), etc etc. Piracy will have a decline and
recession. There will be the odd incident as some fool/genius tries a new
trick.

The answer to the whole piracy debate is this: Piracy is always possible,
and it's always possible to stop it. Whether it does get stopped depends on
tons of outside factors, but mainly what else is going on to distract the
ships, and how much the piracy is hurting the economy.

The referee will decide in his/her campaign, what effect these factors will
have, and should 'determine the flow of subsequent events'. It's not a
single issue. It's a complex system of will, intent and resources. One
could probably use Complexity Theory (Chaos Theory) to do a full analysis,
based upon known data, but who cares? The ref makes up his/her mind, based
upon what makes a good game and is believable, and gets on with it.


Piracy occurs in my campaign. Occasionally. In some places it's rife, and
mixed with other wrongdoing. In other places it doesn't happen at all.
These sitautions change over time. The Imperium's spaceways are a complex
system in which almost anything is POSSIBLE. What actually happens is my
decision.

Martin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:02:49 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy

>From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
>Subject: re: Piracy - VOTE!
> 
> On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Richard Hough wrote:
> 
> > This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
> > lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,
> > but are these "pirates" lone shipowners attacking free traders? I think not.
> 
> Source: Book 2 Starships (CT), p36
> 
> Ship Encounters
> 8 or less	No encounter
> 9		Free Trader
> 10		Free Trader
> 11		Free Trader
> 12		Pirate       <-------------------------------
> 13		Subsidized Merchant
> 14		Patrol
> 15		Subsidized Merchant
> 16		Yacht
> 17		Yacht
> 18		Patrol
> 
> I can't seem to find the starship encounter table for T-4...
> 
> 

David P. Summers writes:

>Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:57:04 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>>OK, so the pirate is just going to show up, and the poor merchie is
>>going to surrender?
>
>Maybe.  Or he shows up and knocks him out in one shot.

Except that you still haven't explained where he shows up from. In space
there is no place to hide. Until you explain that, your attack by surprise
scenario is just so much hot air.
 
>> I think not. If piracy exists, then there won't be many unarmed merchies.
> 
>Again, you are assuming that any cost is justified.  

The canonical sources certainly assumes so. Most of the Free Traders that
have been featured in past Traveller adventures have been armed (I say
"most", but I really can't remember a single one that wasn't).

>If piracy is, like most crimes, a something that a merchant is likely to
>never presonally encounter, then he won't be armed because it is expensive
>and the cost probably exceeed his most probably amount of loses.

Then, in another posting, he writes:

> Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:16:18 -0800, Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
> >This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
> >lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,
> 
> Pirates also appear in encounter tables in CT and MT (at least).

Conveniently ignoring that by those encounter tables pirates constitute
11.6% of all encounters.

David, you really should try to cure yourself of trying to have things
one way when it suit you and another when it dosen't suit you. This
chimmerical pirate of yours -- able to pose as and make a decent
living as an innocent merchant one minute and capable of sneaking up
on a merchant and disable it in one shot the next, not to mention both
willing and able to gang up on and defeat military vessels at the drop
of a hat is getting very tiresome. Please settle on one approach at a
time and try to demonstrate that it would have a decent chance of
working. If you can demonstrate that any one approach will work, I'll
concede the argument.




      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
"Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
                - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:41:31 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller

David P. Summers writes:
>Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:57:31 -0600, Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
>Well, no.  First, trade from big systems has to pass through
>small systems. 

And the big systems will have the naval vessels to put a patrol in those
intermediate systems. Your own argument about what appears worthwhile and
what does not tells against you here. If it has been 20 years since
anyone have attacked you and only a short time since someone pirated a
ship, keeping all your cruisers tied down to your home system will seem
a total waste of available assets.

>>Smaller-sized ships are necessary in the navy for patrol, protection,
>>and smaller skirmishes; but in a major battle their role is limited, so
>>they don't need to be concentrated.
> 
>Small ships are necesary for patrol, but the firepower needed
>for patrol is a fraction necessary to stop piracy (actually
>it's not clear that you bother to arm them at all since their
>only mission will be to leave immediately).

While I find your suggestion that any navy would not arm any ship, no matter
how small, the best they could extremely... implausible, I agree that 
dedicated scouts wouldn't be any use in dealing with a pirate. Just how
many dedicated scouts a navy would want instead of more all-round useful
ships is another matter.
  
>There is also a need to escort but you will group your merchants into
>convoys so you probably will used at least modest sized fleets and you
>don't need that many. 

But those escorts won't be used for convoys in peacetime, so they will be
available for patrol duty.

>You aren't going to be sending small forces out to seek out battle because
>they will get squashed.

Do you just assume that or do you have any concrete reason to believe so?
After all, the enemy will want to concentrate too, and it's to your
advantage to force him to disperse. If you have a dozen raiding squadrons
out harassing his back country, he will be forced to disperse his ships
to deal with you. Likewise he will want to force you to disperse your
forces, so he will have raiders of his own that you will need patrols to
counter.

>All this is a long way from having a small fleet in every system.

We have ample canonical evidence for these kinds of ships. These ships does
exist in the official Traveller universe (and they will exist in any
Traveller universe I either referee or run a PE in), and they are no bloddy
use against a surprise attack on a major world, so why should any sane
admiral _not_ spread them out across the systems he is supposed to protect?

>>So I take the opposite view. The *majority* of places will have some
>>sort of defence fleet. Otherwise small, high-jump enemy warships will
>>kick your butt six ways from Sunday, and probably as many days a week.
> 
>Neah, what ends up happening is that the small ship runs around bothering
>small, low value targets (which have few fixed instalations and your small
>ships isn't going to sieze and hold a planet, besides something like 90%
>of the Imperiums pop and resources are in a few high pop worlds so it
>really isn't a big deal if he does) 

Do you really have the opinion of human nature that is implied by this
cold-blooded accountant's viewpoint? Or are you just assuming it in order
to win an argument? There are plenty of historical examples of battles
being fought and resources squandered to protect insignificant, out-of-
the-way places.

>until it happens  to run into a larger force

In which case he has a good chance of escaping by jumping (you're not
suggesting that a raider captain wouldn't do his damndest not to arrive
in a new system with dry tanks, are you?)

>or a world that was bigger than he thought, and get squashed.

Yes, well, war is a risky business. What you haven't shown is that it
is too risky to jump around with a small squadron of raiders. But I
can tell you this: If his opponent disposes of his forces the way you
suggest it will certainly be a lot less risky than otherwise.

>The problem with one small ship is he only survives as long he has a
>perfect record in picking where to go next, which is tough even without
>the slow communications we see in Traveller.

Not if his opponent's fleet is constituted the way you claim is the only
true way. All the ships are big ships and concentrated at the big worlds,
remember?


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:48:03 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy and naval budgets

Ethan Henry writes:
>Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> 
>>And according to TCS and _Striker_, the
>>Imperium figured that they needed a lot of 'cops'.
> 
>Has it ever come up that TCS and Striker might just be wrong?

It certainly has. They may be wrong, but they are fairly reasonable. You
can fiddle with a bit (and that is one of the approaches I use in my own
Traveller universe), but they seem a lot more reasonable than pirates.

>I mean, I know they're canon, but who says that either of them make the
>slightest bit of sense?

They are of the same order of magnitude as present-day military expenses,
so they can't be totally off.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:07:30 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

In mail you write:

> Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
>> 
>> >Next Sunday, we'll pick up with them just about to reach orbit.  I know
>> >they are going to try to give this vessel the slip--so if it goes over
>> >Pysadi's horizon, I need to know how long they are going to have the
>> >planet between them and this ship.
>> 
>> In that case, it's probably in a 120-minute or so orbit. So it'll tend to
>> be out of sight for an hour at most.
>
> Is every planet's standard orbit going to be about 120-minutes or so?
>
> This isn't dependent on the planet's size (the diameter)?

It depends on what *you* define "standard orbit" as *meaning*. Do you
mean that the orbit has a standard period? If so, is it fixed (like 120
minutes) or fixed with respect to the planet's day (1/12th local day)?

Or is it defined by size. In which case the choices are altitude
(height above planet's surface), radius (height above center of
planet). Or even something like "planet subtends an angle of X when
viewed from the ship)

> I'd like to be able to figure this out for any planet I come to.

See the equations in my other post. If you define some sort of
"standard orbit", then you can calculate it in adcvance if you go with
any of the above except the "fraction of planet's day" version. Though
I'd hate to have to do the trig to convert that "subtends an angle" bit
into an altitude (actually, it'd be proportional to the planet's radius,
but I've done enough calculating generating that table!)

In any case, just remember that even though Star Trek keeps throwing
around the term "standard orbit", there is no such thing *defined*
anywhere. So it doesn't *mean* anything.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 04:58:09 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

In mail you write:

> Assuming I can burn all the reaction mass (or lack thereof) I want, I could
> put my ship into a geosynchronous orbit at any altitude I want.  This is
> not to say there isn't a specific altitude (or range of altitudes) in mind
> when "geosynchronous orbit" is bandied about.  That altitude is the one
> used by various satellites/vehicles to 'stay in one place' relative to a
> point on the surface *without using any reaction mass* (or at least using
> very little).
>
> If I was on board the March Harrier, on the other hand, or a ship assigned
> to watch a certain patch of land, I could use my (reactionless) thrusters
> to maintain a geosynch orbit at any altitude I want.

No, you could maintain position above a point, but you wouldn't be in
*any* orbit, because you are thrusting! Orbits are *by definition* zero
thrust.

> By the way, a ship in 'forced' geosynch would be terribly obvious.

No kidding. And between the power consumption and the mess you'd be in
if the drive cut out, damn few ships *want* to do this. 

> I would guess that a 'standard' parking orbit would either (1) try to keep
> the parked vessel fairly (100s of Km) close to the orbital starport's path
> for ease of transfer or (2) would assign fairly fast, low orbits (60 to 90
> minutes is good) so that crews would not have to wait for days to be in the
> right place to deorbit with a minimum of fuss to any given point on the
> planet.

I don't think you can *get* a 60 minute orbit around any Traveller
planet. The orbital period gets *longer* as the planet gets smaller (a
"surface" orbit of a size 1 planet takes four hours!). And a 90 min
orbit of a size 8 is only 200 km up. (I just checked. it's not possible
on a size 10, you'd have to be 2000 km uderground!)

So 60 minute orbits are *out*.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:44:35 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

In mail you write:

>>On the other hand, the pirate has to get close to the victim. Which
>>almost certainly involves deviating *greatly* from the flight path
>>assigned it by STC (Space Traffic Control).
>
> Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in fram
> jump at all system?  I have my doubts.  Such _will_ exist at the
> biggest, crowded systems, but it has already been assumed that this
> isn't where piracy would occur. 

A ship is a *dangerous* object. So traffic control will be a lot more
important than with aircraft. The path won't be assigned from an
"office". It'll be asigned by a "controller" who is watching sensor
displays and knows both what the other traffic in the volume is doing
and what the normal "approach lanes" and restricted volumes are. Just
like air traffic controllers now. But it'll be pretty high stress. An
airliner can take out a couple of blocks worth of houses. A starship
can take out a *city*. That's why deviating from your assigned course
might just get you shot at...

> Beside, as someone else pointed out, you just leave at about the same
> time and get a path this is similar anyway.

Why would you get a similar path? The planet has moved. So you are
leaving with a *different* vector than the other ship did and from a
different *position*, making the optimum path to jump (even for the
same destination) *different*.

>>He also has to do this close enough to the 100 diameter limit that he
>>can jump safely after getting the cargo. Though I suppose that given
>>the other risks, pirates might accept the extra risk of jumping from
>>inside the 100 diameter limit.
>
> I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
> can't see why he would attack anyplace else.

Because it's easier to get close to another ship when you are closer to
the planet. And if *you* can jump, a ship that is being attacked might
just decided it's safer to jump "early" than to stick around.

> [Regarding coming out of jump and attacking...]
>
>>They'd also need a ship capable of making *two* jumps without
>>refueling.
>
> Well, that's not hard, but you don't need to do it that way.  You
> can approach the same point from the planet all fueled up.

Huh? The whole idea is that this way you are going to be near ships
that have just exited jump, and you'll likely be somewhat close to them
until STC gets you sorted out. Also, it means that the planet doesn't
have much info on who you are.

If you start from the planet, you'll not be near the *incoming*
traffic. Nobody would route traffic that way. And the olanet will have
had a nice, long, *close up* look at you. 

>>If they have extra time, they can even try to space the crew and jump
>>the ship out (assuming that the jump drive was intact).
>
> I'm not sure you space them.  You wouldn't kill gratuitously because
> you want to encourage the idea that it's generally a good idea to
> surrender.

It's not killing gratutitously. Piracy carries the death penalty. And
in that scenario, unlike the one where you don't have help onboard,
they can *identify* you.

It's one thing to surrender and dump cargo or allow a bunch of folks in
space armor to unload your cargo. It's quite different if they are
taking over the ship (either by hijaacking or after boarding). 

And you are overlooking the fact that while it is good for
pirates-in-general to encourage folks to surrender, it's to the
interest of any *specific* group of pirates to eliminate witnesses. 
All it takes is *one* pirate group doing it to cause everyone to assume
that pirates are going to kill them. So there's actually little
advantage to it.

>>Attacking on the way out is a lot more difficult, especially since the
>>locals will have entirely too much info about your ship (since you'll
>>have been to the port).
>
> Yeah, but you will be leaving anyway...

So? You think that they aren't going to put all the info they have on
you on the next Xboat? That's like not wearing a mask when robbing a
bank, because you'll be leaving town anyway.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1968
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 17 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1969



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: (Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.
FF&S2 Stuff
Re: Piracy
More FF&S2 questions
Re: B5 SPOILERS???
Re: In the void of space...
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: Gas Giants
Re: FF&S Missile Design
Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: Piracy and the Individual campaign
Re: In Orbit
Re: FF&S Missile Design
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:17:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: (Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.

In mail you write:

> One of the things I don't like about the various design systems for T4
> (and most other editions of Traveller, for that matter) is there is not
> enough explanation for us laymen out here.

Well, there's a reason for that. See below...

> The text doesn't mention G-tanks, and I'm guessing that these are those
> things I saw in Event Horizon.

G-tanks have been a staple of SF since at least the 1940s. They are
basicly a cross between a water filled tank that you "float" in, and a
waterbed. (Heinlein invented *both* ideas!) Thge idea being that since
you are evenly "supported", the G effects aren't as severe. Instead of
worrying about getting crushed into the padding on an acceleration
couch, you have to worry about the tissues if your body getting pressed
into each other, and getting pulled away from each other (and your
bones) depending on whether they are above or below your skeleton.

> One of the reasons I rely on the SOM a lot is because it explains
> things.  It was in this book that I read what an EMS sensor is.  If you
> don't know what an EMS sensor, or a neutrino sensor, or a densitometer
> is, then when you go to install them using FF&S, QSDS, or SSDS, you
> really don't know what you are installing.  The SOM is plain on what
> these things are.

Well, while "EMS" is a bit cryptic, a neutrino sensor is obviously a
device that senses neutrinos. And a densitometer is a device that
measures density or density differences. This is plain from the way
words are put together in English. If you don't know what neutrinos are
or what density is, then you look them up in a dictionary.

Just like if you didn't know what something was in a gane set in WWII,
you look it up.

> Since this is the most detailed description of Traveller tech that I
> have, I tend to use it quite a bit as gospel.  Now, I'm running into
> problems because T4 designers keep changing what the SOM finally laid
> out as "the way it works".
>
> I really wish that, when these design systems are created, the designers
> would spend some time explaining what these things are.
>
> There is not one good source in all of the T4 stuff out that tells you
> what an EMS sensor is...what a G-tank is...how the jump drive
> works...etc.

There's a fundamental problem with doing this. We can describe EMS
sensors because we already have them and know how they work. And thus,
other than giving a definition "Electromagnetic Spectrim Sensonsors",
we really don't *need* to say much, because being real (even somewhat
*common*) devices, you can look up details in real books.

We may be able to work up some rules on densitometers/mass detectors,
because someone has invented *one* type. Which means a lot more
handwaving as it's not vlear what is essential and what's optional, nor
what all the rules and limits are.

Neutrino sensors get *really* hard because the only known ways of
detecting them just plain won't work for what traveller has them doing,
and in fact, there are good reasons to consider the things they do in
traveller to be *impossible*.

Jump drive is even worse, because *all* we know is that it takes up so
much space, requires a hull grid, uses up a lot of fuel, and dumps you
into "jump space" (whatever that is) for about a week, and you come out
elsewhere according to the rules in the books; we *don't* lmow anything
about them or how they work. They don't exist, and the *only* info is
the rules regarding building them, and using them. That's *it*.

If we put anything else in, we are not *explaining* the game, we are
"defining" it. That's one of the big *objections* to the SOM. It tried
to explain things that weren't in the rules, and in several places, it
fell flat on it's face by either contradicting rules the author hadn't
remembered, or by contradicting *reality* (ie, stating as fact things
that COULD NOT be correct).

So if you want more info on what a jump drive "is" ir "how it works",
you either have to make it up, or try talking the folks who have the
final say on stuff (Marc, mostly) into fleshing out the gray areas in
the rules.

There are a number of them regarding jump drive. The biggest ones are
how close you come out to the point you were aiming for (not defined
*anywhere*) and exactly how your velocity at the start of jump relates
to your velocity at the end of jump.

These are actually important to the play of the games as opposed to
"cosmetics" like "what does it look like". And there are a lot of
half-way things like "what's a jump entrance/exit look like?", "What's
jump space look like?", "What happens if I do XX while the ship is in
jumpspace?".

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:02:42 -0500
From: Andrew Akins <igor@ames.net>
Subject: FF&S2 Stuff

Well, I'm putting FF&S2 through it's paces making this spreadsheet...

I think the price for MFDs might be off. It's listed as being 0.1MCr per
m3....this roughly is 10 times cheaper than SSDS MFDs. FF&S1 lists the
price as 1MCr per m3...if the system is to be compatible with ver 1 and
SSDS, this should be the price, I think.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:29:22 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy

David P. Summers writes:
>Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:52:18 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>But it is most emphatically not true that the person who
>>enjoys the free lunch is always the same one who pays for it.
> 
>OTOH, it doesn't explain why the Imperium would spend more
>to stop piracy than the piracy costs.

If the Imperium is spending the money to defend itself in the event of war
and the effect of making piracy impossible is a fringe benefit then the
Imperium is not spending _any_ money on piracy suppression and the merchants
gets their "free lunch".

>Maybe one can see how it _might_ happen, but that doesn't prove piracy
>wouldn't exist.

Except that
    1) It is established roughly how much the Imperium thinks is
       necessary to spend on the navy.
    2) It is established that some of this is being used to buy and
       run small ships.
    3) These small ships are no use as defensive forces and they are not
       needed for their primary purpose in peacetime.
    4) Since they are not needed for their primary purpose, _not_ using
       them for something useful like guarding merchants from pirates
       is wasteful.

The only question remaining is whether the number of small ships is
sufficient to do the job. You can therefor believe in one of two things:

    a) The Imperium uses less than 0.2% of its budget on small ships, or
    b) Small ships to the tune of 0.2% of the budget are too few to
       adequately defend against pirates, or 
    c) The Imperium will be able to suppress piracy.    

I believe that a navy with insufficient small ships to perform adequately
in wartime is much less likely than the absence of pirates as a career.
 
>[Regarding war ships being a free lunch....]
>>The primary way a warship deters someone
>>else from starting a war is by existing.
> 
>By existing in a deployment that can stop an invasion,

That's one way, though damn difficult to achieve since a state with a
half dozen big worlds will always be able to concentrate enough assets
to overwhelm any single big world. A much better way is to be able to
retaliate. In practice it will turn out to be a combination of the two.

>not existing in some impotent configuration.  Like being
>spread thinly to every planet.

Small ships are useless against battleships. The small ships exists.
Keeping them cooped up at the big worlds is a waste of them. Especially
in peacetime.

>>>Which he won't do if you get him on the first shot.
>>
>>Which you certainly can't be sure of
> 
>And that is when you don't engage in piracy.

Right. And if it turns out that he hardly ever can be sure, he can't
survive economically.
 
>>But if the canonical figures are right, then the Imperium does have that
>>many 'cops'. You may think they need them for something else, but at
>>least admit that _according to canon_, they do have them.
> 
>Well, if you use the same sort of analysis, then NYC has a cop
>on every intersection.

I don't use any kind of analysis at all, except to look at the canonical
budget figures and see what the Imperium can get for that budget. The
equivalent in the NYC analogy would be to tell me just how many police
NYC actually does employ. And if that turns out to be about 1000 per
shift per precint, only 99% of them never leaves the precint house,
then you'd have something approaching a parallel with the situation in
the Imperium.

>>I see. That is the reason, is it? They have an accountant sitting and
>>registering the precise economic losses due to rapes, murders, domestic
>>spats, and robberies, and every time the figure reaches the salary of a
>>cop, they hire another one?
> 
>Do they do it on a cop by cop basis?  No.  What's your point?

My point is that they don't do it on that basis at all. They don't sit
around carefully weighing the cost of crime against the cost of law
enforcement. They take a budget and parcel it out according to
percieved need, which is often a far cry from actual need (Otherwise
traffic control here in Denmark would be a lot stricter and hospital
bills for accident victims a lot smaller).
 
>>Despite what you may think, human beings don't do everything the most
>>cost effective way (For one thing, it is often impossible to agree on
>>what is the most cost effective way).
> 
>Nor do they do everything in wasteful way. You are proposing to
>prove that piracy couldn't exist.  Not that the Imperium might
>be willing to waste money putting in ordinate resources into
>stopping it.

What I've demonstrated is that the resources needed are not inordinate.
 
>>Of course they are. Piracy is more than an economic problem. It's a direct
>>challenge to everything the Imperium stands for.
> 
>Again, you are assuming they would see it that way.  OTOH, they also
>might just see some piracy as an inevitable evil.

I'm not assuming, there is a library data entry to that effect in _Imperial
Encyclopedia_. But the main point is that with the assets the Imperium
have, _not_ deploying them against pirates is the wasteful option.

>>Besides that, why do you
>>assume that suppressing pirates wouldn't be economically sound? A starship
>>is an expensive toy to lose, and a single Free Trader can justify the
>>operating cost of a rather large patrol ship.
> 
>OTOH, the pirates might just happen realize this and only take
>cargoes so the Imperium doesn't feel obligated to slap them down.

You can't be serious! A pirate who has captured a ship is per definition
expecting to get away with it. You think a pirate is willing to risk
capturing a cargo, but not willing to run a slightly higher risk in order
to gain many times as much? Especially since the higher risk will be to
future pirate operations, and if he takes the ship he can propably
retire in comfort. Ridiculous!
 
>>David, you are assuming, _a priori_ that any ships built by the navy will
>>be needed full time by the navy, even in peacetime, and not available for
>>piracy suppression
> 
>Actually, I'm not.  I'm willing to postulate that in the places
>where the fleet is concentrated piracy won't exist.

You're also assuming that small ships will be useful at those places, which
is not true, or won't exist, which is contrary to both good sense and canon.

>But that is going to be a the clear minority of places (otherwise you
>aren't concentrating forces) and will leave most places unguarded.
>OTOH, postulating fleets of patrol vessels in every system is
>pulling a lot of resources away.

Less than 0.2% of the budget? That's not a lot.
 
>>Well, I'm assuming that losing ships and cargoes to pirates is expensive,
>>if that's what you mean. Consequently I think that any little regulation
>>that can be implemented with little additional expense will be worthwhile.
> 
>Except you regulation occurs _every_ time and may not seem worthwhile
>to a merchant that, odds are, may never see a pirate.

Canonically every 9th encounter is with a pirate...
 
>>I've asked you how many ship you think would be necessary to secure a
>>planet against piracy. If you disagree that two ships could do it, fine!
>>Tell me how many you think it would take and why you think so. If it
>>turns out that it is few enough, I may not even need to use the traffic
>>control scheme.
> 
>I really have answered this several times already.  You need maybe
>12-18 ships per world and will have maybe 5 worlds per system.

Well, I think you could do it with 8 per world, and I doubt you'd get an
average of 5 worlds across all systems, but I'll accept these figures for
now.

Sorry, got to run. I'll be back later.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:39:57 -0500
From: Andrew Akins <igor@ames.net>
Subject: More FF&S2 questions

I just want to check something...

....I can't seem to re-create the SSDS Particle Accelerator and Meson
weapons using FF&S2...the FF&S2 weapons appear to be more effecient
(although the PA range drops off faster than SSDS). This appears to match
FF&S1...so how were SSDS weapons designed? Are there any known problems?


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:31:38 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: B5 SPOILERS???

In mail you write:

Spoiler warning!


















> At 12:48 PM 10/12/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>>Ahem. Kenneth didn't really do a spoiler. By defining the character's sex
>>you just did do a spoiler.
>>
>>(So I'd already guessed what was happening, but it was nice to have it
> vague).
>>
>>Dom
>>
> Sorry about that. I did not even get to see the episode until last night.
> I just knew all the episodes had been filmed, and JMS said he would not be
> refilming the finale.

Well, it seems that from tonite's episode the dying character won't be
the one we expected! JMS is re-using an old "deus ex machina" that we
*thought* he'd used once and tossed. Devious man...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:47:55 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

In mail you write:

> I've always believed this, but have recently seen it debated, so I thought 
> I'd ask here.
>
> In the void of space, free from all gravities, will a moving body truly 
> retain its forward velocity and momentum?

Yes.

> For example, if I set myself to move at 1000km/h will I maintain
> 1000km/h in the same direction until another force alters that?

Yes.

> Or is there a slower decrease in speed, but decrease nonetheless?

No.

> I always thought that I would burn fuel to set speed, and then not
> burn any to maintain speed.  Then to change course, I would also burn
> fuel -- combination of retros and lateral engines to bring about a
> new heading, then increase speed again...

Pretty much. Except that you are more likely to use steering jets to
re-orient your ship's main drive and use it to both kill the old vector
and add the new one.

For example if it took 10 minutes for the main drive to get you heading
"north" at 1000km/h and you now want to go "east" at the same speed,
you could turn the ship to point south, and run the main drive for 10
minutes (at which point you'd be stopped) then turn the ship to point
east and fire the drive for another 10 minutes. Or you could have
turned the ship to point southeast and fired the drive for 20 minutes. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:03:56 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

In mail you write:

> Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:21:36 +1300, Brody  Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
>>> Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in fram
>>> jump at all system?  I have my doubts.  Such _will_ exist at the
>>> biggest, crowded systems, but it has already been assumed that this
>>> isn't where piracy would occur.   Beside, as someone else pointed out,
>>> you just leave at about the same time and get a path this is similar
>>> anyway.
>
>>Even the smallest of ports and airfields have some path control - ships
>>and aircraft aren't allowed to do what they want.
>
> Well, actually small airfields often run under visual flight
> rules, and don't have such control.  Also such control is only
> in the last few minutes.  Finally, this is also easier because
> aircraft don't show up unannouced out of jump space is more
> necessary because aircraft are operating in a more limited
> volume than in space and have a harder time detecting
> each other than Traveller ships do.  (of course even now
> there is a move a foot to switch to systems that put a greater
> emphasis on individual path selection).  I agree that space
> ships will have path control in situations where traffic
> densities compare to those at a busy airport and might
> have it at densities that compare to a run of the mill
> airport, but that will only apply right around the star
> port.

Remember, while a small (or even large) plane crashing is messy, even a
*small* starship crashing under power is more like a small *war*. We
are talking about the equivalent of a nuclear bomb or medium sized
meteor strike. That's going to make people rather more concerned about
what ships are doing and where they are going.

I'd expect that you are required to have your "instantaneous vector"
(ie the vector or course you'd follow if you cut power at any given
instant) always pointing in a "safe" direction except on final
approach. 
- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:21:23 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

In mail you write:

> First, according to FF&S (I, not II) fuel scoops take up only surface 
> area, not volume. It seems reasonable to assume then that fuel scoops do
> just that - they scoop. It's never been mentioned that fuel scoops
> in any way purify the fuel. Now, I know this is obviously silly
> as it's unlikely that starship fusion plants can run on either water
> (for oceans) or ammonia, et al (for gas giants), but that's canon for 
> you.

Don't forget that gas giants are essentialy "hydrogen and helium, plus
minor impurities". The ammonia and methane content *especially* at the
upper levels of the atmosphere are quite low.

> Second, let's say that fuel scoops do crack the hydrogen out and you're
> left, after scooping, with tanks of pure LHyd. Again, the purification 
> plant can work after scooping is done to refine the fuel in situ.
> Of what use is separating the isotopes? I mean, if you want pure
> H2 or H3 (or whatever it's called) sure, great, but once you've purified
> it, you still have a bunch of normal H1 which you have to do something
> with. I suppose this could be explained using the "jump bubble"
> theory then you could use the H2/H3 in the fusion plant and the H1
> would go into the bubble, but if you don't subscribe to "jump bubble"
> theory then this doesn't do you much good.

Well, actually, we tend to figure that you are using H1 and it's the
deuterium and tritium you don't want (for much the same reason that you
don't want to get any gasoline mixed with the fuel for your diesel engine).

> Finally, even if your ship lacks scoops and a purification plant,
> as long as you get a hose with the right coupling you should be able
> to pump water straight into the fuel tank and be on your merry way.
> Any ship can buy unrefined fuel and use it even on low-tech
> worlds with type C (or D) starports. Is this supposed to be LHyd?

I'd say so.

> The Traveller background has never really been super clear on
> what exactly "unrefined fuel" is. It seems most Trav fusion plant
> can run on just about anything as long as it's got some hydrogen in
> it somewhere.

Well, it helps to remember that LHyd is extremely *un*-dense compared
with things like water, ammonia and methane.

So for the folks that want to fill the tanks with water or whatever,
you get *more* hydrogen into the tank with any of those than you do
with LHyd. It's just a lot *heavier*. 

My problem with this is that tanks and equipment designed for handling
LH2 won't like being exposed to water, methane or ammonia. And getting
all of the traces of the stuff out beforeputting hydrogen into the
tanks is a royal pain. You can't just simply "partition" the tanks with
some sort of movable barrier, as hydrogen boils well below the temp
that all three freeze solid! 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:12:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: FF&S Missile Design

 
> >In SSDS, Missiles would be rated 6G12 - meaning 12 6-G "burns". How long is
> >a burn? I cannot build a missile that has 12 G-hours of thrust...

Huh?  Does SSDS really rate things this way?  6g12 should mean 6
gmax per turn, 12gs worth of delta v (2 turns at 6g, 6 turns at 2g,
12 turns at 1g and so on).

I guess I never noticed it 'cause it has always worked that way (if
it is indeed changed).

- -Merrick
 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:14:55 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:47:13 -0700
Douglas E. Berry <dberry@hooked.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)
>
>At 10:38 PM 10/15/97 -0600, Leroy wrote:
>
><Does it appear to anyone else that Leroy is posting a private email form
>Andrew?  To quote Captian Hook, Bad Form!>
>


Doug, I'm not surprised to find you still slinging mud.  Mr. Boulton
posted his words to the HIWG list, and has already received feedback
from others there (mine was cross-posted for convenience) about his
"Bad Form".  Personally, If I were Boulton, I'd not respond either.
I chose to not directly chastize Andrew because a) others did already,
and b) he asked me some direct questions which took so _little_ time
to answer, it was no biggie.

I'll explain my tagline for this post and the Subject: line.

The Traveller Maligning List (TML) is what I call the subset of the
Traveller Mailing List (TML).  It is the list within the list, that nobody
can really do anything about (sad).

If anybody wants examples, Doug and Harold have provided them (as of this
writing).

Perhaps, given what I've seen, it should be Traveller Player/Referee
Maligning List.

I guess I shouldn't have encouraged you to pine for my responses by
posting an actual follow-up to my other one.  You really shouldn't *live*
for my posts that way. :)


Leroy Guatney - lwlg@usa.net or I may be reached at:

[x] History of the Imperium Working Group (HIWG)  hiwg@fwe.com [often]
[ ] Traveller Maligning List (TML)          traveller@mpgn.com [never]
[x] Traveller Mailing List (TML)            traveller@mpgn.com [infrequent]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:44:48 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Piracy and the Individual campaign

<hai-yaaaa! slice!>
>Piracy is business. Business has booms, recessions and steady periods in
>different areas and times ... The answer to the whole piracy debate is
>this: >Piracy is always possible, and it's always possible to stop it. ...
>The >Imperium's spaceways are a complex system in which almost anything is
>POSSIBLE. >What actually happens is my decision.
<kai-waaa! chop!>


Elegant and conscise. I would argue who's decision it was, speaking as a
Great Old One myself, but that's a quibble. :)

I still like hearing the psuedo-facts, though, such as "Do you realize how
many naval ships there are in the Imperium!!!" It helps my view of the
setting immensely.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:50:58 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

>So 60 minute orbits are *out*.

A question then ...

I understand that there is an absolute lower end to an orbit for a
spacecraft. How about an upper end? Could you simplify the whole thing by
saying that, depending on how far out you want the orbit to be, the period
coud be anything above n (n being the lower limit in time)? I don't know
how useful that would be in this instance, but it might be useful to
someone sometime. :)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 1997 14:47:15 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: FF&S Missile Design

traveller@MPGN.COM,Internet writes:
Thisis an embarassing flaw in FFS2 - we're working on it (probablycoming upw
ith some sort of lightweight fusion rocket with moderat fuel consumption.)


Basically, you need rules for reliability.  I presume that most of the gear
is milspec.  Add some "disposable" stuff that is rated for minutes or hours
of use instead of years.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:57:00 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

This post is intended to be vaguely humorous, so no flames please...

Just wanted to add my two-penn'th to "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>:

>I am forced to go along with those who do not believe that the Imperium
>would be able to act as efficiently as having a complete registry of every
>ship flying available to every commander of every podunk little SDB...

<BEGIN SUPER-RANT MODE>

I'm not saying one should totally throw away the 'canon' sources which quote
the % GWP spent on the navy, etc., but I think any future *human-based*
space empire will suffer exactly the same problems that any government
suffers now, here on Earth. To take no country in particular as an example,
why don't we have enough police solving crimes, cracking down on cars with
no tax disks, detecting stolen cars by radio tracking systems fitted to
every engine block, etc., etc., etc.? It's not because there isn't enough
money in the system, it's because 99% of the money is spent inefficiently. A
lot of money gets spent on the government themselves who, after all, have to
live in posh houses, run things from grandious buildings, and attend regular
drinks receptions at foreign embassies. Then there's all the administration
who have to work out how to spend the money they've got. Then there are all
the committees (we like to call them quangos - basically an excuse to sound
important and run up huge expense accounts while making sure that your
personal friends get government contracts...) between the top administrators
and the actual cops on the street. Then there's all the costs and time
involved in all the paperwork, the general laziness of certain human
individuals, the "I don't want to go after this criminal because he might
actually shoot me", and the wedgeloads of cash shovelled into the gaping
wallets of the law system in order to take cases to court and then acquit
the defendants because some police officer mispronounced their rights when
arresting them.

(Ok, so I'm taking things to extremes here!) :-)

Take a look at the world around us, and then see whether there is any real
common sense to saying X % naval budget buys Y ships which is guaranteed to
stop piracy because it can cover Z cubic kilometres of space.

GET REAL! :-)

And how important is piracy to the average citizen? I think it can be viewed
as a combination of perceived direct importance ("I'm going on this merchant
ship, let's hope it doesn't get attacked") and manipulated media importance
("Shock Horror Front Page News: Pirate Strikes At Heart of Imperium; Emperor
Called to Task in Senate!"). Right, now think GOLDFISH. That's right, about
10 seconds of memory - that's how long these problems remain relevant to
your average citizen.

So how likely do you think it is that, upon hearing of an outbreak of
piracy, the citizens will stomp up even an extra 0.1% of taxes to alleviate
the problem? ZERO PERCENT CHANCE. The navy will complain that they are
overburdened with customs duties and lack of maintenance on their ships
(they have enough ships really, but it seems like a good ploy to divert some
of next year's budget away from their direct competition, i.e. the army).
The government will say that it's a very serious matter and that they will
immediately set up a committee to decide upon the best date, and
representation for a committee to look into the food which ought to be
served to a committee looking into the possibility that the pirate attacks
are racially motivated. i.e. they will blither, in the hopes that things
will blow over, as there's an election coming up and they can't raise taxes
(and they are most certainly not going to redirect taxes from something
worthwhile like their own bloated 76 course lunches).

At the end of the day, the navy get told to buck their ideas up, 45MCr have
been spent on additional committees, and some bright spark has decided that
to make up for this they'll mount an efficiency drive by reducing the crew
of each SDB by half... (sold to higher authority with phrases such as "think
of the long-term savings for the government with regard to pension
contributions", etc...)

As you may tell, it's been a long Friday afternoon, so I'm rambling. Anyway,
you should have got my gist by now. In the same way that a class A starport
can be a huge inefficient wasteful dump of a place, and a class D can be an
efficient (if small) and friendly operation that people actually *like* to
visit... oops, rambling again. Must be those few pints I had at lunchtime.

I'll try for a concise summary.

Look at the real world.

Forget mystical calculations of GNP et al.

Why?

Because most of the space that Travellers adventure in is run by *humans*.

i.e.

If pirates *want* to exist, there are guaranteed to be enough corrupt, inept
and incompetent individuals/navies/governments/worlds for them to survive.

Andy :-)

P.S. If you have any doubt whatsoever about the discussion above, watch a
few re-runs of the Yes Minister or Yes PrimeMinister series from the UK, and
remind yourself that this is mild in comparison to the real incompetence of
most politicians. For example, when the UK entered the ERM and the pound
crashed earlier this decade, were the key government ministers (who were
authorising the billions of expenditure to prop up the currency) watching
complicated computers analysing every movement on the money markets? Did
they at least have well-informed advisors who were directly in touch with
the markets? No, they were listening in to the reports from COMMERCIAL RADIO
STATIONS. Shouldn't the UK population have immediately come to their senses
and planted a pile of gunpowder under the Houses of Parliament? Of course
not, since this was reported on a TV program, and by the time the average
citizen had worked out anything should be done, they'd forgotten why, or who
to (q.v. goldfish memory quote above), and by the way wasn't it time for the
next soap show...

<NORMAL SERVICE WILL BE RESUMED AS SOON AS... GPF: PLEASE RE-BOOT BRAIN>

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1969
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 17 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1970



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Pocket Empires Reviews
Sepia Ink
Re: B5 SPOILERS???
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: Unstreamlined
Re: Piracy
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)
(noise) Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:11:18 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Pocket Empires Reviews

Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> did some analysis of naval
resources based upon PE data:

>Interestingly, Since all units in PE have the same strength across TL, the
>smae units costs 2,275,000MCr at TL14, and 3, 000,000 MCr at Tl 13.  Whilst
>it is true that as TL decreases, effectiveness decreases AND cost increases,
>(in accordance with FF&S v1/2), I do not know if this works out in any of
>the starship combat rules in the same proportion as it does in PE...

Unlikely. The costs per TL for PE were calculated using back-of-the-envelope
maths from a few SSDS/QSDS designs, compared arbitrarily with the cost of
personal weaponry at various tech levels, modified for training of human
resources (sorry, I mean troops, etc.) and multiplied by the fourth root of
my birthday.

PE REVIEW REQUEST

HOWEVER, on a slightly different tack, I'd would be very interested in
hearing (probably best via private e-mail) any reviews from anyone who has
actually run a PE game, however short, whether purely economic development
of a few worlds, combat between two planets, or a complete multi-system
pocket empire. I would greatly value the feedback for future projects. Also,
I'd like to accumulate the ideas people have had with regard to expanding
(or adapting) the rules. So please send those in as well.

Thanks.

Andy :-)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:39:57
From: Paolo Marino <marino@inrete.it>
Subject: Sepia Ink

The intense debate on piracy makes clear (to me, at least) that
one of the biggest problem for illegal acts in space is that at
moderately high TLs sensors can pick out any kind of activity at
enormous distances.

This invalidates most of the would-be pirate tactics, and makes
their work extremely difficult and much too risky to be a viable
career.

In one of his postings, Hans Racke basically told that until
Marc Miller okays some kind of cloaking device, Pirates will
have no chance of surviving.

Bruce Alan Macintosh (IIRC) also suggested that younger system
would have high concentrations of space dust which would
effectively diminish sensor effectiveness.

What I' currently considering is some sort of substance which
could be used by a starship in order to mask its position. I
envision the stuff as a kind black powder which may be put in
the same canisters of the classical sandcaster and used as a
localized cloud of particles which would hide the craft inside.

The stuff (DarkSand?) may be as costly and illegal as you see
fit, obviously, and could be produced at different TLs with
different masking potencies.

In order not to disrupt canon too much, I'd propose that this
tactic is effective only for smaller craft (i.e. up to Corsair
class, but no more) and that in order to remain hidden a ship
must cut off his M-drives and avoid using radio or active
sensors.

BTW, I'd say that a ship who wants to hide in this way should
use a detached sensor module, parked outside the cloud and which
relays passive sensors data back to the mother ship through some
form of dedicated, short range and low energy system (a cable?).

The masking effect would not be total, but strong enough to
force people to come much closer in order to discover if the
"black patch" on their screens is really empty, contains only
inert debris (like real space dust) or does in fact hide some
threat.

As presented, it would be mostly useless for large fleet
engagement (thus preserving canon on large battles), but it
could give some chance to pirates, covert ops raids, and so on.

So, what do you think of this idea?  Is it viable, "realistic",
and can it be used without disrupting canonical space tactics
too much?

If someone wants to discuss this on the list, please be patient:
I read digests only, so my answer will come a little later.



__  Paolo Marino  __          |Inrete Games Page: www.inrete.it/games/gms.html
 mc4799@mclink.it (Preferred)  | marino@inrete.it (Best for MIME/BinHex)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:47:51 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: B5 SPOILERS???

At 06:31 AM 10/17/97 PST, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>Spoiler warning!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> At 12:48 PM 10/12/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>>
>>>Ahem. Kenneth didn't really do a spoiler. By defining the character's sex
>>>you just did do a spoiler.
>>>
>>>(So I'd already guessed what was happening, but it was nice to have it
>> vague).
>>>
>>>Dom
>>>
>> Sorry about that. I did not even get to see the episode until last night.
>> I just knew all the episodes had been filmed, and JMS said he would not be
>> refilming the finale.
>
>Well, it seems that from tonite's episode the dying character won't be
>the one we expected! JMS is re-using an old "deus ex machina" that we
>*thought* he'd used once and tossed. Devious man...

We have a small tradition in the Berry household.  At the end of most B5
episodes, Kirsten and I chant "Joe, you bastard!".  Last night, we
couldn't.  Kirsten was crying to hard.  This is amazingly good storytelling.


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:06:02 -0600
From: Shelley Kazsefski <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

David P. Summers wrote:
> 
> Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:57:31 -0600, Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
> 
> >Therefore, I contend that any system with significant trade or resources
> >has its own planetary navy, even if it's a modest one, equivalent to the
> >"coast guard".
> 
> Well, I agree that they will have enough ships that any
> armed ship can't just show up an terrorize they system
> for weeks on end.  But that is a long way from being
> able to stop hit an run attacks in every part of the
> system.

OK. So were agreed that Worlds, in general, have their own Navy. This is
good, because for a while there I got the impression that you assumed
the whole portion of a planet's military budget was siphoned off to the
Imperium and distributed as the Imperium wishes. This is something I
completely disagree with. Every world of POP 6+ and Starport B+ will
have a portion of its military budget dedicated to a local navy.

So, assuming that even modestly populated planets have a Planetary Navy,
you contend that there will still be "hit and run" attacks by pirates.

And in another part of your post you say that one or two scouts per
system would be enough to track enemy ship movements.

Sooooo... why can't they track pirates? How could there be "hit and run"
attacks if the local Navy can track movements of spaceships?

The pirates pose as merchants, you say, and then sneak up on some
unsuspecting merchie and pounce. This seems to me to be the only
possibly defendable scenario you propose. (Besides government or
corporate sponsored pirates, which I have no difficulty in accepting)
Even so, I have a problem with independant pirates posing as merchants
for three reasons:

(1) In order for the pirate to *not* draw attention to itself, it must
be similarily armed as a "typical" merchant. Therefore, the probability
of success in battle is not overly high. I think the risk for such a
battle is too high to be profitable in the long run.

(2) Merchants will be found in two areas: a) within the 100 dia. limit
of the system's starport. b) between planets within the system, for
systems with any significant interplanetary trade. I contend that area
a) is easy to defend, a handful of SDBs will do the job, and piracy will
be non-existant. I will concede the point that area b) is less easy to
defend, but not overly so, as the optimum course between two planets is
well known and likely to be patrolled; but by definition these areas
will be less profitable (less trade).

(3) Space battle as defined in Traveller is quite a long process. It
takes several hours, at least. And even if the battle is won by the
pirate I suspect the time it would take to seize the cargo or the ship
would be non-trivial. I would think in the vast majority of systems, the
time it would take for a distress signal sent by the victim after the
first shot was fired to reach a local SDB or its equivialent would be
quite enough for the said local Navy vessel to respond and rescue the
hapless individual.

And don't tell me the pirate would just seize my ship and jump out with
it! The second *I'm* disabled, I'm dumping fuel! Hah! Take my ship now!
phhhhttt...

So it is my opinion, that in the Traveller Universe I know (that's
published), piracy in civilized areas (def: areas with significant
trade) by lone individuals or groups of individuals without corporate or
governmental sponsorship would be (virtually) non-existant.

In TNE wilds areas, piracy would be quite rampant. I wouldn't feel safe
in the Vargr extents in any milieu. And times of war would always have
government sponsored privateer/pirate strikes (which is why the marches
were Amber Zoned during the Fifth Frontier War)

There is opportunity for piracy in Traveller. 

BUT Piracy does *not* ALWAYS exist.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:11:08 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

At 08:14 AM 10/17/97 -0600, Leroy wrote:

>I'll explain my tagline for this post and the Subject: line.
>
>The Traveller Maligning List (TML) is what I call the subset of the
>Traveller Mailing List (TML).  It is the list within the list, that nobody
>can really do anything about (sad).
>
>If anybody wants examples, Doug and Harold have provided them (as of this
>writing).

Really?  All I did was respond to you point by point.  Including where you
get insulting.  I notice that you have chosen to ignore our points about
Emperor's Vehicles and gone directly to the personal attacks.

Somebody did a count of posts by various authors on the TML a few months
back, and I seem to be one of the top five posters.  Somehow, I manage to
get along with everybody *except* you.  Even those I disagree with.  I
wonder why? 

Could it be that no one else on this list engages in the kind of "I'm
right, worship me" attitude that you inflict on us?  Perhaps we're sick of
your constant name-dropping?  Maybe the majority of us think that you're
wrong, and are tired of your attacks on those who disagree with you?

>I guess I shouldn't have encouraged you to pine for my responses by
>posting an actual follow-up to my other one.  You really shouldn't *live*
>for my posts that way. :)

Leroy, I could care less if you posted everyday, or never posted again.  I
have a life outside of Traveller.  However, if you, or anyone else sends a
message that is a> something I strongly disagree with, and b> insulting to
people I consider friends, you can bet the farm that I will respond.


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Unstreamlined

On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> > The best way to resolve this, IMHO, is to just slightly modify the USL
> > configuration to one that is not intended to land on a planet.  No landing
> > [claw/wheels/skids/etc], frame only braced for acceleration stresses,
> > sensor/equimpent antenna stuck all over.
> 
> Excuse me? What do you mean "modify"? That *is* the "definition" of USL!
> 
> 

No, that is the definition of the original 'modular' design.  USL ships
have always (by canon) been permitted to land on planets with vacuum or
trace atmospheres.

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:36:47 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

At 09:53 PM 10/16/97 -0400, Rob Flamming wrote:
>> From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
>> Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
>>> And according to TCS and _Striker_, the
>>> Imperium figured that they needed a lot of 'cops'.
>   
>> Has it ever come up that TCS and Striker might
>> just be wrong?...
>> Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
>> accepted?
>   
>   Because they are quite compatable with real life, so there is
>   no real reason not to accept them.  TCS assumes that the naval
>   budget per citizen is about Cr 250.  In the US today, the naval
>   budget comes out to about $360 per citizen.

Two other numbers might be useful to compare ->

In Traveller, the Navy is the lion's share of the military might, whereas
here, it is split between AF, Marines, Navy, and Army.  All of these will
exist in Traveller too, for the same reasons they exist here, but the Navy
does get a bigger share.

What is the total military budget in Traveller by TCS, and the total
military budget here?

The second number deals with the value of a credit.  I am using 1CR=$3, as
that seems to make the PCGNP numbers work out - it seems that the expenses
in the rulebook indicate ~10KCr/yr, while the PCGNP here is closer to $30K,
if I remember the Economic Report of the President correctly.

Given the larger share the Navy should get of the budget, this matches
pretty well.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:36:35 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

At 06:47 PM 10/16/97 -0700, Dave Summers wrote:
>Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:57:31 -0600, Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
>>Smaller-sized ships are necessary in the navy for patrol, protection,
>>and smaller skirmishes; but in a major battle their role is limited, so
>>they don't need to be concentrated.
>
>Small ships are necesary for patrol, but the firepower needed
>for patrol is a fraction necessary to stop piracy (actually
>it's not clear that you bother to arm them at all since their
>only mission will be to leave immediately).

Once again, the real world is different from Traveller.  Possibly in ways
that should be altered, but different none the less.

In the Real World (TM), the weapons and support needed for a ship to be
able to  fight are very, very expensive, compared to the cost of an unarmed
ship.  Thus, our merchants and our pickets have essentially no firepower.
I believe current doctrine, though, is using PTs as pickets, which can
flatten any unarmed or lightly armed civilian ship fairly easily.

(This gives merchants the tools with which to commit piracy, but it also
means warships are far more common w.r.t the merchies than today.)

A pirate in the RW taking on a PT boat is usually a dead pirate, which, I
think, enhances the point that piracy in our world must take place either
with government sanction, or in places the governments choose not to
patrol.  Given the expense of weaponsry, a picket with a radio is good
enough in the RW, as long as it can get away from Bad Guys.

In Traveller, for whatever reason, the ancillary systems needed to make it
a starship are very, very expensive, and are of similar magnitude to the
cost of a decent sensor/weapons suite.  Further, the sensor suite is part
of what it will take for those pickets to do their job.  This is very, very
different from our world, in which one decent sized gun and combat radar
can cost as much as a merchant vessel.

As a result, there is not much difference in cost (in Traveller) between
small pickets, and armed small pickets, such that if it does not harm the
mission, and increases the odds of survival, it is likely that they will be
armed, just so they have a chance of getting away with the information you
want them to have.  Using a picket to solve a minor problem is cheaper all
around than having to have a minimum two week turnaround while the picket
reports back to someone with real guns.  Further, f the picket has a
reasonable chance of escaping a bad situation, you might get a report form
it.  Both of these encourage pickets having reasonable armaments.

Nothing saves a PT in front of the Missouri, but having those torpedos
makes other ships at least consider their actions.

By the canonical standards of the Traveller universe, and the 90kt-500kt
battleships, a Kinunir _is_ a picket.  It sure as hell cannot stand up to a
serious warship for long.  Further, only other dedicated warships are going
to be able to easily defeat ships like it.

IMHO, the Navy will likely encourage worlds to have outposts of the
requisite number of defending SBDs that they will patrol near space
aggressively.  A much smaller and cheaper SDB can stand up to a Kinunir,
because they do not need the J4 drives needed to stay with the fleet, so
any world with a permanent outpost acts as an advance warning system not
paid for by the Imperial budget.  The world can keep an eye on near space,
and thus the Navy needs a smaller number of courier craft in order to
consider that system secure.

Note: secure in this context means that they will get a warning if
something bad happens.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:13:56 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

>Take a look at the world around us, and then see whether there is any real
>common sense to saying X % naval budget buys Y ships which is guaranteed to
>stop piracy because it can cover Z cubic kilometres of space.
>
>GET REAL! :-)

I semi-agree with the above poster. Why is there piracy in the real-world(tm)?
They arguments put forth on spending money on Navy to get rid of them would
be applicable here as well - right?

As for Traveller, my Pirates always operate from bases either ouside the
Imperium (District 268 of Spinward marches for instance) or on rogue
planets that somebody happens upon when misjumping (there should be lots of
rogue planets drifting in deep space that got thrown out from its star
after a close passage with another star. My system gives exits from
misjumps a higher propability near planetary/star masses.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:30:22 -0600
From: Shelley Kazsefski <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)

Joseph R. Dietrich wrote:
> > 
> Perhaps we can clarify and simlify this thread by breaking it down into
> it's component arguments. Any clear thinkers with an archive of this Piracy
> thread want to make up a laundry list of variables to consider? It might be
> a good exercise of "universe building 101." No opinions, just the
> variables? I am too lazy (and without an archive) to do it myself.

Well, I've taken the liberty of breaking out the "How big is the typical
planetary navy?" and "Where are warship's stationed?" bit. I think
that's an important variable, and my interpretation of planetary navies
causes me to lean towards the conclusion that, in general, piracy by
individuals without support of a large government or corporation has a
very low probability of success.

This isn't to say that there aren't crazies out there who would try, but
it seems to me there are safer methods of gaining financial security
dishonestly.

Shadow's broken out the "Air Traffic control makes it hard to sneak up
on people" part of the argument. There's others, Scott et al, who have
taken up the "How much money goes into military budgets and how much is
justified to defend against piracy?" part. Hans and David seem to be the
main combatants in the general debate. Then there's other milquetoasts
who say "It's always possible, it's the Ref's decision, man!" which
while true, isn't condusive to an entertaining flamefest --- er, debate,
I mean. :)

Glenn Hoppe (drinking Mountain Dew)

Street Vendor: "All I've got left is Mountain Dew and Crab Juice."
Homer Simpson: "Eaahhuuuggghhh... Gimmie the Crab Juice."

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:31:04 -0600
From: Shelley Kazsefski <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: (noise) Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Leroy William Lu Guatney wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:47:13 -0700
> Douglas E. Berry <dberry@hooked.net> writes:
> >
> ><Does it appear to anyone else that Leroy is posting a private email form
> >Andrew?  To quote Captian Hook, Bad Form!>
> 
> Doug, I'm not surprised to find you still slinging mud.  Mr. Boulton
> posted his words to the HIWG list, and has already received feedback
> from others there (mine was cross-posted for convenience) about his
> "Bad Form".  Personally, If I were Boulton, I'd not respond either.
> I chose to not directly chastize Andrew because a) others did already,
> and b) he asked me some direct questions which took so _little_ time
> to answer, it was no biggie.

Actually Leroy, Doug was pointing out *your* "Bad Form" because it
appeared that you posted a response on the TML to a private email from
Andrew, which is indeed rude, imho.

Instead, you say that you cross-posted a response from HIWG to the TML.
This is just as grievous a breach of netiquette, imho. This isn't
USENET, this is a mailing list. While I feel it is perfectly fine to
_start_ a thread on both lists by cross-posting, it is *not* good form
to respond to a thread only present on one list by cross-posting to
another. It leaves people out of the discussion, and we don't have full
disclosure of the thread.

I don't see this as mudslinging. Those who are rude should be held
accountable.

> I'll explain my tagline for this post and the Subject: line.
> 
> The Traveller Maligning List (TML) is what I call the subset of the
> Traveller Mailing List (TML).  It is the list within the list, that nobody
> can really do anything about (sad).
>
> If anybody wants examples, Doug and Harold have provided them (as of this
> writing).

Actually, I found Doug and Harold's responses to be quite good at
pointing out the flaws in the book, and why they do not agree with your
high praise. I do not condone the tone of their response, but they do
have the right to be heard, and they were quite specific in taking on
reasons why the book is unacceptable *to them*.

> Perhaps, given what I've seen, it should be Traveller Player/Referee
> Maligning List.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't have encouraged you to pine for my responses by
> posting an actual follow-up to my other one.  You really shouldn't *live*
> for my posts that way. :)

I think I understand why others seem so hostile toward you, when you
continue to post things in a condescending tone and more "Traveller than
thou" attitude.

I do not like to see the mailing list erupt in flames, but I do believe
in everyone's right to state their (traveller-related) opinions. Those
who are rude and flame should be held accountable. A blanket statement
that there is a "maligning" faction who exist merely to cut people down
is unacceptable.

Those who throw stones should not be surprised when a few lobs from the
other direction hit their glass house...

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:35:11 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Claiming its broken when its not (EV Review)

lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney) wrote:

>I think this will do as a review of the most excellent, and latest book
>from Imperium Games.

This, from our resident IG hinie kisser.

>>How many crew does it need?
>
>Sorry, but that is pretty obvious looking at the picture.  A driver,
>a gunner (if it is to be used), and a maintenance guy not necessarily
>carried.

"Pretty obvious" doesn't cut it. The statistics should list this
information. All previous incarnations of Traveller have made this
information available. Why doesn't this one? A grievous oversight.

It's "pretty obvious" that a plasma gun will do more than collateral
damage, too, but we don't just take this on good faith. We need the stats
to show us this information, so we can know how much *more* damage plasma
gun A can do than laser cannon B. Otherwise the book is useless.

Any referee can just arbitrarily *say* what a vehicle can or cannot do.
There's no use to making a book that publishes apparently arbitrary
information when an independent referee could do the same by himself.

>>How much damage do its weapons do, and what's their max range?
>
>Well, since no weapon has been fired in my campaign in years, the standard
>answer is, "If you are out to kill and break things, you're not role-playing
>(in my campaign) and aren't interested in character development, something
>which I consider *far* more important."

If you consider this hypothetical statement a valid answer, you've got a
few screws loose.

>However, since I don't think you will like that one, how about, "Whatever
>combat/design system you are using."

Uh, how about FFS2, the one that was purportedly used to generate these
vehicles? Again, what's the point of publishing such a book if you don't do
it using the underlying mechanics of your game?

Show users that you have created these using game mechanics and they are
likely to purchase the design system and develop an appreciation for it.
Give them incomplete stats and they're likely to scoff. RPGers are
generally a discriminating and critical lot. It's a testament to a good
game when the published vehicles are usable.

>This last one really illustrates the beauty of the book, in my opinion.
>The *fact* that *no* design system was included really is a testimonial
>to *how* useful it is to someone that is looking hard enough to see that
>it is useful.

Do you like spinning your wheels in the sand? Because that's essentially
what you're doing with this tripe you're spitting out. Let me translate
that statement for the non-impaired: "The beauty of the game is that it
doesn't work properly."

>>When I run out of fuel, how much do I need to find to
>>refill the tank?
>
>Mostly irrelevant.  It happened *once* in my campaign, and that was due
>the creature that was _inside_ the fuel tank--once the L-Hyd drained out,
>the creature thawed out from engine heat.

Again, *mostly* doesn't cut it. Refs need to know this information if they
intend to run a realistic campaign. Running out of gas could be a major
plot element. For the ref to just arbitrarily say, "You just ran out of
gas," he's building his campaign on artificial limitations. To actually
*know* how much fuel the vehicle carries, how far away from the destination
the players are, and how much fuel the vehicle consumes over time, makes
the scenario genuine.

This doesn't mean that a pocket calculator becomes the ref's best friend.
But it allows refs to make a realistic approximation of what events might
occur and adds depth to the roleplaying session.

>>Yes, I *could* try to reverse engineer them and work out these things for
>>myself, or just pull numbers out of thin air, but if I'm going to start
>>doing that, what the f*ck is the point of buying the book in the first
>>place? I might as well make up the whole bloody thing myself and save my
>>money.
>
<snip>
>I'm sorry, but if you are looking for *every* answer to be in *every* book
>from IG, you're playing the wrong game.  You might as well move to Denver
>and take up an apprenticeship under my wing, because that is probably the
>only place you are going to get a feel and understanding for why I am
>perfectly happy with _Emperor's Vehicles_.

He's not asking for "every" answer. He's asking for the answers he
deserves. Any Traveller player might as well just pull the vehicles out of
thin air rather than buy this book.

What he's arguing is whether or not this is a useful product. By taking a
critical eye to it, he has recognized that there are some critical flaws
with EV. For you to argue otherwise is just an example of your reliance on
sophistry to make your point when in truth, you have no valid point other
than some unquenchable desire to suck up to IG at every opportunity.

I'm beginning to think that if IG slapped a Traveller logo on a pile of cow
manure and called it a product, you would sing its praises.

>Broken record.  Like I said, you _define_ it to be a problem, but the
>problem is _you_ don't know *how* to use this *PERFECTLY* good Traveller
>supplement.  I would guess that you have grown too accustomed to using
>T:TNE sources and have forgotten what some of us *still* know.

It's not a TNE thing. MT had a good design sequence as well. Or do you
remember that far back? The basic problem here is that IG did not build its
designs on one set of underlying principles that were created as the
foundation of the game. The design sequences are afterthoughts. And it
shows.

>I say again because it bears repeating, "The best thing about this book
>(_Emperor's Vehicles_) is its lack of a *design* system.  We need to turn
>the game back to role-playing.  It is shameful that WW is the company with
>the reputation of role-playing.  I haven't stopped doing RPG, and neither
>should *any* Traveller players/referees.  Take our game back to its origins."

Your opinion.

If the vehicles in the book were designed with a proper design sequence,
the product could be appreciated on two levels: 1) by those more concerned
with roleplaying *only* who don't much care whether or not the mechanics
work, and 2) by those who believe a consistent and fairly realistic set of
mechanics is a vital part of roleplaying.

All it would have taken is some more effort by the publishers. Previous
publishers of Traveller have gone to this level of detail so there's really
no excuse for why the current game does not.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1970
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 17 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1971



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: List Down?
Satellite Speed
Orbit Answers!!
Julian War - strategic gobbledigook
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
re:Traveller-digest V1997 #1968
Rule-of-thumb for starships

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:07:05 -0600
From: Steven Deemer <stedee@auto-trol.com>
Subject: Re: List Down?

Thanks to everyone who responded to my last post. Apparently there was a
server 
problem upstream somewhere, but it appears to be corrected. The list is coming
through fine now.

Steve Deemer
stedee@auto-trol.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:46:02 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Satellite Speed

All this talk of orbits and orbit speed has made me think...does anybody
know how fast modern day satellites speed over the earth?

If I were to go out in my yard, with a telescope, and spy a satellite,
how long would it take for me to see that satellite overhead again.

Anybody know the speed of our satellites today?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:39:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Orbit Answers!!

ORBIT DISTANCE AND TIME TO COMPLETE AN ORBIT.

I, and one or two others, have been pondering how long it takes a ship
to orbit a planet.

Then, some kind person on the TML reminded me that there are rules for
this (at least partially) in the SOM.

Traveller is such a huge game--20 years, 4 editions.  It's no wonder
that rules get lost, and contradicted, here and there.  I forgot these
rules were there.

The rule in the SOM addresses three types of orbits for Traveller craft:
Standard Orbit, High Orbit, and Geosync Oribt.  It solves our problems. 
See below the definitions for how it works.



STANDARD ORBIT
Standard Orbit:  Most common type of orbit uses;  also called low orbit.



HIGH ORBIT
High Orbit:  A much higher oribt, not used as often as standard orbit.



GEOSYNC ORBIT
Geosync Orbit:  A very high orbit that allows the ship to remain
stationary over a given location on the rotating world.



STANDARD/HIGH ORIBT TABLE
Here's how the SOM does standard and high orbits...

World Size      Std O.      High O.
- ----------      ------      --------
0               5           25
1               20          100
2               40          200

3               60          300
4               80          400
5               100         500

6               120         600
7               140         700
8               160         800

9               180         900
A               200         1,000
Sm GG           800         4,000

Lg GG           1,600       8,000



USING THE TABLE--STEP ONE
Finding orbit height from the surface of the world is a two step
process.  Step one is to simply look on the chart to see how many more
kilometers (from the world's surface) the ship is orbiting at.  For
example, a ship in standard orbit, orbiting a size 4 planet, will be 80
KM out.  Step one only accounts for world's with no atmosphere (thus the
close orbit distances).



USING THE TABLE--STEP TWO
Step two is to add in distance based on the world's atmosphere.  If a
world has a UWP atmosphere code of 2+, you continue with step two.  If
the world has an atmos code of 1-, you use the numbers in the chart
straight.

Step two is simple (if you use this step)--just multiply the atmosphere
code by the amount in the table.  This will give you oribiting
distance.  For example, a ship is orbiting a planet in high orbit over a
size 5 planet with an atmosphere code of 6.  This means the ship is
orbiting at 3,000 KM (6 x 500).



GEOSYNC ORIBT
Now, for geosync orbit...

To figure geosync orbit, you use this formula.

O = 5078 x [(m x p^2)^.33] - (D / 2)

where:  O = geosync orbit in km
        p = rotation period of world in hours
        m = mass of world
        D = diameter of world in km



FIGURING A SHIP'S ORBITAL DISTANCE AND ORBITAL TIME
So, to figure out how far out your craft is (or an enemy craft), simply
use one of these three systems, depending on which orbit (standard,
high, or geosync) you are trying to find.

This is a quickie that any GM can use in a pinch.

Finding the actual time it takes to orbit a world takes a little more
calculaton though.

Once you know the distance to orbit, you can simply add the planet's
diameter to this number to figure the size of the sphere the ship is
rotating about.  Using that, you can figure the circle's circumfrence. 
This will give you a linear distance the ship is travelling.

At this point, you simply need to decide how fast the ship is moving. 
Given the speed at which starships move, you can really have the ship
moving as fast as you like (geosync orbits, of course, will rotate at
the same rate as the planet's rotation--the local day).

As a GM, you may say that the starport has rules for orbits.  For
instance, there might be a rule, for saftey reasons, that ships cannot
move faster than the planet's rotations, effectively limiting ships
orbiting the planet to the local day.

Or, there may be no restrictions, and a ship can zoom around the planet
in a few minutes (think of how fast ships move in starship combat with
one hex being 30,000 KM).

Again, the speed is up to the GM (thus making the rotation period for a
ship in orbit also up to the GM), but these SOM rules can give you some
hard, quick guidlines to go on--especially since they can tell you how
far out the ship is orbiting.

If I haven't made all of this clear and easy to understand (I don't feel
I've done the best job at that), ask a question and we'll tackle it.



EXAMPLE OF ORBITAL DISTANCE AND ORBITAL TIME
I'll leave you with an example from my game (which is why I asked this
question in the first place).

Pysadi
Size = 4 
(specific diameter is 6,560 KM, which I figured out when I detailed the
place)

Atm = 7

Ship is in standard orbit.

Starport regulations restrict orbit speed to 1,000 KM per minute.


Using my chart, I see that the ship is orbiting at 980 KM from the
suface of Pysadi (that's 7 x 140).

I've arbitrarily decided that the starport restricts orbit speed, for
all ships, to 1,000 KM per minute.

The formula for finding the circumfrence of a circle is (2 x 3.1416 x
radius).

So, now I know that the ship will pass overhead (orbit the planet) once
every 26.7 minutes.

Follow the math.  Pysadi's radius is 3280 km (6560 / 2).

Add in orbit height to find radius of orbit.  3280 + 980 = 4260 km

Now, plug in numbers to circumfrence formula.  2 x 3.1416 x 4260 =
26,766 km.

The linear distance of the orbit is 26,766 km (almost the size of one
space combat hex).  Since I've decided that the ship cannot go faster
than 1,000 km per minute (legally), it will take the ship about 27
minutes to complete its orbit (if it is moving at max speed).



SUMMARY
The orbit distance can be found on the fly by simply looking on the
chart and making one multiplaction.

Time for a ship to complete an orbit is a little more complicated, but
nothing an astute GM cannot figure without holding up the game too
much--just figure the radius of the orbit and plug the numbers into the
circumfrence formula.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:45:36 -0400
From: Martin Laurie <MLaurie@compuserve.com>
Subject: Julian War - strategic gobbledigook

>If you're still there, Martin, could you please clarify your position?

I'm still here

>Martin claims that Martin I would have studied Clauswitz, Sun Tzu etc.
>Fine. He probably did. But Clauswitz was talking only about Eurpoean
>warfare in a particular period and has ALREADY been proven to be, well,
>less than perfectly correct in some circumstances. Now, why should the
>strategies propounded by primitive Terran thinkers be perfectly suitable=

to
>warfare over HUNDREDS of lightyears?

Clauswitz and others pushed the concept of the schwerpunkt or "centre of =

gravity" in the enemy.  This can be many things but essesntially it is a
target
that will cause the surrender of the enemy if it is achieved.

Possible Schwerpunkts are (nte there can be combinations of =

schwerpunkt and an enemy can have several):

(i)  Industrial capacity

Here the enemy is determined to only be able to carry on the war as long =
as

it maintains a certain degree of its industrial capacity.  This is a comm=
on
schwerpunkt in small pocket empires with one or two highpopulation =

worlds that supply the military and economic strength of the entire empir=
e.

By estroying or capturing these, you ensure that the rest of the empire i=
s =

brought to speedy surrender.  Large political bodies with many such centr=
es

of industry take a massive effort to bring low given the intrinsic
defensive =

capability of most high population worlds.

(ii) Morale

Willingness to fight is a factor in the enemies political considerations.=
 =

Does =

their people and armed forces have the heart for a prolonged struggle?  I=
s =

their morale so brittle that a decisive battle will turn them against the=

war?  =

Such situations occur when an aggressor finds the war too costly to puris=
e =

and they rapidly grow tired of its continuance.  Terror is also a factor
when the defender or attacker realises that the enemy is prepared to use
annihilation =

tactics to defend themselves - mutual destruction has long been a deterra=
nt

to war and can be effective in forcing a foe to terms.  However, it can
equally =

be effective in hardening resistance or the desire to win.  Careful =

understanding of the enemies psyche is required for this approach.

(iii). Defensive forces

The enemies capacity to wage war is guaged by the strength of their force=
s
in =

the short term - as the war progresses then industrial capacity becomes
vital =

but at the initial stages it is the forces capable of fighting initially
and short term reserves that must bear the brunt.  If these forces can be=

decisively brought to =

battle and destroyed then the enemy capacity to resist is severely
compromised.  =

In many cases, rather than face occupation of significant parts of their
empire or destruction of key economic systems, an enemy will come to term=
s
after the destruction of their fleet assets.  Conversely when under attac=
k
the survival or defending forces is of primary importance and the attriti=
on
of the attacker is a required goal to prevent the occupation of the same
assets that assure long =

term resistance.

(iv). Leadership

All empires have a central control mechanism, some are more controlled th=
an

others and in those empires with a highly visible leadership there is a
strong identification with the leader and the states capacity to wage war=
=2E =

The location =

of these leaders and the centres of communication are prime targets for t=
he

attacker - their destruction can affect the will to resist and the
coordination of all survivng enemy forces.

(v). Political or economic cohesion

If the enemy has a delicate economic or political equalibrium then it is
the job =

of the attacker to upset it.   If they are a confederation of diverse
political =

agendas then attempt to attack one while ignoring the other - foster the =

devisiveness of the enemy and offer all possible blandishments to increas=
e =

their internal friction.   =


Economically is there a trade route or set of systems vital to the
industries of =

other planets?  Are their high population worlds net importers of raw
materials =

and if so where do they come from?

>Perhaps there are significant new variables. It's all very well to
handwave
>and say 'space warfare isn't like armoured warfare on the eastern front'=
=2E
>It probably isn't. But how does that mean that a dounble envelopment (a
>maneuver favoured by great military thinkers throughout history, INCLUDI=
NG
>some of the ones Martin says that Martin I should have studied
>(concentrate. The names are going to be a problem)) is suddenly invalid?=

>Sure, it's risky. Martin I found that out. But it's not stupid. =


A double envelopment of what?  If you cut off a sector then it still
functions for =

a long time with few adverse effects.  If you cut off a system then it may
be =

affected but only if the enemies naval capacity is reduced to the point
that they =

cannot use the power of manouver through the vastness of space and even =

systems to penetrate any attempt to "flank" a foe.

>I do have reservations about where the enemy got all those ships from, a=
nd
>how the Imperial fleet managed to get ambushed refuelling, but the latte=
r
>is a TACTICAL disaster, Martin, not a strategic blunder. I'd shoot the
>admiral who let it happen, but it does not make the overall strategy
>invalid.

Any strategy which invites defeat in detail is grossly incompetant and should 
only be undertaken with full awareness of the risks.   Because the enemy is
operating on interior lines they have the capability of hurling their
weight against either one split force or the other to defeat both in detail
- - the classic example 
being the Waterloo campaign where the French, outnumbered 2:1 by the
allies, achieved local superiority on each battlefield and almost won both
(except they failed to keep the other flank from joining up).
The reason why pincer attacks worked in land warfare is because the speed=
of the attack combined with the severance of communications led to the
rapid impotence of the surrounded forces - this is simply not possible in space with =
the jump drive.  Instead Traveller warfare could be compared to island warfare =
in a vast ocean where such isolation is expected and relatively easy to cope 
with but also difficult to do something about.  If a high population world has 
6,000 SDBs and 4billion ground troops then its not going to be easy to take
but its offensive power is 0.  Bypass it and defeat their forces elsewhere
and the rest will follow.

>Perhaps you'd have preferred to drive down a single wide axis of advance,
>such that the enemy could predict your destination and not only mass forces
>to meet you but also attack your long and vulnerable supply line from the
>flanks. Fleet strength would be nibbled away all the way to the target
>worlds, and what then?

Given the slow speed of any advance in Traveller, the prediction of an enemy 
thrust is relatively easy.  Rather than split his forces, Martin I should
have used 
their overwhelming strength to full effect and concentrated them in an
attempt 
to bring the enemy fleet to battle - this he could have achieved by moving
steadily from target to target, takin world after world and _forcing the
Julian Star Legion to engage or lose the very planets they were supposed to
be protecting.  His supply lines would be _more_ solid as he could
concentrate more resources to their protection than he could for the
preposterous double envelopment.

Fleet strength would not be "nibbled away" if he practiced economy and
besides =

he is in _their_ territory, taking _their_ systems while his huge empire
remains untouched and can easily replace casualties and cover his rear _a=
s
long as_ he loses no decisive battle and maintains the fleet in being.  B=
y
a slow methodical advance, Martin I could have brought his superior power=

to bear - a good parrallel would be the El Alamein 2nd battle in which
Montgomery was prepared to fight a battle till the enemy simply ran out o=
f
ammunition and fuel to maintain their =

defence.  In a war of attrition the force with the greater offensive powe=
r
will win =

as they can achieve superiority at many points at once.  Th outnumbered =

defender is limited to small scale counterattacks.

>Martin I's double envelopment was a bold attempt at a knockout blow,
>intended to win the camapign beofre the strrain of fighting at a distanc=
e
>from base told on the Imperial fleet. While I have reservations about so=
me
>of the details (I'd like to see some reasons - there may be ggod ones) I=

>find this out-of-hand dismissal too much. The strategy was risky, yes.
>Stupid? No. Who would have hailed Martin I a genius for using the same
>strategy? 'If I had succeeded, All of France, and All of you!'        =

(gen.Moreau. at his >trial).

You quote Moreau, another turnip-head who used complexity instead of
action.  Martin I's double envelopment was no knock-out blow.  From what
I've read it =

had no discernable target to "knock-out"!  If Martins intention was to
destroy the enemy fleet then he went about bringing it to battle in the
worst way possible - =

if it was to occupy ground then the envelopment left him with a poor =

concentration of force.  Under any way of looking at it the strategy suck=
ed

and was highly inappropriate for the actual situation.

Martin Laurie

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:10:35 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

> >
> ><Does it appear to anyone else that Leroy is posting a private email form
> >Andrew?  To quote Captian Hook, Bad Form!>
> 
> Doug, I'm not surprised to find you still slinging mud.  

What? What??

Leroy, someday I can just not believe my eyes. I certainly
don't think Doug was "slinging mud" and I think that most participants 
of this mailing lost would agree. He may have made a mistake,
perhaps he didn't realize Andrew's message was cross-posted. I think
it's a lot more of an attack to accuse someone of "slinging mud"
than to accuse someone of "bad form". The absolute hypocrisy of it.

You are as guilty of maligning people on this list as anyone is.

As the risk of becoming a malinger myself, I often find the tone 
in your messages to be pedantic and patronizing. Quite frankly,
it rubs me the wrong way sometimes and I can only imagine that 
other people feel the same way. I regard myself as being open minded
though, so I try to set aside what I perceive your tone to be when I
read your messages and I try to concentrate on the actual content 
of what you've written. Perhaps you should try the same thing.

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                      ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 1997 14:33 EDT
From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
Subject: re:Traveller-digest V1997 #1968

When your ship arrives in system from a jump, how far is
it from the target world?  Here is a rule of thumb that
might be useful.

Improvements are welcome.  Reasonable simplifications are coveted.

Entering a System from Jump:
- ----------------------------
Int + Engineering <= 1D6 + # of months since the ship had service  (or so)
Int + Astrogation <= 3D

Two successes means the ship arrives just inside the 100-diameter
sphere around the target world.

If there are failures, the size of the failures are important.
Determine how many points each roll failed by, and multiply those
points together if both rolls failed.  This is the number of DAYS 
until the ship will arrive inside the target's 100-diameter 
sphere at 1G.  


Different accelerations reduce the time thus:

2G = Result * 0.7
3G = Result * 0.6
4G = Result * 0.5
5G = Result * 0.45
6G = Result * 0.4





Example:
- --------
The _Marleener_ has an Engineer-4 (Int 9) and Astrogator-1 (Int 14).
It hasn't had service done in 13 months.  Emerging from jump:

Engineer  : 13 <= 16,	fails by 3 points
Astrogator: 15 <= 9,    success

So the ship arrives 3 days out of the 100-diameter limit at 1G.
Travelling at 2G reduces the time to 2.1 days.




Example:
- --------
The _Deadman_ hasn't seen a service port for two years.  On board
is an Engineer-3 (Int 8) and Astrogator-3 (Int 11).

Engineer  : 11 <= 26, 	fails by 15 points!
Astrogator: 14 <= 16,   fails by 2 points

The product of the failures = 30 -> 30 days!  Ouch!
Since the ship can move at 3G, the time is reduced to 18 days.
Still, the _Deadman_ is out there.




Worst Case Example:
- -------------------
The _Glutton_ is a 1G free trader, with an Engineer-1 (Int 7),
an Astrogator-1 (Int 7), and it's been 6 months since it had
its yearly maintenance.  Here we go:

Engineer  : 8 <= 8, 	success
Astrogator: 8 <= 8,	success

Wow, just squeaked by.  Let's let 6 more months pass.  It's been
12 months since the _Glutton_'s last maintenance.

Now to the disaster:

Engineer  : 8 <= 18,    fails by 10 points
Astrogator: 8 <= 18,	fails by 10 points

The product of failures = 100 days!  Big Ouch!  Woo-hoo!  Makes
a referee positively giddy with delight!  How's that life support
doing?


Rob

------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 1997 14:33 EDT
From: "Robert Eaglestone" <eaglesto@nortel.ca>
Subject: Rule-of-thumb for starships

When your ship arrives in system from a jump, how far is
it from the target world?  Here is a rule of thumb that
might be useful.

Improvements are welcome.  Reasonable simplifications are coveted.

Entering a System from Jump:
- ----------------------------
Int + Engineering <= 1D6 + # of months since the ship had service  (or so)
Int + Astrogation <= 3D

Two successes means the ship arrives just inside the 100-diameter
sphere around the target world.

If there are failures, the size of the failures are important.
Determine how many points each roll failed by, and multiply those
points together if both rolls failed.  This is the number of DAYS 
until the ship will arrive inside the target's 100-diameter 
sphere at 1G.  


Different accelerations reduce the time thus:

2G = Result * 0.7
3G = Result * 0.6
4G = Result * 0.5
5G = Result * 0.45
6G = Result * 0.4





Example:
- --------
The _Marleener_ has an Engineer-4 (Int 9) and Astrogator-1 (Int 14).
It hasn't had service done in 13 months.  Emerging from jump:

Engineer  : 13 <= 16,	fails by 3 points
Astrogator: 15 <= 9,    success

So the ship arrives 3 days out of the 100-diameter limit at 1G.
Travelling at 2G reduces the time to 2.1 days.




Example:
- --------
The _Deadman_ hasn't seen a service port for two years.  On board
is an Engineer-3 (Int 8) and Astrogator-3 (Int 11).

Engineer  : 11 <= 26, 	fails by 15 points!
Astrogator: 14 <= 16,   fails by 2 points

The product of the failures = 30 -> 30 days!  Ouch!
Since the ship can move at 3G, the time is reduced to 18 days.
Still, the _Deadman_ is out there.




Worst Case Example:
- -------------------
The _Glutton_ is a 1G free trader, with an Engineer-1 (Int 7),
an Astrogator-1 (Int 7), and it's been 6 months since it had
its yearly maintenance.  Here we go:

Engineer  : 8 <= 8, 	success
Astrogator: 8 <= 8,	success

Wow, just squeaked by.  Let's let 6 more months pass.  It's been
12 months since the _Glutton_'s last maintenance.

Now to the disaster:

Engineer  : 8 <= 18,    fails by 10 points
Astrogator: 8 <= 18,	fails by 10 points

The product of failures = 100 days!  Big Ouch!  Woo-hoo!  Makes
a referee positively giddy with delight!  How's that life support
doing?


Rob                           

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1971
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 17 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1972



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

(noise) Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Re: Piracy
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: TL-12+ Search and Rescue gear?
Interworld Commerce
Re: Piracy mechanics (long)
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)
Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: Piracy
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller
Re: TNS: 034-1107
WHOA!
Re: In the void of space...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:16:38 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: (noise) Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Geez, I hate it when I do that.

I recently sent an email on behalf of a co-worker, and neglected to
change the mail info.

I did not mean to purposefully conceal my identity. This post is to
ensure that people know that I am responsible for what I say in a public
forum.

Glenn Hoppe,

who recently sent a post regarding netiquette and the TML.
:)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:16:17 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

Andy Lilly wrote:
> 
> This post is intended to be vaguely humorous, so no flames please...

<ginzu chop>

> Look at the real world.
> 
> Forget mystical calculations of GNP et al.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because most of the space that Travellers adventure in is run by *humans*.
> 
> i.e.
> 
> If pirates *want* to exist, there are guaranteed to be enough corrupt, inept
> and incompetent individuals/navies/governments/worlds for them to survive.

While this may be true, I think the main point those on the "Piracy
doesn't exist (much)" side of the fence are trying to make is that:
There are easier/more profitable/less risky ways of taking advantage of
human incompetance to make a quick buck.

Piracy will be rare because the *successful* pirate will be a very rare
bird indeed.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Piracy

On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Robert Flammang wrote:

> > Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
> > accepted?
>    
>    Because they are quite compatable with real life, so there is
>    no real reason not to accept them.  TCS assumes that the naval
>    budget per citizen is about Cr 250.  In the US today, the naval
>    budget comes out to about $360 per citizen.  These values are
>    roughly comparable.  TCS assumes a fleet size with a value 10
>    times the annual budget.  In the US today, the price tag on our
>    fleet is roughly 5 to 10 times the annual budget.  Again, these
>    values are roughly comparable.  In his arguments, Hans assumes
>    that piracy suppression gets about 0.2% of the fleet budget.
>    In the US today, our Coast Guard gets a whole lot more than 0.2%
>    of the naval budget, so clearly this value is EASILY credible.
>    

I am both glad and somewhat dismayed to that you brought this up!

I am glad, because it gives me the chance to point out that even with the
cost per citizen being somewhat higher in the US than in the Imperium,
there are grave doubts as to whether that is sufficient to maintain our
forces, even at thier current level.

I would also love the opportunity to point out that the USCG, supplemented
by the USN, is unable to control the small boat piracy problem in the
Caribbean, much less the smuggling that goes there.  Note that this is
considered a serious problem in the local area, but it does not affect the
US security or economic health as a whole, so there is not the political
will to stamp it out.

Do you think that if the USN decided that it were necessary, and parked a
carrier battle group in the Caribbean, it would be possible to eliminate
this?  And with Mayport, Fl (A US Navy Base) right there, it would be easy
to support this BG.

However, I am dismayed that this particular example need be used, because
I, in no way, wish to demean the contribution either service makes, nor
try and villify anyone for not paying attention to a regretable, _local_
issue.

Just for the record tho, the USCG is attached to the Department of
Transportation (except in time of war), not the Department of the Navy.

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:28:01 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney) wrote:

>Doug, I'm not surprised to find you still slinging mud.  Mr. Boulton
>posted his words to the HIWG list, and has already received feedback
>from others there (mine was cross-posted for convenience) about his
>"Bad Form".  Personally, If I were Boulton, I'd not respond either.
>I chose to not directly chastize Andrew because a) others did already,
>and b) he asked me some direct questions which took so _little_ time
>to answer, it was no biggie.

As for (a), this is patently untrue. I'm a member of the HIWG list and as a
witness to what goes on there, I can report that as usual, Leroy's deluded
mind has twisted the facts.

Andrew Boulton did *not* get chastized for his comments.

However, if you want to see a person get chastized over e-mail flames, join
HIWG and subscribe to the group's mailing list. On at least a weekly basis,
Leroy gets chastized and/or flamed for his idiotic remarks and his fawning
over IG despite the company's obvious problems.

The rest of the list is pretty even tempered and more rooted in reality.
Most folks on the HIWG list, many of whom are members here and on tne-rces
as well, take a more objective eye to IG's products. Some have good things
to say. Some have bad. But except for Leroy, no one seems to be obsessed
with kissing IG's collective butt.

>If anybody wants examples, Doug and Harold have provided them (as of this
>writing).

It's more than just Doug and Harold. At least a dozen people on this list
have debunked your ridiculous ideas about canon and fawning remarks about
IG's products.

>Perhaps, given what I've seen, it should be Traveller Player/Referee
>Maligning List.

People only post criticism where it's due.

>I guess I shouldn't have encouraged you to pine for my responses by
>posting an actual follow-up to my other one.  You really shouldn't *live*
>for my posts that way. :)

Like a sideshow at the circus, I'm afraid your absurd comments are often
too much to pass up.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:01:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Ringrose <ringrose@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: TL-12+ Search and Rescue gear?

>>>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:24:15 -0500, Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net> said:
Roderick> A question to ponder: what sort of cutting tools and similar gear
Roderick> equipment would a SAR crew be packing circa 1100?  I've thought of
Roderick> the following:
[snip]
Roderick> Is there anything else anybody else can suggest?  Basically, I'm
Roderick> thinking about salvage gear; the kind of stuff you need to hack into
Roderick> hulls/pick apart wreckage/so forth.

Hrm.
Neural activity scanners, to find anyone alive.
Something to check pressure on the other side of that wall.
Rescue gear, so if there _are_ survivors you can pull them to safety via your
slaplocks.
You'll need to analyze the structural integrity if there _is_ pressure, before
making a new hole in the wall for your airlock.

Something which can keep low berth and emergency low berth pods running while
you cut them out, bring them to your ship, and get them into a pressurized area
for your medics to check them over.

Computer equipment - you'll want to check it for virus bombs (if you're in
TNE).  Regardless, they might have good stuff in their databanks or backups.

Do you need any special equipment to salvage, say, the jump drive's crystals if
the ship itself isn't salvagable?

Something to move cargo?

	-Robert Ringrose
	 ringrose@ai.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Interworld Commerce

How much traffic does a world generate?  How much intra-system traffic?
What kind of ships?

This is kind of how I envision it - I would appreciate any feedback you
care to offer.

The big cargo ships (15,000 + dtons) run exclusively to the Starport B+,
Pop 7+ worlds.  They are not configured for passengers, and probably begin
offloading when they arrive in system via lighters, and are still
on-loading as they begin the run towards the jump point.

The Medium size cargo/passenger ships (5,000 - 15,000 dtons) are the bulk 
of the traffic in space. Like the tankers and freighters that ply our
oceans, 90% of all goods that travel between systems eventually end up on
one of these ships. They make the runs to the Class C Starports, and to
the smaller Class A and B starports (Pop 5+).

The Small cargo/passenger ships (1,000 - 5,000 dton) specialize in
carrying cargo and passengers to the minor markets, worlds not served by
the Mediums.

The under 1,000 dton ships pick up the leftovers.  They perform the
bulk of the intra-system commerce and serve the worlds on the fringes, or
pick up the cargos that were missed.  Some few (the Subbies) visit worlds
that the larger ships cannot make a profit at.

Now, how much traffic?  Let's start with some numbers, and we can argue it
from there.

(World T*Pop Code) Ktons per year.
x2 if the world is AG or is Ri
x3 if the world has a military base or is a Capital
x4 if the world is Ind

This would have Mora (TL 15, Pop 10) with 150 Ktons of cargo traffic (not
ships, amount of cargo available to be imported/exported) per month.  It
would also have Fenl's Gren (TL 9, Pop 3) with 2,250 tons per month.

How does it sound?  Anyone with a better idea? 

- --------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology
                                              -Merlin

douglas@teleport.com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MCSE: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, 
      Exchange Server, Basic Networking, TCP/IP

*Unsolicited advertisements will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:12:37 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (long)

[Again, not trying to keep covering old points to ease out
of this thread.]
Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:44:29 -0700, shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
>  Maybe we should clarify what sort of ship gobbles up an SDB,
>even under near-ideal conditions? Remember, the SDB doesn't
>have 20%+ wasted on J-fuel/drives, let alone cargo, nor does
>it require commercial rates of return on its' military gear
>costing.

OTOH, it just isn't that big a ship.  I don't have my Traveller
stuff in from of my, but it only has two turrets and can
only bring one to bear on a single target at a time.  (And
that one is take out in a the first shot).

>>The point is that would a merchant buy one that he might use
>>once?  It might be cheaper to get insurance.

>  If insurance is cheaper than a one-time investment of a couple
>hundred KCr, then piracy doesn't exist, as it doesn't seem to
>affect insurance rates.

Um no.  This economic would only apply if it guaranteed that
you are imune to piracy.  Otherwise, you have to note that
a Maser Comm only has a chance of saving you if surrender
and hope there is a ship that can get there in time to
save at least a portion of your cargo.

If you are looking at a 50 year investment, you
are talking 4,000 Cr/year.  This would reasonable if
your odds of being pirated were reduced 25% and piracy
took something 1-2% of the commercial cargos a year
(which is a significant crime rate, but not high
enough to be a major problem).

>>Not if inbound trajectories are low (it there isn't much to
>>match).  Of course this gets into the question of how you
>>handle velocity conservation when you jump.

>  IIRC, you can jump in (accurately) with a relative velocity.
>If there's a danger of piracy, they would.

Well, you don't know if there is a danger of piracy before
you get there.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:44:34 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

Shelley Kazsefski wrote:
> 
> OK. So were agreed that Worlds, in general, have their own Navy. This is
> good, because for a while there I got the impression that you assumed
> the whole portion of a planet's military budget was siphoned off to the
> Imperium and distributed as the Imperium wishes. This is something I
> completely disagree with. Every world of POP 6+ and Starport B+ will
> have a portion of its military budget dedicated to a local navy.
> 

This gives me an idea. Given that the Imperium is very capitalistic,
there are probably corporations which offer naval services to systems
for a fee. So:

SecureGuard, LIC, is pleased to offer _insert system name here_
naval services! For a reasonable yearly fee, SecureGuard will
provide protection from pirates, customs inspections of ships
selected at random and emergency rescue services. In the event of
a full scale invasion, we'll even hold the fort (so to speak) until
the Imperial Navy arrives.


> So, assuming that even modestly populated planets have a Planetary Navy,
> you contend that there will still be "hit and run" attacks by pirates.
> 

If SecureGuard has the contract, there will be a set number of 
permissible pirate attacks. Eliminating pirate attacks altogether will
be much more expensive than allowing, say, two per year. All this will
be spelled out in the contract.

> Sooooo... why can't they track pirates? How could there be "hit and run"
> attacks if the local Navy can track movements of spaceships?
> 

Well, the cheaper SecureGuard service contract will guarantee a
much poorer response time than the more expensive ones. So, it is
possible.

Also, to drum up business, SecureGuard may actually illegally stage
some pirate attacks, in order to sweeten the negotiating process!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:15:48 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)

Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:48:34 -0500,  "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>

>> Which is good for me since my postion is that you can't say piracy
>> is either impossible or required by the background.
>
>
>Unfortunately, this position is of little help to a referee looking for
>advice. :)

Well, my advice is to ignore anyone that has claimed to have
proven the piracy would or wouldn't exist, ignore all the votes,
and just run pick what seems to fit how you see your campaign...
:-)

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Ringrose <ringrose@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

>>>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:07:40 -0400, Tom Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu> said:
Tom> Anyway Rob, you keep saying that walking speed is a function of gravity (I
Tom> assume because the higher the gravity the faster you "fall" into the
Tom> position to take the next step) so I have two questions:

Sort of.
When a biped walks, it uses an inverted pendulum gait.  This involves going up
on one leg, falling forward on that leg, putting your other leg stiffly in
front of you, catching yourself on the next leg, and using your momentum to go
up on that new leg.  Thus, when you're highest in the air you are going
slowest, and when your body is lowest you are going fastest.  Potential energy
goes to kinetic energy and back to potential energy.
Your legs are acting like the spokes of a rimless wheel.
Of course an animal smooths this out, bends a little at the knees, and so on,
but that's basically what is going on.

Gravity's role is to keep you from becoming airborne when you're transferring
your kinetic energy to potential energy, so as gravity's accelleration
increases you can go faster without bouncing into the air.


Tom> 1) If strength were not a factor....does this mean that you can walk up a
Tom> hill faster than you can on flat terrain (the ground rising to meet your
Tom> foot as opposed to falling toward the ground faster)

Yes, although you're spending energy getting up that hill.

Tom> 2) From the MIT Leg Lab.....is there any idea of the optimum gravity for
Tom> the fastest walking speed given that a person has a given strength and
Tom> endurance.  (I know this question is not well phrased...but what I am
Tom> looking for is....well...if gravity increases you can walk faster....but
Tom> it takes more effort.  Increase gravity again and you can go still faster
Tom> but now you are struggling to get the strength to do it so you go slower.
Tom> Is there and optimal range for a healthy, unassisted human.......or did
Tom> Goldielocks find out that 1G is "juuuuust right"?)

It's a pretty poorly phrased question, and the answer isn't quite what you
expect.

If you want the fastest speed, run.  Running involves bouncing on your legs as
though they were springs.  And, here, lower gravity is better provided you can
keep control.  Your top speed depends on how well you can replace losses, and
how good your control is.  But just like a wheel, you don't spend a lot of
energy keeping yourself in the air.  That energy is stored and returned in
springs (tendons) at each step.

	- Robert Ringrose
	  ringrose@ai.mit.edu
	  MIT Leg Lab
	  MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:19:32 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Leroy William Lu Guatney writes:

>The Traveller Maligning List (TML) is what I call the subset of the
>Traveller Mailing List (TML).  It is the list within the list, that nobody
>can really do anything about (sad).

   What is sad is that you decry the tone of this list, while on the
HIWG-list you use a "weapons free" approach.  You made the HIWG-list
such a free fire zone, I left permanently.  I'd take everything to
private e-mail, but as we both know, you don't have the guts.

>If anybody wants examples, Doug and Harold have provided them (as of this
>writing).

   Note Leroy says nothing about my specific points, only generalizes
about the tone of our (Doug and I) posts.  Do you care to address the
fact that CT books listed TL and crew requirements of vehicles, and EV
does not, or would you rather just concede?

>Perhaps, given what I've seen, it should be Traveller Player/Referee
>Maligning List.

   Hear that Leroy?  It's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing
just for you.

- --Harold

P.S. To everyone else on this list: My apologies if any of you are
offended by my posts here in response to Leroy.  Leroy and his friend
J.P. waged a war against me (and others) on HIWG-list, one they refused
to take to private e-mail.  The attacks got so bad, I consulted an
attorney about a possible libel suit.  To say I hold a grudge is to put
it mildly.  Leroy would of course tell the story differently, and would
undoubtedly try to twist things to make it appeared that I was
responsible.  That would of course be a lie.  For Leroy to lecture
anyone about the tone of any e-mail is laughable, and as I said above,
sad at best.  Thank you for your patience.

- --h

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:31:59 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:02:49 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>>Maybe.  Or he shows up and knocks him out in one shot.

>Except that you still haven't explained where he shows up from. In space
>there is no place to hide. Until you explain that, your attack by surprise
>scenario is just so much hot air.

I have, several times.  E-mail me if you want me to go
over it again.

>The canonical sources certainly assumes so. Most of the Free Traders that
>have been featured in past Traveller adventures have been armed (I say
>"most", but I really can't remember a single one that wasn't).

Yeah, and most PC's are armed a lot more heavily than the average
person.  What you see in adventures is not necessarily typical
of the average.

[Concerning the freqency of piracy]
>Conveniently ignoring that by those encounter tables pirates constitute
>11.6% of all encounters.

I will acknowledge that loosing 10% of your traffic to piracy
is excessive (it is, military kind of loses).

>David, you really should try to cure yourself of trying to have things
>one way when it suit you and another when it dosen't suit you.

I'm not.  I never refered to encounter tables to establish
the level of piracy, only to establish that they are indeed
part of the official background.

>This
>chimmerical pirate of yours -- able to pose as and make a decent
>living as an innocent merchant one minute and capable of sneaking up
>on a merchant and disable it in one shot the next, not to mention both
>willing and able to gang up on and defeat military vessels at the drop
>of a hat is getting very tiresome. Please settle on one approach at a
>time and try to demonstrate that it would have a decent chance of
>working. If you can demonstrate that any one approach will work, I'll
>concede the argument.

Hans, the is good place to stop because this is not what I
am saying and anyplace someone starts attacking how you are
depebating and trying to make claims about what the other
person is saying, the bebate is over.  The point it that
a problem to stop pirates has to be able to stop all kinds
of pirates operating all mode, not that all pirates have
to be several things at once....

[As to tiresome, you didn't have to rivive it from the Gas
Giant thread.  I was tired of it back then].

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:54:59 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller

[OK, the tone with Hans is going downhill again and we are
beating dead horses.  This is my last public response to
Hans.  If anyone wants to know what I feel about any
of his replies, then they can e-mail me...]
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:41:31 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>And the big systems will have the naval vessels to put a patrol in those
>intermediate systems.

Well, we have already established that we don't agree on this.

> Your own argument about what appears worthwhile and
>what does not tells against you here. If it has been 20 years since
>anyone have attacked you and only a short time since someone pirated a
>ship, keeping all your cruisers tied down to your home system will seem
>a total waste of available assets.

Well, except it is the idea that those ships are there for
military purposes anyway is what you keep citing.  If the
the concern for war is that low, then the military fleets
aren't going to be sitting around to be diverted to piracy.
If the concern is high enough about war to build and deploy
those ships, then they will want them to used for that purpose.

>>There is also a need to escort but you will group your merchants into
>>convoys so you probably will used at least modest sized fleets and you
>>don't need that many.
>
>But those escorts won't be used for convoys in peacetime, so they will be
>available for patrol duty.

Having dozens of ships in ever system is way more than what
you need to escort convoys of ships.  Or, to put it another
way, since ships are concentrated into convoys in war time
but not in peace, the number of ships need to guard them
in war is less than in peace.

Also, a lot of these ships are moblized out of reserves (like
the Scout ships) so you  don't have to keep paying for them
during peace.  If you use them for piracy, then you have to
justify the cost.

>>You aren't going to be sending small forces out to seek out battle because
>>they will get squashed.

>Do you just assume that or do you have any concrete reason to believe so?

Its fundamental military tactics (see Sun Tzu).

>After all, the enemy will want to concentrate too, and it's to your
>advantage to force him to disperse. If you have a dozen raiding squadrons
>out harassing his back country.

This isn't seeking battle.  Those raiding squadrons will be
trying to avoid encounters because there is such a good chance
they will get squashed.

>We have ample canonical evidence for these kinds of ships. These ships does
>exist in the official Traveller universe (and they will exist in any
>Traveller universe I either referee or run a PE in), and they are no bloddy
>use against a surprise attack on a major world, so why should any sane
>admiral _not_ spread them out across the systems he is supposed to protect?

Because if you spread all your ships over every world in
every system, then 98% of them will unvailable for
every battle and you have the enemy picking them off
one small bit at a time.

>>Neah, what ends up happening is that the small ship runs around bothering
>>small, low value targets (which have few fixed instalations and your small
>>ships isn't going to sieze and hold a planet, besides something like 90%
>>of the Imperiums pop and resources are in a few high pop worlds so it
>>really isn't a big deal if he does)

>Do you really have the opinion of human nature that is implied by this
>cold-blooded accountant's viewpoint?

Fighting a war is cold blooded business.  If you look at
history, most people do what they need to win the war while
those who don't loose (Miller understood this when he
had the Solomani pay a price for defending every single
system).  The enemy is not likely to bother these places
for the same reason they are not worth defending.  In
all wars you have places with not strategic value that
never see a single battle unless the main armies
happen to be passing through.

>Or are you just assuming it in order
>to win an argument?

OK Hans, more and more, you have started to splip in attacks
on my honesty and motivations.   I understand that you feel
strongly about your view, but that is not justifacation.  I
am stopping here before it gets worse.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:01:04 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: TNS: 034-1107

Apologies for wasting bandwidth - I don't receive routing info, so don't
have Irwin Fritz's email addr. and the website linked to from his msg is
professional site w/o email pointer... Irwin - ++good TNS broadcasts.  Just
one more reason I like the TML!




Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:44:05 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: WHOA!

There seems to be, in recent posts, an increasing hostility on this list. 

I have had to learn to be more careful in my responses because it is too
easy to take offense at what the poster probably thought was a clever quip
(lack of facial signals, tone of voice et al). I too have pressed send with
an angry finger. Mea Culpa

But this is not a case of misunderstanding, this is a series of vicious
personal attacks. And very petty ones too. 

I realize that most people will never even read this post, or care. But I
like to have ideas stimulated, concepts proposed and designs posted. I
really do not want to see personal volleys. Please, take it elsewhere or
stop it (latter preferred) for the sake of peace on the list. And for the
sake of interesting discussion. 

Relating this to Traveller....sorry, I cannot. Except as maybe an example of
why long-distance government would have a lot of trouble governing
effectively

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:42:08 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

No physicist here, so:  Would the random junk (stray atoms, etc.) in
interstellar space slow things AT ALL?  I imagine it wouldn't have much
quick effect (not like thrusting in other direction!), but would it slow an
object noticably, say, over its transit of a galaxy?

Tx!

- - Bill




At 10:29 AM 10/17/97 EST, you wrote:
>Unless acted upon by other means, be that mass or gravity well, your
>velocity should continue unchecked forever.
>-- 
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com
>
>



Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1972
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Friday, October 17 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1973



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Piracy mechanics (long)
Re: Next THUDDD
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
TCS and Real Life Values (was Piracy)
Re: Piracy and naval budgets
TCS and Real Life Values (was Piracy)
Re: Burden of proof and all that...
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Re: WHOA!
Re: TL-12+ Search and Rescue gear?
The whole piracy thread
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:52:30 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

Erwin Fritz wrote:
> 
> Also, to drum up business, SecureGuard may actually illegally stage
> some pirate attacks, in order to sweeten the negotiating process!

Ahhhhhh... the ol' interstellar protection Racket:

Vinnie (SecureGuard rep., baritone voice): Y'know, you wouldn't want an
"accident" to happen.

Louie aka. "Legs" (rep. # 2, squeaky voice, flexing fingers): Yeah,
yeah... space is big. Space is dangerous, you never know who might want
to hassle your trading partners.

Vinnie: Maybe you should consider our offer for protection. It's a very
generous offer.

Louie: Yeah, yeah. You should tink it over. Verrry carefully. (cracks
knuckles)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:53:19 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (long)

David P. Summers wrote:
> 
> >  Maybe we should clarify what sort of ship gobbles up an SDB,
> >even under near-ideal conditions? Remember, the SDB doesn't
> >have 20%+ wasted on J-fuel/drives, let alone cargo, nor does
> >it require commercial rates of return on its' military gear
> >costing.
> 
> OTOH, it just isn't that big a ship.  I don't have my Traveller
> stuff in from of my, but it only has two turrets and can
> only bring one to bear on a single target at a time.  (And
> that one is take out in a the first shot).

I don't have my Traveller stuff in from of my, either ;-) but i seem to
remember that the standard SDB is 400 tons and has *four* turrets. Since
it has no jump drives, It can afford larger maneuver and power plant.

As for how many turrets it can bring to bear, that depends upon the
edition of Traveller. In TNE its larger Power Plant means it can install
more powerful laser turrets, and do more damage, and it can rotate about
its fore/aft axis bringing all weapons to bear.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Next THUDDD

> I know the next THUDDD is going to be a heavy fighter, any idea what the
> stats are going to be yet? 

Hope you don't mind my copying this answer to the lists...

Watch for the full announcement this weekend.  My plans are: 20-40 tons,
1-2 crew, 1 week endurance, and sufficient weaponry, agility, and so forth
to be useful against destroyer-sized craft.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:08:24 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

>>> Which brings up a point I've been wishing to review for a while now:
>>> Just how many ships *are* out there?
>>
>>Good question. I'll throw out a related one -- what is the ratio of
>>military to civilian ships?
>
>I'll go for what I know in the Marches ...

[snips of mind-boggling large numbers of ships just in the Marches...]

>Lots, and Lots, and Lots or starships ... they say the air is a crouded
>place, well in the Marches space is chocker block ...

Indeed it seems to be... from just the numbers we've been throwing 
around lately in the piracy debate, I had the feeling that the space 
immediately around a planet should look more like an interstate than
your typical Star Trek "Go into standard orbit and call me if any other
ships are detected..." 

This reinforces the argument for me that a) yes, space around a planet
(at least to the 100d line) will be heavily monitored and regulated, 
b) there ain't no friggin way the Imperium is going to be able to keep up
to date records on every 40 and 50 year old freighter on a subsector-
wide basis, not to mention a sector-wide database, and c) there is no 
way that any ship building economy would be able to exist, with that
many ships to keep track of and ships payments so high and profit
margins so low, I can't see a real reason *not* to bail out on your 
payments. Thinking of the banks' record keeping on when ships have 
paid up in an environment that takes weeks or months for information/
payments to travel *anywhere*, coming from ships that may be doing
business a *sector* away, gives me the willies....

Now, if we can just determine if the planetary economies could *really*
pour that much of its resources into building these enormous numbers
of flying buildings...

- -- Paul [who's going to go take a couple of aspirin and have a lie down...]

**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:45:13 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: TCS and Real Life Values (was Piracy)

>>Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
>>accepted?
>
>I think you get the same problem in PE.  I picked a copy of PE the other
>day, and have been working on harmonising the military system with WTH,
>Striker, INH, TCS, & a host of other MT/CT/TNE material.  I have not got far
>yet, but I think at this stage that any consistency will be purely
>coincidental:  

Well, here is an answer to one of my questions in my last post! I guess I
really 
do need to start reading the entire digest before hitting the reply button :)

[schnip]

>To put this into perspective: for a Tl 13 Pop 9 (actually 2x10exp9) world
>(all calculated according to PE) which had about 4% spent GWP on Military
>gave approx 648 RU spent on maintenance, or a force size of 216 RU.  If only
>.3 of this were assigned to the imperial navy (see below) for consistency's
>sake, this would be 64.8 Ru on maintenance if inerstellar military.  If we
>were maintaining A1D1J8 (Jump 4 capable starfleets)which cost 30 Ru each we
>could maintain 2 of them, call it A2D2J16, This has a value (see above) of 2
>x 3 000 000 MCr or 6 000 000 MCr (in local credits, starport Type A)[If all
>was spent on interstellar military, approx 21 000 000]
>
>The same figure for TCS are approximately 2 000 000 000  x 500/1 000 000 or
>1 000 000 MCr and can be multiplied by up to 10 to account for the gradual
>construction of the fleet or 10 000, 000 MCr.  (Imperail navy only)
>
>For striker/INH these figures are:
>2 000 000 000 x 3/100 (3%) x 18 000/1 000 000 x .3 (for imperial forces
>only- not including system defence of this world) or 324 000MCr or for the
>biuggest fleet (as per TCS above) 3 240 000 MCr.
>
>Note that this is only a 2x10EXP9 world...
>ERRORS PROBABLE
>
> It doesn't seem to matter what system you use, the imperium has ENORMOUS
>resources at its dispposal. 

Ok, so the systems seem roughly compatible at times... So this brings back
the question: Is this realistic to have such "ENORMOUS resources" avail-
able? How much could Earth realistically produce in our [hypothetical]
starports now? (please don't use the US as an example and scale it up; I dare
say that that would not fit a good percentage of the world. Or is it a good 
model? Would the majority of the 3I's planets have a few high industrial,
high standard of living countries that produce everything and feed off 
the rest of the Third World resources? Do only balkanized planets have 
anything such as countries? I've always had a *very* hard time with what
seems to be Traveller canon of the vast majority of planets only having 
one main [or exclusive] government type; people being as people are, I
find this a *LOT* harder to swallow than the existence of pirates :) ). Does
anyone have any idea how many tons of shipping are in existence now, 
and how many tons can be produced in a year? (ought to be some pretty
good figures for WWII around anyhoo, although that raises another 
problem of wartime vs. peacetime production...) Does the amount of
shipping we are able to produce give a good approximation of what our
theoretical spaceyards would be able to produce?

And who was that lady I saw you with last night? [well, as long as I'm
full of questions :) ]

- -- Paul [who wishes his Gross Personal Product was anywhere near as
efficiently used as his pocket empire's...]


**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:51:35 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy and naval budgets

>>I mean, I know they're canon, but who says that either of them make the
>>slightest bit of sense?
>
>They are of the same order of magnitude as present-day military expenses,
>so they can't be totally off.

Hi Hans, is this of the same magnitude of *world wide* expenses as a % of
GWP, or the same magnitude as of a particular country/ies % of GNP?


**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:14:05 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: TCS and Real Life Values (was Piracy)

>> Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
>> accepted?
>   
>   Because they are quite compatable with real life, so there is
>   no real reason not to accept them.  TCS assumes that the naval
>   budget per citizen is about Cr 250.  In the US today, the naval
>   budget comes out to about $360 per citizen.  These values are
>   roughly comparable.  TCS assumes a fleet size with a value 10
>   times the annual budget.  In the US today, the price tag on our
>   fleet is roughly 5 to 10 times the annual budget.  Again, these
>   values are roughly comparable.  In his arguments, Hans assumes
>   that piracy suppression gets about 0.2% of the fleet budget.
>   In the US today, our Coast Guard gets a whole lot more than 0.2%
>   of the naval budget, so clearly this value is EASILY credible.

Ok, but is this comparable to the *world* expenditure on defense, the
GWP of *Earth*, and the *world* tax rate? Does anyone have figures
on this at hand [I know I could probably find them somewhere or
other if I need to, but....  :) ]? It may fit the US model, or the Industrial-
ized Nations model, but how big a percentage of the GWP is the US/
Western/Industrialized Economy? And does the GWP of Earth fit 
the figures given in TCS or Striker or PE? This is the subject that has
always interested me far more than whether or not pirates exist [of
course they do, I say so :) ], just how accurate or broken is the basis
of the economic system in Traveller? I know that the starship eco-
nomics and shipping figures, etc., bear little or no relationship to 
anything realistic, how about the planetary end?

And a second problem I've been debating: Just how much of a given
world's economy is given over to ship building? I know that book X
says that Y gazillions of tons can be built per year by population Z, 
but how much of the planetary output is assumed to be poured into ship
construction? Don't those 80 billion folks have anything else to pour
all that ultradense and hi tech into, like roads, and schools, and 
zero G public toilets? 

I don't have Striker or TCS, so I have to rely on PE and whatever info
from the other two y'all'd like to share [or if one of you would like to
work out a photocopying deal, email me, please!, now that it seems to
have received the official blessing...  I am looking for CT and MT stuff
(who wouldn't want "real" copies), but the Atlanta stores have been
mostly stripped, and finding anything except D&D, Warhammer, and
M:TG in Athens is impossible, and I am a gamer, not a collector, so I
can-/will-not pay collector prices (though I did find unopened, new con-
dition copies of Asteroid, Mayday, Snapshot, Belter, Triplanetary,
Dark Nebula, and Double Star in a little mom-and-pop hobby shop
out in a tiny little crossroads town in N. Georgia just a few months ago,
so I know that miracles
still happen :) They didn't have numbered stickers and MM's signature
on them unfortunately, but that just means that I didn't have any qualms
about opening them and playing with them, either! :) Oh, did I mention
that they were $5 each....  gloat, gloat, gloat.... :) ]

Where was I?... Oh, yeah... so before I go and pour a bunch of effort into
trying to use PE as a basis for what can be done in the 3I, has anyone
determined if it gives numbers anywhere near compatible with TCS or
Striker? I know that since it is really a separate game it wasn't necessary
to be all that accurate to the RPG, but it would be nice... Once we get
the basis down for how the 3 systems relate to one another, then we can
get started on the argument as to whether they have any basis in Real
Life(tm).

- -- Paul Darius [Mild-mannered RN by night, apparently Economist Wanna-
Be by day...]

**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:11:14 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Burden of proof and all that...

Shelley Kazsefski writes:
>Joseph R. Dietrich wrote:
>> 
>>Perhaps we can clarify and simlify this thread by breaking it down into
>>it's component arguments. Any clear thinkers with an archive of this Piracy
>>thread want to make up a laundry list of variables to consider? It might be
>>a good exercise of "universe building 101." No opinions, just the
>>variables? I am too lazy (and without an archive) to do it myself.
> 
>Well, I've taken the liberty of breaking out the "How big is the typical
>planetary navy?" and "Where are warship's stationed?" bit. I think
>that's an important variable, and my interpretation of planetary navies
>causes me to lean towards the conclusion that, in general, piracy by
>individuals without support of a large government or corporation has a
>very low probability of success.

OK, I think I've gotten a little too mired down with details, so I'll be
pleased to step back a bit and give you my take on the various parts of
the problem:

    1)  It is a canonical fact that piracy exists in the Imperium. (I don't
        think I have to support that, do I? ;-)
    2)  It is a canonical fact that the Imperium thinks piracy is a Bad
        thing and tries to do something about it. Evidence of this are
        the appearance of patrols on the encounter tables, various
        statements in various adventures, some TNS briefs and various
        descriptions of ships that are specifically designed to counter
        pirates and corsairs (I'll just mention the article about the
        Sydkai Class 'Cruiser' in MTJ3 as an example of the latter).
    3)  It is a canonical fact that the Imperium actually deploys assets
        against pirates. Evidence of that is the appearance of patrols on
        the encounter tables and in various adventures and the notes
        about deployment for various ship classes (most notsbly in
        _Fighting Ships_, but also in other sources).
    4)  It is a canonical fact that the Imperium can afford a lot more
        ships than is needed to make life impossible for pirates.
        Evidence of this is the rules from TCS and Striker in particular
        and the cost of warships compared to the population of the
        Imperium in general.

Now these facts put together constitutes a contradiction. You can resolve
the contradiction by changing any one of the four facts. You can assume
that, contrary to canon, pirates do not really exist, except in very rare
cases. Or you can assume that, contrary to canon, the Imperium is really
not interested in dealing with pirates. Or you can assume that, contrary
to canon, the Imperium, while having both the desire and the to suppress
pirates nevertheless keeps most of those assets tied down at their most
important worlds. Or you can assume that the Imperium and its member
planets simply don't tax their population nearly as much as they could. 
 
Now, is is likely that pirates would exist, given that the owner of a
pirate is already a multimillionaire, that in order to be more profitable
than a merchant, the pirate ship has to earn its owner more than 6%
interest each year, and that catching a merchant is a very tricky
business that takes lots of patience and lots of luck? Possible, yes,
likely, no.

Is it likely that the Imperium would think that piracy is a Bad Thing and
would like to do something about it? Yes.

Is it likely that if the Imperium did have enough small ships they would
deploy them to suppress piracy? Yes.

Is it likely that the Imperium would collect less taxes than they could,
say the 1% you get by _Striker_ rules after a long period of peace? Well,
if you think the Solomani, Zhodani, Vargr, and Aslans also collect the
long peacetime minimum, then I suppose it is plausible that the Imperium
does too...

Now, I know that it has been said that I've claimed that piracy is impossible
in the Imperium and that I have allowed that statement to go unchallenged,
but what I originally said was that piracy didn't make much sense in the
Traveller universe. That is a tad less absolute than 'impossible', I think.
I don't think that I could prove it impossible, and, indeed, I've tried to
remember to hedge my statements with worlds 'well-nigh impossible' etc.
But I do think I've shown that of the four canonical facts mentioned above,
the piracy is by far the least plausible. 

And, mind you, points 2) and 3) are canonical no less than point 1). FS
speaks of _BatRons_ of Tigresses and Kokirraks being split up and dispersed
on patrols in peacetime. Cruisers too, of course. Not to mention many
different classes of destroyers and escorts.

The only point that is less than canonical is 4). Ship numbers in
_Rebellion_ MAY indicate that only about 1/3rd of what TCS would indicate
are being used by the Imperium on cruisers and battleships. You may
decide for yourself if the position of the Imperium and its relations
to some of its neighbors really support the notion that they are at
eaxtreme peace-time establishment... 


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:25:21 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

[Again avoiding points that have already been addressed....]
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:44:35 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>A ship is a *dangerous* object. So traffic control will be a lot more
>important than with aircraft.

Well a collsion with aircraft is usually fatal.  I don't know
about space ships.  In any case, the space to the 100 diam limit
is lot bigger than US airspace and space ships can see each
other from alot further off.

>> Beside, as someone else pointed out, you just leave at about the same
>> time and get a path this is similar anyway.

>Why would you get a similar path? The planet has moved.

Two ships leaving at the same time going to the same destination
will want to take the same path.

>> I would say he does, indeed, just attack near the 100 diam limit.  I
>> can't see why he would attack anyplace else.

>Because it's easier to get close to another ship when you are closer to
>the planet.

Except, there are optimal places to jump from so ships aren't
even distrbuted over the whole surface.

>> I'm not sure you space them.  You wouldn't kill gratuitously because
>> you want to encourage the idea that it's generally a good idea to
>> surrender.

>It's not killing gratutitously. Piracy carries the death penalty. And
>in that scenario, unlike the one where you don't have help onboard,
>they can *identify* you.

So you don't let them see you.  ("Everyone in their cabins with
the door closed and you won't be hurt")


_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:07:01 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

Moin Joseph R. Dietrich,

> > Which brings up a point I've been wishing to review for a while now: Just
> > how many ships *are* out there? 
> 
> Good question. I'll throw out a related one -- what is the ratio of
> military to civilian ships?

	the answer is easy : it depends ;-)

	take a look to the rules (TNE basic book) 

	On a A starport in the Regency you will see a ship when you exit
	jump space with a 6/6 probability, on a A starport in the RC its
	only 5/6 droping down to 0/6 if there is no starport in the wilds.

	The more civilised a system is the more often the first ship you'll
	see is a nonstarship, if you move towards the "frontier" into the
	wilds the scout will be the most often ship encounter.

	The Naval Vessel has most times a probaility of 1/6 as its in the
	middle of the table, while the merchant will have often a probabilty
	of 2/6 in systems where trade is posible.

	The likelyhood that the nonstarship is a SQB is between 1/36,1/18,
	up to 7/36, and its also posible that a "Mercenary Cruiser" is
	counted as a civilian ship type. So we end up with that any 5th
	ship is military, and that you see military ships as often as
	traders outside the civilised area. The more you are outside,
	the more raises the likelyhood that this nice warship is a pirate
	or a vampire, and not securing the system, but owning it for a
	short time to make bussiness.

	You should not take those tables to serious. Encounter tables
	are for dull referees, who can't tell stories from pure imagination.

	Using these tables you'll find no pirates in the Regency and no
	smuggle in the RC or the wilds. While its easy to explain that
	any trade in the RC is good and therefore its not called smuggle,
	its a bit more difficult how those former Sword Worlds Pirates
	have been convinced to become either smugglers or RQS quarantaine
	enforcers. Well they know their work, make a trader stop or shoot
	him down. Just the same bussiness. Becoming a smuggler is also
	their trade, they know where to sell hot stuff.

	"Avoid playing book variations" is one of the main things a Dan
	in Go has to learn. By not using the tables, the answer is much
	more easier. :

	It depends on the referee and his story. Basics, gimicks, push,
	pull, enigma can change the situation drasticaly. You can exit
	in the middle of a bigger fleet training, and several hundret
	ships are fighting using 1Mj reduction for their weapons as a
	gimmik, or you can exit see a pirate on a secure starport, and
	it could be an enigma why the SDB was not there, but travelled
	to the gas giant 1 week ago.

	I could also tell an area where you see a lot of brand new
	traders with SOTA equipment, but you dont see any warship at all.

	My Gushemege (1203) : In the early 40th any warship over 1000dt
	was disabled, reconfigured to become a jump capable starport, 
	and reinfected by the "Last Sane". As a decreet of the Moot
	of JumpPorts, its not allowed to deploy warships over those
	tonage, or to install Missiles, Nukes or any other mass
	destruction weapons.

	On the other hand the so called "Liner" is able to drop cargo
	to accellerate with 3.7G, has 2 firecontrols, 4 meson guns,
	2 xray and 2 normal lasers and 2 sandcaster at 360 brutto
	register tons. This is the basic configuration at TL13, and
	weapon, defense or other capabilities increase when lighter
	power plants are installed. Typical upgrades include meson
	screens and black globes. The so called "Route Protector"
	is bringing the 1000dt limit ab adsurdum as only the fighting
	mass (after dropping tanks & jumpdrive) is counted as brutto
	register tons. And the 3000 & 5000dt ships of the Hopkins CruRon
	are counted as fabrication ships or even small jump port, as
	the drop tanks have a civilian configuration as hangars for
	building Prospectors,Hawks or Liners.
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:58:36 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Re: WHOA!

Glenn Crawford wrote:

>
>There seems to be, in recent posts, an increasing hostility on this list.
>
[voice of reason snipped]


	I'm with Glenn.  People, simmer down and take it private, or I
flood the list with reposts of old Spofulam designs.  Repeatedly :).

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:57:10 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Re: TL-12+ Search and Rescue gear?

Robert Ringrose wrote:

[my stuff snipped]
>
>Hrm.
>Neural activity scanners, to find anyone alive.


	Got those.  The fact that we're headed for the Zhodani border about
5 seconds before the 5FW is supposed to blow makes them small comfort.


>Something to check pressure on the other side of that wall.


	Makes sense...  what sort of sensor would be good for this?


>Rescue gear, so if there _are_ survivors you can pull them to safety via your
>slaplocks.


	Medical gear we've got, although I'm going to have to try and get
my character (an EMT) issued a cutlass for those quick&dirty field
amputations.


>You'll need to analyze the structural integrity if there _is_ pressure, before
>making a new hole in the wall for your airlock.
>
>Something which can keep low berth and emergency low berth pods running while
>you cut them out, bring them to your ship, and get them into a pressurized
>area
>for your medics to check them over.


	Fusion+ plant or battery pack with jumper cables, natch.


>
>Computer equipment - you'll want to check it for virus bombs (if you're in
>TNE).  Regardless, they might have good stuff in their databanks or backups.
>


	Makes sense.


>Do you need any special equipment to salvage, say, the jump drive's
>crystals if
>the ship itself isn't salvagable?
>


	Beats me.  I'd think that if you could wrestle them out through a
hole in the hull you'd be fine.


>Something to move cargo?


	The ship's got manipulator arms, grapples, and so forth.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:05:25 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Subject: The whole piracy thread

Gentlebeings,

I think we need to establish some basics before the thread erupts into a
flamewar (which I see building).  Realistically, before we can determine
if piracy is practical, some of the points that are ...vague, in canon
need to be addressed.  They are:

1) Just how much space traffic is there (both inter- and intra-
system)?  

2) How good are the various sensor platforms at the various tech levels?
Conversely, how good are the various stealth platforms at the various
tech levels?  

3) At what TL can a system support (not build or develop, buy and
support) a planetary, orbital, and system defense network?  At what TL
can a system support a planetary, orbital, and system detection network?

4) What are the duties of an SDB when the Imperium is not at war.  What
would a rotation cycle be (ie how long would it be on duty before it
could stand down for R&R, maintenance, etc)

5) How involved is the IN in anti-piracy work, or is that the province
of another department (like the scouts)?  Just how much of the presumed
5% of GWP that goes to the military goes to the IN?  How do the
subsector and planetary forces fit in?

6) How much of the industrial capacity is reserved for the IN?  What is
the base TL of the IN, and how does that affect access to the high TL
shipyards for others?  How easy is it to retrofit high TL items (sensors
and stealth equipment) onto an existing ship?

7) How corruptable are starport officials?  (Both STC and shipyard)

8) How easy/difficult is it to forge, alter, create or manipulate ship
identification, papers, transponders, etc?  What market would there be
for cargo, starship parts, starships and the like?

I know that battle lines in this debate have been drawn.  Let's redraw
them, or drop the thread.

- -- 
- --------------------------------------------------------
Douglas R. Glatz, MCSE                    Tektronix, Inc
System Administrator                     Wilsonville, Or
Opinions expressed in this post are my own and not those of my employer
*Unsolicited advertisement will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:14:06 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:06:02 -0600, Shelley Kazsefski <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
>> Well, I agree that they will have enough ships that any
>> armed ship can't just show up an terrorize they system
>> for weeks on end.  But that is a long way from being
>> able to stop hit an run attacks in every part of the
>> system.

>OK. So were agreed that Worlds, in general, have their own Navy

Well, I agree that "many" worlds will have "a few ships".

>So, assuming that even modestly populated planets have a Planetary Navy,
>you contend that there will still be "hit and run" attacks by pirates.

Yeah, a ship or two won't stop that.

>And in another part of your post you say that one or two scouts per
>system would be enough to track enemy ship movements.

>Sooooo... why can't they track pirates? How could there be "hit and run"
>attacks if the local Navy can track movements of spaceships?

Because it takes something like 1 1/2 hrs to get to the 100 diam
limit for an Earth sized planet.

>(1) In order for the pirate to *not* draw attention to itself, it must
>be similarily armed as a "typical" merchant. Therefore, the probability
>of success in battle is not overly high.

Not if he is even less armed or not armed.  (Note: to avoid
repetition, unarmed merchants have been debated).  Also,
the pirate may have some more armants hiden in place
of cargo (presumably because he makes up the lost
cargo with piracy and smuggling).

[Stuff covered in other posts deleted...]

>There is opportunity for piracy in Traveller.
>
>BUT Piracy does *not* ALWAYS exist.

Well, actually I only contend the piracy is possible
(depending a lot on how the campaign is set up).


_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:21:54 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:36:35 -0700, Scott Ellsworth
<Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>

[Regarding that idea the Imperium will have scouting ships patrolling
for enemy invasions and these can stop piracy.  Preamble about how
it doesn't cost a lot to arm a ship compared to the price delelted]

>A pirate in the RW taking on a PT boat is usually a dead pirate

Even an armed free trader can take out a Scout ship.  The
bigger merchant ships can take one out easily.  You are
can report an invasion with one or two Scouts in a system.
You aren't even close to putting a dent in piracy with that.



_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1973
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 18 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1974



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
re: Sepia Ink
Thank yous!
In Orbit
Piracy -- TCS vs. real life
Re: TNS: 034-1107
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Interworld Commerce
Hit Location Charts
Autofire Locations--Ken's Tweaks
Shotgun Hit Location?
U R a generous alien
Re: Piracy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:54:25 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

All right, as a recap, I came to the list last summer, and Doug Berry
called me a troll.  I mostly ignored him.  He proved rather quickly
that he was not a person who was very civil and nearly immediately
concluded that he did'nt like me. (I don't jump to conclusions so
quickly.)

He seldom posted anything pointed my way that was civil and polite, and
now because I characterize this behaviour as "mud-slinging", I am condemned
for not appreciating his opinion, and deluged with others' "opinion" of
netiquette.

Fine, you may call that Netiquette, but out here in Colorado & Wyoming
call it something else.


OK, here is why I don't appreciate Doug Berry's opinion of the latest
IG product _Emperor's Vehicles_.

I will concede that what I am about to write _is_ in my opinion, but as
someone with as much (if not more) experience with the origins of Traveller
It also bothers me to join in with the "flame the game", but an example is
needed.  I don't see Doug's opinion as one that is characterized with balance
and measure.

Here's why.

Sky Raider's Trilogy - Critical Review

Doug opined the view of how great the Sky Raiders was, while in the same
breath going on about Emperor's Vehicles' purported "flaw" being a lack
of TL for each of the designs in the book.  I also put this in the category
of "Traveller Maligning".

I am not one to malign Traveller.  It is a great game, and has provided
me many years of entertainment.  In this case, I feel an example is needed
to clarify my point.  One of my overall favorite works (and there are a
*lot* of them) was the FASA trilogy.

It is also possible that Doug Berry is not as knowledgeable as he claimed
in the *same* post, as I will explain.

However, (as Tuvok would say) it is clear to me that Doug seems to be
focused totally on small things, when he expresses his opinion on the
matter of "the 'lack' of TL" in EV.  He is holding up as a PRIZE one of
the MOST FLAWED TRAVELLER sources from the earliest history, and comparing
it to a quite good contemporary book for T4 (MMT2).

Now mind you, I *LOVED* the Sky Raider's Trilogy.  It was fun reading when
it came out, it was fun playing the parts that I got to (the referee hadn't
fully incorporated the adventure into his campaign), and it is fun to look
over the work of two brothers I consider friends. (Andy Keith treated me
like a gentleman when I visited him in Elk Grove village.  He is a true noble,
and fan of the game.)

Take the Asteroid Ship of the Sky Raiders, the adventure Mr. Berry used as
an example in his response to _my_ post (which I said *was* my opinion).
If you read pg.19 of _Fate of the Sky Raiders_, we are told,

      "Instrument readings soon give an idea of the size of the
       gigantic ship.  It measures approximately 10 km x 8 km
       x 7.5 km, and displaces just under 50 _BILLION_ tons
       standard."

OK, those facts match. A quick calculation shows that a cube of those
dimensions yields about 4.3 x 10^11 (~43 billion tons). No mistakes there.
Just under 50 Billion tons.

We are told that the Sky Raiders came from a TL9-10 culture.  We are told
that the ship reached Far Frontiers sector by a combination of sub-light
travel, and Jump.  There are Jump drives on board.

The problems are:

    1) HIGH GUARD had been out for a few years at that point (1982) and
       those rules do not permit even a TL 10 culture to build a ship
       beyond a certain size, no matter how you interpret the rules
       (unless you just ignore them)

    2) a J-1 drive for any ship, 100 tons up to 43 billion tons, requires
       2% of the ship, which in the case of the Sky Raiders' Asteroid
       means that this particular Jump drive amassed 857 MILLION TONS.

Do you think that the entire Vilani Empire had 857 MILLION TONS OF JUMP
DRIVE?  If so, did the Sky Raiders steal it from the Vilani, or did they
just manufacture it in their Yards, all the time holding the mighty
Vilani Empire at arm's length?

OK, perhaps Doug *doesn't* know as much about early Traveller, thats fine,
no crime there, but he did invite the considered opinion of someone who
does, and there is no crime in my pointing out this gap of logic.

In light of the discussion, the purported missing TL of vehicles in EV
is small stuff if you *really* care about detail.  nearly a BILLION tons
of Jump Drive is even harder to explain than Terraforming at TL12. :)

I could spend *more* time analyzing Doug Berry's assessment, but not
this month.

I have the feeling that if some of the detail that it is claimed *were*
to be added, that there would just be something else.  I can just imagine
calls for tire pressure and distributed track vehicle weights governing
the width of the tracks, and so on.  I could be wrong there, and I'm not
afraid to admit it.

But, I could be right, and I am inclined to think so when I see the
equivalent of a Janet Reno defending Bill Clinton by comparing him to Ted
Kennedy as a moral (low) standard from which our President should be judged.
"Bill has only been married once, and he does not drink nearly as much as
the Senator."

I'll be moving along now (for some reason, I am always in midterms when
Doug goes on one of his tirades).

You'll be getting no more Traveller Maligning from me, there's enough
already, and Howerd can put that in his pipe and smoke it.


In my experienced Opinion,

Leroy

PS - CT Traveller Book is _not_ 17 years old, unless he has a different
copyright date than mine.


Leroy Guatney - lwlg@usa.net
 University of Mars, NorthAm Campus
 Class of '98

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:13:11 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Oh yeah, it was proper of Heinrich to point out that I had used the
word chastize and I agree, it was perhaps to harsh.  But at least he
understood enough of what I meant to _know_ what I was talking about.


Leroy Guatney - lwlg@usa.net
 University of Mars, NorthAm Campus
 Class of '98

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:07:30 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Sepia Ink

>What I' currently considering is some sort of substance which
>could be used by a starship in order to mask its position.

It's hard to make this work in the infrared. If the spacecraft is surrounded
by a cloud of something, and the spacecraft is emitting IR, the cloud will be
absorbing the IR - and (by the laws-o-physics) re-emitting it. The total 
energy emitted won't change.

On the other hand, you can spread that energy out over more solid angle as
seen by a sensor, and re-emit it at longer IR wavelengths, both of which make
it somewhat harder to detect. 

Another alternative would be a shield adjusted (by careful selection of 
emissivities at different wavelengths and on different sides) to radiate mostly
in one direction (the simplest form would be something that's a mirror on one
side (the side facing the spacecraft...) although it's hard to make it work
perfectly (because of heat input from stars, etc.)

A lurking ship can use "extreme masking" - turning all its radiators away from
the (known) location of the planet/planetary sensors. That'll help somewhat.

Possibly the best way to ambush someone is to hide next to a asteroid - 
there should be a fair number that come within a few million km of a given planet
which reduces signature quite a bit.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:46:33 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Thank yous!

Just a brief note to thank Kenneth for his papers on the March Harrier,
and to thank him and the others (sorry, I don't have the names at hand)
who have posted the lists of "What would you find on a Starship?" 
These are most helpful and have been clipped straight into my Trav
notebook. The notes on the MH are particularly nice for those of us
who don't have The Trav Adv or SOM and like a bit of flavor to stir
the imagination.

Those are just the contributions that stick out as of late. I know I've 
clipped a few other things lately (e.g., Rob's vehicle designs -- 
thanks!), so thanks to all who have given some really good contri-
butions! 

Let's try and remember why we've all come here, folks, it ain't to take
snipes at each other, or to be condescending (and Leroy is certainly 
not the only poster guilty of that). Now straighten up, or I'll have to
write a note to all of your mothers :)


**********************************************************
Paul Darius Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
ValuJump Lines:"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/
Home of ValuJump Lines, Pan-Imperia Shipyards, and Beginnings for DOS.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:32:02 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: In Orbit

>
   
   Hi.
   
> From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
   
>>So 60 minute orbits are *out*.
> A question then ...
> I understand that there is an absolute lower end to an orbit for a
> spacecraft. How about an upper end? Could you simplify the whole thing by
> saying that, depending on how far out you want the orbit to be, the period
> coud be anything above n (n being the lower limit in time)? I don't know
> how useful that would be in this instance, but it might be useful to
> someone sometime. :)
   
   You are right, there is no upper end.  An orbit can take as long as
   you like; you need only move to a higher altitude.
   
   As I've said on three posts previously (does anybody at all read these
   things?)  the lower limit is 85 minutes for all planets regardless of
   size.  (This value will change slightly for planets of different
   /density/ from the earth.  To get an orbit of 60 minutes, the planet
   will need to be (85/60)^2 = 2.0 times denser than the earth.  Gas
   Giants have low density so their orbits will take longer, about 2.5
   times longer, I think.)
   
> From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
   
> All this talk of orbits and orbit speed has made me think...does anybody
> know how fast modern day satellites speed over the earth?
> Anybody know the speed of our satellites today?
   
   The fastest satellites around the earth travel at 15,240 nautical
   miles per hour, or 28,000 km/hr.  Satelites at higher orbits will 
   travel slower.  There's no real limit to how slow they can go.
   
> From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
   
> ORBIT DISTANCE AND TIME TO COMPLETE AN ORBIT.
> I, and one or two others, have been pondering how long it takes a ship
> to orbit a planet.
> Then, some kind person on the TML reminded me that there are rules for
> this (at least partially) in the SOM.
   
> The rule in the SOM addresses three types of orbits for Traveller craft:
> Standard Orbit, High Orbit, and Geosync Oribt.  It solves our problems. 
> See below the definitions for how it works.
   
    [Lots of complicated stuff from the SOM snipped]
   
   The more I hear about the SOM, the more I'm glad I never bought it.  I
   don't know where they got this stuff, but it has nothing to do with
   `orbits' in the traditional sense of the word.
   
   -Rob

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:32:05 -0400
From: Robert Flammang <flammang@npl2.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Piracy -- TCS vs. real life

>
   
   Hi.
   
> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
   
> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Robert Flammang wrote:
>> > Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
>> > accepted?
>>    Because they are quite compatable with real life, so there is
>>    no real reason not to accept them.  TCS assumes that the naval
   [snip]
   
> I am both glad and somewhat dismayed to that you brought this up!
   
> I am glad, because it gives me the chance to point out that even with the
> cost per citizen being somewhat higher in the US than in the Imperium,
> there are grave doubts as to whether that is sufficient to maintain our
> forces, even at thier current level.
   
   Actually, the cost per citizen is probably somewhat lower in the US than
   in the Islands cluster.  This is something of a judgement call because
   its hard to compare dollars to credits.
   
> I would also love the opportunity to point out that the USCG, supplemented
> by the USN, is unable to control the small boat piracy problem in the
> Caribbean, much less the smuggling that goes there.  Note that this is
> considered a serious problem in the local area, but it does not affect the
> US security or economic health as a whole, so there is not the political
> will to stamp it out.
   
   Anders made a similar argument.  Piracy exists in real life, so why can't it
   exist in Traveller?  The answer is, because starships in Traveller `jump' from
   haven to haven.  In real life, maritime transports cannot do this.  Because
   starships can jump from haven to haven, to stop interstellar piracy, the Imperium
   need only prevent piracy in its `havens', ie a 100 diameter radius from the
   mainworld.
   
   Piracy does NOT exist in real life in the harbors of the US for the same reason
   that it can not exist in the Imperium.  It is trivial for our Coast Guard to
   defend small crucial areas from piracy.  If that was all that was needed in
   real life, piracy could not exist in real life.  That IS all that's needed in
   Traveller due the magic of jump drive, therefore, piracy CAN NOT exist in
   the Imperium, without the Imperium's permission.
   
> From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
   
>>> Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
>>> accepted?
   
>>   Because they are quite compatable with real life, so there is
>>   no real reason not to accept them.  TCS assumes that the naval
   
> Ok, but is this comparable to the *world* expenditure on defense, the
> GWP of *Earth*, and the *world* tax rate? Does anyone have figures
> on this at hand [I know I could probably find them somewhere or
> other if I need to, but....  :) ]? It may fit the US model, or the Industrial-
> ized Nations model, but how big a percentage of the GWP is the US/
> Western/Industrialized Economy? 
   
   Third world countries tend to spend a larger fraction of their GDP on the
   military than do industrialized countries.  So the US model may be low.
   
> And does the GWP of Earth fit 
> the figures given in TCS or Striker or PE? This is the subject that has
> always interested me far more than whether or not pirates exist [of
> course they do, I say so :) ], just how accurate or broken is the basis
> of the economic system in Traveller? I know that the starship eco-
> nomics and shipping figures, etc., bear little or no relationship to 
> anything realistic, how about the planetary end?
   
   Yes, Calculating the GDP of the earth in PE terms yields a number
   compatable to real life.  Exact comparison is difficult due to the
   unknown exchange rate between the dollar and the credit.  (Figure
   2-3 dollars per credit.)
   
> And a second problem I've been debating: Just how much of a given
> world's economy is given over to ship building? I know that book X
> says that Y gazillions of tons can be built per year by population Z, 
> but how much of the planetary output is assumed to be poured into ship
> construction? Don't those 80 billion folks have anything else to pour
> all that ultradense and hi tech into, like roads, and schools, and 
> zero G public toilets? 
   
   In the US, ~0.2% of the GNP goes to naval shipbuilding. In TCS, it's
   more like 0.5%.  I imagine that roads, schools, and public toilets
   come out of the remaining 99%+ in Traveller, as in real life.
   
> From: someone else (I forget who).
> How does TCS naval spending compare to total US military spending?
   
   TCS assumes that the Island clusters spend about 5% of their GWP on
   the navy.  The US (today) spends about 3% of its GNP on the military.
   
   -Rob
   

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:50:58 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: TNS: 034-1107

Bill Rutherford wrote:
> 
> Apologies for wasting bandwidth - I don't receive routing info, so don't
> have Irwin Fritz's email addr. and the website linked to from his msg is
> professional site w/o email pointer... Irwin - ++good TNS broadcasts.  Just
> one more reason I like the TML!
> 

Thanks! It's always nice to get some positive feedback!

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:53:38 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

Glenn Hoppe wrote:
> 
> Erwin Fritz wrote:
> >
> > Also, to drum up business, SecureGuard may actually illegally stage
> > some pirate attacks, in order to sweeten the negotiating process!
> 
> Ahhhhhh... the ol' interstellar protection Racket:
> 
> Vinnie (SecureGuard rep., baritone voice): Y'know, you wouldn't want an
> "accident" to happen.
> 
> Louie aka. "Legs" (rep. # 2, squeaky voice, flexing fingers): Yeah,
> yeah... space is big. Space is dangerous, you never know who might want
> to hassle your trading partners.
> 
> Vinnie: Maybe you should consider our offer for protection. It's a very
> generous offer.
> 
> Louie: Yeah, yeah. You should tink it over. Verrry carefully. (cracks
> knuckles)

LOL!

Exactly what I was thinking, though ...
- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:01:26 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Interworld Commerce

Douglas wrote:
> 
> The big cargo ships (15,000 + dtons) run exclusively to the Starport B+,
> Pop 7+ worlds.  They are not configured for passengers, and probably begin
> offloading when they arrive in system via lighters, and are still
> on-loading as they begin the run towards the jump point.
> 

Seems reasonable. You may still find these ships in backwater worlds,
though, if those worlds are on the way to a B+7+ world. So there 
might be a small amount of passenger/cargo traffic in these primitive
systems.

> The Medium size cargo/passenger ships (5,000 - 15,000 dtons) are the bulk
> of the traffic in space. Like the tankers and freighters that ply our
> oceans, 90% of all goods that travel between systems eventually end up on
> one of these ships. They make the runs to the Class C Starports, and to
> the smaller Class A and B starports (Pop 5+).
> 

Yep, that's how I run things.

> The Small cargo/passenger ships (1,000 - 5,000 dton) specialize in
> carrying cargo and passengers to the minor markets, worlds not served by
> the Mediums.
> 
Right. They can't compete with the big corporations (as was discussed
a month or two ago on the TML) on the major trade routes.

> Now, how much traffic?  Let's start with some numbers, and we can argue it
> from there.
> 
> (World T*Pop Code) Ktons per year.
                           ^^^^^^^^
You mean "per month", no?

> x2 if the world is AG or is Ri
> x3 if the world has a military base or is a Capital
> x4 if the world is Ind
> 
> This would have Mora (TL 15, Pop 10) with 150 Ktons of cargo traffic (not
> ships, amount of cargo available to be imported/exported) per month.  It
> would also have Fenl's Gren (TL 9, Pop 3) with 2,250 tons per month.
> 
> How does it sound?  Anyone with a better idea?
> 

Hmmm. My group is in Glisten right now. I've done everything I can
to give them the impression that Glisten's space is crowded with
all kinds of ships of all sizes and shapes (some, of course, belonging
to the Imperial Navy fleet based there). 150,000 tons per month of
traffic seems a bit low for Glisten. Perhaps you could add a modifier
of "x 10 if Pop 9+"?


- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:23:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Hit Location Charts

I've got four hit location charts to choose from for determining the
location of wounds taken in combat.  

I'd like to get your input on which chart you think gives the most
natural results--which one results in the most likely probabilities
given the real world.



OPTION #1:  GG Col 1
- --------------------

Arms     14%
Legs     20%
Head     14%
Torso    51%





OPTION #2:  GG Col 2
- --------------------

Arms     22%
Legs     22%
Head     14%
Torso    51%





OPTION #3:  DGP
- ----------------

Arms     33%
Legs     22%
Head     14%
Torso    30%





OPTION #4:  TNE 2-12 Converted
- ------------------------------

Arms     19%
Legs     17%
Head     8%
Torso    55%


Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:50:26 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Autofire Locations--Ken's Tweaks

Autofire Hit Locations--Ken's Tweaks

When you are using a hit location chart with Traveller combat, you run
into a problem when you fire at a person (and hit) with more than one
round.

The question comes up, "How many places did I hit him", or "Of my 5
round burst, how many bullets hit him, and what were their locations"?



I've come up with a quickie rule that I want to run by you.  I'll use a
standard 5 round burst for the example.

============================================

You've just fired your ACR, pumping five rounds at your target.  You
roll a hit, and how it is time to use your GM's House Rule hit location
chart.

How many of those five rounds hit your target?  Where did each round
hit?

STEP 1:  DECIDE HOW MANY HIT WERE MADE.
First, you must decide how many different targets were hit.  Was is just
the one target?  Or did you hit other targets next to your primary
target because of the autofire rule?

[We obtained a hit with our ACR.  We hit not only our primary target,
but also the guy standing next to him.]

Once you've thrown hits on your targets, you know that at least one
bullet hit each target.  Find out how many of the burst are not
accounted for.

[That was a 5 round burst.  We've hit two characters, so 3 bullets are
not accounted for.]

Once you know how many bullets are not accounted for, you proceed to
step two.



STEP 2:  ALLOCATE REMAINING BULLETS
Roll to allocate each remaing bullet.  Start with the Primary target,
then if bullets remain unallocated, move to the next closest target, and
so on.

For each target, roll 1D6-x (where x equals the number of bullets
already spent).

[First we check to see if we hit the primary target with more than one
bullet.  We've hit to total bad guys with exactly one bullet each (so
far), so we roll 1D6-2.  We roll a 4, giving us a total of 2 hits on the
primary target.

That tells us that the primary target has been hit with two bullets.

Next, we check the second guy we hit.  We roll 1D6-3, and we roll a 2. 
This means that the second guy was only hit with the one bullet.

Since there are no more targets, the other 2 bullets that are not
accounted for (2 bullets in the primary target, one in the secondary
target).  3 bullets hit, out of the 5 round burst, 2 bullets hit
nobody.]





STEP 3:  HIT LOCATION FOR AUTOFIRE
Roll a hit location normally, using whatever chart you use in your
game.  If a target is hit with only one bullet, the procedure stops here
(because you know that he was hit once, and you now know the location).

If a target was hit with more than one bullet, roll on the following
chart to see if more than one location was hit.

D6   Location
- ---  --------
1    Move the next location down (towards feet)
2-5  Same location hit
6    Move the next location up (towards head)



Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:53:14 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Shotgun Hit Location?

Given my recent posts on autofire hit locations, how do you think I
should handle hits made by shotgun buckshot?

Or, how about an auto-shotgun firing buckshot?

Should it be easier to hit more locations on a target this way?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 23:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Vassilakos <jimv@e2.empirenet.com>
Subject: U R a generous alien

Time to pick some brains...

I don't know if any of you remember that thread about the
difficulties of salvaging an ancient derelict. Somebody mentioned
that metals tend to "flow" over long durations (centuries/
millennia), such that doors will permanently seals themselves to
their bulkheads, and all the once functional equipment (jump
drive, power plant, computer, etc) will become entirely non-
functional simply due to the passage of time.

Well, this problem kept rolling about in my head. I've been
thinking of some plot ideas for a near-future campaign, and one
of them entails some aliens leaving behind a "relic" somewhere on
our planet or in our solar system which they expect us to find.
I'm not talking about chariots of the gods, where all this relic
has to do is stick around for a few hundred or thousand years.
What I'm talking about here is a relic capable of surviving the
long-haul.

Picture, if you will, a group of aliens hitting our solar system
some... oh... say two-hundred million years ago. They notice the
planet. They take specimens. They assume that one of these
lifeforms might one day achieve sentience, perhaps even develop a
technological civilization. Now, they could just leave a big coke
can on the beach, but in hundreds of millions of years, it would
get lost underneath the ocean or a thousand sandstorms. They
can't dig a big smiley face in the moon. They don't have that
kind of fire power (or bad taste). And if they just leave a
transmitter up there for us to find... well, either it would get
hit by a passing meteor or the power supply would probably fail.
Even if they put something in orbit, it would probably come
crashing down long before we'd notice. In short, what would they
do?

You're dealing with a fairly advanced group of explorers here,
but they aren't gods. Suppose that they are limited to a standard
imperial tech level, and that they leave a lot of these "relics"
wherever they go... so these things better be cheap (just
something that says "hi... we were here... and by the way, here's
how you build a jump drive... have a blast.")

Any ideas?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:04:00 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy

I hear a lot of examples of "modern piracy" being quoted on the list. I do
not doubt their veracity. But I wonder -- is it really a good parallel? Do
modern pirates hijack big freighters? You know, the really expensive ones?
I mean, even a small starship in Traveller is really expensive.

Pirates who own a multi-million credit starship and have to maintain it
would have to have a high overhead, wouldn't they?

I don't know if the analogy of small boat pirating is any better than crime
in NYC.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1974
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 18 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1975



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Pirates v SDB
Re: Burden of proof and all that...
Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Secureguard
EV review (Myyyyy wayyyyy!!!!)
Megaweapon question
Re: U R a generous alien
re: U R a generous alien
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Piracy
Re: U R a generous alien
Re:  Hit Location Charts
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: (Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.
CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: WHOA!
re Piracy - VOTE
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:22:36 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Pirates v SDB

> OTOH, it just isn't that big a ship.  I don't have my Traveller
> stuff in from of my, but it only has two turrets and can
> only bring one to bear on a single target at a time.  (And
> that one is take out in a the first shot).

Hmm. I haven't actually run a ship-to-ship combat in a while. Is it that
easy to be that accurate with your weapon systems?

Looking at MT, a standard 400 ton SDB has 4 batteries, all bearing (2
missile, 2 laser). A standard 440 ton corsair has 1 laser, bearing.

In TNE, the SDB is essentially the same. I have no reference for a standard
corsair in my materials.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 03:02:30 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Burden of proof and all that...

<whip-crack!>
> but what I originally said was that piracy didn't make much sense in the
> Traveller universe. That is a tad less absolute than 'impossible', I
think.
<whip-crack!>


I seem to remember that, for whatever it's worth. :) It may have been lost
in all the lengthy essays, though...

I don't think there is any reason to get too hot about any of this. To me,
anyway, all of the posts have been helpful, if only to bring up points
mediocre 'ol me wouldn't have thought of. Besides, it's all fiction
anywhoo.

Okay, can I start the thread on why I think Traveller's view on tech is too
conservative now...? ;)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:11:20 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof (was: Re: Piracy)

<buzzzzzzzz snip!>
> Well, my advice is to ignore anyone that has claimed to have
> proven the piracy would or wouldn't exist, ignore all the votes,
> and just run pick what seems to fit how you see your campaign...
> :-)
<buzzzzzzzz snip!>


I agree mostly, although like I wrote, I find the arguments useful to
fleshing out my own setting. :)

For instance, if I were to come to the list and ask "I was wondering, what
are the factors to consider when trying to decide on including piracy in my
Traveller setting." I would like to hear arguments like those that have
been made in this thread.

Of course, I would like them a little less jumbled than they have become --
a list of variables, and points of debate. :)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:35:30 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

> Vinnie (SecureGuard rep., baritone voice): Y'know, you wouldn't want an
> "accident" to happen.
> 
> Louie aka. "Legs" (rep. # 2, squeaky voice, flexing fingers): Yeah,
> yeah... space is big. Space is dangerous, you never know who might want
> to hassle your trading partners.
> 
> Vinnie: Maybe you should consider our offer for protection. It's a very
> generous offer.
> 
> Louie: Yeah, yeah. You should tink it over. Verrry carefully. (cracks
> knuckles)


<insert obligatory Monty Python (OMP) here>
Small shopowner, afterwards in tv interview: "And...and they had nuclear
weapons."

Scene with mushroom cloud rising into the sky.

Narrator: "The police could no longer ignore the problem..."
<end OMP>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:51:55 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Secureguard

> Vinnie (SecureGuard rep., baritone voice): Y'know, you wouldn't want an
> "accident" to happen.
> 
> Louie aka. "Legs" (rep. # 2, squeaky voice, flexing fingers): Yeah,
> yeah... space is big. Space is dangerous, you never know who might want
> to hassle your trading partners.
> 
> Vinnie: Maybe you should consider our offer for protection. It's a very
> generous offer.
> 
> Louie: Yeah, yeah. You should tink it over. Verrry carefully. (cracks
> knuckles)


<insert obligatory Monty Python (OMP) reference here>
Small shopowner, afterwards in tv interview: "And...and they had nuclear
weapons."

Scene with mushroom cloud rising into the sky.

Narrator: "The police could no longer ignore the problem..."
<end OMP>
Joseph Dietrich
yikes@evansville.net

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 03:32:46 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: EV review (Myyyyy wayyyyy!!!!)

<attempt at what passes for humor in southern Indiana on>

Interviewer for TNS: "What do you think of Emperor's Vehicles, Mr. Joe?"

Mr Joe: "Of course, I am an authority on this because I have been ruling
the Imperium since 1980. Just ask my advsors. Advisors?"

Advisors: "Yes sir, you are."

Joe: "See? I also have a resume with a big 'ol list of my Traveller
accomplishments. These explain why you should worship me as the Oracle of
Capitol/Core." <Rolls out 3,000 foot-long resume>

Interviewer: "My, what a mighty resume you have."

Joe: "Also, my players think my prowess at storytelling and game
adjudicating is well-nigh divine. Players?"

Slavishly loyal players: "Yes, master!!!"

Interviewer <now awed by Joe's gaming glory>: "Yes, you are powerful, oh
master of the 4 Travellers. So what is your opinion of EV?"

Joe: "It sucks big honkin' donkey d..." <Joe is grabbed by nameless agents
and wrestled to a vehicle. Don't even ask which one it is based on what it
looks like, what TL it is, or even if they can fit him inside the danged
thing!>

<humor off>

No really. It isn't very helpful.

No, really.


Joseph Dietrich
yikes@evansville.net

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:09:28 +0100
From: Goran Sjoberg <NGC1201@communique.se>
Subject: Megaweapon question

<<< No Message Collected >>>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:24:03 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

Well.......

There's the old gimmick of having items or ships placed in "stasis"
fields, so that they are in perfect working order when discovered.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 02:30:55 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: U R a generous alien

Jim Vassilakos <jimv@e2.empirenet.com> asks (in essence)
>[what could a passing starship leave that could be found 200 MYr later:]

>You're dealing with a fairly advanced group of explorers here,
>but they aren't gods. Suppose that they are limited to a standard
>imperial tech level, and that they leave a lot of these "relics"
>wherever they go... so these things better be cheap (just
>something that says "hi... we were here... and by the way, here's
>how you build a jump drive... have a blast.")

>Any ideas?

Coolest question I've seen on the TML all month. 

I can't think of anything that's 100% guaranteed. Orbital dynamics of the 
solar system as a whole are generally thought to be chaotic on 10^8-10^9 year
timescales, so there isn't really any solar-system orbit where the
explorers could park something and expect it to be found - and anyway
anything easily detectable would either be too big to carry, or unlikely to
last (you could probably carry a few-km silvered lightweight balloon, but
it would get destroyed by micrometeorites and/or de-orbited by various effects
long before 200 MYr...) 

In our solar system, the obvious choice is the moon - it's not tectonically
active, it's close to Earth. The only thing I'm unsure of is how long it
would take accumulated zodiacal/micrometeorite dust to completely cover
something lying on the surface; anyone know the current rate? I have a vague
feeling it could be as high as 1cm/100Myr, but I'm not at all sure.)

Depending on when you want your surprise to be found, you probably want to
put it somewhere that's hard to study from the ground but interesting enough 
that it will be one of the first places spacecraft look at. In our moon,
I'd probably pick the south polar crater region - you can't see it easily
from the earth but (since water ice might survive there) it's a high-priority
area for study. That leaves the question of what to put there...how about
some sort of lightweight mesh radar reflector? Something about 100m2 in
area, maybe a 10cm mesh spacing, supported parallel to the ground by poles
(so that it doesn't get buried) like a big tent/awning. Maybe 1000m2 of area;
you could still fold it up into a 1 dTon box pretty easily, and only take a 
day or so to lay it out. Properly designed it could have a very very high
radar reflectivity, especially since you know what direction to optimize
the reflectivity for (since the moon always keeps the same side facing the
Earth.) At high angles of incidence the backscatter from the moon is very
low - even 100m2 would stand out. Of course, the primitive earthlings
might not detect it until they did radar experiments with a satellite 
orbiting the moon, and then they might misinterpret the anomalously high
reflectivity as evidence of water ice, but they'd still make the polar regions
a high priority target for follow-up missions. Write your message on the
support poles. 

Another good place might be an outer solar system moon (so you don't have to
worry about dust as much.) Maybe you could spray-paint half of one of the
moons of Saturn black. Smash a 0.01c T-plate missile into another moon to
make a Really Big crater - that'll attract even more attention. Put the
message inside the Really Big Crater.

Put another radar reflector at one of the poles of Mercury. 

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:30:10 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Idiot/Savant <idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

Jim Vassilakos <jimv@e2.empirenet.com> wrote:

> Well, this problem kept rolling about in my head. I've been
> thinking of some plot ideas for a near-future campaign, and one
> of them entails some aliens leaving behind a "relic" somewhere on
> our planet or in our solar system which they expect us to find.
> I'm not talking about chariots of the gods, where all this relic
> has to do is stick around for a few hundred or thousand years.
> What I'm talking about here is a relic capable of surviving the
> long-haul.

 Do what Clarke did in _2001:A Space Odyssey_: Bury it on the moon,
leaving some sort of marker (in this case, magnetic) to encourage
excavation. If you're worried about it being hit by a rock, bury a couple
of backups as well. And if the planet doesn't have a moon, then bury on
some other airless-but-still-mildly-interesting rock that's not too far
away.

 Simple, really.

- --
Idiot/Savant			idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz
Thou shalt not suffer a spammer to live

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 04:25:53 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> wrote

> Robert Flammang wrote:
> 
> > > Why should the economic rules in TCS or Striker be
> > > accepted?
> >
> >    Because they are quite compatable with real life, so there is
> >    no real reason not to accept them. 
> >    In the US today, our Coast Guard gets a whole lot more than 0.2%
> >    of the naval budget, so clearly this value is EASILY credible.

> the USCG, supplemented
> by the USN, is unable to control the small boat piracy problem in the
> Caribbean, much less the smuggling that goes there.  Note that this is
> considered a serious problem in the local area, but it does not affect the
> US security or economic health as a whole, so there is not the > political will to stamp it out.

To some extent some of the local governments are merely pretending that
this is a serious problem and actually support certain activities

ObTraveller - Can you say Federation of Arden ?
> 
> Do you think that if the USN decided that it were necessary, and parked a
> carrier battle group in the Caribbean, it would be possible to eliminate
> this?  

The Carribean is not part of the US and therefore your comparison is
invalid.  It might well serve as a valid parallel explaining why piracy
exists outside, but near to, the Imperium.  However we are discussing
piracy _within_ the Imperium.  It is true that the US government
perceives that it has some security interests within the Carribean,
dating back to the Monroe doctrine, but it is not part of the Imperium. 
I think that if these pirates in small boats were operating on the
Mississippi the US  would show the political will to deter or eliminate
them.

 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:57:15 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

Idiot/Savant wrote:
> 
> Jim Vassilakos <jimv@e2.empirenet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Well, this problem kept rolling about in my head. I've been
> > thinking of some plot ideas for a near-future campaign, and one
> > of them entails some aliens leaving behind a "relic" somewhere on
> > our planet or in our solar system which they expect us to find.
> > I'm not talking about chariots of the gods, where all this relic
> > has to do is stick around for a few hundred or thousand years.
> > What I'm talking about here is a relic capable of surviving the
> > long-haul.
> 
>  Do what Clarke did in _2001:A Space Odyssey_: Bury it on the moon,
> leaving some sort of marker (in this case, magnetic) to encourage
> excavation. If you're worried about it being hit by a rock, bury a couple
> of backups as well. And if the planet doesn't have a moon, then bury on
> some other airless-but-still-mildly-interesting rock that's not too far
> away.
> 
>  Simple, really.
> 
> --
> Idiot/Savant                    idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz
> Thou shalt not suffer a spammer to live


not so simple.  He was referring to something remaining functional for a
few hundred million years.  That's time enough for most everything to
erode into dust.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 04:52:58 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@Alaska.NET>
Subject: Re:  Hit Location Charts

Kenneth Bearden wrote
> 
> I've got four hit location charts to choose from for determining the
> location of wounds taken in combat.

Given that we are rolling for dammage from the weapons hit does it not
seem that when your 3d6 weapon rolls a 6,6,5 that this is more likely to
be a head or body hit and that when your 3d6 weapon rolls a 1,1,2 that
this is more likely to be a limb hit ?

As the charts intended to represent all hits, ranged combat hits only,
or melee hits only ?  I suspect that people get shot in lower legs a lot
more often then they get knifed in them for example.  It seems to me to
be a mistake to consider only relative body area size.  Perhaps we
should look at military or law enforcement data as to where people are
most often injured.  Of the 4 methods #3, the DGP method, seems best to
me but this is subjective.

- -- 
 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 09:29:51 -0400
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@pop.erols.com>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

At 05:57 PM 10/17/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Idiot/Savant wrote:
>> 
>> Jim Vassilakos <jimv@e2.empirenet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Well, this problem kept rolling about in my head. I've been
>> > thinking of some plot ideas for a near-future campaign, and one
>> > of them entails some aliens leaving behind a "relic" somewhere on
>> > our planet or in our solar system which they expect us to find.
>> > I'm not talking about chariots of the gods, where all this relic
>> > has to do is stick around for a few hundred or thousand years.
>> > What I'm talking about here is a relic capable of surviving the
>> > long-haul.
>> 
>>  Do what Clarke did in _2001:A Space Odyssey_: Bury it on the moon,
>> leaving some sort of marker (in this case, magnetic) to encourage
>> excavation. If you're worried about it being hit by a rock, bury a couple
>> of backups as well. And if the planet doesn't have a moon, then bury on
>> some other airless-but-still-mildly-interesting rock that's not too far
>> away.
>> 
>>  Simple, really.
>> 
>> --
>> Idiot/Savant                    idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz
>> Thou shalt not suffer a spammer to live
>
>
>not so simple.  He was referring to something remaining functional for a
>few hundred million years.  That's time enough for most everything to
>erode into dust.
>-- 
>                              The J-Man
>                             GOC Systems
>                           j-man@iname.com
>

He said 'airless'.  No erosion.

Scott

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:38:08 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

On 17 Oct 97 at 17:57, Jory M. Earl wrote:

> not so simple.  He was referring to something remaining functional for a
> few hundred million years.  That's time enough for most everything to
> erode into dust. -- 

Of course, if you believe that the Earth is only ~ 10,000 years old, then this really 
isn't a problem. :)

Kevin
 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 07:12:43 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: (Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.

> > One of the things I don't like about the various design systems for T4
> G-tanks have been a staple of SF since at least the 1940s. They are
> basicly a cross between a water filled tank that you "float" in, and a
> waterbed. (Heinlein invented *both* ideas!) Thge idea being that since
> you are evenly "supported", the G effects aren't as severe. Instead of
> worrying about getting crushed into the padding on an acceleration
> couch, you have to worry about the tissues if your body getting pressed
> into each other, and getting pulled away from each other (and your
> bones) depending on whether they are above or below your skeleton.

So what is wrong with a paragraph like this being included in 
published materials?

 
> Well, while "EMS" is a bit cryptic, a neutrino sensor is obviously a
> device that senses neutrinos. And a densitometer is a device that
> measures density or density differences. This is plain from the way
> words are put together in English. If you don't know what neutrinos are
> or what density is, then you look them up in a dictionary.
> 
> Just like if you didn't know what something was in a gane set in WWII,
> you look it up.

One of the problems with this attitude is it assumes that everyone 
who plays Traveller is at your level and views the world the way you 
do. I would imagine that many on TML agreed with you. But I don't 
know that TML is particularly representative of role-players at 
large.

I don't know that new players want to have to go look up things 
anywhere. You buy a game, you read it, your imagination gets fired, 
you write an adventure, you find some players and you play. Then your 
player asks you what EMS is, or what a neutrino sensor does, because 
they've always played AD&D and haven't spent half their life reading 
Sci-Fi. So you crack open the Traveller books to look at what the 
game says before you stick your foot in it and waste half an hour 
looking for something that isn't there. Now what? Hey, I'll research 
it this week and tell you next game session? At this point the 
players throw up their hands and ask to go back to the AD&D stuff 
where there's an answer for everything and then some (too much, if 
you ask me).

I don't think a paragraph or two giving a rough idea of what the 
basic concept behind a particular piece of tech is that difficult to 
work into the published products. This doesn't necessarily mean 
*rules*. I will *never* ask for more rules. For me, role-playing can 
very quickly get *ruled* to death. But a quick definition of a 
Neutrino sensor that gives a quick definition of a neutrino and that 
the equipment senses them? Why not? Whenever *rules* define a 
neutrino sensor it can go into ranges and accuracy and all that.

Let me give an even better example. I'm a long-time Traveller player 
but I am not, never have been and never will be a war gamer. But as a 
Traveller player, I'd use any combat rules that were to come out on a 
squadron level. Great. Now, throw some military terms at me and watch 
me get confused... really fast. I read some rules recently talking 
about Tanker Squadrons and having to have them equal to X percent of 
the fuel requirements of the fleet. But nowhere in that section did 
it really specify why. Ok, I'm a reasonably intelligent woman. I can 
extrapolate that the Tanker Squadron has to refuel the fleet and much 
further along in the text it did specify the rules involved with 
taking time to refuel the fleet, or at least those portions that are 
incapable of doing so for themselves. Fine. But is it so hard to put 
in that little sentence as to what the requirement is for? 

Yes, I can look it up in probably a thousand places. But if I'm not a 
wargamer none of them are handy, and if I am a wargamer I already 
know the answer. If something simple will make a text more useful, 
comprehensible and interesting to the readers, it should be put in.

Or am I missing the whole point of this exchange?

Suz 

Suzette C. Dollar
#Traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 10:01:37 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?

Does one exist???

Kevin

 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:39:20 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

Ahh, I didn't catch the "airless" bit.  Hmmm.  That does put a new slant
on things, doesn't it.  I'm afraid there are too many variables to
accurately say what could survive for a few hundred million years in a
vacuum.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 18:31:47 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

>I don't know if any of you remember that thread about the
>difficulties of salvaging an ancient derelict. Somebody mentioned
>that metals tend to "flow" over long durations (centuries/
>millennia), such that doors will permanently seals themselves to
>their bulkheads, and all the once functional equipment (jump
>drive, power plant, computer, etc) will become entirely non-
>functional simply due to the passage of time.

This will have to be a very long period of time if the item is placed in
vacuum. I do not know exactly how long or anything like that, but dust would
probably be a much worse problem. The dust on an airless planet, moon or
asteroid would quickly (well, it would take many years) settle in every
detail of an item left outside. An item of metal within the magnetic field
of any kind of planet (or other piece of rock) acts as a magnet (correct me
if I'm wrong), and would attract small, static dust particles in the same
way as the corners in your room. :-)  In any case, the dust would probably
be a more severe problem than flowing metal.

Also note that the metal flows even less if it is cold. What if the AAA
(Ancient Alien Artifact) was placed in a deep crater or in a cave on some
moon? Eartquakes and cave-ins are NOT commmon on a place without moving
continental plates. The only natural way for the AAA to get destroyed would
be if the area were it lay was hit by a really big rock.

Another thing: Since the planet does not have an atmosphere, heat from the
radiation of the star would not carry on through the air. A little would get
reflected, but ...

>They can't dig a big smiley face in the moon. They don't=20
>have that kind of fire power (or bad taste).

How do you know they didn't? Take a good look on the moon ... big smiley
face if you use a little imagination, which you should be able to do. After
all, you DO play roleplaying games :-)


Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 18:37:29 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: WHOA!

Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:
>Glenn Crawford wrote:
>>
>>There seems to be, in recent posts, an increasing hostility on this list.
>>
>[voice of reason snipped]
>
>	I'm with Glenn.  People, simmer down and take it private, or I
>flood the list with reposts of old Spofulam designs.  Repeatedly :).
>

I also agree in full. True, there are perhaps five or so people who do want
this discussion. But, by sending it using the TML lots of other people get
to see it too, or (if they do not bother) they delete it. It still takes
lots of time just to download the messages. Please stop it ...

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 06:26:49 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Richard Fields <rfields@actrix.gen.nz>
Subject: re Piracy - VOTE

Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> asked for a vote on piracy, mine is:

__0.5___  > 1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and
>continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
>stamp it out.)
__0.5__  > 2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
>(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
>rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

I've given a split vote as IMHO the perception is that Piracy exists.  
(Interpretation of canon) 
But, the nature and extent of piracy and will/ability to act against it 
in the relevent campaign setting is at the descretion of the GM to 
interpret from cannon. I use the maxim "Rules are for guidence of wise 
men, and total adherence of blithering idiots"
As examples-
   In late 3I, Spinward Main piracy may be: Trade War, Zho covert ops, 
Rumor, Justification for temporary Red Zoneing, Justification for 
Insurance Hikes, Misdirected Reposition, or Random Violent Adventurism. 
   In Wilds of TNE piracy may be: Hot recovery, Misjump, a Ted exercising 
GST (Government Sponsered Theft), Breakdown, Discovery of a safe world 
(and perceived MIA), or Viral domination.

Regards,
Richard 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 13:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

At the risk of possibly inflaming things even further....

     I would like to explore the possibility of toning down the heat on the
TML.  I have been watching with interest the threads of piracy and IG's
products, but have noticed that the general tone has begun to get ugly.  I am
finding longer and longer messages, each getting longer and longer, but
covering the same ground as before.  Obviously, there is a great debate on
the quality and usefulness of IG's products, and I for one (to register my
opinion, to anyone who is curious or may care), do believe that the quality
is not as good as it could be, i.e. not up to the standards I was raised on
(GDW, 1977-1996)  However, having said that, I still purchase EVERY item that
I can get my greedy palms on that in anyway bears any use for a Traveller
campaign!  Even something that is poorly done may have one or two good ideas
that I can swipe for my own use.

     As an aside, I recall someone posting a line that runs along the path of
 (paraphrasing here)  "even unemployed, I can still afford to buy these
books".  I'm not sure what is meant by that, but in my own case, I am on
Social Security due to disablilty...one IG book represents literally 22% of
my MONTHLY disposable income , yet I still do my best to get every one!
  Why?  Because good or bad I get SOMETHING useful out of it!

     Not everyone will be happy with everything produced...some will not be
happy with anything produced.  And everyone has the right to express there
dissatisfaction (or lack thereof) and be heard.  But degenerating to constant
back-and-forth repeating of the same points solves nothing, and especially
when the attacks take on a personal tone.

     I use the list as I use the IG supplements, magazine articles, books,
etc...a source of new ideas for my campaigns.  Clogging the list with
pointless arguments about things which cannot be settled anyway (hoping this
will come out sounding right) makes it less useful for that.  This is a
game...it is played for enjoyment.   If you believe piracy is possible in
your universe, use it!  If not, don't!  After all, you (the GM, aka GOD) make
the rules here!


     And please, don't anyone take anything I've said here personally.....


     Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1975
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Saturday, October 18 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1976



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Interworld Commerce
Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?
re: U R a generous alien
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Hit Location Charts
Re: (Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Taking more than 3D6 damage
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:32:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Marcus Teter <uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu>
Subject: Re: Interworld Commerce

> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
> Subject: Interworld Commerce
> 
> How much traffic does a world generate?  How much intra-system traffic?
> What kind of ships?

Good, thoughtful, questions!  I have been trying to work this out myself
in responce to the Piracy thread.

> 
> This is kind of how I envision it - I would appreciate any feedback you
> care to offer.
> 
> The big cargo ships (15,000 + dtons) run exclusively to the Starport B+,
> Pop 7+ worlds.  They are not configured for passengers, and probably begin
> offloading when they arrive in system via lighters, and are still
> on-loading as they begin the run towards the jump point.

I had envisioned these.  Though I had them operating along the
mains(jump1 routs) I picture that they would have three or more jumps
worth of fuel.  I also pictured the Navy using these to supply their
bases.  I would believe that much of the cargo shipped in these monster
freighters are long haul (greater than 10 PC per run).  I would guess that
they are operated by Mega-corps or heavily subsidized by governments.

> 
> The Medium size cargo/passenger ships (5,000 - 15,000 dtons) are the bulk 
> of the traffic in space. Like the tankers and freighters that ply our
> oceans, 90% of all goods that travel between systems eventually end up on
> one of these ships. They make the runs to the Class C Starports, and to
> the smaller Class A and B starports (Pop 5+).

I pictured generaly 2 classes of mediums.  A jump 1 class that handles
short range traffic along a main, and a jump 3 class to pick up the
class A and B starports off of the mains.  Both classes would be heavily
subsidized by planetary governments and private conserns.  I would expect
that most would be very local in operation, maybe to 10 PC at max.

> 
> The Small cargo/passenger ships (1,000 - 5,000 dton) specialize in
> carrying cargo and passengers to the minor markets, worlds not served by
> the Mediums.

I pictured a fast freight class to fill this niche.  Most would have over
jump 3 capability to get smaller cargos to destinations quicker.

> 
> The under 1,000 dton ships pick up the leftovers.  They perform the
> bulk of the intra-system commerce and serve the worlds on the fringes, or
> pick up the cargos that were missed.  Some few (the Subbies) visit worlds
> that the larger ships cannot make a profit at.
 
And making contracts with the larger freight lines to handle smaller
cargos or cargos bound for worlds not serviced by the biggies.

> Now, how much traffic?  Let's start with some numbers, and we can argue it
> from there.

OK

> 
> (World T*Pop Code) Ktons per year.
> x2 if the world is AG or is Ri
> x3 if the world has a military base or is a Capital
> x4 if the world is Ind
> 
> This would have Mora (TL 15, Pop 10) with 150 Ktons of cargo traffic (not
> ships, amount of cargo available to be imported/exported) per month.  It
> would also have Fenl's Gren (TL 9, Pop 3) with 2,250 tons per month.
> 
> How does it sound?  Anyone with a better idea? 

Good starting point.  I would have these modifiers in addition:

X4 if world is along a main.
X2 if A class starport.
X.25 if world is jump 3 or more from a main.
x.5 if world has class C or worse starport.

> 
> douglas@teleport.com
> http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\


I would say that the traffic along the main's is mostly historical, going
back to times where all starships were jump-1.  Also, it minimizes the
patrol stations for anti-piracy task forces.  Keeping the mains open
ensures a great majority of the worlds would be free from piracy.

Marcus A. Teter
uphhsmt@gemini.oscs.montana.edu
marcus@geminga.physics.montana.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:42:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)

Just a random thought here...


     Has anyone considered the effect of the light-speed lag on piracy
in-system?  By this I mean (for example)  If the Jolly Roger arrives
in-system at a range of 2 light-hours from the mainworld...he will have 2
hours of time to study the military deployments in the system BEFORE any word
of his arrival (or his signature, if detectable) arrives at the mainworld,
which is presumably where STC is located.  If he doesn't like what he sees,
then he can jump outsystem again, providing of course he has the capability.
 And what if he is in range of a target (i.e. can at least engage the target
w/ weaponry) well before that limit is up?  He could theoretically engage the
taget, destroy or capture it, and be on his way gone before the authorities
know whats happening!


     I realize there are holes in this you could float the USS Nimitz
thru...but does anyone have any thoughts on it?

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

"We are Gates of Microsoft....preparation is irrelavent...resistance is
futile...you will be assimilated."

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:01:29 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Leroy William Lu Guatney writes:

>He seldom posted anything pointed my way that was civil and polite, and
>now because I characterize this behaviour as "mud-slinging", I am condemned
>for not appreciating his opinion, and deluged with others' "opinion" of
>netiquette.
>
>Fine, you may call that Netiquette, but out here in Colorado & Wyoming
>call it something else.

   Last I heard, Colorado and Wyoming had similar standards to
politeness and behavior as the rest of the US.  So now you're indicating
there's been a change.  Thanks for the info.  Here in the greater Ohio
and Kentucky regional area at least, it is still called Netiquette.

>OK, here is why I don't appreciate Doug Berry's opinion of the latest
>IG product _Emperor's Vehicles_.

<snip>

   The Sky Raider's Trilogy was written very early on in Traveller
history.  If, as you have said for some time, MMT is Traveller, then
what is the excuse for EV, which was written many years later?  Also,
while the data in SRT is without question variant in relation to High
Guard, at least the data was there (unlike EV).  You are comparing
apples and oranges IMHO.

>I'll be moving along now (for some reason, I am always in midterms when
>Doug goes on one of his tirades).
>
>You'll be getting no more Traveller Maligning from me, there's enough
>already, and Howerd can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

   Well like the song says, "don't go away mad, just go away." 
Permanently if possible.

- --Harold

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?

If you have the game "MegaTraveller : Quest for the Ancients" for the PC it
has the ability to generate either CT characters or the MT extended
characters and print them out...nothing fancy mind, and unfortunately uses
the CT skill rules, i.e. max# of skills allowed =INT+EDU.  Very useful for
NPC's though.  Allos either random skills or choice if I remember right also.


Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

"We are Gates of Microsoft...preperation is irrelevant...resistance is
futile...you will be assimilated"

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:11:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: re: U R a generous alien

7

On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
 
> Depending on when you want your surprise to be found, you probably want to
> put it somewhere that's hard to study from the ground but interesting enough 
> that it will be one of the first places spacecraft look at. In our moon,
> I'd probably pick the south polar crater region - you can't see it easily
> from the earth but (since water ice might survive there) it's a high-priority
> area for study. That leaves the question of what to put there...how about
> some sort of lightweight mesh radar reflector?
> 

Uhhhh....how about a big bunch of something useful, like , oh, I don't
know...ICE, maybe ;-) ??? That would have the twofold advantage of getting
the civilization's attention when they develop the technology to survey
the nearby companion, _and_ when they're interested in a more permanent
space presence.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:22:43 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

At 07:54 PM 10/17/97 -0600, Leroy wrote:
>All right, as a recap, I came to the list last summer, and Doug Berry
>called me a troll.  I mostly ignored him.  He proved rather quickly
>that he was not a person who was very civil and nearly immediately
>concluded that he did'nt like me. (I don't jump to conclusions so
>quickly.)

Leroy, I called you a troll after you announced that you had all the
answers but were too busy to tell us how you arrived at them.  When you did
present you evidense, the feeding frenzy put a school of psychopathic Great
Whites to shame as most of the list ripped your theories to tiny little
shreads.

I am very civil to those who don't patronize and insult me.

>He seldom posted anything pointed my way that was civil and polite, and
>now because I characterize this behaviour as "mud-slinging", I am condemned
>for not appreciating his opinion, and deluged with others' "opinion" of
>netiquette.

Leroy, my reasons for being slightly rude to you (if you want to see me get
really rude read rec.games.frp.misc for the three-way flames between me,
Michael Richter, and Terry Austin) is that you treated the entire list as a
bunch of lost sheep waiting for you, the Traveller Messiah, to show us how
to play a game most of us have played for decades.

>OK, here is why I don't appreciate Doug Berry's opinion of the latest
>IG product _Emperor's Vehicles_.
>
>I will concede that what I am about to write _is_ in my opinion, but as
>someone with as much (if not more) experience with the origins of Traveller
>It also bothers me to join in with the "flame the game", but an example is
>needed.  I don't see Doug's opinion as one that is characterized with balance
>and measure.
>
>Here's why.
>
>Sky Raider's Trilogy - Critical Review
>
>Doug opined the view of how great the Sky Raiders was, while in the same
>breath going on about Emperor's Vehicles' purported "flaw" being a lack
>of TL for each of the designs in the book.  I also put this in the category
>of "Traveller Maligning".

I challenged you to quote where I went on about how great the SR trilogy
is.  In that message, I simply pointed out that in Trail, there is an
extended chase sequence where fuel consumption and fuel avalibility are
major concerns.  This was in responce to your "it rarely matters" comment.

<snip>

>It is also possible that Doug Berry is not as knowledgeable as he claimed
>in the *same* post, as I will explain.
>
>However, (as Tuvok would say) it is clear to me that Doug seems to be
>focused totally on small things, when he expresses his opinion on the
>matter of "the 'lack' of TL" in EV.  He is holding up as a PRIZE one of
>the MOST FLAWED TRAVELLER sources from the earliest history, and comparing
>it to a quite good contemporary book for T4 (MMT2).
>
>Now mind you, I *LOVED* the Sky Raider's Trilogy.  It was fun reading when
>it came out, it was fun playing the parts that I got to (the referee hadn't
>fully incorporated the adventure into his campaign), and it is fun to look
>over the work of two brothers I consider friends. (Andy Keith treated me
>like a gentleman when I visited him in Elk Grove village.  He is a true
noble,
>and fan of the game.)

Name dropping.

>Take the Asteroid Ship of the Sky Raiders, the adventure Mr. Berry used as
>an example in his response to _my_ post (which I said *was* my opinion).
>If you read pg.19 of _Fate of the Sky Raiders_, we are told,

Except of course that my entire example was drawn from "TotSR".

<snip completely off-topic complaints about FotSR>

>OK, perhaps Doug *doesn't* know as much about early Traveller, thats fine,
>no crime there, but he did invite the considered opinion of someone who
>does, and there is no crime in my pointing out this gap of logic.

Leroy, the minute you can explain how the size of the jump drives on the SR
asteroid ship relates in any way imaginable to the discussion of Emperor's
Vehicles, i will eat three of my hats.  It's a sad attempt to change the
topic.  Something you seem to do quite often.

>In light of the discussion, the purported missing TL of vehicles in EV
>is small stuff if you *really* care about detail.  nearly a BILLION tons
>of Jump Drive is even harder to explain than Terraforming at TL12. :)

At least we kniow what TL the League of Suns, Descarothe Hegemony, and
Qarant are.  I stick by my statement that EV is practically useless.

>I could spend *more* time analyzing Doug Berry's assessment, but not
>this month.
>
>I have the feeling that if some of the detail that it is claimed *were*
>to be added, that there would just be something else.  I can just imagine
>calls for tire pressure and distributed track vehicle weights governing
>the width of the tracks, and so on.  I could be wrong there, and I'm not
>afraid to admit it.

All I ask is what has been basic to traveller vehicle descriptions from the
start.  TL, Crew, and all the other things you find in 101 Vehicles.

>But, I could be right, and I am inclined to think so when I see the
>equivalent of a Janet Reno defending Bill Clinton by comparing him to Ted
>Kennedy as a moral (low) standard from which our President should be judged.
>"Bill has only been married once, and he does not drink nearly as much as
>the Senator."

"Captain! The target has just shot off on an odd tangent!"

>I'll be moving along now (for some reason, I am always in midterms when
>Doug goes on one of his tirades).
>
>You'll be getting no more Traveller Maligning from me, there's enough
>already, and Howerd can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Leroy, you amaze me.  You cross post to a list that I'm on, then are
surprised when I comment on it.  You insult everyone within reach, then act
hurt when we fire back.

You think you're all that? Fine.

GenCon '98.  I'm calling you out for a Traveller Trivia contest.  Just you
and me.  Everything form rules to background material.  No notes allowed.

I'm ready.  How about you?

To the TML: other than Leroy's acceptance, which I doubt I'll get, this is
my last word on the subject.
>
>
>In my experienced Opinion,
>
>Leroy
>
>PS - CT Traveller Book is _not_ 17 years old, unless he has a different
>copyright date than mine.
>
>
>Leroy Guatney - lwlg@usa.net
> University of Mars, NorthAm Campus
> Class of '98
>
>
>
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:42:05 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

At 08:39 PM 10/17/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Ahh, I didn't catch the "airless" bit.  Hmmm.  That does put a new slant
>on things, doesn't it.  I'm afraid there are too many variables to
>accurately say what could survive for a few hundred million years in a
>vacuum.

The *first* rock picked up by the Apollo 11 crew was 3.8 billion years old.
 It showed no erosion of any kind.
- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry       dberry@hooked.net |
|      http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|------------------------------------------|
| "Writing is like prostitution. First you |
| do it for the love of it, then you do it |
| for a few friends, and finally you do it |
| for the money."               -- Moliere |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+


  

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:32:53 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Hit Location Charts

At 12:23 AM 10/18/97 +0000, you wrote:
>I've got four hit location charts to choose from for determining the
>location of wounds taken in combat.  
>
>I'd like to get your input on which chart you think gives the most
>natural results--which one results in the most likely probabilities
>given the real world.

>OPTION #1:  GG Col 1
>--------------------
>
>Arms     14%
>Legs     20%
>Head     14%
>Torso    51%

>OPTION #4:  TNE 2-12 Converted
>------------------------------
>
>Arms     19%
>Legs     17%
>Head     8%
>Torso    55%

These two seem to do the best job of accurately covering the human form.  I
have a slight preference for #4
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 15:09:17 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: (Marc) Re:  T4 Designs.

>[Suzette agreeing that technology in T4 is underexplained]
>Yes, I can look it up in probably a thousand places...
>If something simple will make a text more useful
>comprehensible and interesting to the readers, it should be put in.

I'm about as hard-core a gearhead and techie as you'll find on this list,
and for what it's worth, I agree with Suzette. There's a definite lack of
flavour text/explanations in T4. Even FFS2 didn't end up with very much - 
partially due to the lack of time, partially due to lack of space. 
I think there is a roll for a T4 equivalent of the SOM - and I'd love to help
write parts of it. A lot of such text should also go into the basic rule book.
And maybe some in JTAS, if it ever comes out again...

On the other hand, one disadvantage of writing detailed this-is-how-it-works
books is that you've then set in stone things that you may think better of 
later - SOM's overdriven engines, for example, or more recent hints that
Fusion+ is Pons-and-Fleischman-style cold fusion.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 15:14:59 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

>not so simple.  He was referring to something remaining functional for a
>few hundred million years.  That's time enough for most everything to
>erode into dust.

I didn't think we were looking for "functional" so much as "conveying 
information" - like a big metal plaque with an elaborate code inscribed on it,
and something sufficiently to make it moderately detectable. 

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:54:25 -0600
> From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
> 
> All right, as a recap, I came to the list last summer, and Doug Berry
> called me a troll.  I mostly ignored him.  He proved rather quickly
> that he was not a person who was very civil and nearly immediately
> concluded that he did'nt like me. (I don't jump to conclusions so
> quickly.)

Leroy, I am rather well-known for my inclusive, congenial, live and let
live attitude on the TML.  I actively work (hard) to foster consensus and
shared research on Traveller-related topics through the THUDDD and other
activities.  I find it remarkable and wonderful that so many people of
such varying opinions can cooperate to examine and extend this shared
obsession of ours.

However, my tolerance falls short of accepting you.  Now, this is simply
my opinion, humble or otherwise -- but your condescension, inability to
see any viewpoint other than your own, and general rudeness quite frankly
rub me the wrong way.  Badly.  You are among a select few people whom I
feel would best contribute to the TML by leaving it.  And I am fairly
certain I'm one of many people here who feel this way.

> He seldom posted anything pointed my way that was civil and polite, and
> now because I characterize this behaviour as "mud-slinging", I am condemned
> for not appreciating his opinion, and deluged with others' "opinion" of
> netiquette.

More so than myself -- and this is saying something -- Douglas considers
Traveller and the TML as both important and worth defending.  Hence his
few rhetorical explosions in your direction.  However, he's never once
descended to the depths which you make your customary home, Leroy.

> OK, here is why I don't appreciate Doug Berry's opinion of the latest
> IG product _Emperor's Vehicles_.
> 
> I will concede that what I am about to write _is_ in my opinion, but as
> someone with as much (if not more) experience with the origins of Traveller
> It also bothers me to join in with the "flame the game", but an example is
> needed.  I don't see Doug's opinion as one that is characterized with balance
> and measure.

Nobody outside Marc, Frank, Loren, and their immediate colleagues has
significantly more Traveller experience -- measured in elapsed years,
anyway -- than Doug and myself.  I actually have two more days than he
does, as I bought it at PacifiCon at the GDW booth, and he didn't see it
until I got home from the con.  Our first game stared later that same day. 

> Sky Raider's Trilogy - Critical Review
> 
> Doug opined the view of how great the Sky Raiders was, while in the same
> breath going on about Emperor's Vehicles' purported "flaw" being a lack
> of TL for each of the designs in the book.  I also put this in the category
> of "Traveller Maligning".

I disagree with this use of terminology.  To say "Emperor's Vehicles" is
bad is not to say "Traveller is bad," any more than to say "Event Horizon
is bad" is to say "SF movies are bad."  This is an elementary failure of
logic, or an attempt to twist rhetoric to your own ends.  Either way, it
does not reflect favorably on you, Leroy.

> I am not one to malign Traveller.  It is a great game, and has provided
> me many years of entertainment.  In this case, I feel an example is needed
> to clarify my point.  One of my overall favorite works (and there are a
> *lot* of them) was the FASA trilogy.

So, then, is your dissing of Sky Raiders "Traveller maligning," or not?
You can't have it both ways.

> It is also possible that Doug Berry is not as knowledgeable as he claimed
> in the *same* post, as I will explain.

Were graduate degrees in Traveller available, Douglas would hold one.  I'm
sorry, but you would be very hard pressed to find *anyone* with
significantly more knowledge about Traveller, nor better able to integrate
and apply that knowledge, than Douglas. 

> However, (as Tuvok would say) it is clear to me that Doug seems to be
> focused totally on small things, when he expresses his opinion on the
> matter of "the 'lack' of TL" in EV.  He is holding up as a PRIZE one of
> the MOST FLAWED TRAVELLER sources from the earliest history, and comparing
> it to a quite good contemporary book for T4 (MMT2).

And now we begin to reach the core of your error.  You seem poised to
reveal some more egregious failing in SR, which will cause EV's blemishes
to pale in comparison...

> Now mind you, I *LOVED* the Sky Raider's Trilogy.  It was fun reading when
> it came out, it was fun playing the parts that I got to (the referee hadn't
> fully incorporated the adventure into his campaign), and it is fun to look
> over the work of two brothers I consider friends. (Andy Keith treated me
> like a gentleman when I visited him in Elk Grove village.  He is a true noble,
> and fan of the game.)

(Note to Leroy: Name-dropping is yet another rhetorical flourish which
just don't cut the mustard.  Argue your point on its own merits.)

[snip]
> We are told that the Sky Raiders came from a TL9-10 culture.  We are told
> that the ship reached Far Frontiers sector by a combination of sub-light
> travel, and Jump.  There are Jump drives on board.
> 
> The problems are:
> 
>     1) HIGH GUARD had been out for a few years at that point (1982) and
>        those rules do not permit even a TL 10 culture to build a ship
>        beyond a certain size, no matter how you interpret the rules
>        (unless you just ignore them)

A "fact" which has been among the most fluid in later versions of the
rules, of course.

>     2) a J-1 drive for any ship, 100 tons up to 43 billion tons, requires
>        2% of the ship, which in the case of the Sky Raiders' Asteroid
>        means that this particular Jump drive amassed 857 MILLION TONS.

Not 'amassed', but 'occupied' -- these were displacement tons.  A quibble,
of course -- your point (that this was a truly humungous J-Drive) remains
entirely true.

> Do you think that the entire Vilani Empire had 857 MILLION TONS OF JUMP
> DRIVE?  If so, did the Sky Raiders steal it from the Vilani, or did they
> just manufacture it in their Yards, all the time holding the mighty
> Vilani Empire at arm's length?

This is where my jaw hit the floor.  Your comparison of the SR and EV
problems is on two entirely different *levels*!  SR provides all needed
data on ship size, performance, and so forth -- which figures create a
*game-world dilemma* on explaining how so much equipment got built.  EV,
on the other hand, creates a *real-world dilemma* that data necessary to
usefully introduce the vehicles provided *into* game worlds does not
exist.  It's like the difference between

   2 + 2 = 5    (SR)

and

   F* \a ? *    (EV)

The first is clearly an expression following the conventions of
arithmetic, and thus is *within* a well-defined system, under the terms of
which we can argue about its validity; the second contains too little
information about its containing 'metasystem' to say anything useful about
it at all.  The second category of problem is clearly far more serious. 

> OK, perhaps Doug *doesn't* know as much about early Traveller, thats fine,
> no crime there, but he did invite the considered opinion of someone who
> does, and there is no crime in my pointing out this gap of logic.

Sheesh...Leroy, do you understand who you're talking about here, and how
weak your argument is?  And how being willing to posit that a whole lot of
J-Drive got built is *very* different from being willing to accept vehicle
listings without data which has been considered fundamental to *any*
Traveller equipment since CT?

> I have the feeling that if some of the detail that it is claimed *were*
> to be added, that there would just be something else.  I can just imagine
> calls for tire pressure and distributed track vehicle weights governing
> the width of the tracks, and so on.  I could be wrong there, and I'm not
> afraid to admit it.

Ah, advancing a straw man, another favorite trick of the rhetorician
backed into a corner.  No, Leroy, we're only asking for data which has
been a fundamental part of all Traveller equipment listings since CT.

> I'll be moving along now (for some reason, I am always in midterms when
> Doug goes on one of his tirades).

Oh, dear, Leroy, not back to "But I don't have time to answer" again,
already?  You need to add a few tropes to your pile.

> You'll be getting no more Traveller Maligning from me, there's enough
> already, and Howerd can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

How's Checkers these days?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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, 18 Oct 1997 23:17:32 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Taking more than 3D6 damage

Without rekindling the old argument regarding the 3D6 max damage rule for
certain weapons, how does one apply those extra dice?  Do you roll the
first three dice and let the victim assign those to his physical stats (as
per the rules) /before/ surprising him with the results of the remaining
dice, or do you roll *all* of the dice together and allow the player
*complete* control over which dice will be applied to which characteristic?



James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 97 19:35:59 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

On 1997-10-17 19:14, David P. Summers <summers@alum.mit.edu> wrote the 
following:

>>Sooooo... why can't they track pirates? How could there be "hit and run"
>>attacks if the local Navy can track movements of spaceships?
>
>Because it takes something like 1 1/2 hrs to get to the 100 diam
>limit for an Earth sized planet.

I'll by that. 3 standard Traveller space combat rounds.

If a pirate can take out a ship in that amount of time, and load 
cargo/commandeer the vessel, then that's either one mighty unlucky 
vessel, or one helluva pirate ship...

<snip>

>>There is opportunity for piracy in Traveller.
>>
>>BUT Piracy does *not* ALWAYS exist.
>
>Well, actually I only contend the piracy is possible
>(depending a lot on how the campaign is set up).

If that is your contention, then I agree. One could set up a campaign 
that allows piracy to exist. No prob.

I was arguing this thread on the premise that "Due to Traveller's 
economic, interstellar travel, and space combat mechanics; and the 
socio-economic background we have published in Traveller, piracy is 
virtually non-existant in systems with significant trade under the 
protection of the Imperium."

I would also contend that in Milieu 1100, *if* piracy was relatively 
common in a system, the Travellers Aid Society would amber zone the 
system.

Maybe we should start these threads in a more scientific way and posit a 
Hypothisis at the start of the post so we don't get carried away arguing 
in circles . . :P

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1976
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1977



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: U R a generous alien
More than 3d damage & A Damage Resolution Idea
WWGS's Aeon...
Garibaldi Riot Vehicle (TL8)
Swallow Sailboat (TL5)
Pyrdan Range Truck (TL6)
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
re: U R a generous alien
Another TL-12 heavy ACR/GL
Gal Gov Codes (fwd)
Handwaving Menguno
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1973
Re: WHOA!
Re: In Orbit

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:46:18 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Ed Jenkins writes:
 
>However, having said that, I still purchase EVERY item that
>I can get my greedy palms on that in anyway bears any use for a Traveller
>campaign!  Even something that is poorly done may have one or two good ideas
>that I can swipe for my own use.
>
>    As an aside, I recall someone posting a line that runs along the path of
>(paraphrasing here)  "even unemployed, I can still afford to buy these
>books".  I'm not sure what is meant by that, but in my own case, I am on
>Social Security due to disablilty...one IG book represents literally 22% of
>my MONTHLY disposable income , yet I still do my best to get every one!
>  Why?  Because good or bad I get SOMETHING useful out of it!

   Imperium Games simply does not deserve customers such as yourself. 
You are one of a disappearing breed of Traveller fans.

   Note to Marc Miller: I hope you find Ed's words inspirational.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:49:57 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Idiot/Savant <idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

"Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com> wrote:

> Idiot/Savant wrote:
>
> >  Do what Clarke did in _2001:A Space Odyssey_: Bury it on the moon
> > leaving some sort of marker (in this case, magnetic) to encourage
> > excavation. If you're worried about it being hit by a rock, bury a
> > of backups as well. And if the planet doesn't have a moon, then bu
> > some other airless-but-still-mildly-interesting rock that's not to
> > away.
> > 
> >  Simple, really.
>
> not so simple.  He was referring to something remaining functional
> for a few hundred million years.  That's time enough for most
> everything to erode into dust.

 That's why you put it on the moon - no wind, no rain, no tectonic
activity (I think). The worst things you have to worry about are being hit
by a rock, or being stolen by some _other_ alien species :)

 As for remaining functional, the Monolith obeyed Clarke's law -
its functioning was indistinguishable from magic.  Though seeing as Jim
was asking about Traveller, I was thinking of something a little simpler,
like a platinum-iridium plaque or something.

- --
Idiot/Savant			idiot@sans.vuw.ac.nz
Thou shalt not suffer a spammer to live

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 97 20:51:45 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: More than 3d damage & A Damage Resolution Idea

On 10/18/97 at 11:17 PM,  jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) said:

>Without rekindling the old argument regarding the 3D6 max damage rule for
>certain weapons, how does one apply those extra dice?  Do you roll the
>first three dice and let the victim assign those to his physical stats (as
>per the rules) /before/ surprising him with the results of the remaining
>dice, or do you roll *all* of the dice together and allow the player
>*complete* control over which dice will be applied to which
>characteristic?

Interestingly enough, it hasn't come up yet.  There hasn't been *any*
personal combat in any one of my games since T4 came out.  ;-> However, I
would think the player should have control over applying the dice.

On a related subject, I got to thinking about T4's damage system while
stalled in traffic last Tuesday morning, thinking about Traveller in
traffic jams keeps my blood pressure down.  ;-> Anyway, I started thinking
about damage and hit locations because I had accidentally banged my head on
a branch while watering the plants that morning and was still sporting a
nice headache.

"Hum..." thinks I, "A blow to the head reduces STR, END, or DEX?  I don't
know, maybe it should really reduce INT or EDU?  I certainly couldn't
conjugate latin verbs after whacking my head.", not that I could before
banging my head...

....but anyway, let's consider a blow to the head.  Shouldn't that cause a
temporary reduction to INT or EDU rather than one of the physical Stats?

A boxer can be knocked unconscious with a blow to the head, then be brought
to and *physically* be strong, agile and constitutionally ready to
continue.  Heck, the mere fact that a boxer will *think* he can continue
proves his brain isn't working too well!  ;-> Anyway, officials don't let
the fights continue because of the danger of permanent injury (or death)
from continued brain poundings now, but a hundred years ago if the boxer
could get back up within a minute or two and wanted to continue the fight
kept going.

OTOH, boxers "work the body" in an attempt to reduce his opponent's END,
STR, and agility (ok, we call it DEX, but I'd personally like to break that
stat in two).  So, it makes sense for blows to the torso to reduce
endurance and strength.  I recall taking a punch to my solar plexus a few
years ago...it dropped me like a rock and left me gasping for air.  Maybe a
hit on the abdomen should reduce END more than anything?

I got a "stinger" a couple of weeks ago from a sharp whack to my shoulder. 
It *certainly* reduced my use of that arm, ie DEX & STR, but it didn't seem
to have an effect on my END after a few seconds of being unable to do
*anything*, that is.  Maybe a blow to an arm or leg should reduce DEX & STR
considerately more than END?

What do you think of the following modifications to the T4 damage method?

 Blow To        Reduces
 ============================
  Head          INT, EDU
  Chest         STR, END, DEX
  Abdomen       END, STR, DEX
  Arms          DEX, STR, END
  Legs          STR, DEX, END
  
 1. Damage is taken in the order listed one die at at time.  If after
    one die has been applied to each Stat listed for that hit location
    there are additional damage dice to be applied, the player may
    distribute them among the appropriate Stats as he sees fit.  In the
    case of a Head wound, if both INT and EDU are reduced to 0 any
    remaining dice are applied to END.
 
 2. If INT, EDU, END or STR are reduced to 0, or below, the PC falls
    unconscious.  Reducing two of the above Stats to 0 causes the PC to
    become seriously wounded.  Reducing any three of the above Stats to
    0 causes immediate death.
    
 3. Recovering consciousness requires succeeding in a (4d6) task
    against *permanent* (not reduced by injury) END+INT.  Task attempts
    can be made every 20 Combat Turns.  Seriously wounded PC's must
    succeed at a (6d6) task against END+INT and must receive medical
    attention to regain consciousness.  Seriously wounded PC's are in
    immediate danger of "shock" and death.
    
 4. Reducing DEX to 0, or below, does not render a PC unconscious, but
    does reduce the PC's ability to successfully complete tasks that
    require any sort of agility or dexterity.
    
 5. If the sum of damage from one blow exceeds the PC's current DEX the
    PC is "Knocked Down" and can take no actions this combat turn.
    
 6. If the sum of damage from one blow exceeds the PC's current END the
    PC is "Stunned" and can take no actions this combat turn.

Yes, head blows will drop a PC more quickly than body blows because the
dice are being distributed over 2, rather than 3 Stats, but that's not a
bad result, IMO.  

Oh, and I'll use WILL+END to regain consciousness, but unless you add a
WILL stat, INT will have to do.  I also break DEX into DEX (manual
dexterity) and AGL (balance/foot-quickness), so DEX will lead on Arms and
AGL will lead on Legs.

With the inclusion of INT & EDU, I'm also considering changing the "blow
through" rule a little.  Instead of putting a cap at 3 dice, I'd like to
put the cap at 4 dice (maybe 5).  

Well folks, what do you think?

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:10:18 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: WWGS's Aeon...

	Just scoped a preview of WWGS's forthcoming SFRPG at the following URL:

http://www.fantasylink.com/paradigma/sepoct97/aeonadslick/aeonads1.htm


	Looks like a great big bucket of Cheese in Space.  One background
(and it's cheesy).  No design rules that I can see.  And it's got the usual
WW bunch of Vampire Cla..., er, Psionic Orders, with the usual WW different
powers/weaknesses/cultures, and the usual WW glitzy art.  It looks pretty,
even if it strikes me more as Mage In Space.  I'm unimpressed.

	OTOH, if WW holds true to form, there's an Aberrants Player's
Handbook in sight, and that might be moderately amusing.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 1997 02:25:06 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Garibaldi Riot Vehicle (TL8)

Garibaldi Riot Vehicle (TL8)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     1.50 displacement ton box;  10.0 tonnes;  kCr 48.1
Chassis:
     21.0 kL box (4.3 m long x 2.2 m wide x 2.2 m high);  Structure: 588 kg
of hard steel, rated for 1.0Gs, body 1.0 cm thick, 6 armour rating
     
Performance:
     610 kW TL4 Internal Combustion power plant;  Fuel: 487 L of hydrocarbons
(487 kg), 8 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 600 kW wheels with offroad suspension;  Maximum
Speed: 90 km/h;  Range: 723 km;  Agility: +3DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: driver, gunner;  2 crew stations;  7 roomy passenger seats
Armament:
     Weapon                          Damage    Range          Shots   
Reloads   Notes
     Water Cannon-6                  1         Very Short     1       40     
  turret1 gunner
Communications:
     Subcontinental Radio (10.00 kW, TL8, SmVcl, MilSpec)
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     142 L of cargo space

The Garibaldi is popular with rapid response anti-riot units of pre-stellar
governments.  It carries a squad of riot police, can withstand rifle fire,
and mounts a water cannon in its turret for use against determined crowds.   


Designed with CSC (software Copyright Robert Prior, 1997)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 1997 02:26:23 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Swallow Sailboat (TL5)

Swallow Sailboat (TL5)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     1.00 displacement ton open-topped box;  4.26 tonnes;  kCr 11.9
Chassis:
     14.0 kL open-topped box (3.7 m long x 1.9 m wide x 1.9 m high); 
Structure: 337 kg of heavy wood, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.30 cm thick, 0
armour rating
     
Performance:
     240 kW TL1 Sail power plant
     Propulsion System: 240 kW watercraft;  Maximum Speed: 10 km/h;  Agility:
+3DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: helmsman;  1 crew station;  5 cramped passenger seats
Communications:
     No communicators installed.
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     3.00 kL of cargo space

Built for utility, not speed, the Swallow is a typical small sailboat,
capable of carrying five passengers and three cubic metres of cargo. No
sensors or communications gear is installed; if carried, these are usually
personal models. 

Similar boats can be encountered on many worlds, even at higher tech levels.
Solid construction means that, with proper care, a Swallow can last for over
a century.


Designed with CSC (software Copyright Robert Prior, 1997)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 1997 02:25:43 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Pyrdan Range Truck (TL6)

Pyrdan Range Truck (TL6)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     0.80 displacement ton open-topped box;  6.98 tonnes;  kCr 58.3
Chassis:
     11.2 kL open-topped box (3.5 m long x 1.8 m wide x 1.8 m high); 
Structure: 580 kg of soft steel, rated for 1.0Gs, body 0.02 cm thick, 1
armour rating
     
Performance:
     650 kW TL4 Internal Combustion power plant;  Fuel: 649 L of hydrocarbons
(649 kg), 10 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 650 kW wheels with offroad suspension;  Maximum
Speed: 84 km/h;  Range: 837 km;  Agility: +3DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: driver;  1 crew station;  1 roomy passenger seat
Communications:
     No communicators installed.
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     3.90 kL of cargo space

The Pyrdan is a typical low-tech offroad vehicle: tough, and without any
frills whatsoever.  Its rugged suspension can carry up to two tonnes of cargo
through the wilderness.  Lack of environmental controls and the fabric roof
guarantee that any trip will be a true wilderness experience. 

Top unloaded speed is 116 km/h.


Designed with CSC (software Copyright Robert Prior, 1997)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 97 21:35:03 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Leroy said...

>> All right, as a recap, I came to the list last summer, and Doug Berry
>> called me a troll.  

Leroy, I don't think Doug called you a troll.  He said you were "trolling"
and that's a little different.  Not *much* different, but a little.  ;->

A troll is a nasty, aggressive, and brutish being that you can hack to
pieces, but it will regenerate (actually the pieces will rejoin, I think)
and continue to fight.  Don't you have to burn the pieces to actually
destroy them?  Doug would have to *really* dislike you to call you a troll.

Trolling, OTOH, comes from a a fishing technique where bait is dragged
behind a boat in hopes that *something* will take a bite and you can reel
it in.  In EMail terms I take it to mean posting a controversial message or
question in hopes of getting some unwary "fish" to answer, and thereby
start a long and mostly meaningless thread.  Trolling is bad netiquette,
and leads to much wasted bandwidth as people post and repost on inane
subjects, but it's not *nearly* as bad as being a troll.

Craig said...

>Leroy, I am rather well-known for my inclusive, congenial, live and let
>live attitude on the TML.  

Yep, Craig is a hell-of-a-guy, and a prince among Travellers! ;->

>However, my tolerance falls short of accepting you.  Now, this is simply
>my opinion, humble or otherwise -- but your condescension, inability to
>see any viewpoint other than your own, and general rudeness quite frankly
>rub me the wrong way.  Badly.  You are among a select few people whom I
>feel would best contribute to the TML by leaving it.  And I am fairly
>certain I'm one of many people here who feel this way.

<whistle> Looks like Craig doesn't like you very much. 

Leroy continues...

>> it came out, it was fun playing the parts that I got to (the referee
>> hadn't fully incorporated the adventure into his campaign), and it is
>> fun to look over the work of two brothers I consider friends.  (Andy
>> Keith treated me like a gentleman when I visited him in Elk Grove
>> village.  He is a true noble, and fan of the game.)

Craig replies...

>(Note to Leroy: Name-dropping is yet another rhetorical flourish which
>just don't cut the mustard.  Argue your point on its own merits.)

I have to agree.  Leroy, you have a bad habit of gratuitously dropping
names from the Traveller Pantheon in you messages.  It would be different
if you were citing the name for some reason other than to associate
yourself with them, but well, it *reads* like you are just trying to puff
your importance by association.  I find it more than a little annoying, but
I'm sure you don't mean anything ill..just a bad habit..right?

Leroy concludes...

>> I'll be moving along now (for some reason, I am always in midterms when
>> Doug goes on one of his tirades).

Gee whiz!  I didn't follow the Terra TL debate too closely..it didn't
interest me..but isn't that pretty much the same reason you gave for not
posting your sources back then?  Yes it *is* midterm time at many schools
right now, so the question your academic adviser might ask is "Why do you
get involved in these time consuming controversies right before
finals/midterms?" ;->

In the final analysis can't we say, Leroy liked the book, Doug and Harold
did not, everybody has stated their positions.  Enough said?

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:13:19 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: U R a generous alien

>Uhhhh....how about a big bunch of something useful, like , oh, I don't
>now...ICE, maybe ;-)

I thought about that...but I'm not sure how long ice would last on the lunar
surface before being buried, sublimating away, or getting ablated by cosmic-
ray exposure. Could be 1 MYr, could be 1 GYr - it's well outside my field.
I'm also not 100% sure what timescales the location of the lunar pole is 
stable on - if the pole shifts/precesses the crater floor gets lit up and the
ice melts.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:32:06 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Another TL-12 heavy ACR/GL

	Beats flaming each other...  In case anyone was wondering, this is
modelled on the rifles in Aliens.  It's a pretty nasty piece of work.  The
weight is a bit high, but given very fit troops, lower gravity, or troops
in BD, nothing to sweat.  In fact I could see something like this being
carried by BD units in M0.  It's almost as lethal as a laser rifle, and has
a much better weight/shots ratio.  Even assuming that the laser rifle would
be plugged into the BD's onboard power source, this thing draws no power
and therefore permits greater range.


10mm Heavy Assault Rifle/Grenade Launcher (TL-12)


Evaluation:
Length:			94cm
Bulk:			6
Mass (empty):		7.84 kg
Mass (loaded):		11.17 kg
Price (unloaded):	14379.45 cr
Basic range (rifle):	83 m (Medium)
Basic range (gl):	153 m (Long)
Damage (rifle):		6 slug, 6.717 HE/HEAP
Damage (grenade):	4 explosive/7 pen, 11m blast radius
Recoil (rifle):		0.79/1.19/3.95
Recoil (gl):		1.26
Reload price (rifle):	132.75 cr
Reload price (gl):	104.02 cr
Reload mass (rifle):	3.215 kg
Reload mass (gl):	954.16 grams

Rifle:

Round: 10 mm X 46.5 mm caseless
Barrel: 40 cm heavy rifled TL-10 Advanced Materials, long flash
hider/muzzle brake, bayonet lug, RG adapter
Reciever: SA/Bo3/FA Heavy, TL-12 Advanced Materials, TL-9 shock absorbing
stock, hollow pistol grip, gyro comp, Electronic sights (+20m), laser dot
sight
Feed: 100-round box, TL-12 Advanced Materials

Grenade Launcher

Round: 33.3 mm X 87.6 mm low-velocity propelled
Barrel: 36cm TL-12 Advanced Materials smoothbore
Reciever: TL-12 Advanced Materials pump
Feed: Tube Magazine, 3 rounds, TL-12 Advanced Materials


FF&S2 worksheet

Rifle:

Round: 10 mm X 46.5 mm caseless
Cal:	 		10 mm
Rated Energy: 		3975 joules
Base area:		78.54 mm^2
Prop. Volume:		3312.5 mm^3
Round length:		20 mm
Case length: 		26.36 mm
Round length:		46.5 mm
Round Mass:		27.4 gr
IBL:			40 (39.75) cm
Price:			1.09 cr

Barrel: 40 cm heavy rifled TL-10 AM, long flash hider/muzzle brake, bayonet
lug, RG adapter
ModBlen:		0
Mass:			1.12 kg
Price:			1728 cr cr
AME:			3975
Total length:		48 cm
ModRecoil:		0.6

Reciever: SA/Bo3/FA Heavy, TL-12 AM, TL-9 shock absorbing stock, hollow
pistol grip, gyro comp, Electronic sights (+20m), laser dot sight

Min length: 		25.22 cm
Mass:			3.213 kg
Price:			6635 cr
ModRecoil:		0.404
Total length:		46

Feed: 100-round box, TL-12 AM
Mass:			0.475 kg
Price:			23.75 cr
Mass loaded:		3.215 kg
Price loaded:		132.75

Shorty 33.3mm grenade launcher

Grenade launcher

Round: 33.3 mm (3.33 cm) low-velocity propelled

Explosive damage value: 4
Burst radius: 11.667 meters
Explosive pen: 7
Mass: 0.1776

Launcher:
Cal: 33.3 mm
Muzzle energy: 4,000 joules
Bullet base area: 870.92
Volprop: 3333.333
Blen:  ??
Case length: 2.4 mm
Round length: 87.6 mm
Mass: 229 grams
IBL: 14.43 cm
Price: 28.44 cr

Barrel: 36cmTL-12 Advanced Materials smoothbore
ModBlen: 1.494
Mass: 0.54 kg
Price: 1512 cr
AME: 6988 j

Reciever: TL-12 Advanced Materials pump
length: 30 cm
mass: 2.125
price: 4462.5

Mag: tubular, 3 rounds, TL-12 Advanced Materials
Mass: 267.16 gr
Price: 18.7 cr

Eval:
length: 66 cm
Mass: 2.933 kg
Mass (loaded): 3.62 kg
Range: 153 m (assumes Electronic Sights in attached weapon)
price:


Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:33:21 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Gal Gov Codes (fwd)

Moin Lewis Roberts,

> J: Unsupervised Anarchy
> K: Supervised Anarchy
> L: Committee

	I'm an anachist, and I've lived in the Finkenburg for some
	years. Now I wonder how to classify "our government".

	In Project (A) its usual to invite a so called "Supervisor"
	from an other comune for a weekend, called "Intensiv". Those
	are professional psychologist mostly of the "Gestalt" branch.

	But I dont think that this was your intension about "K".

	Related question: Would you call the german raete Republik
	of 1917-18 a Committee government ?

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 05:16:46 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Handwaving Menguno

Hy folks,

	just a question of handwaving :

	The system Menguno has an UWP of 0803 E7B1625-2 Ni Fl 200 Cs K1V M3D
	and is 7 parsec away from the next system. 2 million "people" live
	there with a corsive atmosphere at a techlevel comparinly to
	european Renissance. I think the people must be Vilani or Lancian
	settlers. If its an alien race it should be in the Gushemege Papers.

	Before I start own handwaving about `why the corrosive atmosphere
	does not harm lungs or how to survive with TL:2 equipment', I prefer
	to ask here for "canon" or "private" interpretation of this UWP.

	I think that there must be any story around this system as its
	on the Jump 7 route between Gushemege and Corridor. I think this
	J7 route is used by curiers from Tl:D+ Antebellum up, because the
	double jump (4+3+maneuver fuel) is faster than the way through
	Vland or the Islands.

Thanks Kraehe,
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:44:19 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> 
> >not so simple.  He was referring to something remaining functional for a
> >few hundred million years.  That's time enough for most everything to
> >erode into dust.
> 
> I didn't think we were looking for "functional" so much as "conveying
> information" - like a big metal plaque with an elaborate code inscribed on it,
> and something sufficiently to make it moderately detectable.
> 
> Bruce

- --
Yes, you have a point.  What we need is an expert in metallurgy who can
say if a metal plaque or something similiar can exist for 2-3 hundred
million years. 
        
                      The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:40:31 -0400
From: Paul Kestner <paully@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1973

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net> posted:
>>   <<snip>> or I flood the list with reposts
>>  of old Spofulam designs.  Repeatedly :).

Oh !  Goody, Goody,  I didn't catch them the first time.

Then on a different subject this was posted:

>> From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
>> Subject: Re: TL-12+ Search and Rescue gear?
   << snip >>
>>Something to check pressure on the other side of that wall.
>>  Makes sense...  what sort of sensor would be good for this?
   << snip >>

 How about a some sort of sound detection gear,  and a high
power speaker that can be mounted on a wall.
  To use, place detector and speaker on wall that you want to
check if there is air pressure behind.   Now have the speaker
pulse sound thru the wall and listen for a echo off the other
side of the compartment with the sound detector, < your ear
would not have the sensitivity >.
  A good design point would be to not require it to have air
pressure on your side of the wall.  Also make it so it works
underwater. <There is a wide range of enviroments to S&R in.>
  And tell Spofulam to keep the sound pulse level down below
100 decibels,  or you hear in addition to the echo, the painful
screams of thr rescuee's you are there to rescue.
  Of course, if they are screaming the are easier to locate
using the sound detector gear....

Paul

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 15:59:20 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: WHOA!

At 07:58 PM 17/10/97 -0500, Roderick Darroch Elliott  wrote:

>
>	I'm with Glenn.  People, simmer down and take it private, or I
>flood the list with reposts of old Spofulam designs.  Repeatedly :).

....errrr.... thats meant to be bad is it? Right... bad... OK.... very bad...

ahhh hang it.... go on... do it.... I dare you!    >:-)



Harry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 16:08:41 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

>>>So 60 minute orbits are *out*.

<ramble mode on>

I remember a college physics exam where I had to calculate the speed and
height of an orbiting sattelite.

I suspected I had a problem when the sattelite was orbiting the earth in
about 100 seconds!

I knew I had a problem when it was doing it at a height of three meters!!!

I redid that part of the question, and went on to pass the exam (just).

"Please Captain, don't put Lt Harris in charge of astrogation, at least,
not while we a we going into orbit."

I guess that sort of thing is an example of a failure, and a spectactular
failure would have been getting those results and not noticing the problem.

<ramble mode off>



Harry

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1977
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1978



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: In the void of space...
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: In Orbit
Generous Alien and Jump Space...
Re: Piracy mechanics (long)
Re: Traveller Maligning List, 'nuff said already
Re: Traveller Trolls
Re: TCS and Real Life Values (was Piracy)
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Interworld Commerce
Re: Satellite Speed
Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)
Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
Re: Orbit Answers!!
Re: T4 Designs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 01:29:11 -0400
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

At 12:43 AM 10/19/97 EST, you wrote:
<Snip>...
>A troll is a nasty, aggressive, and brutish being that you can hack to
>pieces, but it will regenerate (actually the pieces will rejoin, I think)
>and continue to fight.  Don't you have to burn the pieces to actually
>destroy them?  ...

Does this mean that being called a troll is a compliment?  Seems that these
traits would be handy in the office...



Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:21:04 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

In mail you write:

> No physicist here, so:  Would the random junk (stray atoms, etc.) in
> interstellar space slow things AT ALL?  I imagine it wouldn't have much
> quick effect (not like thrusting in other direction!), but would it slow an
> object noticably, say, over its transit of a galaxy?

over that sort of distance not only will interstellar gas and dust have
an effect, but the gravity fields of every star it goes anywhere near
will too.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:58:50 +0800
From: kenji@accessone.com (Kenji Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Leroy William Lu Guatney wrote:

[snip customary incisive wit -- I, lowly wretch, am not fit to re-send it
from my pathetic server, under my wormlike name]

>I'll be moving along now (for some reason, I am always in midterms when
>Doug goes on one of his tirades).

<sob>

>You'll be getting no more Traveller Maligning from me, there's enough
>already, and Howerd can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

<sniffle>

If you return to us someday, please please please deign to let us know.
Because, for the record, I hereby am claiming dibs on the ultimate honor --
of bearing Leroy's childen!  So just BACK OFF, all of you!  Quit shoving!
Me first!

Kenji Schwarz
kenji@accessone.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:24:31 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: In Orbit

In mail you write:

>>So 60 minute orbits are *out*.
>
> A question then ...
>
> I understand that there is an absolute lower end to an orbit for a
> spacecraft. How about an upper end? Could you simplify the whole thing by
> saying that, depending on how far out you want the orbit to be, the period
> coud be anything above n (n being the lower limit in time)? I don't know
> how useful that would be in this instance, but it might be useful to
> someone sometime. :)

There's actually an upper limit of sorts. 

If you get far enough away, you are going to wind up orbiting the
*star* rather than the planet. That's because the star will be exerting
more force on you than the planet will.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:27:23 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: Generous Alien and Jump Space...

Question about Jump Space:

Can Jump Space be delayed?  I guess what I mean is, can I enter jump space and then stay there for longer than a 
week?  Same range, etc.

Could an outlaw escape into jumpspace and hang out there?  If two ships jump at roughly the same time from 
roughly the same spot, will they be in the same jump space?

Could a generous alien have put an artifact into Jump Space and delayed its departure for some amount of time?

Kevin
 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:00:12 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (long)

Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:53:19 -0600, Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
>> >  Maybe we should clarify what sort of ship gobbles up an SDB,
>> >even under near-ideal conditions? Remember, the SDB doesn't
>> >have 20%+ wasted on J-fuel/drives, let alone cargo, nor does
>> >it require commercial rates of return on its' military gear
>> >costing.

>> OTOH, it just isn't that big a ship.  I don't have my Traveller
>> stuff in from of my, but it only has two turrets and can
>> only bring one to bear on a single target at a time.  (And
>> that one is take out in a the first shot).

>I don't have my Traveller stuff in from of my, either ;-) but i seem to
>remember that the standard SDB is 400 tons and has *four* turrets. Since
>it has no jump drives, It can afford larger maneuver and power plant.

OK, Traders and Gunboats has a SDB that has 4 turrets and Fighting
Ships has one that has turrets.  In any case, the "bigger" SDB has
a cost that about 3/4 the cost of Kinunir.

In the end, as you said, the SDB only gains 20% being non jump
capable and 400 tons is not large as ships go.  I would not want
to be able to depend on dominating every engagement with one.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List, 'nuff said already

> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 97 21:35:03 -0500
> From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
> 
> Craig said...
> 
> >Leroy, I am rather well-known for my inclusive, congenial, live and let
> >live attitude on the TML.  
> 
> Yep, Craig is a hell-of-a-guy, and a prince among Travellers! ;->

Ack, okay, all I was trying to say was that I don't engage in flaming as a
way of life, that this was an unusual sort of letter for me to be writing.

> In the final analysis can't we say, Leroy liked the book, Doug and Harold
> did not, everybody has stated their positions.  Enough said?

Eris, do you *ever* get tired of being the Voice of Reason?  Grrrr...okay,
enough said, Leroy, let's take it private or drop it, no need to further
bombard the list.  As a famous fellow Angeleno once remarked, "Can't we
all just get along?"

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Sun, 19 Oct 97 01:08:15 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Traveller Trolls

On 10/19/97 at 01:29 AM,  Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com> said:

>At 12:43 AM 10/19/97 EST, you wrote:
><Snip>...
>>A troll is a nasty, aggressive, and brutish being that you can hack to
>>pieces, but it will regenerate (actually the pieces will rejoin, I think)
>>and continue to fight.  Don't you have to burn the pieces to actually
>>destroy them?  ...

>Does this mean that being called a troll is a compliment?  Seems that
>these traits would be handy in the office...

It *does* sound like some bosses I don't dare name. ;->  

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 15:00:13 +0800
From: Colin Hutchinson <chutchin@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: TCS and Real Life Values (was Piracy)

>And who was that lady I saw you with last night? [well, as long as I'm
>full of questions :) ]
>
Godd to see a sense of humour!

        Colin

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 01:57:12 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> writes:
>
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:54:25 -0600
> From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
> 
>
>Leroy, I am rather well-known for my inclusive, congenial, live and let
>live attitude on the TML.  I actively work (hard) to foster consensus and
>shared research on Traveller-related topics through the THUDDD and other
>activities.  I find it remarkable and wonderful that so many people of
>such varying opinions can cooperate to examine and extend this shared
>obsession of ours.


Craig,  I haven't followed your posts that much, but from what little I
have seen, I would agree.  At the same time, e-mail can be a fleeting
form of communication, and flame can be perceived where there was none,
and so on.


>(Note to Leroy: Name-dropping is yet another rhetorical flourish which
>just don't cut the mustard.  Argue your point on its own merits.)


Funny that you and your brother see it that way.  No its not, I've met
the man who wrote the product that I was about to flame, in Traveller
Maligning List fashion, and personally, I have too much spine to flame
the works of someone I know.  Wouldn't be adult, manly, or any of that
rot.  So naturally I had to clear the air first, I do have some basic
tact afterall, despite the words that some without so much spine attempt
to put in my mouth.

Andy Keith is one the nicest individuals I have ever personally met and
it just did not feel right to malign something that he wrote.  It would
have been fun to work with Andy, had Kerry Lloyd of GameLords Ltd. been
able to stay afloat (and please don't call _more_ name-dropping, just be
civil or is that too much to ask).  I am not surprised to see that Doug
would go that way, but you too?  I haven't formed a lasting opinion of
you yet.  I am also taking into account for the fact that he is your
brother.  You might help him work on this.  Anyway, are you _really_ the
person that I quoted above--do you really try to have tolerance for what
others say?

Please don't misconstrue my words as anything in the way of a personal
attack on you, but with some of the race-baiting I had to endure in
another forum, I may be a bit sensitive these days.


>Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net


Having seen how some on this list can contort issues sheds light on the
way that some try it in much more mediocre forms elsewhere.  Thank you
for helping to point that out.  It is pretty clear now.

Rather than continue the flames, try and discuss with your brother how
he might have misinterpreted my post, and what things he _may_ have
overlooked in thinking this all through.  I am _not_ out to Malign and
I could use your help in this whole issue with Doug, if you are the person
of the first paragraph of your post (and I have _no_ reason yet to think
otherwise).  [It is actually sad because from what little I've seen of
Doug's posts where his private life enters TML, I think we have a number
of things outside of Traveller in common.]


Your friend in Traveller,

Leroy


Leroy Guatney - lwlg@usa.net
 University of Mars, NorthAm Campus
 Class of '98

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 01:59:57 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

In mail you write:

> Well, this problem kept rolling about in my head. I've been
> thinking of some plot ideas for a near-future campaign, and one
> of them entails some aliens leaving behind a "relic" somewhere on
> our planet or in our solar system which they expect us to find.
> I'm not talking about chariots of the gods, where all this relic
> has to do is stick around for a few hundred or thousand years.
> What I'm talking about here is a relic capable of surviving the
> long-haul.

<snip>

> You're dealing with a fairly advanced group of explorers here,
> but they aren't gods. Suppose that they are limited to a standard
> imperial tech level, and that they leave a lot of these "relics"
> wherever they go... so these things better be cheap (just
> something that says "hi... we were here... and by the way, here's
> how you build a jump drive... have a blast.")

Ok, since the "relic" doesn't actually have to *do* anything, it's
*much* easier. I'd go for some sort of "super micro fiche". Say diamond
"sheets" with inclusions that form the images and words. Diamond is
*not* expensive by even a couple of tech levels from now.

If you keep the pictures fairly "large" (still requiring magnification,
but perhaps not too much) the inclusions won't spread enough to make
things unreadable.

The hard part is keeping the sheets or plates from sticking to each
other. Best I can think of is to have them held in some sort of "racks"
(like a slide tray) by the edges, and not have anything too close to
the edges. If the rack material is weak enough, you could break the
sheets loose without damaging them.

The *real* hard part is figuring out how to "encode" the message such
that it can be unambigously decoded by a culture you know nothing about.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 01:14:00 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Interworld Commerce

In mail you write:

> The big cargo ships (15,000 + dtons) run exclusively to the Starport B+,
> Pop 7+ worlds.  They are not configured for passengers, and probably begin
> offloading when they arrive in system via lighters, and are still
> on-loading as they begin the run towards the jump point.

Why bother moving from the jump point?

Also, given the "canonical" shipping of resource type items around
(don't get me started on why anybody with fusion reactors won't bother
shipping ores and refined metals around), you should also see *huge*
bulk carriers visiting "mining worlds".

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:56:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Satellite Speed

In mail you write:

> All this talk of orbits and orbit speed has made me think...does anybody
> know how fast modern day satellites speed over the earth?
>
> If I were to go out in my yard, with a telescope, and spy a satellite,
> how long would it take for me to see that satellite overhead again.
>
> Anybody know the speed of our satellites today?

The ones in low orbit move about 8 km/sec. The farther out, the slower
they travel.

As for how long it takes before you see them again, that depends on
both the orbital altitude *and* on the orbital inclination. For
instance, a satellite in a low, polar orbit may not be visible again
for an entire *day*. 

I'm sorry, but you are looking for "simple" answers to questions that
don't have them.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:00:48 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.)

In mail you write:

> Just a random thought here...
>
>
>      Has anyone considered the effect of the light-speed lag on piracy
> in-system?  By this I mean (for example)  If the Jolly Roger arrives
> in-system at a range of 2 light-hours from the mainworld...he will have 2
> hours of time to study the military deployments in the system BEFORE any word
> of his arrival (or his signature, if detectable) arrives at the mainworld,
> which is presumably where STC is located.  If he doesn't like what he sees,
> then he can jump outsystem again, providing of course he has the capability.
>  And what if he is in range of a target (i.e. can at least engage the target
> w/ weaponry) well before that limit is up?  He could theoretically engage the
> taget, destroy or capture it, and be on his way gone before the authorities
> know whats happening!

Just to give you an idea of how *far* two light hours is, it's only
*five* light hours to *Pluto*. 2 light hours is 2.16e12 meters. An AU
is 1.5e11 meters. And the 100 diameter limit for earth is about 1.28e9
meters. 

So at 2 light hours, you are about 14 AU out (Out around Saturn?), or
about 1700 times the 100 diameter limit.

So the odds of any traffic being near you are pretty slim.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:37:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: When do walking robots, and man-amplifiers, come into available tech

In mail you write:

> If you want the fastest speed, run.  Running involves bouncing on
> your legs as though they were springs.  And, here, lower gravity is
> better provided you can keep control.  Your top speed depends on how
> well you can replace losses, and how good your control is.  But just
> like a wheel, you don't spend a lot of energy keeping yourself in the
> air.  That energy is stored and returned in springs (tendons) at each
> step.

A bit of anecdotal evidence here....

I used to live at the top of a 500 foot hill. Nice even slope going
down. And as I and my friends found, you could "run" really, *really*
fast downhill. This is a somewhat equivalent situation in that inclined
planes tend to simulate lower G for some things.

We could indeed go very fast. But if you lost control, you tended to
roll for 50 yards or so.

While I know that it's not the same, I do tend to use memories of this
as inspiration for movement at low g.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:19:34 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

In mail you write:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
>
>> >
>> >On the other hand, the pirate has to get close to the victim. Which
>> >almost certainly involves deviating *greatly* from the flight path
>> >assigned it by STC (Space Traffic Control).
>> 
>> Would there be assigned paths from some office all the way in fram
>> jump at all system?  I have my doubts.  Such _will_ exist at the
>> biggest, crowded systems, but it has already been assumed that this
>> isn't where piracy would occur.   Beside, as someone else pointed out,
>> you just leave at about the same time and get a path this is similar
>> anyway.
>
> Mandatory assigned flight paths?  Wow!  I've thought I was being ambitious
> by just having those ships that need to use the starport 'generate'
> facility, and those ships filing voluntary flight plans, available for
> pirates.  All ships!?

You are confusing flight *plans* and aproach/departure paths.

A flight pland essentially says "We're going to take off from XXX, make
the run to the jump point like this (ie, coast, accelerate all the way,
accel halfway decel halfway, etc). And we'll be jumping for YYY from
*this* part of the 100 diameter limit. ...... "

The approach departure stuff *isn't* on file it's assigned by the STC
controllers in realtime based on your flight plan, and what kind of
traffic there is in the areas you'll be passing through. Also things
like maintaining proper distances from various military
ships/satellites, etc (the military will *not* want you coming within
*very* large distances of some of their stuff, just because they don't
want photos of it showing up....)

So you may get told to follow a path that swings a fair ways from the
"straight line" that you'd otherwise be following. And except in
*really* crowded systems, it'll be normal to keep ships quite a ways
apart. 

Remember, for an earth sized planet (Size 8) it takes about 2.6 hours
at 6g (accel halfway, decel halfway) to go from the planet to the 100
diameter limit. At one g it takes 6.3 hours. So the ships are rather
"close" in terms of travel time.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:37:13 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

In mail you write:

> [Again avoiding points that have already been addressed....]
> Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:44:35 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>>A ship is a *dangerous* object. So traffic control will be a lot more
>>important than with aircraft.
>
> Well a collsion with aircraft is usually fatal.  I don't know
> about space ships. 

the general "rule of thumb" is that at 3 km/sec an object has impact
energy equivalent to an equal mass of TNT. And the energy gos up as the
*square* of the velocity (so at 6 km/s you have 4 times the "boom".).

A ship doing the accell halfway/decel halfway bit from 100 diameter
limit to a size 8 planet at 6g will have a peak velocity of 274 km/s.
That means that every ton of the ship has an impact energy of 8.4
*kilotons*. So if the ship masses a mere 100 tons (say 300-400
displacement tons). it'd be the equivalent of an 840 kiloton nuke if it
hit at speed.


> In any case, the space to the 100 diam limit is lot bigger than US
> airspace and space ships can see each other from alot further off.

It's not bigger if you think in terms of travel time. It takes a slow
(1g) ship about 6.4 hours from the 100 diameter limit to the planet.
And it takes a fast one (6g) 2.6 hours. 

Also, ships have a bigger "danger zone" than planes. Especially of they
use reaction drives (You don't want to route a ship thru another ship's
exhaust until it has had time to disperse a lot).

>>> Beside, as someone else pointed out, you just leave at about the same
>>> time and get a path this is similar anyway.
>
>>Why would you get a similar path? The planet has moved.
>
> Two ships leaving at the same time going to the same destination
> will want to take the same path.

Depends on a lot of factors. For one, they'd have to be running at the
same acceleration. And they *won't* be allowed to leave "at the same
time". Again, safety dictates that there be at least a few minutes
between them.

The best point to jump to a given star from is the part of the 100
diameter limit where your velocity has the best match with the
destination. 

In a "few minutes" a typical planet will move 9000 km. and it's
velocity vector will have changed direction by 12 seconds of arc.
That's almost 80 km at the 100 diameter limit. 

So the ideal jump point for the two ships is 9000+ km different. And
that's ignoring a few details.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:47:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Orbit Answers!!

In mail you write:

> Step two is simple (if you use this step)--just multiply the atmosphere
> code by the amount in the table.  This will give you oribiting
> distance.  For example, a ship is orbiting a planet in high orbit over a
> size 5 planet with an atmosphere code of 6.  This means the ship is
> orbiting at 3,000 KM (6 x 500).

<sigh>

This is *backwards* For the same atmosphere type, the atmosphere will
extend farther out on a *small* planet. This is because atmosphere
depth is aeesentially a spring function. That is, the atmosphere is a
spring and gravity is the weight pressing on it. The less weight on the
spring, the taller the spring stands....

> GEOSYNC ORIBT
> Now, for geosync orbit...
>
> To figure geosync orbit, you use this formula.
>
> O = 5078 x [(m x p^2)^.33] - (D / 2)
>
> where:  O = geosync orbit in km
>         p = rotation period of world in hours
>         m = mass of world
>         D = diameter of world in km

This may be correct. It's too late for me to do much checking.

> Once you know the distance to orbit, you can simply add the planet's
> diameter to this number to figure the size of the sphere the ship is
> rotating about.  Using that, you can figure the circle's circumfrence. 
> This will give you a linear distance the ship is travelling.
>
> At this point, you simply need to decide how fast the ship is moving. 
> Given the speed at which starships move, you can really have the ship
> moving as fast as you like (geosync orbits, of course, will rotate at
> the same rate as the planet's rotation--the local day).

Sorry, but again, it doesn't work this way. A ship that is *in orbit*
moves at a velocity determined by the planet's mass and the orbit's
radius. And *only* at that speed.

To move at any other speed would require using the engines.

> As a GM, you may say that the starport has rules for orbits.  For
> instance, there might be a rule, for saftey reasons, that ships cannot
> move faster than the planet's rotations, effectively limiting ships
> orbiting the planet to the local day.

Only if they want them orbiting at geosynch or higher orbit!

> Or, there may be no restrictions, and a ship can zoom around the planet
> in a few minutes (think of how fast ships move in starship combat with
> one hex being 30,000 KM).

That's a powered flight, *not* an orbit!

> Again, the speed is up to the GM 

No, it isn't. No more than how fast something falls is up to the GM.
Both are determined by the law of gravity.

> Pysadi
> Size = 4 
> (specific diameter is 6,560 KM, which I figured out when I detailed the
> place)
>
> Atm = 7
>
> Ship is in standard orbit.
>
> Starport regulations restrict orbit speed to 1,000 KM per minute.
>
>
> Using my chart, I see that the ship is orbiting at 980 KM from the
> suface of Pysadi (that's 7 x 140).
>
> I've arbitrarily decided that the starport restricts orbit speed, for
> all ships, to 1,000 KM per minute.
>
> The formula for finding the circumfrence of a circle is (2 x 3.1416 x
> radius).
>
> So, now I know that the ship will pass overhead (orbit the planet) once
> every 26.7 minutes.

Sorry, but unless the ship is under powere, it'll take *at least* 85
minutes for an orbit.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:01:11 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: T4 Designs.

Suzette C. Dollar <suzd@pop.goodnet.com> writes,
>> Well, while "EMS" is a bit cryptic, a neutrino sensor is obviously a
>> device that senses neutrinos. And a densitometer is a device that
>> measures density or density differences. This is plain from the way
>> words are put together in English. If you don't know what neutrinos
>> are or what density is, then you look them up in a dictionary.
>> 
>> Just like if you didn't know what something was in a gane set in
>> WWII, you look it up.
>
>One of the problems with this attitude is it assumes that everyone 
>who plays Traveller is at your level and views the world the way you 
>do. I would imagine that many on TML agreed with you. But I don't 
>know that TML is particularly representative of role-players at 
>large.

[snip stuff about wargaming terminology]
>Yes, I can look it up in probably a thousand places. But if I'm not a
>wargamer none of them are handy, and if I am a wargamer I already 
>know the answer. If something simple will make a text more useful, 
>comprehensible and interesting to the readers, it should be put in.
>
>Or am I missing the whole point of this exchange?

I don't think you are - in fact I agree entirely.  As an experiment, I
looked up "neutrino" in the dictionary:

  Neutrino n. Physics.  a stable leptonic neutral elementary particle
  with zero rest mass and spin 1/2 that travels at the speed of light.
  Two types exist, one being produced with positrons in neutron decay
  and the other with positive muons in pion decay.

OK, I happen to know (*very* roughly) what that means - but to many
people this translates as

  Neutrino n. Techie stuff.  blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
  blah blah blah goes as fast as light blah blah blah...

There is a certain percentage of words where, if you understand less
than that percentage, you cannot make sense of the text.  Collins
Dictionary seems to assume that if you're asking about neutrinos you
know quite a bit about physics.  This is usually a safe assumption, but
not when dealing with roleplaying.  So:

Point #1:  Roleplayers often need to find information in layman's
           language about a subject generally left to specialists.

This does not just apply to SFRPGs, by the way.  Fantasy roleplayers
often want to know details concerning the economics and/or laws of
feudalism, for instance.  Or castle construction.

OK.  For my next experiment, I tried looking up EMS:

  Ems n. 1. a town in W West Germany...[naah].  2. a river in West
  Germany...[oops].

No good.  You can't really get anywhere with abbreviations if you don't
have specialist sources, because abbreviations are a shorthand for
specialists who know what they are talking about.  At work I can witter
on about using TCP/IP to transmit data collected via DMA on a mixed
PCI/ISA backplane, safe in the knowledge that I will be understood by
the people who need to understand.  In fact, I am partly relating
information I myself do not have, because I don't actually know what all
those mean - I just know the effects they have on the software I write.
So,

Point #2:  Abbreviations need to be explained.

I find Suzette's wargaming case interesting, because I have learned a
lot of military terminology from RPGs.  SMG, LOS, ATV - the list goes
on and on.  In fact, this is pretty much my sole source of information
in this area, because it has been picked up "in passing" when looking at
other subjects which are of more interest to me.

One final point:  I will buy books which contain no new information if
they present the old info in a manner which is suited to my needs.  That
organisation is added value enough (some of the GURPS historical books
fall into this category).

Apologies for the soapbox.  I promise to post something more directly
Traveller-related before my next exposition...

John

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1978
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1979



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Death Star Basic Stats
[Fwd: (Fwd) The Sty in Thine Own Eye]
Re: Claiming its not broken when it is (EV Review)
Trolls
Damage
Re: In Orbit
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Jump et al
Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: More than 3d damage & A Damage Resolution Idea

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:45:16 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Death Star Basic Stats

> Thinking back to first movie, it didn't seem to take very long
> for the Death Star to travel from the spot where it emerged from
> hyperspace to Yavin. It must be capable of better than 0.1G.

The time was not quoted, as I recall.  And everyone remembers the time 
required for the Death Star to come "into view" of the moon where the 
rebel base was.  At 6G, it would not take that long to move into firing 
position - in fact, at 6G the Death Star could dodge out of the way of 
those pesky X wings.


Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 08:17:33 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: [Fwd: (Fwd) The Sty in Thine Own Eye]

Return-Path: <sylvain@ix22.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3])
	by mail.siscom.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA31228
	for <hdhale@siscom.net>; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:42:20 -0400
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id TAA01621 for <hdhale@siscom.net>; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 19:44:36 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199710190044.TAA01621@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from day-oh9-17.ix.netcom.com(205.184.156.241) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id rma001616; Sat Oct 18 19:44:13 1997
Comments: Authenticated sender is <sylvain@popd.ix.netcom.com>
From: "Nicholas Sylvain" <sylvain@ix22.ix.netcom.com>
To: hdhale@siscom.net
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:45:41 +0000
Subject: (Fwd) The Sty in Thine Own Eye
Return-receipt-to: "Nicholas Sylvain" <sylvain@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)

If you don't see this in a day or so, could you post it for me?  
No matter what I do, something about Netcom and the TML just doesn't
work right (well, I know what it is, but it would take some work to 
explain...)

- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          Self <Single-user mode>
To:            traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject:       The Sty in Thine Own Eye
Date:          Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:39:48

> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:54:25 -0600
> From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
> Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

(snip)

> All right, as a recap, I came to the list last summer, and Doug Berry
> called me a troll.  I mostly ignored him.  He proved rather quickly
> that he was not a person who was very civil and nearly immediately
> concluded that he did'nt like me. (I don't jump to conclusions so
> quickly.)

Opening your argument with a personal attack is to me a very poor 
comment on the substance of your points.  I am sorry to see that you 
proceed to prove me right.

> Doug opined the view of how great the Sky Raiders was, while in the same
> breath going on about Emperor's Vehicles' purported "flaw" being a lack
> of TL for each of the designs in the book.  I also put this in the category
> of "Traveller Maligning".

While I almost never post, this has provoked me.  You devote a great 
deal of time to ripping Sky Raiders and (by implication) Doug for 
being a fan of Sky Raiders.  Unfortunately, this is wholly irrelevant 
to the topic  --  the usefulness (or lack thereof) of Emperor's 
Vehicles.

First of all, Emperor's Vehicles is a supplement for *Traveller* and 
no other gaming system.  As such, I would expect it to have fully 
detailed gaming statistics (particularly given that the vehicle 
generation system can be extremely detailed!).  Any deficiency in 
this regard is a bug, not a feature.  Your defense seems akin to 
having a car without a speedometer and being told you can figure out 
your speed by timing the mile markers with a stopwatch.

Second, I don't care whether Sky Raiders has flaws or whether Doug is 
a booster for Sky Raiders.  Tearing either of them down means doodly 
squat about Emperor's Vehicles -- you are merely trying to deflect 
the terms of the debate

Third, I don't care what (if any) fault for personal attacks is the 
fault of others -- *you* are perpetrating and perpetuating 
incivility.  Stop whining, take responsibility for *your* actions and 
develop a thicker skin.

ObTraveller:  a previous poster referred to "debate" such as this as 
being indicative of a difficulty in managing a far-flung Empire.  
That's a good point -- indirect diplomacy even on its best day is 
going to be a difficult way to run an empire!


- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@ix.netcom.com) Your tour guide to Ohio's finest
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney           correctional accomodations! I can
Montgomery County, Ohio                  design a stay to meet your deeds!
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 97 17:44 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Claiming its not broken when it is (EV Review)

In-Reply-To: <9710160438.AA01337@carbon.cudenver.edu>

> and HIWG list.  Instead, Mr. Boulton had some pointed questions that he
> claimed I was ducking.

To clarify, I asked some perfectly reasonable questions (ie the sort of things 
players ask all the time), which you didn't answer.

> I wasn't, but I think you'll see why I was reluctant
> to directly answer his questions.  Read on and you'll understand.

I certainly hope so.

> As I pointed out, I had answered all of Andrew B.'s questions dismissing them
> with it is the domain of the referee.  (Admittedly, an edit that I had not

If you want to use that as a reason, you might as well not bother buying *any* 
book - it's *all* the domain of the ref. This was supposed to be a sourcebook 
containing pre-designed vehicles that can be used during a game. I could (and 
often have) simply made up values on the spot, but this is designed to save you 
the trouble (and more importantly, it gives you vehicles that are legal 
according to the design rules, which made-up ones often aren't). If you're 
saying refs should do all the work themselves then why did you buy it?

> >Okay, let's pick a vehicle: Grummond TC Carrier (p67).
> >What TL is it (ie on which worlds can I find one)?
>  
> Not relevant, 

Of course it is, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I'm on a TL8 world - can I 
buy one here?

> though the book does say it is Imperial Surplus Dept. as

No, it says "Civilians may purchase surplus or decommissioned personnel 
vehicles from the ISD", but nowhere does it say this is one (and since it's not 
an Imperial vehicle (ie doesn't have the prefix 'Imperial'), I would assume it 
isn't).

> outlined in the CSC.  Since in Milieu 0, the Imperial max tech is 12-13,
> it is clearly _not_ higher.  Personally, I would say that since it is
> clearly _not_ grav-propelled, it is TL 8 or less, but probably 8.

All we can say for certain is it's between 5 and 12. Probably. The laser 
rangefinder makes it more like 7-12. I agree that 8 is probably right, but it 
might be 7, or it might be 9.

> As for which world, you can probably find it anywhere an Imperial mechanized
> batallion might have demobilized, 

No (see above).

> any world a FreeTrader captain may have
> taken it to, to sell for a profit, or any lower tech world (<TL8) where it
> may have fallen into disuitude do to lack of suitable maintenance parts.

If you try hard enough you can justify finding anything anywhere. I want to 
know what I'm *likely* to find.

> As a counterpoint, are Air/Rafts or Scout ships *only* found on worlds of
> *their* TL?

Scout ships are found wherever they're sent - they're *designed* to travel 
about a lot, *especially* to lower-tech worlds. Vehicles tend to stay on the 
world where they're made, simply because it's cheaper that way. If they are 
exported, they're unlikely to go to a world with a vastly different TL, because 
where will you get it fixed if it breaks down?

> >How many crew does it need?
>  
> Sorry, but that is pretty obvious looking at the picture.  A driver,

What picture? The one on p66? How do you know which vehicle (if any) it 
represents?

If I showed you a picture of a Leopard 2 MBT and a T-72 side by side, could you 
tell me that one had a crew of 4 and the other 3? Just by looking at a picture, 
what's the crew of the USS Nimitz?

> a gunner (if it is to be used), and a maintenance guy not necessarily
> carried.

> >How much damage do its weapons do, and what's their max range?
>  
> Well, since no weapon has been fired in my campaign in years, the standard
> answer is, "If you are out to kill and break things, you're not role-playing

Irrelevant. We're not talking about your campaign (or mine, for that matter).

> However, since I don't think you will like that one, how about, "Whatever
> combat/design system you are using."

What a ridiculous answer. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm using T4. 
This isn't a generic sourcebook that can be used for any system you like.

> This last one really illustrates the beauty of the book, in my opinion.
> The *fact* that *no* design system was included really is a testimonial
> to *how* useful it is to someone that is looking hard enough to see that
> it is useful.

I'm left utterly speechless by that comment. What's the weather like on your 
planet?

> >When I run out of fuel, how much do I need to find to 
> >refill the tank?
>  
> Mostly irrelevant.  It happened *once* in my campaign, and that was due
> the creature that was _inside_ the fuel tank--once the L-Hyd drained out,
> the creature thawed out from engine heat.

I'm not saying it's something that's going to come up every session, but it's 
nice to know. And the designer must have worked it out when creating the 
vehicle, so why not list it?

> >How many wheels does it have? 
>  
> Six, or didn't you actually *look* at the book?

See my comment above. Nowhere does it say what that is a picture of.

> >If I take it to a TL1 world for a week, how much fuel should I take with 
> >me?)
>  
> That depends on how you (the referee) see the universe you are running.

It has nothing to do with that. It is based entirely on the endurance (which 
you know)and capacity of the fuel tank (which you don't).

> >Also, what *in game terms* does Ease +1, Reliability -2, Hazard +1 
> >mean?
>  
> See pg. 110.

Which particular part tells me how my skill roll is modified?

> >Last vehicle: The gunship at the bottom of p91. This is a joke, right?
>  
> Again, as the book says, that one is classified.  That means the referee
> should use *imagination*, which is what this game is about.

But what's the point of including a card for it? By all means mention it in the 
intro to that section, but if you're going to go to the trouble of including a 
card for a vehicle, to then not bother to fill it with anything useful is 
stupid. If the ref wants to use it he's got to go away and design it himself, 
and if he's going to do that then why did he buy the book in the first place?

> Well, that is the same idea.  Do you get pissed that there is no floor
> plans of the Virgin superstore in London too?  

I might have been if it had been called "The Emperor's Guide To 1990s British 
Music/Video/Game Stores".

> Look, if I'm unemployed
> and can buy these books, it can't be that hard for someone else.

I'm medically retired, and I don't find it hard to buy them either. I never 
said I did. They *are* overpriced, but that's another argument. But if a book 
claims to have "dozens of vehicles...described for *easy integration* into your 
Traveller campaign" (my emphasis), then I don't expect to have to go through 
and redesign every bloody one myself before I can use them, just because IG 
were too stupid to include something as basic as the TL.

> long.  There is _no_ supplement, sourcebook, adventure, what have you
> that has ever been the _final_ word in how I run my campaign, but I

I expect most refs would agree with you.

> run an incredibly *detailed* universe.  My players think it is as complex
> as the *real* one, and not even a 96-page book is going to provide *that* 
> kind of detail.

I'm not expecting it to do so, and I'm not asking it to. Only a fool would 
suggest it could. All I ask is that a sourcebook does the job it claims to, 
which EV fails to do.

> Broken record.  Like I said, you _define_ it to be a problem, but the

That bullet hole I've just put through your chest isn't a problem, because I 
choose not to define it as such.

> problem is _you_ don't know *how* to use this *PERFECTLY* good Traveller
> supplement.  

No, you're right, I don't. When I pay $23 for a book of pre-designed vehicles, 
I don't expect to get a list of 'suggestions' that I could quite easily think 
up myself for free.

> I would guess that you have grown too accustomed to using
> T:TNE sources

Whatever gives you that idea? I began migrating my campaign to TNE, but most of 
it was MT. I objected to much of the vagueness of TNE, unlike the hard facts 
you got with MT (101 Vehicles, for example).

> Please Andrew, no more brouhaha.  I refuse to believe that I am the only
> referee that can handle these kinds of questions.

I can handle them, I just object to paying to do so.

And you do appear to be the only person to like EV (if anybody thinks you're 
right and I'm talking rubbish, I'd be interested to hear from them).
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:29:31 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Trolls

I'd like to pick a fault.

> A troll is a nasty, aggressive, and brutish being that you can hack to
> pieces, but it will regenerate (actually the pieces will rejoin, I think)
> and continue to fight.  Don't you have to burn the pieces to actually
> destroy them? 

This depends upon your viewpoint. A troll (to me) is a creature similar to
humans, but born of the Darnkess rune. nasty, aggressive and brutish, yes.
But they have a complex society and a role to play in the World. Diminished
since the Curse Of Kin, the Uz (as what humans call Trollsname themselves)
are slowly dying out, but fighting extinction all the way. In their own way
Trolls are admirable and noble. Sort of. 

Irrelevant? Maybe. But if we're going to use definitions of creratures from
Other RPG (tm) then let's use the ones from Really Good RPG (tm)!

Tongue-in-Cheekily

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:23:39 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Damage

If I could be bothered to do it, I'd use a system like the one proposed -
damage is taken by stats determined by where the hit landed. However,
having just stopped using a home-written combat system in favour of the
simple Trav 4 rules, I'm not likely to change again soon. (might be worth
it just for the players' howls of protest....)


Stun damage is a funny thing. I took a fluke hit a while ago in an epee
match. My oppoinent's thrust caught in the velcro fastening of my glove. We
were both closing too fast like a pair of idiots, and both simultaneously
attacking. His (stiff!) blade bent double before freeing itself to spring
straight - right into a rib! The electric tip isn't heavy, but there was a
lot of force behind it. There was no 'real' damage besides an impressive
bruise, but I stopped functioning as a sentient being for about 15 seconds
(I'm told). Apparently I wandered slowly away in a daze before 'coming to'
and continuing the fight (which I won). No real damage done, but the hit
was astonishingly painful - so much that it reduced by INT to zero (no
difference there!). I had absolutely no idea what I was doing in those
seconds until my brain rebooted.

I have also been kicked in the solar plexus (instant lie-on-the-floor time,
couldn't breathe at all for a while. Eventually I got up and went about my
business (sparring - quite active) with no real difficulty. But at the
time..... The kick to the head I once took did the INT thing again.
Suddenly I'm looking at the ceiling and wondering what it's doing in front
of me, can't understand why everyone's so worried. Again I was fine after a
few minutes, but totally out of it at the time. Perhaps stun damage should
affect the three 'mental' stats? 

So: How about Stun damage affects any three of END, INT, EDU, SOC, Lethal
damage any three from STR, END, DEX, INT, as ruled by the referee when the
hit is taken. Common sense should suggest which three are used (INT only on
head hits in lethal damage?)

That said, the only things to get shot in the last 7 Traveller games were
two security bots, plus a fistfight.

As an aside, I think Brawling damage should do Stun damage only - but it
should also be possible to decide that one is going to kick an opponent to
death. Say once a stat reaches zero, it begins to take 'real' lethal
damage. This solves the knife vs brawling problem (I think!). You can put a
man out of a fight fairly quickly with fisticuffs, but it's quicker to kill
him with a knife.

Additionally, I allow extra damage for STR (-1 damage per 3 points of STR
under 7, +1 per 3 points over). Ie: STR 1-3: -2, STR 4-6 -1, STR 7 Normal,
STR 8-A +1, STR B-D +2, E+ +3. This only applies to brawling and impact
weapon damage (swords, clubs etc). I raise the Foil damage to 2D (impaling
weapons are quite deadly) and allow high END to reduce damage taken (END
9-B: -1 damage, END C+ -2 damage.) This makes no difference at all when
shot with a laser rifle, but in a fistfifght the -1 or whatever is a big
help.

The 3D limit seems reasonable for high-velocity weapons which will pass
through (though I'd raise it to 4D), but what about shotguns, energy
weapons and dumdum/glaser type rounds designed to stop quickly and this
impart all their KE to the would area? I'd allow +1 Die damage for these
types, and maybe give lasers their full damage (the only way this weapon
can come out the back is by vaporising all the tissue in the way, which
also damages surrounding tissue. That's got to be more than 3/4D!)

Thoughts?

Martin

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 08:49:40 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Re: In Orbit

Harry wrote:

>
>I remember a college physics exam where I had to calculate the speed and
>height of an orbiting sattelite.
>
>I suspected I had a problem when the sattelite was orbiting the earth in
>about 100 seconds!
>
>I knew I had a problem when it was doing it at a height of three meters!!!
>
[snip]

	You think you had a problem, think about the people living along
its orbital track..:)

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 06:43:26 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

I had heard they were thinking of using diamond for a replacement for
silicon in wafer technology.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:55:11 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

Another long posting!  here is the summary:

250,000 merchant ships in the Spinward Marches, average 1000 T in size.

660 big ships in Imperial Naval squadrons

20,000 support ships (including fighters) for the big ships

7200 SDB (only in Pop 7+, TL 7+ systems)

Most of these ships will be concentarted near the Hipop worlds and on 
trade routes between HiPop worlds.  If these ships were spread evenly 
over the 400 worlds of the Spinward Marches, we would never need fear 
pirates (oops, it is that thread again - sorry).

In terms of a database, 250,000 ships and 5,000 new builds each year is 
trivial task ... much smaller than births, deaths and marriages (or 
even cars), which we seemed to manage quite well back in 1960 when our 
computer systems were virtually non-existant.  New registration and 
re-registarion (for new owners) would only take two months to spread to 
all the TL 7+ or Starport B+ systems.  It is no worse a task than the 
world-wide airline timetable that is printed every month.  Some of 
those TL7 worlds might use paper-based books and so always be an extra 
month or two behind in their directories, but nothing serious.

TL6- worlds and Pop 6- worlds without naval or Scout base would be 
prime "piracy" sites - which is where i would send my anti-piracy 
forces to patrol.

Here is the detailed arguments for those who want to know:

==============
Back on Wed, 1 Oct 1997 , Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> posted a 
message about Industrial Capacity

<begin quote> 
OK, here they are.  (I have to put this into a database so I can quit
crunching the numbers by hand each time I do this!)
 
[Note - my system for calculating population is to assume the pop code
range goes from half below to half above.  (ie. Pop Code 4 has a range 
of 500 to 5000)  In this way, the code is equal to the average 
population.  I am not stating this to start any dispute, simply so you 
will know how I get my numbers.]
 
Assumption - Shipyard capacity = 1 ton per 1,000 pop. per week
 
Spinward Marches 
 
TL 9 shipyard capacity @ 10,110.01 tons per week
 1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 10 KT/wk
 
TL A shipyard capacity @ 1,120,213.01 tons per week
 1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
 3 shipyard @ 1 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
 2 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
 2 shipyard @ 10 Kt/wk
 1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
 1 shipyard @ 1 MT/wk
 
TL B shipyard capacity @ 1,121,062.1 tons per week
 1 shipyard @ .1 Tn/wk
 2 shipyard @ 1 Tn/wk
 6 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 1 KT/wk
 2 shipyard @ 10 Kt/wk
 1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
 1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk
 
TL C shipyard capacity @ 1,112,200.01 tons per week
 1 shipyard @ .02 Tn/wk
 2 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
 2 shipyard @ 1 Kt/wk
 1 shipyard @ 10 Kt/wk
 1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
 1 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk
 
TL D shipyard capacity @ 400,110.011 tons per week
 1 shipyard @ .001 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ .01 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 10 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 100 Tn/wk
 4 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
 
TL E shipyard capacity @ 100,000.001 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ .001 Tn/wk
 1 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
 
TL F shipyard capacity @ 2,200,000 per week
 2 shipyard @ 100 Kt/wk
 2 shipyard @ 1 Mt/wk
 
TL G shipyard capacity @ 100,000 per week
 1 shpyard @ 100 Kt/wk (Darrian, had to put it in!)
 
Total shipyard (Class A) capacity is 6,163,695 (plus change) tons per
week.  However, 2,251,385 of that capacity is TL B-, which IMHO, would
be...underutilized for the Imperial Military.
 
Almost a full third of the capacity is held by two starports, Rhylanor 
and Trin (which I missed on my listing of TL-F Pop A starports, ref: my
previous post)[which is also why the Imperials consistantly kick ZHO
BUTT!!  :)
 
Now, starting with the figures given above, who wants to figure out how
much of this shipbuilding capacity is used by the Imperial fleets based 
in and around the Spinward Marches?  (I'm not!!)
<end quote>

Although Douglas has shown capacity as "per week", this is not quite 
how the ship building system works.  If we take Douglas' key data:

6,163,659 T capacity

From my earlier posting about starport size, it is not unreasonable to 
have approximately 15 to 20% of this capacity used by the Navy (as the 
Cr500 per person tax will not support more navy than this).  the 
remaining 80 to 85% shipyard capacity is for traders.  Assuming that a 
trading ship has a life of 50 years, and an average construction time 
of 52 weeks, there will be:

6,163,659 x 50 x 80% = 246 million tons of ships.

Depending on average constuction time, there could be more or less than 
this, and we ought to account for the fact that long Naval ship 
building times mean that more than 20% of the shipyard is probably used 
by the Navy.  However you want to calculate it, I will use a base 
figure of 250 million tons of ships - say 250,000 ships at an average 
of 1000 T each

Ewan has suggested 660 Imperial Navy "big ships"

in addition to the big ships there will be the fighters, escort ships, 
couriers and numerous others ... an average of 10 to 100 x the big 
ships?  let us use 30x to give 20,000 support ships.

World Builders (well, the spreadsheet version I have) gives 1 SDB 
squadron per 10,000,000 people .... around 600 SDB squadron in the 
Spinward Marches - say 12 ships in each at 1000 T?  this gives

7200 SDB at 1000 T each

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:39:59 -0500
From: "Pat Connaughton" <pconn@simm.net>
Subject: Jump et al

Greetings, I have a question (probably simplistic but please bear with me
on this one).

What is the perceived and actual duration of jump both on the part of the
ship doing the
"jump" and the external universe at large?

I am revieving my ongoing Traveller campaign and have some ideas regarding
the
uses of "jump". I would appreciate any thoughts or comments on other
interpretation of
the canon in re: jump or any thoughts or ideas on variants of the jump
concept the
other GM's are using.

Please advise at your convenience.
Thanks
Pat Connaughton

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?

In a message dated 97-10-18 12:41:29 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Does one exist???
 
  >>
MegaTraveller 2- Quest for the Ancients had a great on built in.

Marc Miller

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:27:57 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

Leroy William Lu Guatney wrote:

> Funny that you and your brother see it that way.  No its not, I've met
> the man who wrote the product that I was about to flame, in Traveller
> Maligning List fashion, and personally, I have too much spine to flame
> the works of someone I know.  Wouldn't be adult, manly, or any of that
> rot.  So naturally I had to clear the air first, I do have some basic
> tact afterall, despite the words that some without so much spine attempt
> to put in my mouth.

"I have too much of a spine to flame the works of someone I do not know".

I find that to be a very interesting statement, Leroy.

Perhaps you should start calling up English and Literary Criticism 
departments at universities around the world to give them your opinion.
I'm sure they'll be quite interested in the fact that literary criticism
is essentially the work of men and women without "too much of a spine".

When people post their reviews of products like EV, they're reviewing 
the product, not the author. If I said that I didn't like EV, or, 
let's say, if you said there were faults in the Skyraiders trilogy, 
then we'd be making comments about a written piece of work, not about 
the relative human worthiness of the products' respective authors.
By extension, if I, or anyone else, thinks that your review stinks, then
we are free to review the review and say what we like about it. I have
no idea why you think that any sort of review is a personal attack on 
the author.

Quite simply, you have to be trolling. Your statement goes so much 
against the way that reviewers of any sort work that it can't possibly
be anything else. It's like having me post that I think that real 
men realize that finite element solutions to mechanical engineering
problems are inheritently flawed and that those who avoid closed-form
analytical solutions are without a spine. It's just so deeply wrong!

Honestly Leroy, what do you study in school?

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                        egh@klg.com
                            http://www.klg.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 12:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: More than 3d damage & A Damage Resolution Idea

In a message dated 97-10-19 00:44:10 EDT, eris@pen.net writes:

<< What do you think of the following modifications to the T4 damage method?
>>

I would suggest the possibility of considering damage for head shots going to
 INT-EDU-DEX...it seems to me after a sharp blow to the head, you might be
dizzy, legs a little rubbery, blurry vision, etc...all things that would seem
best applied to DEX.  Other than that I think it's a pretty good idea...

I also think maybe the max damage cap should be at least raised to 4D, if not
done away with altogether...the T4 system is essentially the same as CT, with
some well-needed changes.  Having played CT extensively in High School (with
a group of my JROTC buddies), you can imagine combat was a big part of our
games.  We never seemed to have a real problem the damage done...if your
character was hit with an FGMP-15...he was kitty litter.  No problem.  And,
remember, this was before armor did any reduction to the damage...it only
provided a DM vs. the to-hit roll.

     One of my best-remebered adventures involved a group of characters who
had been captured by a TL-3 society (my discription of them was ca.1780
Redcoats) and besides one character falling in love w/ the then-new Snub
Pistol (w/ HEAP rounds, no less...) by making a perfect head shot with one,
the nasty surprise came to one PC in the form of a .75 cal musket ball...a
bad 5D damage roll, resulting in a prosthetic arm/shoulder for the PC (who
upon returning to the ship, nuked the town...hey we were 15!)

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1979
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1980



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.) (LONG)
Re: List down?
Material needed for Signal GK 13
Re: Tech stuff
Re: U R a generous alien
Megaweapon question
Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.) (fwd)
Re: Interworld Commerce (fwd)
[T97#1964] Cost of Policing NYC
Re: Material needed for Signal GK 13
Traveller 2001 (was: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML))
Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
Re: The whole piracy thread
re:Piracy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

In a message dated 97-10-19 02:14:37 EDT, j-man@iname.com writes:

<< Yes, you have a point.  What we need is an expert in metallurgy who can
 say if a metal plaque or something similiar can exist for 2-3 hundred
 million years.  >>


I seem to recall seeing a program on cable TV a few weeks ago that showed
round metal spheres with a groove carved in them...clearly not of natural
origin, that had been found in rock dated at over 1 Billion years old.

And this was located on Earth (obviously), but since it was buried at some
time in the rock, it seems to have been protected from the ravages of time
that way.

BTW...is water so corrosive that it will erode EVERYTHING?  I have heard the
saying "given enough time water will erode a battleship" but aren't there
some alloys that will survive extended periods of being underwater?   After
all, 75% of the earth is still unexplored....

(Yes I have seen "The Abyss" in the last week...:-) )

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:30:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.) (LONG)

In a message dated 97-10-19 08:19:14 EDT, shadow@krypton.rain.com writes:

<< Just to give you an idea of how *far* two light hours is, it's only
 *five* light hours to *Pluto*. 2 light hours is 2.16e12 meters. An AU
 is 1.5e11 meters. And the 100 diameter limit for earth is about 1.28e9
 meters. 
 
 So at 2 light hours, you are about 14 AU out (Out around Saturn?), or
 about 1700 times the 100 diameter limit.
 
 So the odds of any traffic being near you are pretty slim. >>


I did realize that (at least to the point of knowing that 2 light-hours was
well beyond the 100-d limit anyway) so obviously I guess this would have more
implications in a military situation (i.e. system recon)...but then again, a
good pirate would want to "case"  the system a bit anyway, wouldn't he?

Also, (at least in my games anyway) there is usually a fair amount of
in-system
travel...having spent that hard-earned money for Book 6 and MT I might as
well do the extended system generation...some of that would certainly be well
out there.  And I guess I would weigh in on the side of using GG as a
refuelling point for ships not intending to hit the mainworld.

Actually, that stirs a thought also.  Maybe the key to resoving this thread
is to define "Pirate"?  I see everyone discussing piracy as "Arggh, matey,
stand and deliver!", but lets face it...it all seems to come down to the same
thing, destruction or capture of merchant vessels (Commerce raiding)  I doubt
seriously if it matters to a merchant captain if the "pirate" approaching his
ship is an Zhodani or Solomani warship, a privateer from a local system, or
just a bored group of PC's w/ nothing better to do!

As far as the system defender goes, in the Trav universe as presented,
anytime a war starts (or military action) the local commander has to fight it
w/ what he has on hand...A war that is one month old means that the only
reinforcements he can get are those w/in a 12 parsec radius (this is absolute
best-case...i.e. J-6 couriers and J-6 response units) A more likely radius
would be 6-8 parsecs, and for M0 it would be 6 parsecs.  

As I see the role of the Imperial Navy (from many different volumes all the
way from CT)  it functions in squadrons or individual ships, based at various
points in a subsector or sector, re-deploying as necessary.  These units are
very high-tech and usually more than a match for the enemy (except in
outright invasion by a major power).  I see the deployment pattern as being
along the lines of the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic period...assigned to
various "stations" and then redeployed from there by the admiral comanding
the station.  In this case...the needed reinforcements might be busy across
the sector!

These tends to keep the idea of SDB's alive for me...sure they can't stand in
the line-of-battle, but to garrison a system that has SDB's requires many
more vessels than it otherwise would...tying up those valuable ships.   And
since they are there anyway...if someone gets frisky in-system they can
usually handle it, I believe.

Obviously, this got far away from my original post about the LS lag, but it
does have some bearing...In my view, "pirates" would be more likely to sieze
the ships, rather than just the cargos.  And knowing if the navy has sent a
Battle Group to the system for "exercises" would be very useful for a raider
of any type...as would the info that the same Battle Group left suddenly
after reports arrived of a Hiver caravan selling corn dogs in another
system...:-)

Anyway, sorry to ramble on...does anyone have any comments/nitpicks/snide
remarks?  :-)

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:41:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: List down?

I had the same problem last week...but I am getting the mail now.  Yours
(obviously) came thru fine, so I would say you should be getting the messages
again very soon.

Ed (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: SignalGK@aol.com
Subject: Material needed for Signal GK 13

I'm responsible for a Traveller Fanzine published in the UK called Signal
GK...

We publish material from classic, megatraveller and new era (including
Hubworlds which was created by the SGK team). The magazine is
non-proFitmaking (any profit is donated to a local charity) and in addition
to the main mag' has been providing supplements detailing the Dagudashaag
Sector - as of this issue that will be complete.

Unfortunately a number of contributors who had promised to supply articles
and adventures for this issue have failed to deliver and our publishing date
has started to drift..

Is there anyone out there who has any decent adventures, port of calls or
articles that they would like to see in print? I can't promise any money but
you will receive two copies of the issue and its widely read - I've
subscribers all over the world..

I'm looking for material that hasn't been published before (though I'm happy
for material that has only been published on the net..)

Please, Please, no highly technical articles working out how many jump drives
can balance on the head of a pin - Traveller is meant to be fun to PLAY.. I
write primarily for Referees and they want something that makes sense but is
ready to run with - Calculators during a session does have this nasty habit
of killing the game in progress. However I would be interested in an article
on system defence and piracy if anyone fancies putting it together.

I hope you can help,

Jae Campbell

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:24:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: TravelrTNE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tech stuff

I agree that we need laymans explanations.  Meson guns, screens, etc were
always explained decently for me to understand.  But never the sensors.  What
kind of information do the various sensors (AEMS, PEMS in particular) tell
someone?  I mean are they Star Trek sensors that tell u all sorts of info?
 It's obvious they do stuff covered by the other sensors (NAS, neutrino,
densitometer, etc).  Did the old SOM say anything bout it?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 13:50:38 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

On 10/19/97 at 01:03 PM,  DustyLV769@aol.com said:

><< Yes, you have a point.  What we need is an expert in metallurgy who can
> say if a metal plaque or something similiar can exist for 2-3 hundred
> million years.  >>

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned ceramics.

Anyway, several dozen relatively inexpensive markers on geologically stable
airless bodies would just about insure that one would survive a long,
*long* time.  Maybe, place them above or near buried "massicons" that have
no place being where they are...that should get the attention of any
spieces that is exploring their system.

>I seem to recall seeing a program on cable TV a few weeks ago that showed
>round metal spheres with a groove carved in them...clearly not of natural
>origin, that had been found in rock dated at over 1 Billion years old.

Yeah, I saw part of one on cable recently that purported to expose how the
US Army was using psionics, too.  ;-> 

It's fun to speculate, but I won't put much credence in either until I see
something in a reputable journal.  However, somebody has got to do the
speculation, investigation, exploration, and experiementation before
anything new gets *in* a reputable journal.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 21:03:56 +0200
From: Goran Sjoberg <NGC1201@communique.se>
Subject: Megaweapon question

After reading the posts in the list about the planetbuster weapons, thought
of one different. The question is if it is a valid one?

My thought is "antimatter torpedo".

The shape and construction would be like a nuclear missile with a magnetic
constrictor chamber containing the antimatter preventing it from reaching
the dense matter core in the center. 

What would the dammage of this weapon be if it could be built?

Just a thought from the little Goran

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 08:38:02 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.) (fwd)

Moin DustyLV769@aol.com,

>      Has anyone considered the effect of the light-speed lag on piracy
> in-system?  By this I mean (for example)  If the Jolly Roger arrives
> in-system at a range of 2 light-hours from the mainworld...he will have 2
> hours of time to study the military deployments in the system BEFORE any word
> of his arrival (or his signature, if detectable) arrives at the mainworld,
> which is presumably where STC is located.  If he doesn't like what he sees,
> then he can jump outsystem again, providing of course he has the capability.
>  And what if he is in range of a target (i.e. can at least engage the target
> w/ weaponry) well before that limit is up?  He could theoretically engage the
> taget, destroy or capture it, and be on his way gone before the authorities
> know whats happening!

	In my canon he has at least one turn more or less depending on
	view than with the pure light lag.

	when the jump bubble collapse, the stored energy of the HPG
	running for a week accelleration LHy dispension, is tunnelling
	out of the bubble. The "jump explosion at 100 diameters" can be
	seen with blind eyes on a bright day in Sahara. This jump
	explosion will start about half an hour before departure,
	and will ionisize interplanetary dust for at least an other
	half our after depature. Its usual that is warship is using
	this jump explosion for sensor shadow to leave the point
	of depature, and to silently drift towards its real destination.

	About how bright a jump explosinion of a TL:A, 100dt Jump1 ship
	is : 16.2MW*24*7 = 383 MW about 600 Gjoule, thats bigger than
	any particle accellerator. A jump 4 ship will produce a jump
	explosion about 10 times. I'm sure that you can see it with
	blind eyes  (Ask Mr Sensor)

	BTW how did I came to this value ?

	Look at my "TML: Physicists (fwd)" posting from around 7th
	of October.

By Michael
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 08:05:02 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Interworld Commerce (fwd)

Moin Marcus Teter,

> Good starting point.  I would have these modifiers in addition:
> 
> X4 if world is along a main.
> X2 if A class starport.
> X.25 if world is jump 3 or more from a main.
> x.5 if world has class C or worse starport.

	What about a more "scientific approach" and asking why the
	empire needed this expensive trade.

	My answer : The diversity of products is increasing with
	the techlevel, and only a larger synergy of systems can
	build a techlevel higher than its own sustainable techlevel.

	The minimum population for a techlevel is

		(10^TechLevel)/(2^MaintModifier)

	where MaintModifier is 

		Tl 4-5:2, Tl 6-7:3, Tl 8-9:4, Tl A-C:5,
		Tl D-F:6, Tl G-I:8, Tl J-L:10,Tl M+:12

	So high tech worlds rely on import for maintaince and export
	for paying the imports. 

	E.G: Usdiki A260985-E has a popmod of 8. about 8000 million humans

	I'm now asuming that 1/8th of the production is TL:E, so the
	Tl:E capital is 37 kCr * 10^9, the maintaince is 0.4% per
	month 148 GCr half of the maintaince is done by the heavy
	industry localy, leaving 74 GCr for spare parts.

	(D-9)=5, so 50% of those spare parts have to come from offworld
	trade. That are 37 GCr minimum trade just for sustaining technology
	without any luxus import like bananas and coffee for the people
	or low tech toys for the kids. The real import/export will be
	about 10 to 20 times higher, because its often cheaper to import
	than to build it from scratch. btw:The monthly GNP for Usdiki
	would be 15TCr, so the Import/Export factor in the GNP is
	about 0.2% to 4% depending on how much of the trade is for
	pure luxus.

	When using this theory most economies in the wilds collapsed BEFORE
	virus arived, so you can see main virus populations only in Core,
	Vland, Rure and Ilish the former save areas in the rebellion.

	This theory also explains why the Sylean had to expand before
	archiving TL:D (Antebellum around 400-600) and how big the
	Sylean trade was when the 3I was founded (about 200 billion
	people, 10 popcod A worlds, 2-5 subsectors) It would also
	explain why Vilani were Tl:A- (most of their worlds had
	popcods of 6 or 7) and Sol was able to build TL:C (Terra
	was overpopulated probately popcod B popmod 2-3) very fast.

	At the lower techlevels the numbers seem quite resonable to me,
	even if I dont have a PhD in economics, but in computer science. 

By Michael
- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:32:21 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: [T97#1964] Cost of Policing NYC

On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:17:06 -0400, "David P. Summers"
<summers@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>>>Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every =
intersection.

>>Dammit, David, read what I write! NYC _don't_ have the resources to put
>>a cop at every intersection.

>I did read what you said.  And I didn't agree with it.

>> They might be able to hire them if the cut
>>back on something else, but as of today they don't have that many cops.

>Well, if you take 1% of what NYC taxes for defense (average taxes
>are about $4000 (actually that would be higher because of NYC higher
>cost of living, but we will ignore that), and about 1/3 has typically
>gone for defense)  with 18 million people that is 240 million dollars.
>If cops make $30,000, then that's 8000 cops.  I can then claim that
>this would make street crime impossible just as you claim your
>calculations make piracy impossible.  (And the fact that the
>income tax system is progressive, and I haven't included any
>local or state taxes means the number could be a lot higher).

I work for the NYC PD; I know whereof I speak.

The population of the City of New York proper (not including the
suburban areas included in the Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area for census purposes) is nine million, and during
the typical business day, you can expect to find ten to twelve
million people within the confines of the city.

A rookie police officer, fresh out of the Academy, makes $30,000
per year; the average officer of non-appointed rank has five to
eight years on the job and makes $48,000 per year.

Effective October of 1996, when the NYC PD fully absorbed the
formerly independent New York City Housing Police Department and
the New York City Transit Police Department, the uniformed
strength of the department, all ranks from Chief of Department on
down, including Detective and investigative ranks, was 35,000.
An additional 8,000 to 10,000 non-uniformed ("civilian")
personnel carry out some administrative and maintenance tasks at
an average salary of $28,000 per year.

The New York City Police Department has officers on-duty 24 hours
per day, 365 days per year (366 in leap years).  There are 76
Patrol precincts, 9 Housing Police Service Areas, 12 Transit
Police Districts, 8 Borough Commands, 4 Highway Patrol Units,
and about a dozen specialized patrol and investigative units such
as Mounted, Aviation, Internal Affairs, Organized Crime Control,
Intelligence, Narcotics, and so on.

The busiest precincts (I work in one such) can expect to have an
average at any moment of the day of 100 members of the service of
all ranks and titles including civilians in administrative
positions scheduled to work per square mile of patrol area.  Of
those, one can expect roughly seven to ten percent to be actually
unavailable due to unexpected illness or family emergencies,
court testimony, special details, vacation, restricted duty due
to pending administrative disciplinary action or psychological
conditions leading to temporary removal of authority to carry a
firearm, and so on.

If _every_ cop were to be placed on the street doing foot patrol,
at the density implied by the figures for the busiest precincts
above, you could have one cop every roughly 500 feet.  The area
of the City of New York (all five boroughs) is roughly 325 square
miles, requiring a total of more than 32,000 _foot_patrol_only_
officers to have them at intervals of _500_ feet throughout the
city.  That's an average of one per two short blocks in
Manhattan.  To have them every _15_ feet, as you suggest, would
require a total of roughly 40.25 MILLION patrol officers;
assuming a rookie salary of $30,000 per year for each of them,
that would cost the city $1.2 TRILLION (US Trillion; British
Billion; power-of-ten exponent is 12).  The budgeted
expenditures, for _all_ programs, of the United States Government
in 1992 was $1.4 trillion.

New York City cannot afford to put a cop every fifteen feet
throughout the city.  The United States could barely afford to
put one cop every fifteen feet throughout New York City -
provided it were willing to forego just about every other program
it runs, including national defense, and fire the people
involved.
- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 14:13:45 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Material needed for Signal GK 13

On 10/19/97 at 01:50 PM,  SignalGK@aol.com said:

>I'm responsible for a Traveller Fanzine published in the UK called Signal
>GK...

Jae,

Sorry to say, I've never heard of your Fanzine over here in the US.  How do
you distribute?  What do you charge?

>We publish material from classic, megatraveller and new era (including
>Hubworlds which was created by the SGK team). The magazine is
>non-proFitmaking (any profit is donated to a local charity) and in
>addition to the main mag' has been providing supplements detailing the
>Dagudashaag Sector - as of this issue that will be complete.

>Is there anyone out there who has any decent adventures, port of calls or
>articles that they would like to see in print? 

Is the material you are looking for similar to what appeared in early JTAS,
Far Horizons, Traveller Digest..that type material?  What word counts are
you looking for?  What are your policies on copywrite and article reprints?

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 16:02:40 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Traveller 2001 (was: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML))

Leroy William Lu Guatney writes:

>Craig,  I haven't followed your posts that much, but from what little I
>have seen, I would agree.  At the same time, e-mail can be a fleeting
>form of communication, and flame can be perceived where there was none,
>and so on.

   Note to TML members other than Leroy: From time to time, Leroy feels
the need to send messages such as this one in an effort to mend fences
with people he believes he can convince in the future to defend him from
flaming when he pisses off one or more other list members.  It is a
technique he employed from time to time on HIWG-list.

>Funny that you and your brother see it that way.  No its not, I've met
>the man who wrote the product that I was about to flame, in Traveller
>Maligning List fashion, and personally, I have too much spine to flame
>the works of someone I know.  Wouldn't be adult, manly, or any of that
>rot.  

   Horse crap.  I've met Dave Nilsen and Loren Wiseman and I would have
no trouble saying publically and to their *face* that the TNE supplement
"Aliens of the Rim, Vol. 1" was interesting piece of experimental RPG
sourcebook writing that promptly fell on its face.  In short, nice try
guys, better luck next time.  This is not to say that Dave Nilsen or
Loren Wiseman are bad writers, or that there aren't parts of the book
that *do* work (much of the book is very valuable).  Conversely, Loren
had some problems with the write-up I did on the Vegans that appeared in
Traveller Chronicle and he felt free to tell me so.

   This does provide some insight however--could it be that because
"Marc Miller's Traveller" is named for Marc Miller, and Leroy knows Marc
Miller, that Leroy is incapable of giving a critical review of any MMT
product?  Highly likely I would argue.

>So naturally I had to clear the air first, I do have some basic
>tact afterall, despite the words that some without so much spine attempt
>to put in my mouth.

   This is another standard Leroy tactic: address a post to a particular
member of the list, include insults of other people, and then send the
post to the list.

>I am not surprised to see that Doug would go that way, but you too?  I 
>haven't formed a lasting opinion of you yet.  

   Ditto.

>Please don't misconstrue my words as anything in the way of a personal
>attack on you, but with some of the race-baiting I had to endure in
>another forum, I may be a bit sensitive these days.

   Ditto.

   You get the idea.  Even when he is supposedly being consolatory, he
isn't.  And wasn't this the guy who said he wasn't going to respond to
this thread anymore?

   ObTrav: In the future, I will try to include at least some morsel of
Traveller content in all my posts.  Looking back on my last few to this
list, it seems I'm either addressing historical references or snake
hunting.  I'll try to do a little less of each in the future.

   I'm curious where everyone thinks Traveller will be in the year
2001.  The beginning of the 21st century afterall, a mere four years
away.  Will MMT still be around in version "T4.4"?  Will GURPS:
Traveller be Traveller?  Will there be a revival of TNE?  What will the
fan base look like (will there be one?)?  I've already done my share of
predicitions on this list, I'm curious what other people think.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:12:21 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

Simon Early writes:
>Here is the detailed arguments for those who want to know:
> 
>==============
>Back on Wed, 1 Oct 1997 , Douglas <douglas@teleport.com> posted a 
>message about Industrial Capacity
> 
> <begin quote> 
> OK, here they are.  (I have to put this into a database so I can quit
> crunching the numbers by hand each time I do this!)
>  
> [Note - my system for calculating population is to assume the pop code
> range goes from half below to half above.  (ie. Pop Code 4 has a range 
> of 500 to 5000)  In this way, the code is equal to the average 
> population.  I am not stating this to start any dispute, simply so you 
> will know how I get my numbers.]

Unfortunately this makes the figures much less useful to those of us who
likes to keep as close as possible to the official Traveller universe. I
guess you missed the reply where I pointed out to Douglas that pop code
ranges goes from 1*10^code to just under 1*10^code+1 (ie. Pop code 4 has
a range of 1000 to 9999).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:58:22 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: The whole piracy thread

Douglas R Glatz writes:
>2) How good are the various sensor platforms at the various tech levels?
>Conversely, how good are the various stealth platforms at the various
>tech levels?  

If the technology is realistic then hiding in outer space is impossible.
Any ship will generate heat and getting rid of the heat is very difficult.
And even with present day technology heat can be detected a long way off.
Stealth technology can hide just who and what you are, but it can't
conceal that _something_ is there.

(Personally I'd love to see a 'cloaking device', but I know a lot of the
more technically minded people on this list will want to skin me alive
for even suggesting it ;-).

>5) How involved is the IN in anti-piracy work, or is that the province
>of another department (like the scouts)?

Piracy appears to be the concern of the navy. There are examples of the
navy taking over small worlds and replacing their governments when they
were exposed as pirate havens.

>Just how much of the presumed 5% of GWP that goes to the military goes
>to the IN?  How do the subsector and planetary forces fit in?

The rule in TCS is that the various navies (that is, army not included)
gets Cr500 per citizen. _Striker_ gives the navy and army together from
1 to 15% of GNP. 70% of this is retained for local system defense, with
the army recieving 40% of this (that is, 28% of the original figure) on
worlds with a breathable admothsphere and only 6% on vacuum worlds. The
other 30% goes to the interstellar state (the Imperium further subdivides
this into regular and colonial (sub-sector) forces with 50% to each. 
 
>7) How corruptable are starport officials?  (Both STC and shipyard)

Propably as much as anybody else, as long as they think they can avoid
being caught.
 
>8) How easy/difficult is it to forge, alter, create or manipulate ship
>identification, papers, transponders, etc?

Transponders are supposed to be tough to tamper with, though there are
canonical examples of fake transponders (in contradiction to what TNE
claims about the deyo based transponder). There should be no problems
making up authentic looking papers. (The trouble is that using papers
that don't correspond to the official records will mark you out for
attention.)

>What market would there be for cargo, starship parts, starships and the
>like?

If you can get your hands on them in the first place you can almost
certainly find someone to take them off your hands. From books and
TV shows I've gained the impression that most hot stuff fetches from
10 to 20% of its real value. A starship would propably lie in the low
end of that range.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:05:28 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Piracy

David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu> WROTE:


>>>First of all, you don't need to carefully unstrap it.  You just
>>>cut the bloody things.  >
>
>>Cut many webbing straps recently in zero G?
>
>No.  Of course neither have you.  But of course you don't have to
>cut them zero G.  You wait until after to cut gravity.

But... from your original post:

>If you take a
>>> ship out by suprise (which can be seconds, but lets assume
>>> it takes a full 5 minute) and then 15 minutes to transfer
>>> cargo

You have crippled the ship (victim) in 5 minutes: The easiest way to do
this is to kill the power plant, so no gravity... Otherwise the merchant
captain, knowing that the SDB is (in your argument) 85 min out puts the
ship in a deadmans tumble so you can't recover it.

>> Still takes time, say a minute
>>or two.
>Based on what?  Even webbing comes down to a few anchor points.

Based on practical earthside experience of cutting webbing - admittedly you
could laser or otherwise cut it.

>>If you are under gravity it'd be faster, but you have more mass and
>>inertia problems, and have to control the crippled ship's computer.
>
>Why?  What mass and intertia problems?

Moving the cargo.

>The gravity is on, you
>free and ready the cargo, and cut power to the gravity....


The gravity is unlikely to be on (see above) and you are in an EVA suit for
the external work.

>>Meanwhile the remaining crew of the ship will be shooting at you or holed
>>up in the bridge or engineering.

>Or the pirate ships just keep shooting bits of the merchant until
>the crew gives up.  Fighting to the death is a military approach
>not what some modestly paid guard will do.

But in all the Traveller Ship Combat systems I've played that takes at
least 30 min an exchange....and the SDB is coming in fast. Yes, I agree you
point about the guard, but gunners are hired by merchant captains for this
type of operation and the merchant may have a lot of his money tied up in
hs savings. They'd put up some resistance especially if they think an SDB
is within an hour and a half of them.

>>>Finally, with G comp, there is no reall reason to have to
>>>tie them down again.
>>
>>Apart from the fact that system failures happen, and you may not have power
>>etc because you have just crippled the ship.
>
>Well, the pirate is going to be jumping out next, not fighting
>another battle.  He is going to be concerned about getting
>way rather than some rare chance of some system failure.

You misunderstand me - the system failure is induced by fire from (a)
pissed off merchant or (b) the approaching SDB.

Re-reading the original post you sent I believe that your original
hypothesis (crippling the ship in 5 min) is flawed. I am basing my position
on loading of isofrieghts at work.

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"Omnia Mutantur Nihil Interit"  -  Sandman 'The Wake'
"Everything Changes, but nothing is truly lost" 

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1980
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Sunday, October 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1981



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.) (fwd)
Re: Satellite Speed
Re: In the void of space...
Contact: Sayat
Ramming, Was Re: Death Star Basic Stats
Re: Tech stuff
Re: Handwaving Menguno
Re: Jump et al
Re: Megaweapon question
Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...
Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...
Re: Megaweapon question
Re: Tech stuff
Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: Claiming its not broken when it is (EV Review)
EV review and flames &  Aliens on the Rim 
Re: Tech stuff

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 12:45:29 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

>All right, as a recap, I came to the list last summer, and Doug Berry
>called me a troll...

You did fail to mention how you comported yourself on the list at the time.
Anyone curious should go read the archives for an example of your debating
style.  And Doug's.  I certainly found Mr. Berry a bit more rational, but
your mileage may vary.
....

>Fine, you may call that Netiquette, but out here in Colorado & Wyoming
>call it something else.

PLEASE - rest of the list - Leroy is NOT typical of people from Colorado.

I grew up there, and found them, in the main, polite, reasonable, and
fairly rational to the same extent that people in New Jersey and northern
and sourthern California are.  I presume they are roughly the same in these
traits as people from any other plaace you care to sample - people share
more common traits than they difer in, though the expression mechanism does
vary the farther you go from this country's shores and the television
system that did an awful lot of socialization of the current generation.

(I normally would not post a flame quite like this, but you have claimed to
the list that people in Colorado would, in general, find your debate style
aceptable.  My own perception diagrees)

Scott

- -------
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu.  http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz/
"You die, she dies, EVERYbody dies" - Heavy Metal
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results" -
Calvin Coolidge, attrib. by Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:14:24 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>

> > Vinnie (SecureGuard rep., baritone voice): Y'know, you wouldn't want an
> > "accident" to happen.

> Small shopowner, afterwards in tv interview: "And...and they had nuclear
> weapons."

Or:  "Well, Admiral, this is a very nice Naval Base you have here.  It'd
be shame if anything happened to it, like, say, an accidental impact
with an asteroid travelling at a significant fraction of light speed,
now wouldn't it?"

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:24:55 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...

Does anyone know where these might still be had?

Kevin
 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:33:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

In a message dated 97-10-19 17:22:32 EDT, you write:

<< I seem to recall seeing a program on cable TV a few weeks ago that showed
 >round metal spheres with a groove carved in them...clearly not of natural
 >origin, that had been found in rock dated at over 1 Billion years old.
 
 Yeah, I saw part of one on cable recently that purported to expose how the
 US Army was using psionics, too.  ;-> 
 
 It's fun to speculate, but I won't put much credence in either until I see
 something in a reputable journal.  However, somebody has got to do the
 speculation, investigation, exploration, and experiementation before
 anything new gets *in* a reputable journal.
 
 Eris
 --  >>
Actually, this find is one that has been documented...I am trying to remember
which show it was, but it was a Nova or Discovery Channel show, not usually
victims of "questionably speculative" data.   In a similar vein, here in my
home state of Nevada, there is a rock with a human footprint in...this seems
unremarkable until you understand that there is also a trilobite fossil in
the footprint (as in, the trilobite was deposited AFTER the footprint) that
has been dated at well over a billion years old (I have seen this, on display
in a museum at UNLV)...

Kinda makes you go hmmm...   :-)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy mechanics (4 pps.) (fwd)

In a message dated 97-10-19 17:24:19 EDT, you write:

<< In my canon he has at least one turn more or less depending on
 	view than with the pure light lag. >>

I can respect that...everyone has his own view of how this works.  I had
never hard of the "jump explosion" idea, but it has possiblities.  Makes
surprise jump assaults (i.e. turn Black globe on then jump to system) a real
difficult proposition though...

Ed (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: TDRandall@aol.com
Subject: Re: Satellite Speed

With all this talk about orbits and how long it takes for spacecraft to come
back around, how are people accounting for the rotation of the planet?

What I mean is, although the craft orbits in a plane, the planet turns at the
same time.  I believe that's how you get that neat sinusoidal (sp?) curve you
see on the mission-control screens (at least in the movies) [even though it's
taken you 90 minutes to make a complete revolution, sorry, the Earth has
turned 90 minutes worth: ~1500 miles at the equator.]

The only way you could have a craft be exactly over your head would be if you
are on the equator and the craft is orbiting on the equatorial plane (which
you might as well make geosynchronous) or at a pole with the craft orbiting
to cross the poles.  Otherwise the best you might hope for is along the same
longitude (slightly increasing or decreasing the time of "orbit" according to
if the craft is orbiting in the direction of the planet's rotation or against
it) or at odd times when it might be somewhere within line of sight of the
landing party.

Hey, if we're going to do the math, might as well add in some realistic
complexity, right?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: TDRandall@aol.com
Subject: Re: In the void of space...

In a message dated 97-10-18 04:20:01 EDT, someone said:

<< 
> Or is there a slower decrease in speed, but decrease nonetheless?
 
 No.
  >>

Because I love to be picky, wouldn't there be some miniscule friction from
interstaller particles (Like "you've been floating for 10000 years at 100
km/h, your speed has decreased by 1 meter/hour")?  

In the name of practicality I agree --> No.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 16:13:54 +0800
From: kenji@accessone.com (Kenji Schwarz)
Subject: Contact: Sayat

The new, improved, expanded, double-plus good writeup of the Sayat minor
race is now up and available on Jeff Zeitlin's _Freelance Traveller_
website, for anyone who's interested.  It just got too damn big to post to
the list again.  Red expansionism, dontcha know.  They're taking over!

  <http://www.dragonfire.net/~FreelanceTraveller/Features/Backgd/sayat.html>

  (But take a look a the rest of the pages, too; there's all sorts of good
stuff
  in there.)

Perhaps the People's Military Shipbuilding and Export Combine No. 1 will
even go so far as to enter the next THUDDD... although that might allow
classified Sayat technology to fall into the hands of the everpresent alien
Evil...

Kenji Schwarz
kenji@accessone.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:57:53 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Ramming, Was Re: Death Star Basic Stats

>> Thinking back to first movie, it didn't seem to take very long
>> for the Death Star to travel from the spot where it emerged from
>> hyperspace to Yavin. It must be capable of better than 0.1G.
>
>The time was not quoted, as I recall.  And everyone remembers the time=20
>required for the Death Star to come "into view" of the moon where the=20
>rebel base was.  At 6G, it would not take that long to move into firing=20
>position - in fact, at 6G the Death Star could dodge out of the way of=20
>those pesky X wings.

Why dodge away from them when you could dodge straight into them? I doubt
the Death Star would take any noticeable damage from doing so, while there
probably would not be any noticeable pieces left of the X-wings.

This brings up a question: If two ships collide, how much damage is done to
each of them? The smaller ship would take more damage, but ...

I was thinking of possible kamikaze attacks, or even destroyer ships driving
straight into disabled small enemy fighters. Has anyone ever used a system
for these kinds of things?

Note: I am using the T4 rules. Any information would be helpful though.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:00:29 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Tech stuff

>What
>kind of information do the various sensors (AEMS, PEMS in particular) tell
>someone?  I mean are they Star Trek sensors that tell u all sorts of info?

I'm starting to think about writing an article on this someday (although I'd
be much more likely to do so if I thought I could get it published for money
somewhere...How is JTAS doing, anyway?) 

The reader's digest version is that both sensors tell you the position 
of a target. PEMS tell you (if you see it in the IR) how much power
its power plant is putting out; with more time and good sensor operator
work you learn what kind of IR masking it has, roughly how big the ship is,
and various signatures that could allow you to look the ship up in your
big-book-o-IR-signatures and ID the class. If you see it in the visible
you learn roughly how big the ship is and (again with long exposure) some
clues to rough shape that might let you ID the class.

AEMS give you a very precise range (even including range to different parts
of the ship, which your computer can turn into a rough picture of the
target.) 

At short ranges (50,000km or less) you start to see details in the ship's
hull - your PEMS gives you a (blurry) picture of the target. At moderate
amounts of effort you can also use this to ID the target. At very short
ranges (5,000km or less) you can read the name on the hull. FFS2 has a nice
table giving the resolutions (size of details) sensors can see at a given
range.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:04:11 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Handwaving Menguno

>	The system Menguno has an UWP of 0803 E7B1625-2 Ni Fl 200 Cs K1V M3D
>	and is 7 parsec away from the next system. 2 million "people" live
>	there with a corsive atmosphere at a techlevel comparinly to
>	european Renissance. I think the people must be Vilani or Lancian
>	settlers. If its an alien race it should be in the Gushemege Papers.
>
>	Before I start own handwaving about `why the corrosive atmosphere
>	does not harm lungs or how to survive with TL:2 equipment', I prefer
>	to ask here for "canon" or "private" interpretation of this UWP.

My private interpretation would be that the people live in some ancient
installation that they no longer understand. Perhaps the colonists still
have functioning automatic systems (like air cleaners etc.) but they do no
longer understand them. In that case they would live within their artificial
world, and they would probably be seriously shocked if someone from the
outside entered.

At that tech level, it is even quite possible that they refer to the
one-time creators of their world as Gods In that case they would probably
regard visitors as Gods too, and perhaps humbly ask them to help with some
difficult problem.

Just giving you some ideas that suddenly appeared in my head ...

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:09:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Jump et al

At 09:39 1997-10-19 -0500, Pat Connaughton wrote:
>What is the perceived and actual duration of jump both on the part of the
>ship doing the "jump" and the external universe at large?

The actual duration (as perceived by a static observer in normal space) is
one week, and I think the time perceived by the crew of the ship is the=
 same.

This would mean that if a jump takes longer than one week (due to a misjump)
the captain would get VERY embarassing questions from the passengers.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 19:14:13 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Megaweapon question

On 10/19/97 at 09:03 PM,  Goran Sjoberg <NGC1201@communique.se> said:

>After reading the posts in the list about the planetbuster weapons,
>thought of one different. The question is if it is a valid one?

>My thought is "antimatter torpedo".

>The shape and construction would be like a nuclear missile with a magnetic
>constrictor chamber containing the antimatter preventing it from reaching
>the dense matter core in the center. 

You've just invented the "photon torpedo" from ST. ;->

Actually, why have a dense matter core, just crash the torpedo into the
target and when the magnetic confinement chamber collapes the AM will
interact directly with it.

>What would the dammage of this weapon be if it could be built?

E=mc2, or there abouts. 

Wouldn't that be 1.8e17 ergs per gram of antimatter?  2 x (3e8)^2

If so, then that converts to 18,000Mj/gram?  1.8e17 / 1e13

Or did I do that wrong? ;->

BTW, how many joules does a ton of TNT produce?

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:22:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...

I could possibly be persuaded to part with mine...if it's legal and all.

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:20:17 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...

>Does anyone know where these might still be had?
>
>Kevin

I would guess that about your only chance would be to look for a local
store that sells used software.  Although for something this old, even this
route isn't very promising.  The only other thing I can think of is to post
a "WTB" in the applicable USENET newsgroups.

			Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator  |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast           |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing,    |
| and the collecting of Classic Computers with info on them.    |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                       |

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:19:05 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Megaweapon question

>My thought is "antimatter torpedo".
>
>The shape and construction would be like a nuclear missile with a magnetic
>constrictor chamber containing the antimatter preventing it from reaching
>the dense matter core in the center.=20
>
>What would the dammage of this weapon be if it could be built?

The antimatter converts itself and it's own mass of normal matter into pure
energy. This means that the torpedo would destroy first of all the weight of
it's antimatter charge.

This is VERY minor, though ...

The energy created by this conversion would be enormous. If you converted
one promille of a metric kg, you would get roughly 90 terajoule of energy,
which can blow lots of things to pieces, or, more likely, disintengrate=
 them.

I would strongly advice against being somewhere near the impact point. Even
being within the line of sight (which is very far away, in space) would be
potentially disastrous, as much of the energy would escape as radiation.
This would fry ANYONE being to close pretty quick.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:25:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Tech stuff

>I agree that we need laymans explanations.  Meson guns, screens, etc were
>always explained decently for me to understand.  But never the sensors. =
 What
>kind of information do the various sensors (AEMS, PEMS in particular) tell
>someone?  I mean are they Star Trek sensors that tell u all sorts of info?
> It's obvious they do stuff covered by the other sensors (NAS, neutrino,
>densitometer, etc).  Did the old SOM say anything bout it?

I also agree that an explanation of this kind of tech stuff would be very
handy. People almost constantly refer to the SOM ... forgive my ignorance,
but what is it? I have understood it is some kind of tech book. When was it
printed? Is it still available? Will there be some kind of rework of it for=
 T4?

I think a supplement detailing the various technological terms in Traveller
would be very handy. I even think that many of the people here on this list
would be qualified to write such a book.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 19:31:17 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...

On 10/19/97 at 05:24 PM,  "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com> said:

>Does anyone know where these might still be had?

I saw a copy of MegaTraveller 2 in a Software Etc bargain bin this summer.
I'm afraid that's going to be your best bet.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 19:45:29 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

On 10/19/97 at 06:33 PM,  DustyLV769@aol.com said:

>It's fun to speculate, but I won't put much credence in either until I see
> something in a reputable journal.  However, somebody has got to do the
> speculation, investigation, exploration, and experiementation before
> anything new gets *in* a reputable journal.

>Actually, this find is one that has been documented...I am trying to
>remember which show it was, but it was a Nova or Discovery Channel show,
>not usually victims of "questionably speculative" data.   In a similar
>vein, here in my home state of Nevada, there is a rock with a human
>footprint in...this seems unremarkable until you understand that there is
>also a trilobite fossil in the footprint (as in, the trilobite was
>deposited AFTER the footprint) that has been dated at well over a billion
>years old (I have seen this, on display in a museum at UNLV)...

>Kinda makes you go hmmm...   :-)

Makes me go, "Yeah sure!" ;->

Forgive me if I remain somewhat skeptical about billion year old human
footprints.  So are we talking about a timetraveller who leaves her
footprint in the sand, or an alien with similar footprints deciding to take
a barefooted walk?  I think I'd find either of those explanations more
plausible than humans and trilobites being contemporaneous.


Eris,
    skeptical heretic ;->
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:55:33 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

At 02:14 PM 19/10/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Or:  "Well, Admiral, this is a very nice Naval Base you have here.  It'd
>be shame if anything happened to it, like, say, an accidental impact
>with an asteroid travelling at a significant fraction of light speed,
>now wouldn't it?"
>

Ohhh noo... the 0.1c rocks have reared their ugly heads agian... head for
the hills.....


I've just worked out why in B5 mass drivers were outlawed by every
civilised race. The mere mention of them caused such incredible flame wars
on the widely popular traveller mailing lists of the future  that whole
intersteller computer networks were shut down. 

Or maybe JMS said they were outawed as a joke.... (is he secretly a TML
member?)

Damn those Cetauri...... don't they have access to the TML?

Has anyone read the Minbari version of Traveller? I hear that there
favourite character is Vilani, and that they play a variant where thew
Vilani Empire soundly kicked the snot out of the Terran Confederation........


......... then surrendered to them at the last minute!


The Pakma'ra don't play Traveller.....

....... they prefer Call of Cuthulu!


Harry 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:11:46 -0400
From: "Daniel Poulin" <pould@netcom.ca>
Subject: Re: Claiming its not broken when it is (EV Review)

WAY TO GO ANDREW!

I completely agree with you Andrew (hence the shout up there).  The fact
that one would be working or unemployed is of no relevance ultimately to
the quality of a product that you wish to purchase.  The price the product
is sold in relation to the quality of that product is relevant.

Have you compared the book Jovian Chronicles from Dream Pod 9?  Even though
I am not into Anime, this is one of the best game product I have ever seen.
It is everything T4 supplements should be.

I buy a product so that it will make my referreing (is that the word?)
easier, not make me more frustrated.  101 Vehicles was fantastic for that. 
I could simply open the book and use it.  Much of my gaming sessions are
improvised, I do not have the time to figure out things like how much fuel
goes into a vehicle.  Furthermore, I don't want to make them run out of
fuel just because it is good for the plot.  If my players are intelligent
enough to check the fuel, I want to tell them how much is left.  The book
Emperor's Vehicle (I browsed through it but did not buy it (I might not buy
it even though I have a good job (I don't throw away money))) feels
unfinished.  It looks like stuff was left out of it.  There is no good
reason why the TL was not included.  There is no good reason why the rest
of the information (which must be generated anyway) was left out.

I do own some of the T4 supplements (I feel it is important to encourage
IG), but I didn't buy the useless ones (First Survey comes to mind).  I
will not buy the unfinished material.

At this point in time, I am really looking forward to Gurps Traveller just
for the quality of the products from SJG (I still don't like the Gurps
system).  I really hope to be able to adapt them for my campaign.


Daniel Poulin
pould@netcom.ca

- ----------
> From: Andrew Boulton <aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Cc: hiwg@fwe.com
> Subject: Re: Claiming its not broken when it is (EV Review)
> Date: 18 oct. 1997 13:00
> 
> In-Reply-To: <9710160438.AA01337@carbon.cudenver.edu>
> 
> > and HIWG list.  Instead, Mr. Boulton had some pointed questions that he
> > 

(snip)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:29:52 +1000 (EST)
From: "David 'Washu' Moodie" <dmoodie@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Subject: EV review and flames &  Aliens on the Rim 

A few points (and questions) which will probably be ignored, but I've
got to post something to incite hatred amongst TML members...

1) The whole EV flame thing....

 I for one vote that sender's names should appear at the end of postings
so readers can digest the material before pressing the flame button after
seeing the name 'Leroy' or 'Douglas' etc.. etc.. at the start :|

 On a more specific note, my steadfast requirements for good RPG material
are that
  a) the book in question must do something that I can't do quickly or
     *accurately* that fits in within the roughly defined canon of the
     RPG's universe and
  b) it inspires me in a way particular to the RPG system in question
     (whoops getting all conceptual and fuzzy here) and
  c) It took a lot of hard work to produce the product.

EV meets point c by all indications but requirement a & b are looking a
little undernourished.

 In short a book of vehicles, some illustrated with a rough description
and the odd stat that wasn't screened out in the printing process - ;) -
might do for Vampire, but for Traveller that falls short of many
expectations.

 I ask, what is sooo outstanding and awe-inspiring about the
'highly-acclaimed' Emperor's Vehicles that makes it the most 'advanced'
and 'contemporary' (A word used in place of 'modern art' or 'unskilled
crap that artists claim is based on a 'concept' to back up the fact that
they're work is a piece of sh*t that took 2 minutes and a piece of string
to compose but they don't care because they'll get paid heaps for it
anyway' in my dictionary)?       

 EV was not done with a piece of string in two minutes on a 'concept' so
why use that argument to back it up? Hmmm? I'm not trying to attack the
book itself (although It certainly appears so) just the vague and
conteporary reasons and answers offered to explain a few simple mistakes
away as 'revolutionary design concepts'. I'd like to hear the author's
real explanation on his or her (just being politically correct :P) choice
of format, not defensive 'experience backed' hot air.

 Everyone is guilty of the 'he/she's picking on person x so let's get
him/her' syndrome and some jump straight into the 'trolling' nets set up
by others so let's just relax, ignore previous jibes and see if we can get
along... people have a tendency to pick on something on the other side of
the world because they know they can walk away at the end of the day and
not be held accountable for their actions... 

phew... <sound of escaping steam> 


2) About the anti-'Aliens of the Rim' thing...

What do people acutally dislike about AOTR1 to brand it a flop?

Not being bred on CT or MT alien books myself it came as a pleasant
suprise to acutally find something that explained an alien race in more
than two sentences (Your looking at a guy that is soooo inexperienced and 
behind in the Traveller universe that he bought MT in 1992 and TNE this
year, hence any futher comments by myself may be declared void and
irrelevent). 

Ok, back to the point... Apart from the slightly obscure prose in some
sections and the Santa Claus references (aw but the Ithklur look sooo
cuuute!) how different (and apparently inferior) is it to the original
Hiver book (there was one, wasn't there?)?

Any additional backround notes that can be pointed out to me will be much
appreciated to give me the most complete picture of Hivers possible.

Yes that's right folks its m. ac time! 

(sorry couldn't resist that cheesy joke... *^_^*.... Look, lettuce 'cease
beefing up this artificially wholesome post with dodgy, burnt-out jokes
that just get on peoples pickle)
  
						D.Moodie
						
						Bringing the world
						together with a smile and bad
						jokes (not necessarily in that
						order).

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:31:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: TDRandall@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tech stuff

In a message dated 97-10-19 23:19:36 EDT, you write:

<< I also agree that an explanation of this kind of tech stuff would be very
 handy. People almost constantly refer to the SOM ... forgive my ignorance,
 but what is it? I have understood it is some kind of tech book. When was it
 printed? Is it still available? >>

My guess is that SOM = Starship Operator's Manual

I've got a Volume 1 (Was there ever a volume 2?), Second Edition by Digest
Group Publications, printed 1988.  This was the MegaTraveller/Game Designers'
Workshop era as evidenced by the Copyright note at the bottom of the back
cover of the book.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1981
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 20 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1982



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

TNS release: 286-1106
RE: Piracy
FW: Piracy - VOTE! - 10/19 update
Buy a Governmental Official (the piracy thread)
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Piracy
Re: Generous Alien and Jump Space...
Re: EV review and flames &  Aliens on the Rim 
RE: Interworld Commerce
Starship Insurance
International Waters
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1981
Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?
Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...
Re: Ramming, Was Re: Death Star Basic Stats
Re: Tech stuff
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1973

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:45:55 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: TNS release: 286-1106

Release Date:	286-1106
System:		Aramis
Subsector:	Aramis/Spinward Marches

The new head of the Imperial Navy in the Spinward Marches, Sector
Admiral Frederick Santanocheev, announced his first major move
yesterday. Surprisingly, it is a political endeavor rather than a
military one.

Santanocheev declared that he is forming a counterpart to the Naval
Intelligence department. The Office of Naval Information will be a
complementary organization and the two organizations are expected to
cooperate fully on missions and intelligence-sharing objectives. When
asked the purpose behind the new department, a spokesperson for
Santanocheev stated that the Naval Intelligence department needs a more
objective viewpoint from time to time. The new organization would serve
that goal.

Santanocheev became Sector Admiral last month. The former Rear Admiral
is in Aramis on his way to Regina to confer with Duke Norris.

- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:15:09 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Piracy

Achille Laurel - not the best example (it was terrorism), but the only one that springs to mind.

- ----------
From: 	Joseph R. Dietrich[SMTP:yikes@evansville.net]
Sent: 	Saturday, October 18, 1997 12:04 AM
To: 	traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: 	Re: Piracy

I hear a lot of examples of "modern piracy" being quoted on the list. I do
not doubt their veracity. But I wonder -- is it really a good parallel? Do
modern pirates hijack big freighters? You know, the really expensive ones?
I mean, even a small starship in Traveller is really expensive.

Pirates who own a multi-million credit starship and have to maintain it
would have to have a high overhead, wouldn't they?

I don't know if the analogy of small boat pirating is any better than crime
in NYC.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 21:59:42 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: FW: Piracy - VOTE! - 10/19 update

__7.5__	1.  Piracy exists.  (Interpretation of canon - it exists and 
continues to exist because there are not the resources or the will to
stamp it out.)

__6.5__ 2.  Piracy exists exclusively at the discretion of the GM.
(Interpretation of  canon - It existed, and continues to exist, but the
rules allow for it to be stamped out.)

____	3.  Piracy does not exist because there are sufficient resources
to eradicate it.  (Interpretation of canon - it existed once, but is no
longer a threat)


_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:05:21 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Buy a Governmental Official (the piracy thread)

This is from a humor list that I send out, but it is applicable to the pirate thread...
_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________

Dear Special Interest, 
Congratulations on the purchase of your genuine Government Official[tm]. 
With regular maintenance your Government Official[tm] should provide you
with a lifetime of sweetheart deals, insider information, preferential
legislation and other fine services. 

Before you begin using your product, we would appreciate it if you would
take the time to fill out this customer service card. This information will
not be sold to any other party, and will be used solely to aid us in better
fulfilling your future needs in political influence. 

1. Which of our fine products did you buy? 
__ President 
__ Vice-President 
__ Senator 
__ Congressman 
__ Governor 
__ Cabinet Secretary - Commerce 
__ Cabinet Secretary - Other 
__ Other Elected Official (please specify) 
__ Other Appointed Official (please specify) 

2. How did you hear about your Government Official[tm]?  (Please check all
that apply.)
__ TV ad. 
__ Magazine / newspaper ad. 
__ Shared jail cell with. 
__ Former law partner of. 
__ Unindicted co-conspirator with. 
__ Arkansas crony of. 
__ Procured for. 
__ Related to. 
__ Recommended by lobbyist. 
__ Recommended by organized crime figure. 
__ Frequently mentioned in conspiracy theories. (On Internet.) 
__ Frequently mentioned in conspiracy theories. (Elsewhere.) 
__ Spoke at fundraiser at my temple. 
__ Solicited bribe from me. 
__ Attempted to seduce me. 

3. How do you expect to use your Government Official[tm]?  (Please check
all that apply.) 
__ Obtain lucrative government contracts. 
__ Have my prejudices turned into law. 
__ Obtain diplomatic concessions. 
__ Obtain trade concessions. 
__ Have embargo lifted from own nation / ally. 
__ Have embargo imposed on enemy / rival nation / religious infidels. 
__ Obtain patronage job for self / spouse / mistress. 
__ Forestall military action against self / allies. 
__ Instigate military action against internal enemies / aggressors / 
targets for future conquest. 
__ Impede criminal / civil investigation of self / associates / spouse. 
__ Obtain pardon for self / associates / spouse. 
__ Inflict punitive legislation on class enemies / rivals / hated ethnic 
groups. 
__ Inflict punitive regulation on business competitors / environmental  
   exploiters / capitalist pigs. 

4. What factors influenced your purchase?  (Please check all that apply.) 
__ Performance of currently owned model. 
__ Reputation. 
__ Price. 
__ Appearance. 
__ Party affiliation. 
__ Professed beliefs of Government Official[tm]. 
__ Actual beliefs of Government Official[tm]. 
__ Orders from boss / superior officer / foreign government. 
__ Blackmail. 
__ Celebrity endorsement. 

5. Is this product intended as a replacement for a currently owned 
Government Official[tm]? ______ 

If you answered "yes," please indicate your reason(s) for changing models. 
__ Excessive operating / maintenance costs. 
__ Needs have grown beyond capacity of current model. 
__ Defect in current model: 
__ Dead. 
__ Senile. 
__ Indicted. 
__ Convicted. 
__ Resigned in disgrace. 
__ Switched parties / beliefs. 
__ Outbribed by competing interest. 

Thank you for your valuable time. 
Always remember: in choosing a Government Official[tm] you have chosen the
best politician that money can buy.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:19:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

In mail you write:

> I've just worked out why in B5 mass drivers were outlawed by every
> civilised race. The mere mention of them caused such incredible flame wars
> on the widely popular traveller mailing lists of the future  that whole
> intersteller computer networks were shut down. 
>
> Or maybe JMS said they were outawed as a joke.... (is he secretly a TML
> member?)

I suspect that I was responsible for that. Way back in season 1, when
the traffic was something I could manage, I was on the B5 newsgroup.
And during a discussion on what war might be like when it eventually
occured, I went into my usual overwhelming detail about what "throwing
rocks" could do.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:14:29 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

In mail you write:

> Actually, this find is one that has been documented...I am trying to remember
> which show it was, but it was a Nova or Discovery Channel show, not usually
> victims of "questionably speculative" data.   In a similar vein, here in my
> home state of Nevada, there is a rock with a human footprint in...this seems
> unremarkable until you understand that there is also a trilobite fossil in
> the footprint (as in, the trilobite was deposited AFTER the footprint) that
> has been dated at well over a billion years old (I have seen this, on display
> in a museum at UNLV)...

Better recheck the plaque on that display. As I recall, a billion years
ago it was strictly single cell organisms. The big explosion in
multicellular forms was about 600 million years ago.

BTW, ever notice how much a horsehoe crab resembles a trilobite? :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:06:37 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Piracy

In mail you write:

> You have crippled the ship (victim) in 5 minutes: The easiest way to do
> this is to kill the power plant, so no gravity... Otherwise the merchant
> captain, knowing that the SDB is (in your argument) 85 min out puts the
> ship in a deadmans tumble so you can't recover it.

You can set the ship to spinning about any axis. But only one of them
at once. So "tumbling" is the wrong word.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:29:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Generous Alien and Jump Space...

In mail you write:

> Question about Jump Space:
>
> Can Jump Space be delayed?  I guess what I mean is, can I enter jump space 
> and then stay there for longer than a 
> week?  Same range, etc.

Not according to the rules. It can happen with a misjump, but then you
can't control it.

> Could an outlaw escape into jumpspace and hang out there?

No.

> If two ships jump at roughly the same time from roughly the same
> spot, will they be in the same jump space?

Not according to the rules.

> Could a generous alien have put an artifact into Jump Space and delayed its 
> departure for some amount of time?

Doesn't fit with anything we've been told about jump. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 03:07:02 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: EV review and flames &  Aliens on the Rim 

David 'Washu' Moodie writes:

>2) About the anti-'Aliens of the Rim' thing...
>
>What do people acutally dislike about AOTR1 to brand it a flop?

   It wasn't necessarily the material included so much as the attitude. 
OK, the baseball and Santa Claus references (and the explanation for
them) didn't work, but there really is some good content.  Dave Nilsen's
essay at the back, basically saying that aliens are nothing more than
humans in rubber suits was particularly misplaced and inappropriate
(imagine if you will George Lucas coming on the screen during Star Wars,
just before the scene in the temple where Luke, Han and Chewie get their
medals, to tell everyone that the spacecraft used in the film were
really just models, that stormtrooper armor is really plastic, and
everything used in the film is fake).  He really should have saved it
for a Challenge editorial or some other venue.

>Not being bred on CT or MT alien books myself it came as a pleasant
>suprise to acutally find something that explained an alien race in more
>than two sentences (Your looking at a guy that is soooo inexperienced and 
>behind in the Traveller universe that he bought MT in 1992 and TNE this
>year, hence any futher comments by myself may be declared void and
>irrelevent). 

   You would also like DGP's alien books, which covered the Vilani and
Vargr in one volume, and the Solomani and Aslan in the other (another
volume covering the Zhodani and Droyne never happened, neither did one
for the K'kree and Hivers).  Very richly detailed, even if they strayed
a little here and there from canon.  The original alien modules from GDW
were also excellent, and covered one race at a time.

   If you can find any of these, they are worth every penny you're
likely to pay for them.

>Ok, back to the point... Apart from the slightly obscure prose in some
>sections and the Santa Claus references (aw but the Ithklur look sooo
>cuuute!) how different (and apparently inferior) is it to the original
>Hiver book (there was one, wasn't there?)?

   Here's what we do around these parts with AotR, v.1: the Hiver stuff
is treated as pretty accurate, with the interjections by the Ithklur
taken as one being's humble opinion (OBHO?).  His comments may or may
not be true depending upon how you want to structure your campaign.  As
for the Ithklur section, well let's just say if you cut out all the 20th
century references it's salvagable.

>Any additional backround notes that can be pointed out to me will be much
>appreciated to give me the most complete picture of Hivers possible.

   You might want to check some of the many Traveller Web sites that are
out there if you can't lay your hands on the older publications.  There
are a considerable amount of essays, adventures, etc. derived from them
and it will give you a feel for what the original intent was for the
Hivers.

Regards,

Harold

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:56:57 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Interworld Commerce

My Bro-in-law (Ph.D. in chemistry) says the same thing about fusion power 
and economics...

Anyway, I've always seen having to come in from the jump point for 
maintenance checks and shore leave.  Access to starport resources, at least 
infrequently, is necessary.

Put a highport at the 100 dia point would solve that - but even if the odds 
are astronomical, would you risk a multi Bcr starport out where some idiot 
may emerge from jump?  The furthest out I would place it would be in the 70 
to 80 diameter range...
_________________________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
Http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of 
dropping a god at 500 meters
_________________________________________________________________________


- ----------
From: 	Leonard Erickson[SMTP:shadow@krypton.rain.com]
Sent: 	Sunday, October 19, 1997 2:14 AM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	Re: Interworld Commerce

In mail you write:

> The big cargo ships (15,000 + dtons) run exclusively to the Starport B+,
> Pop 7+ worlds.  They are not configured for passengers, and probably 
begin
> offloading when they arrive in system via lighters, and are still
> on-loading as they begin the run towards the jump point.

Why bother moving from the jump point?

Also, given the "canonical" shipping of resource type items around
(don't get me started on why anybody with fusion reactors won't bother
shipping ores and refined metals around), you should also see *huge*
bulk carriers visiting "mining worlds".

- --
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:54:28 +1000
From: Roger Howe <fridge@canberra.teknet.net.au>
Subject: Starship Insurance

My players announced during our last session that they wished to insure
their newly bought starship.
They are free traders on a cargo and passenger carrying ship in Milieu 0.

What would the premiums be like?  Their ship costs MCr81.

What different ranges of cover would be available, eg. theft, piracy,
destruction, damage, cargo, third party, loss of earnings, negligence (eg
for low berth losses) etc...?

What conditions, eg. crew competency + minimum complement, armaments, travel
restrictions etc....., would the insurance company put on a starship it covered?

Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated.


Fridge
- ------------------------------------------------------
Roger Howe
fridge@canberra.teknet.net.au <- Checked Regularly
rghowe@ozemail.com.au <--------- Checked Irregularly
Canberra Australia
- ------------------------------------------------------

- -------------------------
"A man could go far, knowing his rights like you do," 
said Granny. "But right now he should go home."
 -- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:57:56 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: International Waters

(Note:  My ISP is broke, sorta, and I can't receive mail (although I can
send) outside the system, so if anybody has sent me private mail, you're
probably getting an error message for my address.  They tell me it
should be up by Monday night, but, hey, who knows.)


I had my game tonight (particularly exciting, I might add, and I might
even write one of those share-the-game-with-everyone-stories that so
many of us enjoy if I find time), and two questions came up that I
thought would be good for list discussion.

Since I can't receive mail, I've been checkin' out the TML archives to
keep up with everything.



QUESTION #1:  Interstellar space.

We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
Imperium?

Does the planet run the whole system, or is it more like the 200 mile
border around the US to international waters?

I winged it tonight, stating to my players that every system is
different, then I made a mental note to bring this up on the list and
see how other GMs play this.

What's the standard in the Imperium?  Tonight, I thought of two good
answers.  First, I thought that one hex in space combat would be a good
rule of thumb, giving a planet an "airspace" of 30,000 KM.  Beyond that,
it's the Imperium's balliwick.

Then I thought of something more natural to Traveller--the 10 diameter
limit.  So, for right now, I'm thinking that the 10 diam limit  is a
good distance to distinguish between Imperial and planetary
jurisdiction.

This came up in the game because the players were ordered to leave
Pysadi.  They got in the Harrier, left the planet, then wanted to get
beyond the planet's jurisdiction and just sit there--not really leaving
the system.  They wanted to get in "international waters" so to speak,
where the Pysadian officials could not force them to leave.

So, what are your thoughts on this?



QUESTION #2.  Actually, a comment.

In tonight's game, the law of the "crafty player" came up, raising an
eyebrow on this Traveller veteran.

They were trying to get out of "Pysadian space" into "international
waters" as soon as possible, so I (having picked the 10 diam mark as the
jurisdiction line) popped out the travel chart from MT, cross referenced
Pysadi's size (4) with the Harrier's M-Drive (1G), and promptly stated,
"This will take you 1.3 hours."

Then, the crafty player of the night said, "Those times in that table
are calculated using the travel formula, correct?"

I said, "yes".

"OK," crafty player continued, "and the travel formula is based on
accelerating at full thrust for half the trip, then using the rest of
the trip to decelerate?"

I said yes again, not know where crafty player was taking this.

"Well,"  he said, "we want to get there as fast as we can--so we don't
want to decelerate.  For time calculation purposes, let's double the
distance and halve the time to see how long it will take us to get to
that point at full thrust all the way."

I've been playing Traveller for a decade and a half, and this has just
never come up.  Funny how that happens like this sometimes, isn't it?

He was right.  You double the distance (double Pysadi's size 4 world to
a size 8, then halve the time on the chart to see how long it will take
to get to the jurisdiction line without decelerating).

How many times in the past can this maneuver have been used?  You could
use it for the planet to jump point calculation--and reenter space from
jump already moving at a good speed--decreasing travel time by several
hours on each end.

Maybe you other GMs out there do this type of stuff all the time, but
I've always relied on using the tables or using the travel formula.

I'm just flabbergasted that I never realized the travel time savings
that could be had this way.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:11:58 GMT
From: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au (Phillip McGregor)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1981

On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:43:01 -0400, you wrote:

>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:11:46 -0400
>From: "Daniel Poulin" <pould@netcom.ca>
>Subject: Re: Claiming its not broken when it is (EV Review)
>
>I do own some of the T4 supplements (I feel it is important to encourage
>IG), but I didn't buy the useless ones (First Survey comes to mind).  I
>will not buy the unfinished material.
>
>At this point in time, I am really looking forward to Gurps Traveller just
>for the quality of the products from SJG (I still don't like the Gurps
>system).  I really hope to be able to adapt them for my campaign.

Might I suggest to all and sundry (as i have previously) that you write to SJG
and let them know what you want?

I have suggested that there is no reason why we could not at least *wish* for a
hardcover book, perhaps with all glossy paper, as per "In Nomine" ... and if
enough people email them, well, we just might get it!

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@curie.dialix.oz.au
Co-designer, Space Opera (FGU)
Author, Rigger Black Book (FASA)
Designer, Standard Role Playing (PGD)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:36:56 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?

e-mail ilaskey@cix.compulink.co.uk
for the latest news on his Visual Basic (for Windows) Classic Chargen 
program he is writing.

Simon

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:43:56 +0100
From: "Nick Munn" <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...

> From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>

> >Does anyone know where these might still be had?
> >
> >Kevin
> 
> I would guess that about your only chance would be to look for a local
> store that sells used software.  Although for something this old, even this
> route isn't very promising.  The only other thing I can think of is to post
> a "WTB" in the applicable USENET newsgroups.

One local software store in Sheffield, England has several copies of 
MT1 at bargain-bucket prices (UK pounds 5, IIRC) so the game is still 
out there... I also have a CD version of MT1 and MT2 together which 
might still be available somewhere.

I am not recommending you ask me to buy for you -- the currency 
conversion and postage would be much greater than the price of the 
game, I fear -- but to encourage you that the products are still out 
there...

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:28:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Ramming, Was Re: Death Star Basic Stats

In mail you write:

> This brings up a question: If two ships collide, how much damage is done to
> each of them? The smaller ship would take more damage, but ...
>
> I was thinking of possible kamikaze attacks, or even destroyer ships driving
> straight into disabled small enemy fighters. Has anyone ever used a system
> for these kinds of things?

As noted elsewhere (on another topic) the rule of thumb is that at 3
km/sec an impact is equivalent to setting off the same mass of TNT. The
energy goes up with the square of the speed. So if a fighter that
masses a mere 10 tons impacts on your destroyer at a relative velocity
of 21 km/sec (pretty low by Traveller standards) it'd be equivalent to
(21/3)^2 * 10 = 490 tons of TNT going off (a half-kiloton nuke!).

I don't think ramming is a good idea...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:48:30 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Tech stuff

In mail you write:

>>I agree that we need laymans explanations.  Meson guns, screens, etc were
>>always explained decently for me to understand.  But never the sensors. =
>  What
>>kind of information do the various sensors (AEMS, PEMS in particular) tell
>>someone?  I mean are they Star Trek sensors that tell u all sorts of info?
>> It's obvious they do stuff covered by the other sensors (NAS, neutrino,
>>densitometer, etc).  Did the old SOM say anything bout it?
>
> I also agree that an explanation of this kind of tech stuff would be very
> handy. People almost constantly refer to the SOM ... forgive my ignorance,
> but what is it? I have understood it is some kind of tech book. When was it
> printed? Is it still available? Will there be some kind of rework of it for=
>  T4?

Starship Operator's Manual. It was a Megatraveller supplement by DGI.

> I think a supplement detailing the various technological terms in Traveller
> would be very handy. I even think that many of the people here on this list
> would be qualified to write such a book.

Well, while I still maintain that a lot of things people want "defined"
*can't* be (due to the vagueness of the rules), I'm willing to help try
to define the rest.

So how about some folks out there who want definitions, post some
messages with Subject: "Definition: xxxx", and us "techy" types can try
defining them. Then the "non-techy" types can let us know what they
want more details about, and what they feel isn't needed.

After a few go-rounds, we should have something worthy of saving. If we
do enough, somebody might even be able to collect them into a book. :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:58:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1973

In mail you write:

>>>Something to check pressure on the other side of that wall.
>>>  Makes sense...  what sort of sensor would be good for this?
>    << snip >>
>
>  How about a some sort of sound detection gear,  and a high
> power speaker that can be mounted on a wall.
>   To use, place detector and speaker on wall that you want to
> check if there is air pressure behind.   Now have the speaker
> pulse sound thru the wall and listen for a echo off the other
> side of the compartment with the sound detector, < your ear
> would not have the sensitivity >.
>   A good design point would be to not require it to have air
> pressure on your side of the wall.  Also make it so it works
> underwater. <There is a wide range of enviroments to S&R in.>

You don't use a speaker. You use a transducer. You can buy that sort of
thing at Radio Shlock. Clamp it to the floor and it turns the floor
into a speaker. 

>   And tell Spofulam to keep the sound pulse level down below
> 100 decibels,  or you hear in addition to the echo, the painful
> screams of thr rescuee's you are there to rescue.

Actually, it has multiple uses. The pulse will travel through the
structure of the hull as well as through any gas or liquid that may be
inside the next compartment. So any survivors will hear the pulses thru
the hull before you get to them. Possibly quite a few compartments
away, even if the surrounding compartments are airless.

The gizmo monitoring the pulse echoes will be a form of TDR (Time
Domain Reflectometer). Ones using electrical pulses are used for things
like finding breaks in cables. They'll also detect taps. :-)

With decent computer power (a given at the likely TLs) it should be
able to tell you whether there is liquid or gas in the compartment, and
a general idea of the pressure if it is gas.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1982
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 20 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1983



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: The whole piracy thread
Re: Megaweapon question
Re: Handwaving Menguno
Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...
Re: U R a generous alien
Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)
Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)
Pulps
Re: Generous Alien and Jump Space...
The Mob in Traveller (was:Re: Naval depl
Aliens of the Rim
Re: International waters
Re: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)
Re: Cost of policing NYC
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Ramming, Was Re: Death Star Basic Stats
Re: International Waters

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:14:44 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: The whole piracy thread

In mail you write:

>>What market would there be for cargo, starship parts, starships and the
>>like?
>
> If you can get your hands on them in the first place you can almost
> certainly find someone to take them off your hands. From books and
> TV shows I've gained the impression that most hot stuff fetches from
> 10 to 20% of its real value. A starship would propably lie in the low
> end of that range.

20% requires a special cicumstance of some sort. 10% is standard. And
"easily identified" items can get you less than 1% (I know someone who
has been known to handle goods of "questionable" origin from time to
time :-)


BTW, one interesting fact (from some articles on art thefts). Most
"big" thefts of things like art objects are a failure for the theives.
Unless you have some crazy collector already lined up before you steal
it, you have essentially *no* chance of selling the Mona Lisa. If you
find a fence who is willing to take it off your hands, you'll be lucky
to get a few thousand from him.

There are two general outcomes for art thefts. First, (and most
desirable) is that the theives realize that they've got a white
elephant and find a way to return it anonymously. The second outcome is
bad for everybody. Upon discovering that the artwork is essentially
worthless to them, they destroy it... <argghh!>

Ships will have *some* similarities to cars as far as disposing of
stolen parts goes. But not enough. There aren't likely to be *nearly*
enough of any given model produced. So the parts are too readily
identfiable. The smaller (and hence more likely to be standardized)
parts aren't likely to be worth as much.

So stolen ships (as opposed to "mortgage jumpers") are either going to
be used by the theives (pirates hijacking an armed freighter to use as
their ship) or are going to have to be moved to another jurisdiction to
be sold (as "salvage").

The former is going to be most common inside the Imperium and any other
*large* interstellar government. The latter will be more common near
the borders, and in areas with lots of small governments.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:56:01 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Megaweapon question

In mail you write:

> After reading the posts in the list about the planetbuster weapons, thought
> of one different. The question is if it is a valid one?
>
> My thought is "antimatter torpedo".
>
> The shape and construction would be like a nuclear missile with a magnetic
> constrictor chamber containing the antimatter preventing it from reaching
> the dense matter core in the center. 
>
> What would the dammage of this weapon be if it could be built?

Alas, antimatter may turn out to be a lot less useful as a weapon than
people used to think.

To start with, while positron/electron pairs produce "pure energy"
(gamma rays) anti-protons or anti-neutrons reacting with normal matter
produce a lot of mesons of various sorts. This is because
electrons/positrons are fundamental particles, but neutrons/protons and
their antiparticles are composite particles. They are made up of three
quarks. And the usual result is that *one* of the quarks gets
destroyed, leaving two behind. Two quark particles are mesons. The
mesons decay in various ways, spreading out the damage in both space
and time.

Also, it's thought that the very *violence* of a matter/antimatter
reaction will slow things down. The result is likely to resemble a drop
of water skittering around on a hot griddle more than the massiver
explosion you'd expect. 

Contact with a solid object would blast the antimatter away. Contact
with a liquid or gas would result in the liquid/gas reaching the
antimatter in small dribs and drabs as the energy released keeps
pushing it away. 

So to get a "good" reaction instead of this silly "sputtering" (which
is *still* dangerous and destructive), you want the antimatter to hit
the planet at a speed such that the blast on contact won't do more than
slow it up a bit.

This would result in the antimatter (and the matter it hits) being
converted to plasma by the impact, and the antimatter plasma still
driving downward due to its momentum. This should give a *very* good
mix, and a nice blast as large amounts of material react.

This is quite similar to the problem nuclear bombs have. They have to
have either massive confinement *or* an implosion wave using the
inertia of the fissionables to keep the fissionables close enough
together long enough for a good "bang". If you just take two pieces of
slightly more than half a critical mass each and bring them together,
you'll get a small blast (about blasting cap/pipe bomb size) and a lot
of radiation as they throw themselves apart. 

Without doing any calculations, I'd expect that the "ideal" impact
velocity for an antimatter warhead is something up around 1% of c...

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:07:25 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Handwaving Menguno

In mail you write:

> Hy folks,
>
>         just a question of handwaving :
>
>         The system Menguno has an UWP of 0803 E7B1625-2 Ni Fl 200 Cs K1V M3D
>         and is 7 parsec away from the next system. 2 million "people" live
>         there with a corsive atmosphere at a techlevel comparinly to
>         european Renissance. I think the people must be Vilani or Lancian
>         settlers. If its an alien race it should be in the Gushemege Papers.

My money would be on aliens, frankly.

>         Before I start own handwaving about `why the corrosive atmosphere
>         does not harm lungs or how to survive with TL:2 equipment', I prefer
>         to ask here for "canon" or "private" interpretation of this UWP.

But if you insist on humans, there are several possibilities that can
used. Several "corrosive" atmospheres can be dealt with by "protective
suits" which are actually buildable at TL1. The *idea* isn't TL1, but
the required materials can be manufactured and assembled at that level.

Say the problem is a high level of sulfur dioxide/trioxide or nitrogen
oxides (essentially sulfuric or nitric acid vapors). This can be
protected against by cloth suits impregnated with rubber, and
headpieces with glass eyes. The air you breathe is drawn thru a tank of
water containing lye or some other strong base. That neutralizes the
acid fumes. The air you exhale goes out thru a spring loaded valve. 

The villages or towns (I doubt they have cities) mostly generate their
own air using greenhouses (lots of small ones, so that an accident
doesn't kill all the plants). Water can be purified by treating with
limestone (which gives you saltwater) and then distilling (probably in
solar stills).

I'd guess that the acidic atmosphere is relatively new or else things
like limestone would be really hard to find (rain would dissolve it
like sugar). For sulfur oxides, best bet is *massive* volcanic
activity. For Nitrogen oxides, best bet is a genetic engineering
project (or even a natural mutation) of nitrogen fixing bacteria gone
wrong.

The volcanic activity would tend to cause some major side effects that
you may not want. The nitrogen fixing bacteria scenario works ok. You
can check out a book by Hal Clement ("The Nitrogen Fix") that has
something similar happen to earth.

Either way, the people may be the descendants of a colony from before
the change. It took most of their resources for survival at first, so
they lost a lot of "non-essential" tech.

I expect that all the towns/villages will be on volcanic rock (most
resistant to acid) and mostly in places where the volcanic rock
overlays a limestone deposit. Prefereably places where the limestone
deposit is completely covered by the volcanic rock (granite, basalt,
that sort of thing). 

That gives them protection, but at the same time access to the
limestone they need for acid neutralization. Most of the dwellings and
storage areas will be cut into the limestone, with only the greenhouses
and certain "industrial" work areas outside. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:08:47 +1300
From: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...

>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:24:55 -0500
>From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
>Subject: Finding the MegaTraveller PC Games...

>Does anyone know where these might still be had?

Ahh, well in my local discount Warehouse they have about
5 copies of MT2 on CD for $NZ9.99 each.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
The longest distance between two points is with children.
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:08:58 +1300
From: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 13:50:38 -0500
>From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
>Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

>On 10/19/97 at 01:03 PM,  DustyLV769@aol.com said:

>><< Yes, you have a point.  What we need is an expert in metallurgy who can
>> say if a metal plaque or something similiar can exist for 2-3 hundred
>> million years.  >>

>I'm surprised nobody has mentioned ceramics.

>Anyway, several dozen relatively inexpensive markers on geologically stable
>airless bodies would just about insure that one would survive a long,
>*long* time.  Maybe, place them above or near buried "massicons" that have
>no place being where they are...that should get the attention of any
>spieces that is exploring their system.

To crib a plot line from ST:TNG (who cribed it from Niven I think). Assuming
that the aliens have a reasonable biotech, why not encode it in the DNA
sequences of some local life forms. Sharks would be a good bet, or jellyfish.
Remember something like 90% of any DNA sequence is just waste space.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
The longest distance between two points is with children.
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:22:17 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <Philk@btinternet.com>
Subject: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)

This thought was inspired by a turn in the piracy thread -
ie how is cargo secured in your freighter and how do you shift it.

The following thoughts may be totally impractical -
but I only program computers:-)

Securing a cargo with webbing straps is okay for loose stuff and tarpaulins, 
but I have always seen Traveller cargo as containerised, with the standard 
container containing any special features (such as air con, refrigeration, 
grav, anti-grav...) These containers would be sealed by the cargo owner 
(presumably in the presence of source world customs) and opend by the
receiver 
(presumably in the presence of destination world customs) and the merchant 
captain would not be allowed to open them between times (although might still 
be responsible for the contants.)

Working near one of the UK's largest container ports, I noticed that a 
container is not just a box - attached to each corner is a 6" steel cube. The 
bottom of the four cubes attached to the bottom of the container each has a 
hole which locates the container securely on whatever is carrying it (the 
truck, train, whatever, has four supports - each with a dowel in the centre
to 
locate the container). I assume that the cubes on the top of the container
also 
have dowels to allow stacking. On the sides of the cubes are slots that I 
believe are used by cranes to lift the containers.

So how does this work in 3I?

The first level of containers are moved into place on the cargo floor. Then 
four locating pins engage with suitable slots in the corners of the
containers. 
In order to avoid problems if the grav is turned off in the cargo bay, these 
pins would firmly attach the container to the floor from within the slot.

Additional containers could be attached to the top of the first layer of 
containers in the same manner.

Although some people seem to want to creep around stacks of containers in RPG 
sessions (in a dark cargo hold, something lurks...) I would imagine that all 
the containers would be packed tightly together, fully interlocked with
each of 
its 6 adjacent containers (or wall or ceiling or floor) to avoid problems
if a 
locking pin fails.

If you load the container in sideways, the door at the end will be against a 
wall or another container, so unless there is explosive inside, there are no 
Trojan horse scenarios and the ship captain can only get in if the cargo
bay is 
not full or some containers are moved outside the ship.

(Following from recent steps with aircraft containers due to bombs onboard, I 
would imagine that the containers are designed to contain quite large 
explosions without rupturing).

Loading would be computer controlled to ensure that containers are loaded in 
optimal order, presumably by some combination of linear induction motors and 
contra grav in the cargo hold to place each container before the locking pins 
are engaged.

Loading and unloading by computer control would be very fast (less than 1 
minute per container).

Without computer control, you could do it by hand if you can disengage the 
locking pins and turn off the gravity.

If you can't disengage the locking pins, its a week in the shipyard 
disassembling the ship from around the containers (or at least crawling
around 
all the access ways to get to the pins locking the containers to floor, wall 
and ceiling.

It would be slightly easier if the ship was not fully loaded.

Phil Kitching

ps
I only recall being successfully hit by pirates once - and then it was
an inside job. Especially annoying because the whole crew were PCs!
Don't you just hate it when an evil GM and a player connive in such a
manner. Certainly not the sought of thing I'd do...at least until the
players have forgotten about last time;-)
- --
  Mailto:Philk@btinternet.com (don't blame BT - they only pay me:)
  How do you know its a Vargr ship?
  If the captain puts his head out of the porthole when its moving:)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:38:46 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <Philk@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

In the Fifth Frontier War boardgame

<gloat>
A quick gloat 'cos I've got a copy,
but better turn it off in case people get annoyed :-)
</gloat>

there are about 3000 SDBs on the map, but a couple of worlds accound for
almost all of them and most worlds are undefended.

One thing I remember from the game is that you do *not* attack the Zhos
battleships with your SDBs - you get them hiding in the oceans or gas giants
or lurking as asteroids and then they must either leave behind a large
covering force or you can regain control of the system at any time and
block their supplies and reinforcements (and reduce their VPs).

Under this scheme, an SDB fleet is of no more use against pirates than
a nuclear submarine is today.

Of course you don't have to use all your SDB's in this way, but since they
can't escape from the system its very risky for your opponents to know
your SDB deployments because you use them for anti-piracy. If they are 
uncertain then they either use too big a covering force and the attack
runs out of ships, or too small and their supply fleets are destroyed,
or they must divert forces to convoying.

Phil Kitching

- --
  Mailto:Philk@btinternet.com (don't blame BT - they only pay me:)
  How do you know its a Vargr ship?
  If the captain puts his head out of the porthole when its moving:)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:47:38 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Pulps

I wonder what Traveller will be like in 2001? Well, I'll be playing.

On a similar note: Remember the pulps - you know: Astounding Air Stories
and other early SF.
What would the other races' pulps have looked like? here's a few ideas:

Solomani: Amazing Science Stories. etc etc.
Daryens (Darrians): Interesting Research Stories.
Hivers: Really Quite Interesting Manipulation Tales.
Vilani: Satisfyingly Traditional Tales Involving The Application Of Proven
Techniques In Slightly Novel Situations.
Zhodani: Thought-Provoking Mental Stories
Vargr: (No idea. The dog got to it first)
 
Thoughts?

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:05:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Generous Alien and Jump Space...

Why not use ordinary, normal space instead of jump space ?

An object set off heading for our solar system from, say Alpha Centauri,
would not get there until a very long time had passed. This object would be
timed to drift into the solar system at some point in history. Since this
would be impossible to determine beforehand, the generous aliens would have
to send objects at slightly different velocities, thus making them appear
with regular intervals in our solar system. At some point in history, the
objects would probably be picked up and examined. This is even more probable
if they contained small solar-powered radio transmitters, making them very
easy to detect.

The objects would not be destroyed by the ravages of time. This (although
reversed) is part of the plan with the Voyager satelites, the first of which
is currently leaving our solar system. In MANY thousands of years it will
enter another solar system, possibly getting noticed (or so NASA hopes). It
carries a plaque of some platinum alloy (I beleive) with pictures of humans
and the solar system etched into it.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:57:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: The Mob in Traveller (was:Re: Naval depl

>Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:52:30 -0600
>From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Re: Naval deployment in Traveller (was Re: Piracy)

>Erwin Fritz wrote:
>>
>> Also, to drum up business, SecureGuard may actually illegally stage
>> some pirate attacks, in order to sweeten the negotiating process!

>Ahhhhhh... the ol' interstellar protection Racket:

>Vinnie (SecureGuard rep., baritone voice): Y'know, you wouldn't want an
>"accident" to happen.

>Louie aka. "Legs" (rep. # 2, squeaky voice, flexing fingers): Yeah,
>yeah... space is big. Space is dangerous, you never know who might want
>to hassle your trading partners.

>Vinnie: Maybe you should consider our offer for protection. It's a very
>generous offer.

>Louie: Yeah, yeah. You should tink it over. Verrry carefully. (cracks
>knuckles)

>------------------------------

Heh, this reminds me of the Python sketch in which the Mob was selling 
'Insurance' to the military.

"Nice Tigress  you got here Admiral, be a shame if anything were 
to..."happen" to it.   I mean...things "break" don't they?"

Which makes me wonder how organized crime would operate in Traveller.  Its 
one thing to be a small time crook with a ship, than to be part of a 
"family", "syndicate" or "cartel".

In my universe, most pirates are of the latter (large cartels) but have 
legitimate "fronts", especially when operating within or near the 3I.  Also, 
if news of a free-lance pirate reaches their ears.  That pirate would be 
"persuaded" to join the cartel.  The free-lancer rarely makes it big as a 
pirate unless he/she is very, VERY good!


I have been merely glancing over this thread so I don't know if this point 
has been brought up before.  If so, apologies.  But I am interested in what 
others do with respects to organized crime, not necessarily piracy.

 ---------------------------------------
\\  //  "New Technologies for the New Imperium"
T E K   Military and Civilian Contractor
//  \\  Contact cmdrx@magicnet.net or bprankard@theiia.org

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:44:28 -0500
From: Andrew Akins <igor@ames.net>
Subject: Aliens of the Rim

AOTR has recently been mentioned.

I thought I would offer up my humble opinion on this book. The writing is
good. PRoduction, good. Intrinsicly, nothing wrong with it.

But it doesn't feel like traveller to me.

Why? Because it's so tongue-in-cheek. But wait, you say, it's a joke!
Didn't you read Dave's afterword?

Yes...but Traveller has never been a funny game. Don't get me wrong - humor
certainly has it's place in the game. I use it all the time. But the _GAME
ITSELF_ has not been "funny". Certainly the most feared race doesn't run
around in Santa Claus hats.

There are people on this list that love picking things apart. The TL of
ROM. The validity of piracy. The use of dropping rocks. Do you really think
that no scholar in the Imperium wouldn't notice that the Ithklur were
worshipping old saint nick? Heck, there could be solomani worlds where
Christmas is still observed.

It just didn't wash with me.

On a personal note, AOTR pisses me off more than any of the IG stuff
has...becuase I can convince myself that IG is just inept or stupid (sorry
for the insults, but some of the mistakes they've made have been of this
caliber, IMHO). But AOTR was made the way it was made _purposely_. Which
surprises me...I've always liked Dave's material in the past (Survival
MArgin, and Ranger for 2300AD come to mind).

Oh well, rant mode off :)

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:55:52 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: International waters

Kenneth Bearden writes:
>We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
>the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
>Imperium?
> 
>Does the planet run the whole system, or is it more like the 200 mile
>border around the US to international waters?
> 
>I winged it tonight, stating to my players that every system is
>different, then I made a mental note to bring this up on the list and
>see how other GMs play this.
> 
>What's the standard in the Imperium?  Tonight, I thought of two good
>answers.  First, I thought that one hex in space combat would be a good
>rule of thumb, giving a planet an "airspace" of 30,000 KM.  Beyond that,
>it's the Imperium's balliwick.

That would correspond to the original three mile limit. At least, I've been
told that the origin of the three mile limit came from the fact that the
largest cannons could effectively reach out three miles from a shore battery.
Of course, this may be one of those plausible explanations that are made up
without any basis in fact.
 
>Then I thought of something more natural to Traveller--the 10 diameter
>limit.  So, for right now, I'm thinking that the 10 diam limit  is a
>good distance to distinguish between Imperial and planetary jurisdiction.

Funny, if you had asked me I would unhesitatingly have said the jump limit
rather than the 10 diameter limit. Note, however, that the only official
information we have on the subject is that the spaceport itself is outside
the jurisdiction of the planet, so perhaps the limit is much closer to the
planet (Ie. anything above airspace plus a corridor down to the spaceport
carved out of the airspace.)

All in all I would suggest that the planet has full jusridiction below a
certain level, with the space immidiately over the spaceport excepted, and
joint jurisdiction throughout the system (ie. they can act against Imperially
accepted crimes if they want to, but can't act against crimes that are only
crimes locally).

>This came up in the game because the players were ordered to leave
>Pysadi.  They got in the Harrier, left the planet, then wanted to get
>beyond the planet's jurisdiction and just sit there--not really leaving
>the system.  They wanted to get in "international waters" so to speak,
>where the Pysadian officials could not force them to leave.
> 
>So, what are your thoughts on this?

Since the starport is outside Pysadian jurisdiction, IMO they couldn't even
force them to leave the planet. Though they could ask the spaceport
administrator to send them off. His jurisdiction may extend to 10 diameters
(though I would have said 100 diameters).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:04:46 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)

Phil Kitching wrote:
> 
> This thought was inspired by a turn in the piracy thread -
> ie how is cargo secured in your freighter and how do you shift it.
> 

An excellent posting! Very useful to me. I plan to put an edited
version of it in my rules.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:26:06 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Cost of policing NYC

The whole analogy between NYC and the Imperium is false anyway. To be
anything close to the situation in the Imperium, NYC would have to
consist of individual houses each placed in a block-sized park with no
trees and bushes at all (And brilliantly lit even at night). Then, if you
had about 500 times more cops on your payroll than you had houses, I think
the two situations would begin to be somewhat similar.



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
"Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
                - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 07:05:18 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Andrew Moffatt-Vallance wrote:
 
> To crib a plot line from ST:TNG (who cribed it from Niven I think). Assuming
> that the aliens have a reasonable biotech, why not encode it in the DNA
> sequences of some local life forms. Sharks would be a good bet, or jellyfish.
> Remember something like 90% of any DNA sequence is just waste space.

Uhhh....better make that 90% of DNA is _just waste space that we know of_! 
While it's certainly true that we seem to be carrying around a huge load
of DNA that doesn't do much more than use us to make more, evolution tends
to be a pretty conservative force. The energy wated in reproducig a load
of parasite genes is energy wasted...if there were'nt _some_ function
served, we'd be carrying a lot, but we wouldn't have the (IIRC, off the
top of my head) something like 40-50% homology we have with, say, corn!
(some huge number, anyway) So unless they bioengineered life on this
planet (helllooooo Grandpa!) that wouldn't work.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:08:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Ramming, Was Re: Death Star Basic Stats

>As noted elsewhere (on another topic) the rule of thumb is that at 3
>km/sec an impact is equivalent to setting off the same mass of TNT. The
>energy goes up with the square of the speed. So if a fighter that
>masses a mere 10 tons impacts on your destroyer at a relative velocity
>of 21 km/sec (pretty low by Traveller standards) it'd be equivalent to
>(21/3)^2 * 10 =3D 490 tons of TNT going off (a half-kiloton nuke!).
>
>I don't think ramming is a good idea...

OK ... this means that ramming is for kamikaze attacks only, and it would be
pretty effective in that case (probably destroying whatever you hit). How
hard would it be to crash right into an enemy ship? I figure it would be
pretty hard due to the enormous velocities involved. Could the ship's
computers (if they were still functioning) help in this case, or would
security programs override any such attempts?

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 07:32:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: International Waters

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

Snip about blasting away without decelerating to shorten travel times.
 
> How many times in the past can this maneuver have been used?  You could
> use it for the planet to jump point calculation--and reenter space from
> jump already moving at a good speed--decreasing travel time by several
> hours on each end.
> 
> Maybe you other GMs out there do this type of stuff all the time, but
> I've always relied on using the tables or using the travel formula.
> 
> I'm just flabbergasted that I never realized the travel time savings
> that could be had this way.

Well there are a couple things that mitigate against it. 

One, depending on how you do jump, you may not have control over your
vector when you exit.  So you pop out of jump doing 3 G _away_ from where
you want to go. Poof goes your time savings. 

Second, if it _can_ be done, it will be a favorite tactic for military
exit from jumpspace. In many systems a ship blasting in out of jump at max
acceleration will be assumed to be hostile and dealt with accordingly.
Poof goes your time savings, and possibly a large portion of your ship.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1983
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 20 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1984



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: International waters
Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
Re: The whole piracy thread
Re: Pulps
Re: International Waters
Why use CORPS?
Re: International Waters
Re: U R a generous alien
Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)
Hitting other Stats in Combat
Sire, I have a cunning plan...
Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
Re: Starship Insurance
Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)
Re: EV review and flames &  Aliens on the Rim
AM- Torp
Re: International Waters

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:54:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: International waters

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
> Kenneth Bearden writes:
> >We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> >the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> >Imperium?
> > 
> That would correspond to the original three mile limit. At least, I've been
> told that the origin of the three mile limit came from the fact that the
> largest cannons could effectively reach out three miles from a shore battery.
> Of course, this may be one of those plausible explanations that are made up
> without any basis in fact.

On a related note, how do you determine space juristictions over
balkanized worlds? What kind of treaties would be likely to be in effect
around such worlds? 
  
>       Hans Rancke

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: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:37:29 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

Paul D. Owensby writes:
>b) there ain't no friggin way the Imperium is going to be able to keep up
>to date records on every 40 and 50 year old freighter on a subsector-
>wide basis, not to mention a sector-wide database,

Why would it be any more difficult than, say, keeping a record of all cars
in the US? As for keeping it up to date, when a ship moves from one end of
the Imperium, it moves at jump-1, 2, or 3. Information about it would move
at jump-4 or better. The records of a world with very little traffic would
be less than up-to-date, granted, and it would be possible to outrun your
data if you go to such a world, but that just means that you merit extra
attention from the patrol there. And if the traffic is so low, they will
have time for you.

It's not that not appearing on the list will be any particular hardship
for any ship with its papers in order, it's that such a ship is suspicious
and can expect more than cursory attention.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 07:46:11 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: The whole piracy thread

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Leonard Erickson wrote:
> 
> BTW, one interesting fact (from some articles on art thefts). Most
> "big" thefts of things like art objects are a failure for the theives.
> Unless you have some crazy collector already lined up before you steal
> it, you have essentially *no* chance of selling the Mona Lisa. If you
> find a fence who is willing to take it off your hands, you'll be lucky
> to get a few thousand from him.
> 
> There are two general outcomes for art thefts. First, (and most
> desirable) is that the theives realize that they've got a white
> elephant and find a way to return it anonymously. The second outcome is
> bad for everybody. Upon discovering that the artwork is essentially
> worthless to them, they destroy it... <argghh!>

You miss the third possibility, that it's not so much theft as
'kidanpping' for ransom. IIRC this happens in the art world far more often
that they like to talk about, because a museum really, _really_ doesn't
want it known that their security is poor. Wasn't this the original reason
for the theft of the Mona Lisa, anyway? (It was stolen, sometime early
this century, and was lost for quite some time, as I dimply recall)

This applies to starships, too. A shipowner, or shipping corporation might
well be willing to pay to get a ship back without adverse publicity that
could affect things like insurance premiums, cargo bookings, various
contracts (which may have specific clauses dealing with security, etc) or 
completion bonds.

The latter might well be the big ticket...some completion bonds can be
extremely punitive.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:08:35 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Pulps

Vargr : Dogday Afternoons?
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:33:05 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Subject: Re: International Waters

> QUESTION #1:  Interstellar space.
> 
> We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> Imperium?

That was defined in MT's COACC. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy with
me at the moment.  If no one else weighs in on this thread, I'll dig it
out tonight.

[snip]

> QUESTION #2.  Actually, a comment.
> 
> In tonight's game, the law of the "crafty player" came up, raising an
> eyebrow on this Traveller veteran.
> 

[snip]

> 
> "Well,"  he said, "we want to get there as fast as we can--so we don't
> want to decelerate.  For time calculation purposes, let's double the
> distance and halve the time to see how long it will take us to get to
> that point at full thrust all the way."
> 

I, too, had this pointed out to me by a desparate player (tho' it was a
while back).

- -- 
- --------------------------------------------------------
Douglas R. Glatz, MCSE                    Tektronix, Inc
System Administrator                     Wilsonville, Or
Opinions expressed in this post are my own and not those of my employer
*Unsolicited advertisement will be deleted without review*
- --------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:00:38 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Why use CORPS?

When compiling the current campaign data from Robert Eaglestone, I noticed
that a few of you are using CORPS for your mechanics. Can anyone tell me
what the comparative advantages and interesting features of CORPS are?

Thanks.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:00:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: International Waters

In a message dated 97-10-20 04:57:11 EDT, dreamer@brokersys.com writes:

<< "OK," crafty player continued, "and the travel formula is based on
 accelerating at full thrust for half the trip, then using the rest of
 the trip to decelerate?" >>


This relates to a question I had been meaning to ask for a long time...do
thruster-plate ships build a vector like reaction-thrust vessels or not?  If
the do, then the travel formula is canon (it is anyway), but if they don't
then the formula is incorrect.  

This has an enormous effect on starship combat, obviously.  MT used the
vector based system for it's starship combat system and that used a modified
HG-style system.  But I have heard on the list and in other places that the
intent was that reactionless thrusters build no vector...

Anyone have any comments? Thoughts?  Snide remarks?  :-)

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:57:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

In a message dated 97-10-20 03:51:06 EDT, shadow@krypton.rain.com writes:

<< Better recheck the plaque on that display. As I recall, a billion years
 ago it was strictly single cell organisms. The big explosion in
 multicellular forms was about 600 million years ago.
 >>


As I recall, there was no date on the fossil...the ROCK was dated at over 1
billion years old...hence the question of the footprint, since it had to be
made in a material that was not (at that time) rock.

I agree that this is hardly conclusive evidence...it's wide open to
interpretation, and I hardly want to start another flame war about it when it
seems we might be actually toning another one down...but it interesting to
speculate.  I don't see any reason why we (as 20th Century humans) have
already accepted the Solomani Hypothesis...are you SURE we are native to the
earth?

Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

(And, curiously enough, I just remembered a line in a previous post about
this topic from someone mentioning a US Army program on psionics.  As a
matter of fact during my service (1987-1991) I did a security background on a
soldier involved in a PSYCHIC program for the US military...the name was
Project: Blue Rampart (obviously it's a non-classified program, or I wouldn't
be mentioning it)  As I remember it was similar to the CIA program that was
exposed a couple of years ago in the media, and I believe it came of nothing.
 Just a liitle tidbit for you)

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:14:42 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> wrote

> >What market would there be for cargo, starship parts, starships and the
> >like?
> 
> If you can get your hands on them in the first place you can almost
> certainly find someone to take them off your hands. From books and
> TV shows I've gained the impression that most hot stuff fetches from
> 10 to 20% of its real value. A starship would propably lie in the low
> end of that range.

It seems to me that you could get more for a stolen starship from a chop
shop [criminal enterprise that steals cars, cuts them into pieces and
sells the pieces seperately] then if you sold it as a whole.  You simply
cut out the valuable parts, such as jump drives and computers and sell
them as used.  They will have ID numbers on them and this will probably
include some that are too small and/or hidden to burn off so you will
have to sell them to a less than honest starship repair yard.  They can
then put these "reconditioned used parts in like new condition aquired
by salvage" into ships to replace dammaged parts or use them to build a
new starship.  I suspect that some pieces of starships _will_not_have_
ID numbers on them and can be sold as "reconditioned used parts in like
new condition aquired by salvage" even to honest sources.  This will
only include smaller and "less valuable" but still expensive pieces. 
This will increase the money you can make.

Given the extremely high cost of starships it will be easier to tempt
people into buying stolen parts.  Suppose that _your_ starship is
broken.  You cannot afford to buy the part to fix it.  If you do not get
the ship back in service you will not be able to keep up on the loan
payments and the bank will take your ship away.  The bank will not give
you a loan to buy the parts because your ship is already worth less than
the ammount remaining on your ship loan.  The repair shop wants cash up
front so you cannot get it fixed & then skip out on your bill. You do
however have enough money to buy a "reconditioned used parts in like new
condition aquired by salvage" part. What do you do ?

1)  Loose your ship ?
2) Borrow money to buy new parts from a loan shark ?
3) Buy stolen parts and try to pretend, even to yourself, that you do
not know they are stolen and that you are helping piracy ?
4) Commit some other crime or high risk job (ie adventure) to get the
money to fix your ship ?

Most player charecters will pick option number 3 or 4.  I think that a
lot of otherwise honest merchants will pick option 3.  When the money
involved in business starts getting into the millions temptation
increases.

- -- 
 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:34:11 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Hitting other Stats in Combat

Hi all,

eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) suggested:
>"Hum..." thinks I, "A blow to the head reduces STR, END, or DEX?  I don't
>know, maybe it should really reduce INT or EDU?  I certainly couldn't
>conjugate latin verbs after whacking my head.", not that I could before
>banging my head...

<snip>

Yup. I use this in my games. And I have a Charisma or Appearance attribute
as well, so bad physical damage can affect that. Also, the 'death' rolls in
char gen (now "injury" rolls in T4) have always (in my game) resulted in
stat reduction - anything from STR to EDU or CHR. Explaining exactly what's
happened to a character and why gives them interesting background, and
sometimes a subsequent effect, e.g. blacking out in high stress or high G
situations.

Andy :-)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:04:10 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Sire, I have a cunning plan...

Hi All,

My, isn't it hot in here?

Anyway, bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh), on the topic of using
obscuring dust clouds, went on to say:

>Possibly the best way to ambush someone is to hide next to a asteroid - 
>there should be a fair number that come within a few million km of a given
>planet which reduces signature quite a bit.

Ok, so of our astronomers out there, how many such asteroids or similar are
likely to exist (a) within 100 diameters or so of most planets and (b)
between worlds (assuming some intra-system traffic).

Would this be a sufficiently small number (remembering that even for an
EMM-masked ship the asteroid must be of sufficient size to disguise the
ship's signature) that they would generally be shot out of the sky "just for
safety" by the local patrol ships.

Alternatively, what's stopping a ship from trying to give out an
asteroid-like signature anyway. Presumably suitably
sensor-reflecting/absorbing paint to give the right sort of returns,
combined with an appropriate surface configuration?

Perhaps a pirate ship can hide within a 'blow up' asteroid shell, which it
simply collapses (or bursts out of) once within range of its target?

Andy :-)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:59:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> Paul D. Owensby writes:
> >b) there ain't no friggin way the Imperium is going to be able to keep up
> >to date records on every 40 and 50 year old freighter on a subsector-
> >wide basis, not to mention a sector-wide database,
> 
> Why would it be any more difficult than, say, keeping a record of all cars
> in the US? As for keeping it up to date, when a ship moves from one end of
> the Imperium, it moves at jump-1, 2, or 3. Information about it would move
> at jump-4 or better. The records of a world with very little traffic would
> be less than up-to-date, granted, and it would be possible to outrun your
> data if you go to such a world, but that just means that you merit extra
> attention from the patrol there. And if the traffic is so low, they will
> have time for you.
 
I really admire your confidence in the computers and the clerks of the
future. I just don't see it the way you do :-) A registry containing a
couple of millions ships spread around the galaxy is going to be very
hard to keep track of. i grant you that there will be good lists of the
largest ships, but small freighters, free traders, yatchs and so on is
impossible in my view to keep tabs on. They will know who owns the ship,
who manufactured it, its ID-number and such info. What cargo it has
carried, where it has been, who the captain and the crew is will be much
harder to keep tabs on. And the clever and resourceful captain will have
no trouble bribing clerks on low tech worlds to put new owners on the
ship, put forth false cargo papers and so on. Also with the x-boat route
how does the ships info reach the system before the ship? Say you attempt
to hi-jack a trader (just let us assume that piracy exists.) You fail and
imideatly jump to the next system. While you are in jump, the naval
vessels of the world you jump from investigate the insident, making 100%
sure that you are the criminal and not the other way around (you might
just have jumped to avoid being the victim). They need statements, review
the radiotraffic just before the incident, study the flightpath, do
investigating work and so on. At least a couple of days work, maybe a week
or two before there can be put out a general piracy alert on your ship.
The Imperium don't need large lawsuits because they hauled in the wrong
ship. Then the info is sent out with the X-boat system.

A piracy incident or any other criminal event requires an investigation
before the varrents for arrests are issued, or maybe the Imperium isn't to
keen on personal rights. You seem to forget that there is a huge
admininistrational system that needs to be put in motion before the info
can be shipped to the nearby systems. This is not going to take seconds
and are at best not subject to human error.                

> 
> It's not that not appearing on the list will be any particular hardship
> for any ship with its papers in order, it's that such a ship is suspicious
> and can expect more than cursory attention.

But what is suspicious behavior? You seem to set the limit very low.


> 
> 
>       Hans Rancke
> 

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: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:59:06 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Starship Insurance

Ahhhh...Traveller for Lawyers.

Roger Howe says;
>My players announced during our last session that they wished to insure
>their newly bought starship.
>They are free traders on a cargo and passenger carrying ship in Milieu 0.
>
>What would the premiums be like?  Their ship costs MCr81.

Depends on the coverage.

>What different ranges of cover would be available, eg. theft, piracy,
>destruction, damage, cargo, third party, loss of earnings, negligence (eg
>for low berth losses) etc...?
>
>What conditions, eg. crew competency + minimum complement, armaments, travel
>restrictions etc....., would the insurance company put on a starship it
>covered?

On my new Saturn, base value $18,000, I pay roughly $1000 per year (1/18th
of the value of the car) for the following;

Repair in the event of a Collision ($500 deductable)
Liability for Damage to others (up to $50k I think)
Liability for Health Expenses for others or passengers (up to $300k I think)
Replacement in the event of Fire/Theft (According to book value)
My own Health expenses in the case of a collision with an uninsured auto.

There is more than that, but that's a fair basis, Now lets translate;

For 4.5Mcr/ Year (375,000Cr/Month);
- -Repair in the event of docking collision, landing accident or mid-space
   collision, or act of vandalism, with 2 Mcr Deductable.
- -Depreciated Value (total Value less 1/40th per year of age of total value)
   reimbursed in the event of damage equal to that value or theft.
- -Liability for damage to facilities, other ships, etc in the case of damage up
   to a predetermined total (300 Mcr?) and health expenses.

and, of course, free windshield replacement.

Insurance (using the same model) will *not* cover;
"Acts of Nature" such as asteroid collisions
Deliberate damage by the owner
Damage due to regular wear and tear or negligence
Damage from acts of War
Damage from incorrectly installed parts, defective parts, etc.

There may be a better prototype; Ship (wet) insurance such as that provided
by Lloyds, but that insurance (as I understand it) was bought by the owners
who stayed behind, not by owners aboard since, in the event the insurance
was collected, those aboard were probably dead.

Always remember that Insurance companies make a profit by betting that you
will not need the insurance to pay for repairs.  If a captain has a bad
record the premiums will go up.  If the area of operation (required
information...outside which the policy will be void) is particularly
dangerous, the premiums go up.  Anything which can be legitimately known
and which increases risk will cause premiums to increase.

Insurance is really just a tool for regulating expenses.  In the end you
will have paid more over time than the likely benefit received, its just
that you will have spread those expenses over a lot of time instead of
getting it in one lump.

Barratry

Barratry is the practice of a ship's master doing intentional harm to their
own ship or cargo.  Rest assured that any attempt to make a claim of theft
or damage  will be investigated thoroughly, at least until you pay off the
inspector.

Seriously though, there would be a "cooling off" period and a serious
investigation conducted before any payoff resulted.  I would expect there
to be a standard 'waiting period' for any ship supposedly lost in jumpspace
and a hearty reward (1/5th the payoff?) for information leading to proving
fraudulent insurance claims.

I think you can find a few adventure hooks buried in the above.  PCs in
general might find insurance a bit of a burden for little repayment (until
they get in a collision, or have their ship stolen).  On the other hand I
would bet that most merchants do have insurance, and it may even be
mandatory before landing at some starports, perhaps those outside the
Imperium.

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 19:05 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Traveller Maligning List (TML)

In-Reply-To: <9710180154.AA31361@carbon.cudenver.edu>

Leroy,

> "Instrument readings soon give an idea of the size of the
>        gigantic ship.  It measures approximately 10 km x 8 km
>        x 7.5 km, and displaces just under 50 _BILLION_ tons
>        standard."
>  
> OK, those facts match. A quick calculation shows that a cube of those
> dimensions yields about 4.3 x 10^11 (~43 billion tons). No mistakes there.
> Just under 50 Billion tons.

That's an interestingly shaped cube.

> In light of the discussion, the purported missing TL of vehicles in EV
> is small stuff if you *really* care about detail.  nearly a BILLION tons
> of Jump Drive is even harder to explain than Terraforming at TL12. :)

There's no 'purported' about it, they *are* missing. I think it's safe to say 
most characters will encounter more vehicles than gigaton starships, so your 
comparison is rather odd.

> I have the feeling that if some of the detail that it is claimed *were* 
> to be added, that there would just be something else.  I can just imagine

The problems with EV have been well documented. I don't expect new ones will 
magically materialise if they were fixed.

> calls for tire pressure and distributed track vehicle weights governing
> the width of the tracks, and so on.  

While ground pressure is important when designing a vehicle (otherwise you end 
up with rubbish like that 200-ton tank from TNE), I can live without it 
afterwards.

> I could be wrong there, and I'm not
> afraid to admit it.

There's hope for you yet.

> You'll be getting no more Traveller Maligning from me, 

Thank the Great Maker for that.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:41:52 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: EV review and flames &  Aliens on the Rim

David 'Washu' Moodie <dmoodie@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes,
> 1) The whole EV flame thing....

As much as I can agree without having seen EV, I agree.  Actually,
Leroy's "pro" review was almost enough on it's own to make me decide not
to buy it - all the things he praised were negative points for me.  I'll
give EV a quick look, but I'll probably just stick with 101 Vehicles.

> 2) About the anti-'Aliens of the Rim' thing...
>
> What do people acutally dislike about AOTR1 to brand it a flop?

I'll just insert here that I do not know Dave, Loren, the Keiths, or
indeed anyone relevant, so I can slag this book off as much as I like...
</IRONY>

> Not being bred on CT or MT alien books myself it came as a pleasant
> suprise to acutally find something that explained an alien race in
> more than two sentences (Your looking at a guy that is soooo
> inexperienced and behind in the Traveller universe that he bought MT
> in 1992 and TNE this year, hence any futher comments by myself may be
> declared void and irrelevent). 

Your inexperience compared to certain others does not make your opinions
any less worthwhile - Traveller needs new blood if it is to prosper -
and anyway, there a plenty of folks here with access to less
"historical" Traveller than you.  So you can have it both ways! ;-)

Despite my STRONG distaste for the style in which it's presented, I find
H&I worth having anyway.  I've only got 3 of the original Alien modules
(Aslan, Hivers, Solomani) and one of the MT (Vilani & Vargr).  Hivers is
my personal favourite of these, which goes some way towards explaining
my distaste - the original is not IMO treated with respect.

There is a tradition in Traveller of taking what we "know" about a
subject and turning it around.  I like this.  H&I takes the idea that
Hiver society is a harmonious, well-adjusted whole and pulls it apart.
Good!

BUT, the way this is done grates on me.  "Hiver Mechnod Photo Hello" is
a Mystery Science Theatre viewing of the original alien module (which is
where the pre-commentary text comes from).  It picks holes not only in
the "facts" presented, but also the author's style and presentation
techniques that have been used in many other Traveller books (and SF
works at large).  For instance, when making comparisons it's commmon to
use one real-world example and a made-up one, for flavour.  Everybody
knows they are made up, but I don't want some other invented character
gleefully pointing it out!  To me it's a bit like publishing a tech book
with commentary from an Old Timer saying things like "of course, jump
drive is impossible - but we pretend to go along with it because
otherwise the Imperium would fall apart".

> Ok, back to the point... Apart from the slightly obscure prose in some
> sections and the Santa Claus references (aw but the Ithklur look sooo
> cuuute!) how different (and apparently inferior) is it to the original
> Hiver book (there was one, wasn't there?)?

The Ithklur material is all new.  By the time I got to this, I wasn't in
the best mood to appreciate the humour.  The Santa Claus stuff is just
one symptom of a more general problem for me - the constant references
to late 20th century US culture, including lots of references I didn't
get as a Brit.  Now, I know the only way we can relate to these things
is by relating them to what we know - but it would be nice to *pretend*
that there are some other influences, that society in Traveller is based
on more than 1% of human history.

I guess my overall problem is that any suspension of disbelief is
shattered on a regular basis.  And I'm afraid the afterword explaining
the style of presentation didn't help.  It seemed to be saying "let's
stop pretending" in a game which is an organised version of "let's
pretend"...

> Any additional backround notes that can be pointed out to me will be
> much appreciated to give me the most complete picture of Hivers
> possible.

You're not actually missing much information at all.  The Hiver world-
building & travel rules, Hiver Federation map, homeworld/capital data,
and Hiver space adventure were deliberately omitted to keep the emphasis
on the RC; CT character generation was of course inappropriate in TNE.
Most of the physiological/psychological/social details were kept.  The
anatomical drawings in the original were IMO much better, and there may
be some other, minor stuff, but nothing too drastic.

As usual, sorry for the rant.  To make up for it, here's a few things I
did like about H&I:

* The undermining of the "happy Hiver society" image (see above).
* The way the Rebellion manipulation was handled.
* The Ithklur character (once stripped of contemporary references).
* The "alternative view" of the K'Kree manipulation (although I don't
  entirely buy it, it's nice to see).

Oh, and I recreated the ballet scene in a GURPS IOU game, by passing
notes to a caveman's player describing the ballet in Ithklur-like terms
(he'd never seen H&I or the original TNS entry) - with gratifyingly
similar results... 8-)

John

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:23:15 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: AM- Torp

> My thought is "antimatter torpedo".
> What would the damage of this weapon be if it could be built?

That's easy. Energy released is MVsquared. Mass is the mass of antimatter in
grams, velocity is light speed in m/s. This gives you the base energy.
Divide by 5 million to get the rough equivalent in TNT. CSC gives the
formula for converting danage from real world numbers. You would probably
use VERY small a amounts of AM to avoid taking yourself out when you fire. 

I recommend mesons and nukes. They are safer

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:14:32 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: International Waters

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> QUESTION #1:  Interstellar space.
> 
> We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> Imperium?

<snippage>

> Then I thought of something more natural to Traveller--the 10 diameter
> limit.  So, for right now, I'm thinking that the 10 diam limit  is a
> good distance to distinguish between Imperial and planetary
> jurisdiction.
...
> This came up in the game because the players were ordered to leave
> Pysadi.  They got in the Harrier, left the planet, then wanted to get
> beyond the planet's jurisdiction and just sit there--not really leaving
> the system.  They wanted to get in "international waters" so to speak,
> where the Pysadian officials could not force them to leave.

I believe that "canon"ically, the Imperium has jurisdiction of *all*
space. There is *no* local governement space zone. The Imperium has
jurisdiction over the starport, right? Imperial laws govern there. Why
would the local government have authority in space (International water
zone) if this were the case?

Just like if the United Nations had laws and authority over all water
ports on earth, why would local governements still have authority in the
water? I know, I know, fishing, offshore oil reserves, etc. Analogy
falls apart. But there's nothing to mine or fish in space, is there?

When a planetary government agrees to join the Imperium, they agree to
allow the Imperium to govern *all* space. Once you're outside regular
"airspace" and in "outer space" you are under the jurisdiction of the
Imperium.

The Imperium grants local worlds the right to launch sattelites and
other commercial and scientific probes, but reserves the right to
enforce its laws regarding interstellar trade, piracy, capital crimes
etc. in the zone outside regular airspace, which could be defined by an
arbitrary distance of, say, 200 km or so.

Under the specific circumstances of your game, I believe that once the
players are in the starport, they are no longer under the laws of
Pysadi. Technically, they've already *left* Pysadi. The best the
Pysadian government could do is not allow them to exit the starport on
foot, in a vehicle, or by public transport.

I imagine that the actual airspace above the starport is also governed
by Imperial Law, so if the characters choose to leave the starport by
spaceship, they wouldn't be allowed to enter Pysadian airspace and the
only direction they can go is up. Once free of atmosphere, they are free
to orbit the planet, kick around the system, do whatever.

OTOH, the Imperium could have mechinisms which allow it to extradite
troublesome Travellers. Perhaps the Pysdian government could petition
the Imperium for an Imperial Warrant forcing them to leave the system.
 

> QUESTION #2.  Actually, a comment.
> 
> In tonight's game, the law of the "crafty player" came up, raising an
> eyebrow on this Traveller veteran.

<crafty player snippage>

> He was right.  You double the distance (double Pysadi's size 4 world to
> a size 8, then halve the time on the chart to see how long it will take
> to get to the jurisdiction line without decelerating).
> 
> How many times in the past can this maneuver have been used?  You could
> use it for the planet to jump point calculation--and reenter space from
> jump already moving at a good speed--decreasing travel time by several
> hours on each end.
> 
> Maybe you other GMs out there do this type of stuff all the time, but
> I've always relied on using the tables or using the travel formula.
> 
> I'm just flabbergasted that I never realized the travel time savings
> that could be had this way.

I'm flabbergasted too. Glad to see you've been enlightened. ;->

We used to play around with this formula ever since it was published in
the Traveller Book.

Marc posted comments on the difference between a "Running Jump" and a
"Standing Jump" a bit back which relied on the difference between
midpoint deceleration and full acceleration. The problem with this
approach is that conversation of momentum isn't taken into account.
("standing" relative to what?)

It has been mentioned before that stars are moving relative to one
another, and worlds are moving relative to the primary, by virtue of
their orbit. Even if your vector relative to the local world is zero,
(which means you're whizzing about the primary at the planet's orbital
vector) your vector relative to the intended destination is rarely so.
You jump to a star moving X km/s away from the local system (and the
destination world orbiting about the star at a particular velocity and
direction) and you pull out your hair at the massive calculation.

Just assuming that jumpspace magically erases out your momentum in
normalspace, and then magically creates a new, similar position and
vector relative to the destination world was something I used to accept,
but now I feel It's inelegant and unrealistic. It's better to do
something just as arbitrary, but more random.

Generally, ships travelling from one world to a specific destination
system will use a similar "corridor" (ie. heading and velocity relative
to the planet) in order to create the most favourable exit vector when
they arrive at the destination.

I would recommend that you devise an Astrogation Task to determine an
optimal exit and entry vector, dependent upon your destination. Use the
results of that task to apply to a roll on a time multiplication factor
table of some sort. The time is quite random since jump travel time
varies, good astrogation can ameliorate the results.

Here's an example I'm making out of thin air off the top of my head on
the spot ;-), Note that I created this table without reference to the
Starship Operators' Manual which has a similar table, iirc. I may be out
to luch with the factors. I hope others with opinions on this matter
have some comment/ modifications/ reality checks... 


To Determine Travel Times
=========================

To determine optimal travel vector to Jump Point:
Difficult. Astrogation+INT
Task becomes Formidible if "spoofing" destination system.

"Spoofing" means that the players do not attempt an optimal vector for
the destination system, in order to make an observer believe they could
be jumping somewhere else. Without spoofing, an observer can readily
determine the jumping ship's destination. Rarely would two optimal
vectors for two different jump destinations coincide.

Roll 2d6 and apply DMs below. Multiply the rolled modifier by the travel
time determined by the standard (accel / decel.) travel time tables to
determine actual travel time.

0-	0.3x
1	0.4
2	0.5
3	0.58
4	0.65
5	0.75
6	0.9
7	1x   (Standard midpoint decell. time)
8	1.1
9	1.3
10	1.5
11	1.7
12	2
13	2.5
14	3
15	3.5
16	4
17	4.5
18+	5x

DMs
- -2	if Spectacular Success in Astrogation Task.
+2	if Failure in Astrogation Task.
+4	if Spectacular failure in Astrogation Task.
+5	if "Spoofing" destination.


To determine optimal travel vector from Jump exit point to destination:
Average. Astrogation+INT

Before exiting jump, roll 2d6 and note the result. I will use R as the
result. Time in jump is calculated by 168 + (R-7)x3 hours. (roughly one
week +/- 10%)

To determine travel time to destination, look up R on the table,
applying _the same DMs_ as rolled the first time *and* DMs for this task
roll.

Explanation:
- ------------
If R was 7, then jump time was exactly the standard one week that you
based the first Astrogation task upon, so R determines variability of
travel time from jump exit point to destination.

If the first roll was screwed up, or spoofed, then the exit vector
should not be optimally in line with the destination world, therefore
you apply the DMs from the first task roll. By the same token,
spectacular success in the first roll means that the exit to destination
time is usually lower, as a particularly good course was plotted.

It could be though, that the variability in Jump time means you got
lucky, and happened to get a good line with the destination world, even
though you "spoofed" your "approach" vector.

CAVEAT: I'm not sure that using standard acell/decel tables is
reasonable with this system. Perhaps straight aceleration? (0.5at^2) so
t=sqrt(2d/a)

Comments?

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1984
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 20 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1985



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: U R a generous alien
Events in Imperial History
WHOA! (Read This, It's true, and brief) 
Re: International Waters
Re: AM- Torp
Re: International Waters
Imperial/Planetary Space
Re: [T97#1964] Cost of Policing NYC
Re: Starship Insurance
Re: Cost of policing NYC
Bye for now
Re: Another piracy challenge
Travel Time
The unsuppressed pirate

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:32:55 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: U R a generous alien

>You're dealing with a fairly advanced group of explorers here,
>but they aren't gods. Suppose that they are limited to a standard
>imperial tech level, and that they leave a lot of these "relics"
>wherever they go... so these things better be cheap (just
>something that says "hi... we were here... and by the way, here's
>how you build a jump drive... have a blast.")
>
>Any ideas?

One word;  Pyramids

You know, we still don't know what all those pictograms mean.

Oh, fine, the pyramids of Earth are not relics of an alien civilization,
but they *have* lasted, pretty much unchanged, for (insome cases) nearly
3000 years.  That's about as long as anything manmade has lasted to date.

Cheap?  Well, use local materials and possibly labor...

Anyway, its a thought.

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:35:26 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Events in Imperial History

I have the feeling I'm missing something obvious, but I'd like to know
roughly when the following occurred in Third Imperial history:

1. First encounter with each of Aslan, Vargr, Hivers, K'Kree, Zhodani.
2. When it was first realised the Droyne were a major race.
3. When trade began with the coreward end of the Hinterworlds.
4. When and where the 3rd Imp first collided with the Solomani sphere.

Also, I know that
  "Humaniti made its third major debut in the [Hinterworlds] sector in
   the midst of the Long Night with the voyages of several Solomani
   sleeper ships (circa 700 Imperial).  These efforts centered on
   setting up civilizations in the sector's coreward and rimward ends."

[Presumably that should be -700 Imperial.]

How long would these journeys have taken?  Any idea how many passengers
the ships were likely to carry?  I'm particularly interested in the
colonisation of subsector C (Anubis), since I'm playing with the history
of the Anubian Trade Coalition at the moment.

Cheers,

John

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:52:19 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: WHOA! (Read This, It's true, and brief) 

>There seems to be, in recent posts, an increasing hostility on this list.
>
[snip]
>But this is not a case of misunderstanding, this is a series of vicious
>personal attacks. And very petty ones too.
>
>I realize that most people will never even read this post, or care. But I
>like to have ideas stimulated, concepts proposed and designs posted. I
>really do not want to see personal volleys. Please, take it elsewhere or
>stop it (latter preferred) for the sake of peace on the list. And for the
>sake of interesting discussion.

Glenn has expressed my views precisely.  This list has always been
productive, but less so recently (I delete whole swaths of "Piracy"
discussions lately).

Can we get back to our regulary scheduled Traveller discussions now (not to
downplay the useful discussions on various subjects still happening).

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:48:24 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: International Waters

DustyLV769@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 97-10-20 04:57:11 EDT, dreamer@brokersys.com writes:
> 
> << "OK," crafty player continued, "and the travel formula is based on
>  accelerating at full thrust for half the trip, then using the rest of
>  the trip to decelerate?" >>
> 
> This relates to a question I had been meaning to ask for a long time...do
> thruster-plate ships build a vector like reaction-thrust vessels or not?  If
> the do, then the travel formula is canon (it is anyway), but if they don't
> then the formula is incorrect.

But of course! Thruster-plates only violate a few piddling laws of
conservation of energy, they don't repeal the conservation of momentum
and Newton's laws of motion, Einstein's relativity, etc.

> This has an enormous effect on starship combat, obviously.  MT used the
> vector based system for it's starship combat system and that used a modified
> HG-style system.  But I have heard on the list and in other places that the
> intent was that reactionless thrusters build no vector...

AFAIK, Traveller is still true to using vector mechanics in starship
combat. Object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by a force
such as T-plates...

> Anyone have any comments? Thoughts?  Snide remarks?  :-)

ummmm, sure: Get a Grip! Sheeessh. Do thruster plates build a vector...
silly question :-)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:05:10 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: AM- Torp

>> My thought is "antimatter torpedo".
>> What would the damage of this weapon be if it could be built?
>
>That's easy. Energy released is MVsquared. Mass is the mass of antimatter in
>grams, velocity is light speed in m/s. This gives you the base energy.
>Divide by 5 million to get the rough equivalent in TNT. CSC gives the
>formula for converting danage from real world numbers. You would probably
>use VERY small a amounts of AM to avoid taking yourself out when you fire.
>
>I recommend mesons and nukes. They are safer

Not to mention in the right TL...

As far as I remember, antimatter power and weapons began at TL16 (MT
Referees Manual).  Antimatter missiles are the same.  I believe the problem
is containement.  Also remember that creating antimatter requires energy
equal to the annihilation energy.  This is considerable, even with Fusion.
Besides, if you're making that much energy already, why not pump it into
your more conventional laser or particle accellerator?

Wasn't there an adventure around raiding a rebellion era Depot for parts to
repair an experimental TL16 Disintegrator? (perhaps the Rebellion
Sourcebook)  I seem to recall that the disintegrator was simply a particle
accellerator which used antimatter particles (perhaps that was my owm
explanation).

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:53:50 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: Re: International Waters

Hmm...

The way I read this, and I could be wrong, was that the speed increase is used to just get 
to the border.  Period.

Once you are safely in 'international water' you could slow down accordingly.


On 20 Oct 97 at 7:32, Bruce Johnson wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 20 Oct 1997 07:32:53 -0700 (MST)
From:           	Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
To:             	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject:        	Re: International Waters
Send reply to:  	traveller@MPGN.COM

> On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> Snip about blasting away without decelerating to shorten travel times.
> 
> > How many times in the past can this maneuver have been used?  You could
> > use it for the planet to jump point calculation--and reenter space from
> > jump already moving at a good speed--decreasing travel time by several
> > hours on each end.
> > 
> > Maybe you other GMs out there do this type of stuff all the time, but
> > I've always relied on using the tables or using the travel formula.
> > 
> > I'm just flabbergasted that I never realized the travel time savings
> > that could be had this way.
> 
> Well there are a couple things that mitigate against it. 
> 
> One, depending on how you do jump, you may not have control over your
> vector when you exit.  So you pop out of jump doing 3 G _away_ from where
> you want to go. Poof goes your time savings. 
> 
> Second, if it _can_ be done, it will be a favorite tactic for military
> exit from jumpspace. In many systems a ship blasting in out of jump at max
> acceleration will be assumed to be hostile and dealt with accordingly.
> Poof goes your time savings, and possibly a large portion of your ship.
> 
> Bruce Johnson
> University of Arizona
> College of Pharmacy
> Information Technology Group
> 
> Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
> 
> 
> 
> 


 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:08:39 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Imperial/Planetary Space

Hans wrote:

>Funny, if you had asked me I would unhesitatingly have said the jump limit
>rather than the 10 diameter limit.

Yes, I thought of that too, except that's a lot of space to cover for a
planet, especially if it is of low tech, and I figure that one of the
benefits of being a member of the Imperium must be that the Imperium
will protect (not patrol in all cases) this space for you.

> Note, however, that the only official
>information we have on the subject is that the spaceport itself is outside
>the jurisdiction of the planet, so perhaps the limit is much closer to the
>planet (Ie. anything above airspace plus a corridor down to the spaceport
>carved out of the airspace.)

Yes, I thought of that as well--thinking that the Imperium controls
everything beyond a certain orbit (maybe the farthest moon, or a certain
height if the planet has no moons)--but what if the planet wants more
control than that.

If there's no Naval Base in the system, the planetary govt may want to
run some SDB's.

Also, there might be "concurrent jurisdiction" in some systems, where
the official jurisdiction line is the 10 diam limit, but the Imperium or
the Planet's forces can follow ships past the other's line.  For
example, pirate activity occurs at jump point 100 diams out, then some
Imperial SDB's chase them.  The pirates run to the planet's 10 diam line
because the planet is Govt 0 and piracy is not illegal.

I don't see the Imperial SDB's just stopping at the 10 diam line,
letting the pirates make faces at them because they are now in neutral
space.

I guess I picture this more like when Federal jurisdiction overrides
State Lines.

I don't know, I'm still gestating all of this.

>All in all I would suggest that the planet has full jusridiction below a
>certain level, with the space immidiately over the spaceport excepted, and
>joint jurisdiction throughout the system (ie. they can act against Imperially
>accepted crimes if they want to, but can't act against crimes that are only
>crimes locally).

That sounds reasonable.  I'm starting to lean towards not having a
blanket rule for this.  Star systems are too different.  What will work
at TL 4 Pysadi (with no Naval Base, only one inhabited planet, and, in
my campaign, only two shuttles at the star port, and the starport
facility is only on the ground) probably won't work at TL 12 Aramis
(which has several inhabited planets, more than one Naval Base, more
than one Scout Base, with both a Highport and a Downport).

I believe I'm going to rule that in each system this will be considered
individually.  This is probably a point of contention between the
Imperium and the planet when the planet becomes a member of the
Imperium.  I picture this like an unannexed community on the outskirts
of a large city--there's also disputes over who provides
police/fire/trash services, and this is worked out as the city grows and
annexes the community.

Star systems with Naval Bases will probably have planetary jurisdiciton
to a point, but concurrent Imperial jurisdiction in the entire
system--including the same space the planet patrols.

For other systems, I'll have to figure this out, if it comes up, when I
detail the system, basing my decisions on the political climate and
planetary resources of the main world.

>Since the starport is outside Pysadian jurisdiction, IMO they couldn't even
>force them to leave the planet. Though they could ask the spaceport
>administrator to send them off. His jurisdiction may extend to 10 diameters
>(though I would have said 100 diameters).

This is how I kinda played it.  All along during the four months the
characters were planet side, I played the starport as being
extraterritorial, but having a tight relationship with the planetary
government.

The Pysadians did ask the starport manager to send them off, which he
did (not wanting too, but picking the lesser of the two evils--he's got
to live there after all), and I extended jurisdiciton to the 10 diam
point.

I may increase this to the whole system.  They don't have a Naval Base,
and there is no way for the planet to defend itself from Travellers
unless they get lucky and find a ship in port for hire.  (Ya know, this
can work as an adventure both ways--being the ship for hire, or being
chased by the ship for hire--I like that!)

In the Pysadian's case, they've got jurisdiction throughout the solar
system, but  they can't do that much about it--unless they hire a ship,
if there is a ship to hire, or they use the two unarmed shuttles the
starport has.

Boy, it's a bitch being low tech and poor, isn't it?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:07:48 -0400
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: [T97#1964] Cost of Policing NYC

At 07:32 PM 10/19/97 +0000, you wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:17:06 -0400, "David P. Summers"
><summers@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>Well, NYC _does_ have the resources to put a cop at every intersection.
>
>>>Dammit, David, read what I write! NYC _don't_ have the resources to put
>>>a cop at every intersection.
>
>>I did read what you said.  And I didn't agree with it.
>
>>> They might be able to hire them if the cut
>>>back on something else, but as of today they don't have that many cops.
>
>>Well, if you take 1% of what NYC taxes for defense (average taxes
>>are about $4000 (actually that would be higher because of NYC higher
>>cost of living, but we will ignore that), and about 1/3 has typically
>>gone for defense)  with 18 million people that is 240 million dollars.
>>If cops make $30,000, then that's 8000 cops.  I can then claim that
>>this would make street crime impossible just as you claim your
>>calculations make piracy impossible.  (And the fact that the
>>income tax system is progressive, and I haven't included any
>>local or state taxes means the number could be a lot higher).
>
>I work for the NYC PD; I know whereof I speak.
>
>The population of the City of New York proper (not including the
>suburban areas included in the Consolidated Metropolitan
>Statistical Area for census purposes) is nine million, and during
>the typical business day, you can expect to find ten to twelve
>million people within the confines of the city.
>
>A rookie police officer, fresh out of the Academy, makes $30,000
>per year; the average officer of non-appointed rank has five to
>eight years on the job and makes $48,000 per year.
>
>Effective October of 1996, when the NYC PD fully absorbed the
>formerly independent New York City Housing Police Department and
>the New York City Transit Police Department, the uniformed
>strength of the department, all ranks from Chief of Department on
>down, including Detective and investigative ranks, was 35,000.
>An additional 8,000 to 10,000 non-uniformed ("civilian")
>personnel carry out some administrative and maintenance tasks at
>an average salary of $28,000 per year.
>
>The New York City Police Department has officers on-duty 24 hours
>per day, 365 days per year (366 in leap years).  There are 76
>Patrol precincts, 9 Housing Police Service Areas, 12 Transit
>Police Districts, 8 Borough Commands, 4 Highway Patrol Units,
>and about a dozen specialized patrol and investigative units such
>as Mounted, Aviation, Internal Affairs, Organized Crime Control,
>Intelligence, Narcotics, and so on.
>
>The busiest precincts (I work in one such) can expect to have an
>average at any moment of the day of 100 members of the service of
>all ranks and titles including civilians in administrative
>positions scheduled to work per square mile of patrol area.  Of
>those, one can expect roughly seven to ten percent to be actually
>unavailable due to unexpected illness or family emergencies,
>court testimony, special details, vacation, restricted duty due
>to pending administrative disciplinary action or psychological
>conditions leading to temporary removal of authority to carry a
>firearm, and so on.
>
>If _every_ cop were to be placed on the street doing foot patrol,
>at the density implied by the figures for the busiest precincts
>above, you could have one cop every roughly 500 feet.  The area
>of the City of New York (all five boroughs) is roughly 325 square
>miles, requiring a total of more than 32,000 _foot_patrol_only_
>officers to have them at intervals of _500_ feet throughout the
>city.  That's an average of one per two short blocks in
>Manhattan.  To have them every _15_ feet, as you suggest, would
>require a total of roughly 40.25 MILLION patrol officers;
>assuming a rookie salary of $30,000 per year for each of them,
>that would cost the city $1.2 TRILLION (US Trillion; British
>Billion; power-of-ten exponent is 12).  The budgeted
>expenditures, for _all_ programs, of the United States Government
>in 1992 was $1.4 trillion.
>
>New York City cannot afford to put a cop every fifteen feet
>throughout the city.  The United States could barely afford to
>put one cop every fifteen feet throughout New York City -
>provided it were willing to forego just about every other program
>it runs, including national defense, and fire the people
>involved.
>--
>Jeff Zeitlin
>jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com
>
	I well know that New York City could not afford to put a cop every fifteen
feet
	throughout the city; I did say that the U.S.A. could put a cop every
fifteen feet
	throughout New York City -- IF THEY WANTED, TOO. I said they wouldn't because
	the money could produce better results if spent on other things.

	The point is simply this -- the fact that the money to perform a task is
available
	is not, of itself, a guarantee that the task will be performed nor, for
that matter,
	is it a guarantee that the agency actively involved in performing the task
is in any
	way fully competent to carry out the task.


	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:26:37 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: Starship Insurance

Hello,
>My players announced during our last session that they wished to insure
>their newly bought starship.
>They are free traders on a cargo and passenger carrying ship in Milieu 0.
>
>What would the premiums be like?  Their ship costs MCr81.

  Probably any of the above, with premiums varying by risk. It's really
up to you to eyeball it with a minimal rate guideline, until some kind-
hearted industry person writes it up for the TML. (hmm, either insurance
or trucking industries, come to think of it).

  IIRC, one of the old JTAS had a brief mention of insurance rates.

  In extremis, for a safe area, all coverage, (except preventable break-
downs) say, 0.3% of coverage/month, with a rate break for longer coverage
in the same area of operations (and administration).

  Mega-corps are, of course, self-insuring.

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:16:14 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Subject: Re: Cost of policing NYC

Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
> 
> The whole analogy between NYC and the Imperium is false anyway. To be
> anything close to the situation in the Imperium, NYC would have to
> consist of individual houses each placed in a block-sized park with no
> trees and bushes at all (And brilliantly lit even at night). Then, if you
> had about 500 times more cops on your payroll than you had houses, I think
> the two situations would begin to be somewhat similar.
> 

Hans, 

You have used this position several times in defending your belief that
the IN can put as many warships in the sky as necessary.

I have asked this before, and I'll ask it again.  How can the Imperium
afford to have 500 cops per household?  You say that the numbers support
it.  I say the numbers are wrong.  If not the economics, then the
population base would not be able to support this type of military
structure.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Bye for now

  It is with regret that I say good-bye to this list for a time.  The life
of a young prof in search of tenure is tough, and the time I spend reading
and responding to stuff on TML (and the temptation to do THUDDD designs)
will be better spent writing and publishing stuff in my specialty.  It's
been fun - I'll see you folks in the future, I hope - probably not anytime
soon, though.  Cheers!

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:20:17 -0400
From: Tim Connors <tconnor@pop3.utoledo.edu>
Subject: Re: Another piracy challenge

At 03:11 AM 10/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Moin Hans Rancke-Madsen,
>
>> Now, I know that is because he feels that he has explained that a lot of
>> times already, not that he can't explain it, but I must have missed it all
>> the previous times, and I really can't figure it out for myself. So if
David
>> (or one of the other pro-pirate people) would do me the favor of summing up
>> the correct way for a pirate to catch a merchant at a planet defended by
>> a single patrol ship of sufficient size to defeat said pirate, I'd be most
>> grateful. 
>
>	first of all TNE : after a term as corsair a chacter has to roll
>	a lower than INT to avoid, that the next term is prisoner.
>
>	So dont asume that pirates are stupid. If a SDB is in system the
>	pirate will be either a normal trader, or big enough to attack
>	the SDB first.
>
>	Catching a merchant :
>
>	- Get a high passage, intrude the computer befor jump, so that
>	  the ship missjumps to a GG the pirate is waiting.
>	- Destroy the SDB first, and wait for ariving merchants
>	- Wait on a system without an SDB.
>
>	IMHO piracy did not happen in the civilised areas. But can you
>	tell me any campain playing in a civilised area. CT was frontier,
>	MT was civil war, TNE was dark, and M0 is frontier again.

	Makes sense, Idoubt that there've been a lot of pirates operating in the
	Thames during the last several centuries.

>	Of course the 3I had SDBs to stop pirates most of its time,
>	but those peacefull and secure times are considered boring, and
>	not used for any of the canon backgrounds.

	Sure, and when the pirates get too obnoxious, the good guys send a fleet
	and blow a few of them up. The rest of them scatter and look for a new place
	to operate until the next time.

	Is this a good lifestyle to choose? One that you'ld expect you're college-
	types to be pursuing? Probably not, but I doubt that either the educational
	or the opportunity level is all that high for our present day criminal 
	population. In fact, I have little expectation that people will be much
	superior in the future as compared to what they are now.
 
> mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
>		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "



	Tim Connors

	All probabilities are 50%
		either a thing will happen or it won't.
	
	This is especially true when dealing with women.

	. . . The likelihoods, however, are 90% against you.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:29:04 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Travel Time

Bruce wrote about travel time in my last post:

>Well there are a couple things that mitigate against it. 

>One, depending on how you do jump, you may not have control over your
>vector when you exit.  So you pop out of jump doing 3 G _away_ from where
>you want to go. Poof goes your time savings. 

I use the cannon definition of jump where you can jump anywhere,
anytime, standing still or moving at a high rate of speed.

You can even enter jump from the hangar on the planet, if you can
survive the gravitational effects.

If you are out past 100 diams, I don't see a problem with entering jump
at any speed--standing still or trucking.  You'll exit your jump point
on the other side, moving in a relative direction at the same rate of
acceleration.

Now, I have thought of a new problem, but it's only a problem if you are
using the CT computer and program rules like we are.

The Harrier has a model/1 computer, so it can only have two size 1
programs in its RAM at one time.  To enter jump space, you've first got
to run generate and navigation, and then as you jump, you replace the
generate program with the jump program.  In jump, you can load something
else in place of the navigation program, but you need both navigation
and jump running as you come out of jump space.

Basically, with a model/1, you just don't have the computing power to
run maneuver, so standard practice must be to bring the ship to a halt
before jumping.  It would be dangerous to exit jump at a high rate of
speed and not have maneuver running to control the ship for 30 minutes
(the time it takes to load maneuver).

So, yes, it can be done, but standard practice must be to decelerate,
then jump, exiting jump motionless, and accelerating to your
destination.

>Second, if it _can_ be done, it will be a favorite tactic for military
>exit from jumpspace. In many systems a ship blasting in out of jump at max
>acceleration will be assumed to be hostile and dealt with accordingly.
>Poof goes your time savings, and possibly a large portion of your ship.

This might be, but a bigger limitation on the use of this tactic is the
computing power of the ship.  Some of these big warships have the
computing power to run everything they need to do this, but most small
ships are usually running at Jump-1 or Jump-2, and they are just not
going to have the computing power to run maneuver with all of the other
programs needed for entering and exiting jump space.

Thanks for you input.  You've helped me think this through, and now I
have a ruling to let the guys know next session.  Actually, I think I'll
go ahead and send them an e-mail now.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:35:26
From: Paolo Marino <marino@inrete.it>
Subject: The unsuppressed pirate

The Piracy Thread is really interesting. I am currently considering
an alternative approach, and I'd like to hear some comments on it:

Given that:

- - You can't really hide in space, especially if you start some kind of
  battle.
- - You must catch your target before it jumps, and to do this you have 
  to catch it quite near the planet.
- - Transponders and databases could (arguably) be used in order to
  recognize ships.
- - Navy has the resources to easily intercept suspect ships.

I propose to consider Navy protection in the same way software
companies enforce copyrights through tech support: you are entitled
to it only if you are a legitimate customer.

Case 1:
You are Joe Lawful. Your earn your living with boring 7-jumps tours
inside a small zone of your home sector, specializing in hi-tech
parts deliver.  You have registered your ship at each of the 7
spaceports you usually visit, paying a reasonable fee and enjoying
full support from the spaceport authorities. You have a flight path
and updated system info masered to you whenever you jump in,
preferential placement schedule for your landings and so on. 
You are considered trustworthy by port authorities which are usually
content with a cursory customs check while you are refuelling at the
starport.


Case 2: 
You are Janet Never-dowell. You operate another small trader, but
don't have any qualms at transporting questionable stuff or sinister
looking passengers for a good fee.
You freely roam wherever you want, but you are not registered
anywhere, and you usually try avoiding "unnecessary" entanglements
with customs.

When Jolly Roger, merchant *and* space pirate, decide to attack Joe
Lawful's free trader, he knows that all the SBDs in the area will
close in for the kill. He will have very little time to act, and will
probably have to forge new papers (and/or transponder codes) before
getting back to the system.

On the other hand, if he attacks the _Unprincipled_, Janet's ship, SDBs
will move in only on Janet's request... but she will then have to pass a
*very* thorough inspection after the incident. She will have to
decide if she prefers fighting off Roger's attack on her own or face
the Navy/Customs check of her ship [Navy will be interested in people
carrying military grade weapons and/or equipment without mercenary
contracts, or illegal drugs, wanted criminals and any peculiar
cargo].
Considering how long this may take, people reasons for *not* calling
the SDBs would not even need to be sinister: if your departure is
extremely urgent, and Customs inspection will require you docking at
highport and spend 6+ hours with officials, you may prefer making a
run for it and fight your way out instead of losing more than a day
of businness.

Megacorporations will obviously be fully registered [and given their
status, they could even bypass the custom inspection after the
attack]. Independent Traders will be free to decide for themselves
what they prefer (I'd say that if they want to carry mail they should
be registered and in good stand with planetside authorities). Most
other cases will be considered as "legitimate businness conflicts"
(IIRC there is some mention of them in canon), and Navy will not
interfere without an explicit request.

Navy officers are still free to overrule this, obviously, especially
when pirate ships start becoming too active, lot of lives are lost or
when interships conflict becomes dangerous for other ships.


__  Paolo Marino  __          |Inrete Games Page: www.inrete.it/games/gms.html
 mc4799@mclink.it (Preferred)  | marino@inrete.it (Best for MIME/BinHex)

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1985
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 20 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1986



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

International Waters
Re: Interworld Commerce 
Interstellar Space
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942
RE: Piracy
Imperial Space
FF&S armor
Re: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)
Interstellar Waters
Re: Pulps
Re: The whole piracy thread
Hiding in plain sight
Bulkheads
Re: The whole piracy thread
DNA encrypted messages
AOTR
[T97#1964] Cost of Policing NYC

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:40:50 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: International Waters

Tommy said:

>On a related note, how do you determine space juristictions over
>balkanized worlds? What kind of treaties would be likely to be in effect
>around such worlds? 

In my last post on this, I came to the conclusion that each system would
have to be dealt with individually.  It's the GM's realm to make
decisions like these when he is detailing the planet or star system
before the game.

The GM will have to get a feel for the politics and the technological
capability of the world, then use his creative genius to come up with an
interesting, involving, totally player-captivating description of how
this is done in this particular system.

I can't see a blanket rule for balkanized planets.  If it's a planet
like Aramanx or Porozlo in the Spinward Marches, I'd say that the
Imperium has juridiction to close orbit.  Those planets are verging on
war, and unless there's a dominate power, no country will probably have
enough resources to patrol the heavens too.

Then, if you look at Terra or some other balkanized planet at peace, you
might have a multi-national force (like  the UN) with jurisdiction for
the system.

On a similar note, I don't always have starports with extrality. 
Sometimes I detail a world so that the starport is a major income
producer for the planet--owned and operated by the local government,
where all planetary laws apply.

Players can get information on things like jurisdiction and whether the
starport is extraterritorial from the ship's library program--if they
have a program for that subsector (I make my players buy one library
program per subsector for specific information like this and one library
program per sector for general information).

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:50:03 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>
Subject: Re: Interworld Commerce 

Marcus Teter has suggested the following additions:

X4 if world is along a main.
X2 if A class starport.
X.25 if world is jump 3 or more from a main.
x.5 if world has class C or worse starport.

I agree that the shipyards will have more traffic, and the jump capable 
shipyards will have even more so.  I'm thinking Class B starports get a 1.5 
modifier, and Class A get x2.  Also, I agree that the poorer systems will 
suffer if the starport cannot support the traffic (and by definition, a Class 
E cannot).  So I will add the x.5 if the world is Class D or worse (Class C is 
the standard, non-shipyard starport).

> > The big cargo ships (15,000 + dtons) run exclusively to the Starport B+,
> > Pop 7+ worlds.  They are not configured for passengers, and probably begin
> > offloading when they arrive in system via lighters, and are still
> > on-loading as they begin the run towards the jump point.
> > 
> 
> Seems reasonable. You may still find these ships in backwater worlds,
> though, if those worlds are on the way to a B+7+ world. So there 
> might be a small amount of passenger/cargo traffic in these primitive
> systems.

I am still working on this part of it.  The idea was to have the large ships 
forming the backbone of commerce.  They could only be profitable, however, if 
you can guarantee 80% or better cargo capacity, which is why I was limiting 
them to the larger worlds.  (The Traveller Adventure, as I recall, had 25,000 
dTon cargo ships delivering naval weapons)

[snip]

> > Now, how much traffic?  Let's start with some numbers, and we can argue it
> > from there.
> > 
> > (World T*Pop Code) Ktons per year.
>                            ^^^^^^^^
> You mean "per month", no?

[blush]  No, I meant per year, but forgot to divide by 12.  I'm still trying 
to find the right balance between a LOT of traffic at the hi-pop/hi-tech 
worlds, and little traffic at the lo-pop/lo-tech worlds.  Lets alter the 
number a bit...

(World TL*(Pop Code^2)) Ktons per year

This would give Mora [Starport A, Pop A, TL F] (Starport A (2)*(TL(15) * (Pop 
(10)^2))) = 3000 Ktons of cargo traffic per year.  Mora is a Capital (x2) and 
is industrial (x4) giving a grand total of 24 Mtons per year, or 2 MTons per 
month.  Again, this is not cargo ships, but cargo capacity.

Fen'l Gren [Starport C, Pop 3, TL 9] (TL(9)*(Pop(3)^2) = 81 Ktons of cargo 
traffic per year or 6,750 Ktons per month.  It is non-industrial, so it gets 
no addtional modifiers.

Modified Table:

x1.5 if Starport B
x2 if Starport A

x2 if the world is AG or is Ri
x3 if the world has a military base or is a Capital
x4 if the world is Ind

> > 
> 
> Hmmm. My group is in Glisten right now. I've done everything I can
> to give them the impression that Glisten's space is crowded with
> all kinds of ships of all sizes and shapes (some, of course, belonging
> to the Imperial Navy fleet based there). 150,000 tons per month of
> traffic seems a bit low for Glisten. Perhaps you could add a modifier
> of "x 10 if Pop 9+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:57:10 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Interstellar Space

> QUESTION #1:  Interstellar space.
> 
> We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> Imperium?

That was defined in MT's COACC. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy with
me at the moment.  If no one else weighs in on this thread, I'll dig it
out tonight.

Thanks!

I've got the COACC, but I haven't cracked it in a long, long time.  I'll
got look it up tonight.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:59:40 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:37:13 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1942

>In mail you write:

>> [Again avoiding points that have already been addressed....]
>> Fri, 17 Oct 1997 05:44:35 PST, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
>>>A ship is a *dangerous* object. So traffic control will be a lot more
>>>important than with aircraft.

>> Well a collsion with aircraft is usually fatal.  I don't know
>> about space ships.

>the general "rule of thumb" is that at 3 km/sec an object has impact
>energy equivalent to an equal mass of TNT. And the energy gos up as the
>*square* of the velocity (so at 6 km/s you have 4 times the "boom".).


Except that ships will collide more often where they are
closer together, near port, where they are also going slower.
Also, ships that collide will often be ships that are going
to similar desitination (and will have the similar courses
and similar speeds).  (The best place to depart of to a
planet will not be the best place to arrive).  In any case,
even if you assume the starship collisions are generally
fatal, that only matches the effects of aircraft collision.

>> In any case, the space to the 100 diam limit is lot bigger than US
>> airspace and space ships can see each other from alot further off.

>It's not bigger if you think in terms of travel time. It takes a slow
>(1g) ship about 6.4 hours from the 100 diameter limit to the planet.
>And it takes a fast one (6g) 2.6 hours.

I don't see what tavel time has to do with it.  If it take
100 ATVs and drive them for an hour down a narrow canyon,
they are more likely to run into each other than if I
drive them around open desert for an hour.

>Also, ships have a bigger "danger zone" than planes. Especially of they
>use reaction drives (You don't want to route a ship thru another ship's
>exhaust until it has had time to disperse a lot).

Well, exaust expands (and hences cools) quickly in a vacuum.
I'm not that sure it will be so hot, in any case, I just
don't see the danger zone being that much bigger, esp since
detection ranges are a _lot_ bigger.

>> Two ships leaving at the same time going to the same destination
>> will want to take the same path.

>Depends on a lot of factors. For one, they'd have to be running at the
>same acceleration.

As Hans pointed out, most commercial ships will run at 1 G.

> And they *won't* be allowed to leave "at the same
>time". Again, safety dictates that there be at least a few minutes
>between them.

A few minutes is easy to make up.  You could do it in the
last 25% of the trip out.


_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:10:41 +1300
From: Brody Dunn <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Piracy

On Saturday, October 18, 1997 7:14 AM, Douglas [SMTP:douglas@teleport.com] 
wrote:
> I am both glad and somewhat dismayed to that you brought this up!
>
> I am glad, because it gives me the chance to point out that even with the
> cost per citizen being somewhat higher in the US than in the Imperium,
> there are grave doubts as to whether that is sufficient to maintain our
> forces, even at thier current level.
>
> I would also love the opportunity to point out that the USCG, supplemented
> by the USN, is unable to control the small boat piracy problem in the
> Caribbean, much less the smuggling that goes there.  Note that this is
> considered a serious problem in the local area, but it does not affect the
> US security or economic health as a whole, so there is not the political
> will to stamp it out.

This example seems to be a bit spurious as the Coast Guard protects the USA and 
not the America's (incl the Caribean).  I would hope that piracy is not 
prevailent in the coastal waters of the US of A (much as it would not be 
present in the orbit and jump lanes of any Imperial World).  I believe the 
Imperium doesn't much care about those outside its borders (except for ways to 
reverse that status) and thus the Imperiums equivilent of the caribean may be 
packed full of piracy (I doubt it but....) but thye Imperium is in itself 
pirate free.

As always this excludes the crazies (and the needs of the Ref).

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:27:50 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Imperial Space

Kenneth was asking what we thought about the 'international limit' ie the
point where Imperial juristiction ends.

I've always assumed that each world controlled 'close orbit and local
space' - ie as much area as its government could get away with claiming.
This will vary from system to system, which seems appropriate given the
'open' attatude to local affairs of the Imperium. The norm will probably be
about halfway to the nearest safe Jump point, ie 50 diameters, IF the world
can patrol and police that distance. For non-spacegoing worlds the limit
will be atmospheric limit.

The 'Halfway to the Jump Point' limit would be preferred by the Imperial
authorities to give a chance to intercept, stop and search traffic before
ships could duck into local space and avoid an Imperial customs search.
(It's entirely possible to be searched by Imperial and local forces
seperately, but normally this is left to the locals to deal with.) 

However, there will be almost as many variants on this as there are worlds.
Those worlds which own other planets in the system will own local space
around them, and may insist upon a jurisdictional corridor between the
worlds (since both are moving, this is a treaty-writer's nightmare), or may
claim the region containing both. The bargaining over this jurisdiction
will form part of every world's Inclusion Charter.

So: I'd say the 'International Waters' bein 50 diameters out, subject to
local variation which incidentally gives the players a chance to get
something wrong and land themselves in trouble.

Perhaps and alternative is to cound 10 diameters as sovereign territory,
100+ as Imperial Space, and the remaining area as 'shared jurisdiction'.
This could be one of the 'regional variances' I mentioned.

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:14:33 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: FF&S armor

How do you figure out the T4 armor rating when you have the 
FF&S T$-versjon armor rating?


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: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:17:23 -0500
From: Matthew McLaughlin <mkm@umr.edu>
Subject: Re: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)

> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:22:17 +0100
> From: Phil Kitching <Philk@btinternet.com>
> Subject: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)
> 
> This thought was inspired by a turn in the piracy thread -
> ie how is cargo secured in your freighter and how do you shift it.
> 
> The following thoughts may be totally impractical -
> but I only program computers:-)

Really nice work!

A few comments that come to mind:

In this scheme, the containers and pins take most of the load in case of
loss of grav control.  Therefore you'd probably have containers rated
for different g's or have a max accelleration you could pull w/ AG in
operative.  There also would be maximums on how many containrs apart the
ship's structural members could be.  

Some of this is more applicable to large ships than smaller ones. 
Running a small ship with small cargos on an independant route, you
might want access to all containers.  You may even carry small
standardized containers packaged by the customer inside your own
containers.

> 

> Loading and unloading by computer control would be very fast (less than 1 
> minute per container).
> 
> Without computer control, you could do it by hand if you can disengage the 
> locking pins and turn off the gravity.
> 
> If you can't disengage the locking pins, its a week in the shipyard 
> disassembling the ship from around the containers (or at least crawling
> around 
> all the access ways to get to the pins locking the containers to floor, wall 
> and ceiling.

I can't imagine a design which doesn't allow some manual method of
releasing the cargo.  At least not on a ship the size of which most PC's
will be operating.  It may need the release of some electronically coded
lock (which could be done with a handcomp if the ship's systems are
down), but should be possible w'out full ships capabilities.  Of course,
the above disassembly could be required in the case that the access code
is not available (in the hypothetical piratical case ;).

> 
> It would be slightly easier if the ship was not fully loaded.
> 
> Phil Kitching
> 
> ps
> I only recall being successfully hit by pirates once - and then it was
> an inside job. Especially annoying because the whole crew were PCs!
> Don't you just hate it when an evil GM and a player connive in such a
> manner. Certainly not the sought of thing I'd do...at least until the
> players have forgotten about last time;-)
> - --
>   Mailto:Philk@btinternet.com (don't blame BT - they only pay me:)
>   How do you know its a Vargr ship?
>   If the captain puts his head out of the porthole when its moving:)
> 
> ------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:20:57 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Interstellar Waters

Glenn wrote:

>When a planetary government agrees to join the Imperium, they agree to
>allow the Imperium to govern *all* space. Once you're outside regular
>"airspace" and in "outer space" you are under the jurisdiction of the
>Imperium.

I see your point here, and my thinking lies along the same lines as
yours (as it has in most cases in the past), but I'm a little more
liberal with planetary governmental power.

Like I said in a previous post, as a general rule most starports in my
campaign are extraterritorial, but not all.  There are planets who
derive major portions of their total income from the operation of the
starport.  Those starports, in my game, don't have extrality.

Likewise, some planets can protect themselves better than the Imperium
can.  I'd think those would want at least some stretch of space to
operate their planetary SDBs in.  Maybe they've got a mining facility on
the gas giant moon somewhere out system.  They've got to have some
authority in which to protect that.

The Imperium can't be every where all the time, especially if there's no
Naval base insystem.

And, what about an asteroid belt?  It is mostly space.  If there is no
Naval Base, surely there could be a local policing force (maybe a mining
company security force) there to help discourage piracy, corsairs, and
disputes between independent miners.

There's so many factors to consider, when you start to think about it. 
And, this is why I've been leaning in the direction of making the
"interstellar waters" issue dependent on the politics and technology of
each individual system--not making a general rule, but deferring to GM
creative input as he details the world.

>Under the specific circumstances of your game, I believe that once the
>players are in the starport, they are no longer under the laws of
>Pysadi. Technically, they've already *left* Pysadi. The best the
>Pysadian government could do is not allow them to exit the starport on
>foot, in a vehicle, or by public transport.

OK, let's say they have committed murder on Pysadi.  Are you saying that
they can retreat to the starport, get on their ship, and lift off before
the starport people know anything about it.

Then, they can hover in space, taunting the Pysadian government over the
radio, and the Pysadians can't do a thing about it?

There's no Naval Base in the Pysadian system.  Subsequently, at least in
my campaign, there's no Imperial presence.

I could see the Imperial government extraditing the Harrier's crew back
to Pysadi to stand trial, but there's no force there to get them.  The
best Pysadi could do is forward communication about these events the
nearest Naval Base and hope they get caught and sent back at a later
date.

OK, let's make this more complicated.  The characters really didn't
commit murder in my campaign.  They kicked at an anola, the Pysadian
sacred animal.  The actual kicker got a year in a Pysadian jail, and the
rest of the crew were asked (ordered) to leave the planet.

Kicking at a monkey is not an Imperial offense.  So, the characters
leave the planet, but hover in space in the ship.

The Pysadian's have no jurisdicition here in their own solar system? 
People can just break their laws (it's a capital offense to kill an
anola) and retreat to orbit, and everything's OK?

I don't know, but I feel that the jurisdiction question is more
complicated than that.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:36:24 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Pulps

On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Jory M. Earl wrote:

> Vargr : Dogday Afternoons?

Reservoir Dogs

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:37:10 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: The whole piracy thread

Douglas R Glatz writes:
>2) How good are the various sensor platforms at the various tech levels?
>Conversely, how good are the various stealth platforms at the various
>tech levels?

Well, in MT and CT detection ranges are about a light second or
two or shorter.  This is without stealth.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:35:43 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Subject: Hiding in plain sight

I've been reading (and trying to follow) the threads on sensors, dust,
and the like (I have a slight interest in the piracy thread  :).

The poor pirate is really being beat up on.  Basically, everyone is
extrapolating todays sensor technology to prove how impossible it will
be for any ship to escape absolute, undeniable identification, much less
detection.  (The IR thread is very adamant about ship's signatures)

I am not so brilliant, or learned, to be able to intelligently argue
against each and every detection device that is postulated on this
list.  I am, however, not so foolish as to believe that any device
created by man, will not be countered, at least in part, by other men.

Example: Sonar.  Introduced in the early part of the century and touted
as the end of the submarine threat.  Countered - noise reduction,
propeller design, special coatings on the hulls of subs.

Example: Radar.  Introduced in the mid-part of the century.  Countered -
stealth technology consisting of new composites, angles on the aircraft,
etc...

Example: Armored vehicles.  Introduced at the end of WWI.  Peaked during
WWII.  Countered - man portable AT weapons, aircraft delivered AT
weapons.  Interestingly enough, armor is making a comeback with the use
of active defenses (reactive armor and the like) against the MPAT
weapons...

While we all like to have the devices that are used nailed down, I'm not
sure we can do so with certainty.  However, I think I am safe saying
(and I will continue to do so) that a ship with TL C EMS can be spoofed
by a ship with TL D stealth.  (Example - do you think a WWII destroyer,
with state of the art TL 5 sonar, is going to find a modern attack
submarine?)

It is my belief that, with the proper equipment, a ship can change it's
'signature', make itself appear larger or smaller, change it's
transponder signal (albeit with multiple transponders), and even reduce
the effective range that it can be detected at.

That does not mean I believe that the equipment is cheap, easy to get,
or even legal to possess.

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas
"All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters"
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:48:20 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Bulkheads

Another question came up in my game...

The characters were trying to cut through an interior bulkhead with the
TL 10 laser cutter from the CSC.

I judged the bulkhead to be about 4 cm thick and made of hard steel.

What is your opinion on how thick these interior bulkheads are made of,
and what do you think the standard material these things are made of
will be for a TL 12 vessel?



On a related note, they were thinking of cutting through the hull.  I
know this is superdense, but how thick do you think a starship hull is? 
If I have that, I can figure cutting time (or even if it is possible) by
using the materials chart in the CSC.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:53:47 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: The whole piracy thread

Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:58:22 +0200 (METDST), Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
>Any ship will generate heat and getting rid of the heat is very difficult.
>And even with present day technology heat can be detected a long way off.
>Stealth technology can hide just who and what you are, but it can't
>conceal that _something_ is there.

OK, first of all, I would like to point out that for those of
us who don't think pirates would hide like this, this isn't
a piracy issue.

Regarding the question at hand, it can be shown, with current
technology, how one might manipulate the directionality and
wavelength of emmissions.  It is not hard to think that
at TL 15 ships might be able to emit on a norrow beam
(which, given the size of space, means that the odds of
a ship being along that line are very small, or zero
if you can just point it at a small moon).  It is also
helpful if you drop the emmisions down into the microwave
background emmission of the univers.

Also, remember that space is not a blank background.
There are a lot of stars and a sun at 4 light years
will shine as bright as something putting out 1 MWatt
at 2000 km away.  Every star as bright as the sun in
50 light years will shine brighter than 1E9 Watt source
a light second away.
[If my calcs are right.  The suns output is 4E33 erg/sec
or 4e26 Watts]


______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:28:39 +0200
From: "Mark Seemann" <dko3835@vip.cybercity.dk>
Subject: DNA encrypted messages

Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:08:58 +1300 Andrew Moffatt-Vallance wrote: 

> To crib a plot line from ST:TNG (who cribed it from Niven I think).
Assuming
> that the aliens have a reasonable biotech, why not encode it in the DNA
> sequences of some local life forms. Sharks would be a good bet, or
jellyfish.
> Remember something like 90% of any DNA sequence is just waste space.

I actually used this idea maybe ten adventures back in my current campaign,
although I got the idea myself and thought it was pretty original. Well,
that just goes to show...

The setup was a little different. A psionic noble (yes, I'm playing off the
Psionic Knights campaign) was persued during the psionic suppressions, and
encoded the whereabouts of his (psionic) noble's order's tresuary in
plasmid rings in his blood, leaving behind him a subtle clue for friendly
successors to pick up.

The player characters found his buried body, dug it up and analyzed what
was left of his deteriorated blood. The party's (NPC) doctor found the
following obviously artificial encoding as part of more 'natural' DNA:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTT
AAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTT
AAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTTAAACCCGGGTTT
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
AAAAACAAGAATACAACCACGACTAGAAGCAGGAGTATAATCATGATT
CAACACCAGCATCCACCCCCGCCTCGACGCCGGCGTCTACTCCTGCTT
GAAGACGAGGATGCAGCCGCGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ATAAGGCGTCTAATGGCAAAGAAGAAGACAGCACTACGCCAGCCTGAA
AGGCGTATCGCACCGAGGCGTATACACATGCTAGCCGCAGAAAGGCGT
CGTAGGCCTCTCGCAAGGATAATACGACGTATCCAGCCTCAAGCACTC
CGAGCACAGCCGCGCATGCGTCAGAGGCCCGCAATGATCCAGATACTC
GCAAGCACTGCCGCACGCAGGCTGCCCAGGCTAGCACGAATTATTCAG
ATACAGAGGCCCGCACGTATGATACGACAACCTCAGCTCCAGCGACCT
GCACGAATTGCACTCCACATGGCACGACGTATCATGCGTGCACGAATT
GCACTCCACATGGCAGAACACCAGCTCATGGCACTACTCAGGCGTGCC
GCAAGGCTCGCACTCCACATGGCAATCATGAGGATCGCACCGAGGCCT
CTAGCAATTCAGCCTCAAATGCGTGCCGCAAGTCCCAGGATACCAGCA
AGTCGAGACGCACTCCACCGTCGAGAACCTGCACAGCCTGCACTCCAC
ATGGCAGAAATGCCCCCCGCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I explained to the players that 'A' was for Adenine, 'C' for Cytocine, 'G'
for Guanine, and 'T' for Tymine (the for possible DNA bases) and let them
loose without any further help at all. They actually broke the code, and it
was very satisfying for both them and me.

Here's a little challenge for you all: Can any of you guys break the code?

Mark Seemann
mark@dk-online.dk
http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/mark_seemann

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:30:37 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: AOTR

Seems like many people hated Aliens Of The Rim.

I didn't. I liked the idea that there was no single truth about the Hivers
("You know what scares me, REALLY scares me about the Hivers? They're just
like us!") - Dave Nilsen once said to me (Name drop, I know!) "So, what's
the single truth about humans (we can put in the Referee's pages of the
Humans supplement?)". He ventured the opinion that one of the reasons many
people disliked the book was because it didn't spell out THIS IS HOW IT IS.
REALLY. for the reader. Maybe he was right.

Ithklur and funny hats? I accepted that it was that way and just got on with it. 
Because the Universe is just full to the brim of bad jokes, and
occasionally something comes along in our life that offends our dignity. It
happens in life so why not in the game?

What about all the other stuff about Ithklur; the fourfold way etc? I mean,
if you called San*Klaas something else, gave them battle helmets
instead.... would the rest of the book still be useless in your opinion?
Did that one 'bad joke played by the universe or the Hivers' make the whole
supplement a farce?

Not for me. It's just the way it happened to be.
Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:32:46 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: [T97#1964] Cost of Policing NYC

Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:32:21 GMT, jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
>New York City cannot afford to put a cop every fifteen feet
>throughout the city.  The United States could barely afford to
>put one cop every fifteen feet throughout New York City

Well, my point was about putting a cop at every _intersection_.
It also wasn't that NYC could afford it, but wether the simple
kind of calculations that are being used for piracy would
also support the idea that NYC could afford it?

However, lets go to a clearer example.  Crime on subways
could easily be said to be more of a problem than piracy
would be.  If you take 1% of the military and plice budgets
you can claim to put 8,500 undercover cops riding trains
in NYC.  The same sort of reasoning used in piracy would
lead one to believe that this would make the odds of getting
caught so high that no one would try such a crime and that
clearly NYC would be expected to spend such a small portion
of their budget that they would never miss it to stop
this crime.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1986
***********************************
Traveller-digest      Monday, October 20 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1987



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

re:Piracy
Re: Starship Insurance
Re: WHOA! (Read This, It's true, and brief)
International Waters
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Re: Charted Space (data files)
Re: Imperial/Planetary Space
Generous Alien and Jump Space... (fwd)
Re: Pulps
Re: Interstellar Waters
Star Wars prequel rumour...
Stupid CSC tricks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:10:11 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re:Piracy

Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:05:28 +0100, SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>You have crippled the ship (victim) in 5 minutes: The easiest way to do
>this is to kill the power plant, so no gravity... Otherwise the merchant
>captain, knowing that the SDB is (in your argument) 85 min out puts the
>ship in a deadmans tumble so you can't recover it.

Unless the pirate just tells him he will kill them all if they
do anything like that.  Then you are relying on the idea that
a captain will risk death and loss of his whole ship just
to save one cargo and will do it realiably enough that it
will make piracy impossble.  I may work for you, but it's
quite a stretch to me.  In any case, this is reaching past
wether it is possible to transfer the cargoes in time into
what tatics pirates and captains might use.  I don't have
time for a game of tatics and counter tatics (which can
be endless) so I won't persue these posts past this.

[Stuff covered in other posts deleted...]

>>The gravity is on, you>>Or the pirate ships just keep shooting bits of
>>the merchant until
>>the crew gives up.  Fighting to the death is a military approach
>>not what some modestly paid guard will do.

>But in all the Traveller Ship Combat systems I've played that takes at
>least 30 min an exchange

Well, I'm not sure the Ship Combat systems are geared to blowing
apart an unarmed ships at short range and are unrealistically
long time scales for that purpose.  In any case, the fact
that patrol boad will chase the pirate away after you are
dead isn't alot of consolation.

>You misunderstand me - the system failure is induced by fire from (a)
>pissed off merchant or (b) the approaching SDB.

Yeah, except you only attack merchants that are unarmed or so
poorly armed that they are not likely to damage you significantly.
As to the patrol, I don't have weapon fire ranges in front of me,
but even if they can fire all the way out to 100 diam (which
I would think would be screwed up, even at high tech levels)
you can just use the ship you pirating as a shield and force
the patrol to either kill him too, or wait until he is close.

>Re-reading the original post you sent I believe that your original
>hypothesis (crippling the ship in 5 min) is flawed.

Well, we disagree on that....

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:27:44 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Starship Insurance

Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:54:28 +1000, Roger Howe <fridge@canberra.teknet.net.au>

>My players announced during our last session that they wished to insure
>their newly bought starship.
>They are free traders on a cargo and passenger carrying ship in Milieu 0.
>
>What would the premiums be like?  Their ship costs MCr81.
>
>What different ranges of cover would be available, eg. theft, piracy,
>destruction, damage, cargo, third party, loss of earnings, negligence (eg
>for low berth losses) etc...?

The insurance cost will depend on what the insurance companies
think is the odds of losses occuring from all causes covered
in the policy, the magnitude of the loss, and the profit
margin.

For each type of the loss the cost will be...

Cost/year = (Prob of loss/year) * Likely Size of Loss * (1 + Profit Margin)

So if the company want a 20% return and thinks there is a 1% chance of
loosing an 81 MCr ship to theft.  Then the yearly insurance will cost
0.01 x 81MCr x 1.2 = 0.97 MCr

>What conditions, eg. crew competency + minimum complement, armaments, travel
>restrictions etc....., would the insurance company put on a starship it
>covered?

Well, if the company think that lack of crew, etc. raises the
probability of loss, then they will raise the rate appropriately.
If they think that they can't know what the odds are (or if the
odds of loss are too high, maybe past 50%) then they may well
refuse coverage.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:02:38 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Subject: Re: WHOA! (Read This, It's true, and brief)

Peter H. Brenton wrote:
> 
> >There seems to be, in recent posts, an increasing hostility on this list.
> >
> [snip]
> >But this is not a case of misunderstanding, this is a series of vicious
> >personal attacks. And very petty ones too.
> >
> >I realize that most people will never even read this post, or care. But I
> >like to have ideas stimulated, concepts proposed and designs posted. I
> >really do not want to see personal volleys. Please, take it elsewhere or
> >stop it (latter preferred) for the sake of peace on the list. And for the
> >sake of interesting discussion.
> 
> Glenn has expressed my views precisely.  This list has always been
> productive, but less so recently (I delete whole swaths of "Piracy"
> discussions lately).
> 
> Can we get back to our regulary scheduled Traveller discussions now (not to
> downplay the useful discussions on various subjects still happening).
> 
> Pete
> 
> Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
> "Shiela-X where are you"
Hi!

Maybe I missed something...  Has the piracy thread been uncivil?  I've
been following it pretty closely, (I for one, AM interested in it) and
except for a few remarks it has been pretty clean.

And, it occurs to me, it has spawned a range of side issues dealing with
some pretty fundamental subjects (industrial capacity, Imperial
economics, ship numbers in space and orbit, naval deployment strategies,
etc).

I'm sorry we are not discussing something you find more interesting. 
Hopefully you will give us the same chance on this, that I (at least)
give to others when the list discusses subjects that I don't care to
follow.

Thanks!

douglas

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:38:23 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: International Waters

Moin Kenneth Bearden,

> We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> Imperium?

	as usual the answer : It depends !

	- backwater systems who received an orbiter from Sylean
	  subsidary program at 100 diameter, will have 10 diameter
	  around they main world for local government
	- Rich system who have an own orbiter before the Sylean
	  mafia controled trade, will have SDBs in the system
	  including gas giants.
	- gas giants with naval bases will fall under juristication
	  of the 3I, same with scout stations around gas giants.
	  The home world will have the usual 10 diameters or control
	  of the remaining system if they can affort defense.
	- balkanised worlds will have several orbital flight path,
	  some of them are more or less secure, because rivaling
	  fractions have their own advanced planetary defense ;-(

> I'm just flabbergasted that I never realized the travel time savings
> that could be had this way.

	Marc calls this a running jump. If vectors match this can save
	several hours, traders prefer to spend those in starport pubs.
	But a running jump is more difficult to calculated, one dice
	modifier for each g-turn spent is my house rule.

	So we could handwave the following situation: Jo Merchant
	encounters a pirate/vampire/ted, but as he was'nt stupid
	last time when he had money and refittet power plant and
	thrusters from his TL:A trader to TL:C, he has enough
	accelleration to outrun the oponent. Its allways better
	to become an imposible target for a trader than to fight,
	even the smallest damage could cause ruin.

	Now after 4 hours, the pirate is still behind him but far away,
	he wants to jump, 4 hours at 3 G are a DM of 24, this is far
	imposible, even with a crack astrogator. 

	He has to turn, because he cant jump with the velocity he
	now has. Gives a nice head on situation, any ship has only
	one shoot perhaps two, if the priate notice turning imideate.

	After the hot hour he can accellerate until he is at zero
	velocity and jump without problem. This is not canon, but
	if could make an interesting evening.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:20:18 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

Moin Simon Early,

> Another long posting!  here is the summary:
> 250,000 merchant ships in the Spinward Marches, average 1000 T in size.

	Even if you asume the save but overcrowded regency, those are to
	many. If they where even distributed you would have 570 ships
	per system. Ok half of them, because a good trader is in jump
	space half of the time. But the number is still much to high.

> 660 big ships in Imperial Naval squadrons

	This could be. Because most of them are parked at a naval
	bases and only moved once a year to check the drive and
	functions.

> 20,000 support ships (including fighters) for the big ships

	better count only ships, not boats.

> 7200 SDB (only in Pop 7+, TL 7+ systems)

	16 SDBs per system, if even distributed. If I asume the paranoid
	Regency and count all of those former priates who are now RQS,
	you can be right.

> Some of 
> those TL7 worlds might use paper-based books and so always be an extra 
> month or two behind in their directories, but nothing serious.

	I would think that any starport has at least one or two
	mainframes to infect (whops wrong time) so it should
	be posible to fake^h^h^h^hcheck papers anywhere.

	Those without a starport wont bother checking the papers.

> TL6- worlds and Pop 6- worlds without naval or Scout base would be 
> prime "piracy" sites - which is where i would send my anti-piracy 
> forces to patrol.

	And have to handwave Islander & Swordworlder agression in
	senate for more SDBs in your police state.

	Your calculation has 2 minor flaws (IMHO ;-)

	Pop 6- worlds are non industrial, so no ships.

	Any starport is only producing those ship types he is
	good in, and only if its lucky to receive order. So TL:B-C
	starport will build those cheap J1/2 traders, while the
	Tl:D-E starports will have the good liners and sometimes
	bigger ships. The Tl:E-G starports will build luxus yachts
	and military vessels only. The price for a TL:F-Jump2
	drive is much higher than a TL:C-Jump2 drive. And price is
	whats counts for the purchaser.

	Most starports are happy when they receive outworld contracts,
	because they are running subsidary (means no work) from government
	to have a starport if there is war in next generation.

	So the real production is much lower than the theoretical
	maximal capacity from TCS or other sources. Only extremes
	(like virus around the Regency, or England in Renissance)
	show the full potencial of ship building capacity a nation
	has.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:28:24 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Re: Charted Space (data files)

Moin John Atkinson,

> 1)No TEDs.  TL-5 just doesn't give that much of an advantage over TL-4 
> to make that possible.

	I could well imagine a merc cruiser ship stranded on a
	backwater system when infected. They could be TEDs now.
	This should never happen with a random collapser, but
	it can happen at referees discretion to tell a good story. 

	Imho any TL9- system has a good chance to survive infection
	WITHOUT losing a techlevel. My computer zoo showed 3 hard
	disk crashes in the last 2 month (I start beliving in the
	hardware virus ;-) I would think that this is also typical
	rate of infection AIV would be able on TL:8. Well double/root
	and warm backup strategie allowed me to recover and contiue
	work within an hour. BTW:Last disk crash was last night.

> 2)No virus infestations.  It won't be much of a virus that can infest a 
> battleship's analog fire control system, which was as close to a 
> computor as TL-5 gets.

	My collapser is using the following asumption :

	Tl:7+ can become hacked, or controlled by a TL:A+
	      mainframe hosting an allready running AI
	Tl:8  can become hacked to store lower strain eggs
	Tl:9  can become hacked to store higher strain eggs
	Tl:A+ dynamic: can execute lower strains (up to puppetier)
	TL:D+ holographic: can execute higher strains
	TL:H+ is organic and therefore imune to the silicoid
	      hardware form. As TL:H is allready AI it has methods
	      to avoid becoming insane and has most times human
	      controls (shutdown button) for this event.

	From the existing capital a part will be destroyed (the
	lower the strain the higher the destruction) or controlled
	(the higher the strain the more systems are still running,
	but under control of the AI). Human population can try to
	fight, ignore or assimilate into the new economie. Naval
	bases normaly have backup equipment so chances are sometimes
	good for them. Some strains have a large likelyhood that
	they work together with humans. e.g Mother, Alliance Builder,
	Puppetier, Parent and Peacemaker.

	Anytime war is in the system (blackwar before 1130, or human
	contra virus, or virus contra virus) industrial capital is
	destroyed. Under a certain margin (most systems fall under
	this margin even without war, when trade collapsed) the
	industrial capital is not longer able to produce its own
	maintaince and collapses. According to agricultural capital
	and capacity this will cause starvation. And as any political
	system is only 5 meals away from revolution, riots and
	probately a new (wilds) government and techlevel.

> So except for planets leveled through orbital bombardment, it's pretty 
> much unchanged, yes?  And you won't have many virus ships demonstrating 
> bad manners because they don't have any sources of spare parts or any 
> technicians to enslave.

	Most nuking in my collapser was done between 1120-1130, any
	system has a security and a trade index. If its a primary
	target (starport B+, tl:A+, pop:7+) its likely to become
	an important part in TNE history called black war.

	The nicest thing on this WTH based yearly collapser is, that
	it gave me a history for any system to fill up the gaps in
	my imagination. The ugly thing, collapsing a subsector take
	aprox 3 hours on my Sun3/50 and produces about 20MB logfile.
	So I'll not collapse the entire 3I in this way or mail a
	complete logfile to anybody ;-( but I think to port the
	gawk script to cobol to run it on my AS/400, a much faster
	database machine ;-) The even more ugly thing.  Any random
	based simulation has to become adjusted by referees discretion.

	A good story is more important than the canoness of dice.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:26:50 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Imperial/Planetary Space

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> Hans wrote:
>
> > Note, however, that the only official
> >information we have on the subject is that the spaceport itself is outside
> >the jurisdiction of the planet, so perhaps the limit is much closer to the
> >planet (Ie. anything above airspace plus a corridor down to the spaceport
> >carved out of the airspace.)

I seem to recall somewhere reading that the Imperium has jurisdiction in
the space between worlds...

> Yes, I thought of that as well--thinking that the Imperium controls
> everything beyond a certain orbit (maybe the farthest moon, or a certain
> height if the planet has no moons)--but what if the planet wants more
> control than that.

If the planet wants more control then that, then they don't join the
Imperium. Period. End of story. 

Why would the planet want more control, when they receive the benefit of
protection and trade the Imperium provides?

There's nothing to say the planet *can't* enforce its laws on its moon,
or any other planet or planetoid in the system. It's the _space_ between
worlds and moons that's under Imperial Jurisdiction. Why would that be
so hard to accept to a fledgeling member of the Imperium?

Note that there could be provisions made for permanent or semi-permanent
orbital stations, posts, what not. So "Mir" could be defined as being
Terran territory, but any spaceship not docked to it is still under
Imperial Law.

> If there's no Naval Base in the system, the planetary govt may want to
> run some SDB's.

There's no reason why the planet couldn't run SDB's. They are required
to abide by and enforce the Laws of the Imperium, not those of the local
government, when dealing with spacecraft in Imperial Space.

> Also, there might be "concurrent jurisdiction" in some systems, where
> the official jurisdiction line is the 10 diam limit, but the Imperium or
> the Planet's forces can follow ships past the other's line.  For
> example, pirate activity occurs at jump point 100 diams out, then some
> Imperial SDB's chase them.  The pirates run to the planet's 10 diam line
> because the planet is Govt 0 and piracy is not illegal.
> 
> I don't see the Imperial SDB's just stopping at the 10 diam line,
> letting the pirates make faces at them because they are now in neutral
> space.

I don't see why both wouldn't co-exist. (see above)

> I guess I picture this more like when Federal jurisdiction overrides
> State Lines.
> 
> I don't know, I'm still gestating all of this.

Me too. But I'm fairly sure that the intention of Traveller is that the
Imperium has sole jurisdiction over the *space between* member worlds,
and the starport and airspace above and within a certain radius. Laws of
Member Worlds only apply over a very thin "airspace" layer above the
world, and on worlds, moons, planetoids and  permanent stations claimed
by the member world.

> >All in all I would suggest that the planet has full jusridiction below a
> >certain level, with the space immidiately over the spaceport excepted, and
> >joint jurisdiction throughout the system (ie. they can act against Imperially
> >accepted crimes if they want to, but can't act against crimes that are only
> >crimes locally).

Exactly.

> That sounds reasonable.  I'm starting to lean towards not having a
> blanket rule for this.  Star systems are too different.  What will work
> at TL 4 Pysadi (with no Naval Base, only one inhabited planet, and, in
> my campaign, only two shuttles at the star port, and the starport
> facility is only on the ground) probably won't work at TL 12 Aramis
> (which has several inhabited planets, more than one Naval Base, more
> than one Scout Base, with both a Highport and a Downport).

Au Contraire. I think the blanket should be the rule, not the exception.
The whole *point* behind the Imperium is, imho, regulation of safe and
unimpeded interstellar trade. If every Gov't A+ planet enforces its
wacky laws like "Males may not have navel rings under penalty of death",
and they stop and harrass every Joe Trader that visits the system, how
long would trade with that planet last?

I believe that it will be an extremely rare world indeed that does not
allow Imperial Law to rule, and rule alone, in space. Such worlds are
client states or non-aligned, not member-worlds of the Third Imperium.

> I believe I'm going to rule that in each system this will be considered
> individually.  This is probably a point of contention between the
> Imperium and the planet when the planet becomes a member of the
> Imperium.  I picture this like an unannexed community on the outskirts
> of a large city--there's also disputes over who provides
> police/fire/trash services, and this is worked out as the city grows and
> annexes the community.

Nah! More like the regulation of Airspace. You can't annex air. There is
one Federal authority for regulation of air traffic, air safety, etc.
and each state regulates what is on the ground. (Does the US have one
airspace authority?)

> >Since the starport is outside Pysadian jurisdiction, IMO they couldn't even
> >force them to leave the planet. Though they could ask the spaceport
> >administrator to send them off. His jurisdiction may extend to 10 diameters
> >(though I would have said 100 diameters).
> 
> This is how I kinda played it.  All along during the four months the
> characters were planet side, I played the starport as being
> extraterritorial, but having a tight relationship with the planetary
> government.
.
.
> In the Pysadian's case, they've got jurisdiction throughout the solar
> system, but  they can't do that much about it--unless they hire a ship,
> if there is a ship to hire, or they use the two unarmed shuttles the
> starport has.

If Pysadia is an Imperial world, then Imperial Law rules in space. If
they can't afford to patrol it themselves, they can petition the gov't
of the Imperium to allocate more resources.

That's the way I'd handle it.

> Boy, it's a bitch being low tech and poor, isn't it?

Sure can be. But maybe the Pysadians believe that being part of the
Imperium gives them more benefits than the disadvantage of not being
able to enforce its *own* laws in outer space.

Just think of the trade dollars! And tech information and improvement,
and help in patrol and defence...

Remember, as I said before, I'm sure there are standard "Extradition
Treaties" which come into play when a world joins the Imperium. If
someone commits a serious crime in territory under Pysadian Jurisdiction
(dirtside), I'm sure the Impies could be authorised (with proper
paperwork) to apprehend and return the offender to the Pysadian
authorities for proscecution under Pysadian law...

The Extradition Treaty may only apply to the system, though. I believe
that the Imperium would only bother tracking down, through other
systems, criminals that violate Imperial laws.

However, perhaps Pysadia would have extradition treaties with some of
its neighbors with similar laws, ideology, close ties...

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:52:54 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: Generous Alien and Jump Space... (fwd)

Moin Kevin L. Kitchens,

> Can Jump Space be delayed?  I guess what I mean is, can I enter jump
> space and then stay there for longer than a week?  Same range, etc.

	No jump space is like a fluid. When you are throwing a ball
	into a fluid, the ball will dive and raise. Most funny the
	more thust you give the ball the deeper it will dive, and
	so faster it will raise. The time is aprox the same.

> Could an outlaw escape into jumpspace and hang out there?  If two
> ships jump at roughly the same time from roughly the same spot, will
> they be in the same jump space?

	No jump space is an event horizon around a ship tunneling
	towards the next mass within a week. Any ship has its own
	event horizon even if theory tell that there is one jump
	space.

> Could a generous alien have put an artifact into Jump Space and
> delayed its departure for some amount of time?

	No Look at 1.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Pulps

> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:47:38 +0100
> From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
> 
> I wonder what Traveller will be like in 2001? Well, I'll be playing.
> 
> On a similar note: Remember the pulps - you know: Astounding Air Stories
> and other early SF.
> What would the other races' pulps have looked like? here's a few ideas:
> 
> Solomani: Amazing Science Stories. etc etc.
> Daryens (Darrians): Interesting Research Stories.
> Hivers: Really Quite Interesting Manipulation Tales.
> Vilani: Satisfyingly Traditional Tales Involving The Application Of Proven
>   Techniques In Slightly Novel Situations.
> Zhodani: Thought-Provoking Mental Stories
> Vargr: (No idea. The dog got to it first)
>  
> Thoughts?

ROFL!  The Vilani one is my favorite. :)

How about:

Geonee: Astounding Stories of Super-Science Which We Thought Of First
K'Kree: Thrilling Lore of Cooperative Efforts in Carnivore Extermination
Bwaps:  Amazing Innovations in Data Filing Technology

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:54:46 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Waters

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> Glenn wrote:
> >Under the specific circumstances of your game, I believe that once the
> >players are in the starport, they are no longer under the laws of
> >Pysadi. Technically, they've already *left* Pysadi. The best the
> >Pysadian government could do is not allow them to exit the starport on
> >foot, in a vehicle, or by public transport.
> 
> OK, let's say they have committed murder on Pysadi.  Are you saying that
> they can retreat to the starport, get on their ship, and lift off before
> the starport people know anything about it.
> 
> Then, they can hover in space, taunting the Pysadian government over the
> radio, and the Pysadians can't do a thing about it?

Not at all. Murder is also an Imperial offense. Therefore the Pysdian
government could inform the Imperium and the offenders would be
extradited or tried under Imperial law. There would be nowhere to run
from such an offence.

> There's no Naval Base in the Pysadian system.  Subsequently, at least in
> my campaign, there's no Imperial presence.
> 
> I could see the Imperial government extraditing the Harrier's crew back
> to Pysadi to stand trial, but there's no force there to get them.  The
> best Pysadi could do is forward communication about these events the
> nearest Naval Base and hope they get caught and sent back at a later
> date.

True. Space is big. But the arm of the Imperium is long. :) If there's
no Imperial or Pysadian force to apprehend them, then they can't get
caught no matter who has jurisdiction.

> OK, let's make this more complicated.  The characters really didn't
> commit murder in my campaign.  They kicked at an anola, the Pysadian
> sacred animal.  The actual kicker got a year in a Pysadian jail, and the
> rest of the crew were asked (ordered) to leave the planet.
> 
> Kicking at a monkey is not an Imperial offense.  So, the characters
> leave the planet, but hover in space in the ship.
> 
> The Pysadian's have no jurisdicition here in their own solar system?
> People can just break their laws (it's a capital offense to kill an
> anola) and retreat to orbit, and everything's OK?

Absolutely. But woe to those characters if they ever landed on Pysadia
again! The characters are going to get pretty bored tooling around the
system...

You may have made it too easy to enter the starport. If the characters
broke Pysadian law and tried to get away via the starport, I'm sure
they'd have to get around the standard security/police check at the
starport door. Like customs. You won't be allowed to enter the starport
if you broke local law.

That'd be an adventure! Break into the starport and hijack your own
ship! Good luck...

> I don't know, but I feel that the jurisdiction question is more
> complicated than that.

Ya... well... I don't. :) The Imperium's only interest is that Trade
between worlds is safe and secure. They're not interested in enforcing
piddling local customs. If the Member World is megalomaniac enough to
want complete enforcement of its laws over all of space, then it needs
to join another type of empire... or a support group.

If you were an Imperial Bureaucrat and some Pysadian official called you
and said "He kicked my anola!!! He's in that starport somewhere!!!
Extradite him!!!" what would you say?

I'd say, "I'm sorry, kicking a monkey -- er AnOWlla -- is not an
Imperial Offence. If you believe the crime is serious enough for
extradition, your options are: A. fill out Form IJS 3423-SA for
inclusion of the crime in the Imperial Judicial Code for future
offences. or B. Petition your local Noble for an Imperial Warrant
demanding Extradition. Have a nice day."

Just my point of view...

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:27:57 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Star Wars prequel rumour...

	Seems that they've cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as Yoda.  Apparently
Yoda's species shrink as they age.  Reportedly, in Jedi training, he flexes
and sighs "Look zis good in nine hundred years I vill not"...

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:27:43 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Stupid CSC tricks.

	Last night, Ross Coburn suggested that I design this.  For those of
you who have not read Neal Stephenson's _Snow Crash_, in the near future a
balkanized, corporatized America is competitive in only a few areas:
entertainment,  computer code, and high speed pizza delivery.

	This car is Uncle Enzo's Pizza's main weapon in the high-speed
pizza delivery business.  Thanks to the Deliverator, Uncle Enzo has never
once had to honour a claim on his 30-minute delivery guarantee:


Hiro Protagonist's Pizza Deliverator (TL8)
Designed by R.D. Elliott

Summary:
     0.60 displacement ton wedge;  4.93 tonnes;  kCr 137
Chassis:
     8.40 kL wedge (6.3 m long x 2.5 m wide x 1.6 m high);  Structure: 209
kg of light alloy, rated for 0.7Gs, body 0.04 cm thick, 1 armour rating

Performance:
     1.60 MW TL7 Turbine, Gas power plant;  Fuel: 1.20 kL of high-grade
hcarb (1.20 tonnes), 5 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 1.60 MW wheels;  Maximum Speed: 410 km/h;  Range:
2046 km;  Agility: +2DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: driver;  1 crew station;  1 cramped passenger seat
Communications:
     Regional Radio (10 W, TL8, SmVcl)
Sensors:
     Passive Subregional Radar (1 W, MilSpec)  Resolution: 10 cm per km of
range
Other:
     Options: sunroof, entertainment centre, pizza warmer (actually a
kitchen for 1 simultaneous meal), amber revolving rooftop flashers, tinted
windows
     Safety Features: anti-theft system
     36.6 L of cargo space


Designed with CSC (software =A9Robert Prior, 1997)

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1987
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 21 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1988



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: AOTR
Re: Interstellar Waters
Re: International waters
Re: Generous Alien and Jump Space...
Re: Why use CORPS?
Rate of Fire
re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: st of Policing NYC
Re: Imperial/Planetary Space
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1984
Re: International waters
RE: Piracy
Re: Pulps
Megaweapon (continued)
Re: AOTR
Re: Pulps
Re: Why use CORPS?
Re: Why use CORPS?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:10:42 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: AOTR

At 09:30 PM 10/20/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Seems like many people hated Aliens Of The Rim.

>Ithklur and funny hats? I accepted that it was that way and just got on
>with it. 
>Because the Universe is just full to the brim of bad jokes, and
>occasionally something comes along in our life that offends our dignity. It
>happens in life so why not in the game?

Which moon of Saturn was it that when Voyager sent back the first
close-ups, everyone at JPL got the giggles because the thing looked
*exactly* like the death star?

While I admit that the universe is a succession of bad jokes (any cancer
patient would agree with you on that one), AOTR just took it to far for my
taste.. The Ithklur were supposed to be these fearsome warriors that the
Hivers keep around.. almost a Jem'Hadar type of race.. in my old CT game,
they were eight limbed land sharks (based on what was known about
velocioraptors back then) who thought the Hivers were the greatest for
showing them these really neat ways of killing things, and then giving them
the opportunity to go for it.

Aside:  Picture the K'Kree reaction the first time they encountered my
version of the Ithklur..  Intelligent, hi-tech, carnivores!!!!
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:29:24 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Waters

Kenneth Bearden wrote:
> 
> Glenn wrote:
> 
> >When a planetary government agrees to join the Imperium, they agree to
> >allow the Imperium to govern *all* space. Once you're outside regular
> >"airspace" and in "outer space" you are under the jurisdiction of the
> >Imperium.
> 

[snip]
 
> Like I said in a previous post, as a general rule most starports in my
> campaign are extraterritorial, but not all.  There are planets who
> derive major portions of their total income from the operation of the
> starport.  Those starports, in my game, don't have extrality.

I used to say that the starport is extraterritorial, period.  I've been
reconsidering that.  I think I will be running it that only the
_primary_ port has extraterritoriality.  This way, if the Class E
downport (Kmart overflow parking lot when nothing is in orbit) is the
primary port, it has territoriality.  If we are looking at a Class C, TL
A, Pop 7 world, then there is a highport, and _that_ has is the port
granted extraterritorial rights.

Of course, the best cargo may only be found at the, ahem, downport
(innocent look from the GM).

Fundementally, I feel that extraterritorality is a very important
concept.  Otherwise, half the small ships out there (and _all_ the
mercenary companies) would get nailed on weapons violations everytime
they landed at some podunk starport.

[snip]

> OK, let's say they have committed murder on Pysadi.  Are you saying that
> they can retreat to the starport, get on their ship, and lift off before
> the starport people know anything about it.
> 
> Then, they can hover in space, taunting the Pysadian government over the
> radio, and the Pysadians can't do a thing about it?

This is why Bounty Hunters exist.

> OK, let's make this more complicated.  The characters really didn't
> commit murder in my campaign.  They kicked at an anola, the Pysadian
> sacred animal.  The actual kicker got a year in a Pysadian jail, and the
> rest of the crew were asked (ordered) to leave the planet.
> 
> Kicking at a monkey is not an Imperial offense.  So, the characters
> leave the planet, but hover in space in the ship.
> 
> The Pysadian's have no jurisdicition here in their own solar system?
> People can just break their laws (it's a capital offense to kill an
> anola) and retreat to orbit, and everything's OK?
> 

This is where things get a bit more complex.  The starports are
technically Imperial, but they are manned and administered (in trust as
a worst case) by the planet or it's representatives.  Even though they
do not control space, the government is going to have lines of
communication to the Imperial beauracracy that runs the port.  And since
those beauracrats _live_ on Psyadi, and want to have good relations with
the community, there is going to be some level of cooperation.

Now I don't think that the local gov't could do anything extreme, but
requesting that the ship be required to leave the local space (i.e. 100
dia) would not be too extreme.  I can even see where there would be an
administrative process to 'eject' the ship from the system, that would
require a ship or shuttle to escort them to the jump point and witness
the jump out.

Interesting thoughts...


- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:48:46 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: International waters

Well, if the Imperium is going to control the actual star port,
I would say that it will control the route to the star port.
Thus I would guess that Imperium control starts at the top
of the atmosphere (probably defined as the lowest orbit
that is stable for at least a few hours or a day or so).

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:52:37 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Generous Alien and Jump Space...

>Why not use ordinary, normal space instead of jump space ?
>An object set off heading for our solar system from, say Alpha Centauri,
>would not get there until a very long time had passed. This object would be
>timed to drift into the solar system at some point in history.

The original poster wanted something that would last for 200 MYr.
That's way toio long for drifiting into the sola.r  system to work - relative position
of the sun and opther stars is utterly unpredictable on those timescales
(basically it's one whole orbit around the galaxy; stars all have small random
velocities, so in 200 MYr our sun will be nohere near Alpha Cen and small perturbations
from passing nearby stars will have sent the packages off in random directions.

You also would definitely  need a radio to make the packages noticeable - whic
we're trying to avoid since it won't work after 200 Myr - and you'd need hundreds 
of thousands of packagtes to have much chance of one arriving at the right time.


Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:34:49 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

At 10:00 AM 10/20/97 -0700, Chris wrote:

>When compiling the current campaign data from Robert Eaglestone, I noticed
>that a few of you are using CORPS for your mechanics. Can anyone tell me
>what the comparative advantages and interesting features of CORPS are?

I use CORPS for a couple of reasons.

1> Easy mechanics.  In CORPS, everything is done with a single 10-sider.
The task system is wonderfully simple.  If your skill is higher than the
difficulty, you succeed.  If it's lower, there is one simple chart to
determine your roll.  Combat is a bit more detailed, but flows nicely once
everyone is familiar with it.  Combat is also nice and deadly.

The skills work on a tiered system.  You have Base, Secondary, and Tertiary
skills.  You might have Projectile Weapons at 4, Rifle at 2, and M-16A2 at
1.  When firing your '16, your skill is 7.

2> Detailed characters.  CORPS uses a point-based system for character
development, with numerous advantages and disadvantages.  Many of these
ads/disads are defined in vague terms, allowing a player to define them as
s/he wishes.  For example, a 1pt "Allies" advantage can be a good friend,
or the entire LAPD if you are an officer of the law.  A nice touch is the
granting of extra skill points for writing up a good back story for the
character.

3> Lots of little extras.  There is a great deal of material in the
relatively small CORPS rules.  A mass-combat system, a set of rules for
designing paranormal power structures (magic/psionics/whatever),
campaigning notes, and a decent equipment list.

In general, I find CORPS to be a fast, complete system for role play.  I
don't recommend it for munchkins, as the combat system kills the stupid.

For Traveller, I use Brilliant Lances for space combat, and build weapons
using 3G3.  My worlds still use UWPs, but they tend to be hidden behind the
write-ups I've done for Lunion Subsector.  Social Standing is one tricky
bit; but I handled it by deciding that anyone who wished to be a noble
would have to put together a 0pt-package (ads and disads that summed out to
zero) covering both the perks and downside of being a noble.

Any questions?

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:33:39 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Rate of Fire

Boy, I'm full of questions today!

Here's one for you space combat buffs.

Situation:  Bad guy ship is docked with the Harrier, connected by 12
meters of umbilical.  For various reasons, things go bad for the bad guy
ship, and it kicks in its maneuver drives while still docked with our
hero's ship.

The umbilical shreds, and the bad guy ship speeds off, pulling 3 Gs. 
The Harrier is dead in space and defenseless, for various reasons.

Bad guy ship decides to blast away at this duck in the water.



Here comes my question.  For reference, I'm using the RPSPCS Traveller
space combat system, which has 30 minute turns like most Traveller space
combat systems.

I'm trying to figure out how many to hit throws I can give the bad guy
ship in 30 minutes.

Normally, this is a simple answer--one to hit throw.  But, this is not a
normal situation.  The bad guy ship can take any bearing it wants on the
Harrier, at any range--up to about 15 meters!  The Harrier is dead in
space and cannot maneuver (there's no pilot aboard).  The Harrier cannot
fire its weapons, for other reasons (long story and moot to this
question).

Referencing SSDS in Starships, I understand the rate of fire for most
laser weapons in space combat is 100 shots per 30 minutes.  From those
100 shots taken in those 30 minutes, one to hit throw is allowed (it's
an abstract system).  And, the target is usually considered to be doing
everything it can to not get it--at least moving!

What I'm trying to do is take this abstract system and make it more
specific for this particular encounter.  I'm really trying to find out
how fast the bad guy ship can damage the Harrier.

I could figure out, based on an ROF of 100 per 30 minutes, that the ship
can fire once every 18 seconds.  So, every 3 six-second ground combat
turns, I could give the bad guy ship a shot.

But, this does sound a bit much.  At this range, the shot is automatic
(with all the DMs).  It's an Easy task and it cannot be failed.  The bad
guy ship will hit every time.

What do you think you GMs out there.  How should I handle this
situation?  Give the bad guy ship a pop at the character's ship once
every 3 combat rounds?

Or should I just let him do one shot, like in regular space combat, now
and once again 30 minutes later?

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:02:30 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: Hiding in plain sight

douglas@teleport.com
>[argues that higher-TL stalthing will absolutely defeat lower-TL sensors and
>hence highh pirates can hide, based on 20th century examples]

There are two problems with  this - the first from game balance, the 
second from actual physics and game rules. 

>
>a ship with TL C EMS can be spoofed
>by a ship with TL D stealth.

The game balance/philosophy problem with this is that Traveller generally has
very minor differences between tech levels once you get past TL9; there
are incremental improvements, and sometimes whole new tchnologies, but there's
nothing like the huge advantage that 1990s TL-8 has over 1950s TL-6. 
For example, if one TL advantage awas all you needed to make ships nearly
invisible, the Imperium should hand the Zhodani their turbans during wars.
The rules, as printed in pretty much every edition, support this.

The second part is physics. I did the simulatouns that underly the sensor 
rules in FFS2. It surprised even me how easy it is to see a spaceraft
against the cold background of space. Even in visible light, a 
medium-sized sensor (that can fit on a type S) can see another type S just
by reflected sunlight off the hull at hundreds of thousands of millions of
kiloemters. The *only* way to defeat that is to make the hull black - 
but you have to make the hull very, very, very black to win much distance.
The rules do reflect this - you can buy increasingly good black coatings
at higher TLs - but the opposition can also buy increasingly good sensors 
and also bigger sensors - a fixed near-orbit installation around a moderate
pop world can have a *huge* sensor. 

And that's just visible light. The real problem is IR light. Traveller
spaceships generate huge amounts of power. If even 10% of that has to be
reradiated as waste heat, you still have to get rid of a huge amount of power.
Since only a limited amount of surface area is available you end up with
very hot (2000K) radiatiors to dump this heat. A cold sensor in space has
amazing sensitivity to 2000K IR sources. Again, the rules do allow 
higer TL ships to have increasingly sophisticated masking of their radiators
(which mostly means arranging them so all the waste goes in one direction,
which you then turn away from likely enemies) but the sensor's advantage
is *so* huge that it's hard to imagine maskign winning you back much,
although there are lots of tricks you can pull. 

Take a look at FFS2 and the Definitve Sensor Rules; they have what I consider
a very good model of all this. It does allow improvements with TL but 
not huge ones - much of this is up against the hard limits of physics
rather than engineering.

(Note that jamming/spoofing won't help you with not being detected - it'll just
make it harder for people to ID you ionce you have been detected.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:05:58 -0700
From: Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
Subject: Re: st of Policing NYC

David P. Summers wrote:
> 
> Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:32:21 GMT, jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
> >New York City cannot afford to put a cop every fifteen feet
> >throughout the city.  The United States could barely afford to
> >put one cop every fifteen feet throughout New York City
> 
> Well, my point was about putting a cop at every _intersection_.
> It also wasn't that NYC could afford it, but wether the simple
> kind of calculations that are being used for piracy would
> also support the idea that NYC could afford it?
> 
> However, lets go to a clearer example.  Crime on subways
> could easily be said to be more of a problem than piracy
> would be.  If you take 1% of the military and plice budgets
> you can claim to put 8,500 undercover cops riding trains
> in NYC.  The same sort of reasoning used in piracy would
> lead one to believe that this would make the odds of getting
> caught so high that no one would try such a crime and that
> clearly NYC would be expected to spend such a small portion
> of their budget that they would never miss it to stop
> this crime.
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

OK.  We've spent 1% of the milbudget and covered New York.  That does
not solve the problem for Philladelphia, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles
or Dallas.

No matter where you concentrate the money, there will be other holes. 
And if you spend the entire defense budget (or welfare budget, or
whatever budget) then you have stripped one whole sector of your
government services to cover another.

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:37:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Imperial/Planetary Space

In a message dated 97-10-20 19:46:19 EDT, dreamer@brokersys.com writes:

<< Star systems with Naval Bases will probably have planetary jurisdiciton
 to a point, but concurrent Imperial jurisdiction in the entire
 system--including the same space the planet patrols. >>

Perhaps a valid question is wether or not the Imperium has a Posse Comitatus
law...the law in the US that specifically prohibits military units from
becoming involved in civilian criminal or civil crimes. (Except under certain
conditions like martial law or Executive Order, IIRC)

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:22:59 -0400
From: Dangel Family <dangel@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1984

> 
> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:00:38 -0700
> From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
> Subject: Why use CORPS?
> 
> When compiling the current campaign data from Robert Eaglestone, I noticed
> that a few of you are using CORPS for your mechanics. Can anyone tell me
> what the comparative advantages and interesting features of CORPS are?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris Griffen

In my opinion, CORPS simply has the cleanest, most consistent mechanics
I've seen. Check out the review on Michael Richter's Caravan of Dreams
site. The reviews are available in a zip file. I haven't got the address
handy, but if you have any difficulty finding it I can e-mail it to you.
(He also reviewed T4 as I recall. Reading the two together gives you an
interesting perspective.)

Matt Dangel

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:26:31 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: International waters

> From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>

> > >We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> > >the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> > >Imperium?

Here's my view, which may not be canonical, and which reflects the 1100s
era.  Jurisdiction" means the authority to exert governmental power
somewhere or over someone or something. 

The Imperium has jurisdiction over the space between the stars.  That
is, (a) jump space and (b) normal space outside a member star system. 
(b) is either a sphere or spheroid with a diameter equal to the orbit of
the farthest planet or a curved solid with that orbit as one dimension
and the other dimension set by drawing a line through the center of the
sun perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic and with a certain
length, like the distance from the center of the sun to the primary
world of the system.  

In addition, the Imperium has ancillary jurisdiction over all starports;
this jurisdiction is ancillary, that is, supplemental and helpful, to
its jurisdiction over jump space and the space outside the member star
system.  

Finally, the Imperium has ancillary jurisdiction over orbital space
around any world belonging to a member state; this ancillary
jurisdiction is exercised jointly with the member state, and often only
one person (a customs officer in a cutter) is exercising that joint
authority.  

Each member state of the Imperium is responsible for defense of its own
system, and runs its own SDB (or whatever) unit.  If the member state
can't defend itself adequately -- a low-tech world; a border world
subject to raiding; a world with too-frequent pirate attacks -- it can
ask the Imperium for assistance, and the Imperium will provide
appropriate support (training, advisors, technical support, weapon
systems, Marines, intelligence results, fighter squadrons, escort
squadrons, destroyer squadrons, and on up).

Naval and Scout bases are a matter of treaty between the Imperium and
the member state.

> On a related note, how do you determine space juristictions over
> balkanized worlds? What kind of treaties would be likely to be in effect
> around such worlds? 

Bear in mind these issues, which I won't discuss in detail:
(1) a star system in which one planet has multiple sovereign entities.
(2) a star system in which different planets are each sovereign
entities.
(3) a star system in which different planets have multiple sovereign
entities.  

In my view, each sovereign state in the Imperium is a member state,
whether coterminous with a star system or not.  The Imperium has a
treaty with each member state that defines its jurisdiction in space. 
In terms of system defense, the Imperium encourages the formation of
United Nations-type organizations to raise and maintain defense forces,
and provides assistance as necessary.  

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 22:44:20 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: RE: Piracy

>I hear a lot of examples of "modern piracy" being quoted on the list. I do
>not doubt their veracity. But I wonder -- is it really a good parallel? Do
>modern pirates hijack big freighters? You know, the really expensive ones?
>I mean, even a small starship in Traveller is really expensive.

Mainly yatches in the Carribean and Mediterran.  In the South China Sea
it's mainly small merchant ships and refugee boats.  However, wasn't there
a fairly large freighter taken in the mid 70's..one that US Marines
recaptured?

As for the worth/size of the ships being hijacked...well, they aren't
multi-million dollar freighters so there might not be a direct comparison.

One point to keep in mind is that, even in a straight Imperium game, the
conditions will change over time.  Piracy might be common in 50, rare in
100, common again during and shortly after the civil wars, rare again by
1050, etc.  If you aren't playing an Imperium game then piracy is as rare
or as common as you want.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:27:36 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Pulps

> From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>

> > Solomani: Amazing Science Stories. etc etc.

I loved them.  I thought of this one:

Droyne:  Six Stories That You Will Never Really Understand

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:27:12 +0200
From: Goran Sjoberg <NGC1201@communique.se>
Subject: Megaweapon (continued)

- -------------8< shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)

> The shape and construction would be like a nuclear missile with a magnetic
> constrictor chamber containing the antimatter preventing it from reaching
> the dense matter core in the center. 

Yeahh, i never thought of the matter from a target being the trigger.

>Alas, antimatter may turn out to be a lot less useful as a weapon than
>people used to think.
>
>So to get a "good" reaction instead of this silly "sputtering" (which
>is *still* dangerous and destructive), you want the antimatter to hit
>the planet at a speed such that the blast on contact won't do more than
>slow it up a bit.
>
>Without doing any calculations, I'd expect that the "ideal" impact
>velocity for an antimatter warhead is something up around 1% of c...

1 persent of what? You must understand i am just a layman, and a simple one
at that. I did understand that i just have to speed it upp before hitting a
planet. 

What happens if the matter part is the one hitting the antimatter in high
speed?

- ---
From Goran

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 22:36:07 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: AOTR

On 1997-10-20 17:10, Douglas E. Berry <dberry@hooked.net> wrote the 
following:

>Which moon of Saturn was it that when Voyager sent back the first
>close-ups, everyone at JPL got the giggles because the thing looked
>*exactly* like the death star?

Mimas.

<wiping tear from eye, laughing> It's sooooo true!

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 22:36:11 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Pulps

On 1997-10-20 16:45, Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote the following:

>> On a similar note: Remember the pulps - you know: Astounding Air Stories
>> and other early SF.
>> What would the other races' pulps have looked like? here's a few ideas:
>> 
>> Solomani: Amazing Science Stories. etc etc.
>> Daryens (Darrians): Interesting Research Stories.
>> Hivers: Really Quite Interesting Manipulation Tales.
>> Vilani: Satisfyingly Traditional Tales Involving The Application Of Proven
>>   Techniques In Slightly Novel Situations.
>> Zhodani: Thought-Provoking Mental Stories
>> Vargr: (No idea. The dog got to it first)
>>  
>> Thoughts?
>
>ROFL!  The Vilani one is my favorite. :)
>
>How about:
>
>Geonee: Astounding Stories of Super-Science Which We Thought Of First
>K'Kree: Thrilling Lore of Cooperative Efforts in Carnivore Extermination
>Bwaps:  Amazing Innovations in Data Filing Technology

Aslan: Weird Tales of Cross-Gender Work Sharing
Ithklur: Novel and Wonderful Adventures at Flea Markets
Virushi: Amazing Medical Procedures
Jgd-Il-jagd: Fascinating Air Currents

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:45:16 +1100
From: Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

>When compiling the current campaign data from Robert Eaglestone, I noticed
>that a few of you are using CORPS for your mechanics. Can anyone tell me
>what the comparative advantages and interesting features of CORPS are?

</LURK>

Well, first let me say that I agree with what Douglas wrote 100%! The task
system in CORPS is simple (and you don't have to use the chart if you don't
want to, since it all reduces to a simple equation), and the rule book has
lots of detail (every time I look through the book I find at least one
thing that I didn't know was there, or that I had forgotten about) for
those that want it. I have to admit the combat system is perhaps the most
daunting part - it is fairly detailed (without resorting to charts) and may
not suit some people. My players tried it, and then asked for something
simplier. I don't doubt that if everyone knew the combat rules well that
combat would run smoothly - its just learning the combat rules that is the
problem.

If there are any areas that CORPS isn't perfect, I would say it would be
the handling of animals. Unfortunately there is no info on animals at all
(although it is easy enough to work out your own methods), although there
is a supplement due out soon that will cover this in a _lot_ more detail.
Magic and cyberware (not really applicable to Traveller) could also have a
bit more info given. The book gives design rules for working out the
character costs (when generating characters) for having either, but doesn't
give many examples.

Finally, the biggest advantage for me is that the system is general. I've
used it with a modern day setting (which it was originally written for) the
typical fantasy setting (magic, monsters, etc), and I will be using it to
run Traveller next year. This means that my group doesn't have to learn a
new rule set every time we decide to try something different.

All in all, a very nice system. Written by Greg Porter, produced by BTRC
(http://members.aol.com/~btrc).

<LURK>

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.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 05:40:30 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:34:49 -0700, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 10:00 AM 10/20/97 -0700, Chris wrote:
> 
> >When compiling the current campaign data from Robert Eaglestone, I noticed
> >that a few of you are using CORPS for your mechanics. Can anyone tell me
> >what the comparative advantages and interesting features of CORPS are?
> 
> I use CORPS for a couple of reasons.

I may be using CORPS also, for a couple of reasons...
 
> 1> Easy mechanics.  In CORPS, everything is done with a single 10-sider.
> The task system is wonderfully simple.  If your skill is higher than the
> difficulty, you succeed.  If it's lower, there is one simple chart to
> determine your roll.  Combat is a bit more detailed, but flows nicely once
> everyone is familiar with it.  Combat is also nice and deadly.

Greg prides himself when it comes to CORPS and rolling dice.  He designed
it so that when playing, the number of required die rolls is kept to a
minimum.  "Why should a roleplaying game rely /so/ much on little random
number generators, anyways?"

Auto successes are also part of CORPS.  If a character has Swimming-3 and
is confronted with a swimming task with a difficulty of 3 (CORPS uses
numerical designators for difficulty levels, instead of descriptive
adjectives like T4), the task is *automatically* successful.  If it were a
difficulty-4 task and the character did something to gain a +1 modifier,
the task would again be *automatically* successful.  There are a few
exceptions to this rule (most of them in the Combat section) but you get
the gist.

> The skills work on a tiered system.  You have Base, Secondary, and Tertiary
> skills.  You might have Projectile Weapons at 4, Rifle at 2, and M-16A2 at
> 1.  When firing your '16, your skill is 7.

IOW, 4+2+1=7.

> 2> Detailed characters.  CORPS uses a point-based system for character
> development, with numerous advantages and disadvantages.  Many of these
> ads/disads are defined in vague terms, allowing a player to define them as
> s/he wishes.  For example, a 1pt "Allies" advantage can be a good friend,
> or the entire LAPD if you are an officer of the law.  A nice touch is the
> granting of extra skill points for writing up a good back story for the
> character.

The extra points earned for writing up a decent character background is one
of the *best* little features of CORPS, IMHO.  Pure genius!

The only problem is that-- as a point balanced system-- traditional
Traveller players may have a problem with a character generation system
that doesn't roll up skills and stat improvements on a year-by-year basis.

> 3> Lots of little extras.  There is a great deal of material in the
> relatively small CORPS rules.  A mass-combat system, a set of rules for
> designing paranormal power structures (magic/psionics/whatever),
> campaigning notes, and a decent equipment list.

You forget that Guns! Guns! Guns! (3G3) meshes *perfectly* with CORPS,
since they are both BTRC products.  The same will most certainly be true of
Greg's upcoming Vehicle Design System, although I haven't actually seen it
yet.

You also forgot to mention that CORPS supplements actually have
*reasonable* prices, have few spelling mistakes, and are nicely laid out as
well :)

> In general, I find CORPS to be a fast, complete system for role play.  I
> don't recommend it for munchkins, as the combat system kills the stupid.

CORPS is actually the only RPG I own that actually defines munchkins as
something other than residents of Oz.  It appears that Greg has something
against munchkins and attempts to stress realistic roleplay whenever
possible.  He even included a small "you know if you're a munchkin if..."
write-up in a section describing the different types of role players.

> For Traveller, I use Brilliant Lances for space combat, and build weapons
> using 3G3.  My worlds still use UWPs, but they tend to be hidden behind the
> write-ups I've done for Lunion Subsector.  Social Standing is one tricky
> bit; but I handled it by deciding that anyone who wished to be a noble
> would have to put together a 0pt-package (ads and disads that summed out to
> zero) covering both the perks and downside of being a noble.

Interesting.  I hope GURPS: Traveller handles SOC in a similar manner.
Simply paying 15 (or whatever) character points to be a prince is a bit of
a cop-out.



James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1988
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 21 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1989



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Hit Location Charts
2300AD overview???
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1984
RE: International Waters
RE: Piracy
RE: Piracy
Re: EV Flames & AOTR1
RE: Piracy
Re: Bulkheads
Re: Extrality and ownership of starports
Re: Pulps
Re: Megaweapon (continued)
New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)
Re: International Waters
March Harrier, Dead in the Water
Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother
Re: Rate of Fire
Re: International Waters

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 05:40:33 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Hit Location Charts

On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:23:30 +0000, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> I've got four hit location charts to choose from for determining the
> location of wounds taken in combat.  
> 
> I'd like to get your input on which chart you think gives the most
> natural results--which one results in the most likely probabilities
> given the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> OPTION #1:  GG Col 1
> --------------------
> 
> Arms     14%
> Legs     20%
> Head     14%
> Torso    51%

Ideal for attacks that take place at range, where foot and hand wounds are
just as likely as central torso hits.  It also works well for explosives,
burst fire, shotguns, etc.

> OPTION #3:  DGP
> ----------------
> 
> Arms     33%
> Legs     22%
> Head     14%
> Torso    30%

Now this one works well for melee attack ranges, where leg hits aren't as
likely as arm hits (even though legs are physically much larger than arms).
Considering a person often defends himself with his hands while in melee,
they might verywell have a higher likely hood of receiving damage than even
the torso location (as your breakdown suggests).

> OPTION #4:  TNE 2-12 Converted
> ------------------------------
> 
> Arms     19%
> Legs     17%
> Head     8%
> Torso    55%

This one is also nice for ranged combat, although it doesn't treat the legs
as being a significant part of a human silhouette.  Still, if you are
aiming a rifle at a person's chest, his arms are generally in that vicinity
as well.  Now that I think about it, this option is probably better than
#1.

Please post your To-Hit charts while you're at it.



James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:20:34 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: 2300AD overview???

I browsed the web and got some information, but from a CT perspective, what is better/worse about the 2300AD 
series?

I am looking for serious pros and cons...not a flame war.  So everyone respect the opinion of others.

Thanks!
Kevin


 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:14:00 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1984

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:22:59 -0400, Dangel Family wrote:

> In my opinion, CORPS simply has the cleanest, most consistent mechanics
> I've seen. Check out the review on Michael Richter's Caravan of Dreams
> site. The reviews are available in a zip file. I haven't got the address
> handy, but if you have any difficulty finding it I can e-mail it to you.
> (He also reviewed T4 as I recall. Reading the two together gives you an
> interesting perspective.)

A quick web search has yielded the following URL:

http://www.igs.net/~mtr/





James W. Lindsay   Vancouver, British Columbia
 "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

 Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:28:05 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: International Waters

On Monday, October 20, 1997 9:33 AM, Douglas R Glatz 
[SMTP:douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com] wrote:
> > QUESTION #1:  Interstellar space.
> >
> > We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> > the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> > Imperium?
>
> That was defined in MT's COACC. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy with
> me at the moment.  If no one else weighs in on this thread, I'll dig it
> out tonight.

Well, it didn't define it as well as I hoped, but here is the summary.

From the ground to 1/10 orbit, military jurisdiction falls under the Army. 
 Close Orbit and Airspace Control Command (COACC), under the Army, defends 
to that point then the regular Navy takes over.  They man the deep Meson 
sites, the atmospheric interceptors, and the orbital defenses.

Basically, COACC defines the planets military control (out to 1/10 orbit). 
 This is separate from a planet's legal jurisdiction, though.

>
> [snip]
>
> > QUESTION #2.  Actually, a comment.
> >
> > In tonight's game, the law of the "crafty player" came up, raising an
> > eyebrow on this Traveller veteran.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > "Well,"  he said, "we want to get there as fast as we can--so we don't
> > want to decelerate.  For time calculation purposes, let's double the
> > distance and halve the time to see how long it will take us to get to
> > that point at full thrust all the way."
> >
>
> I, too, had this pointed out to me by a desparate player (tho' it was a
> while back).
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Douglas R. Glatz, MCSE                    Tektronix, Inc
> System Administrator                     Wilsonville, Or
> Opinions expressed in this post are my own and not those of my employer
> *Unsolicited advertisement will be deleted without review*
> --------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:00:53 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: RE: Piracy

I hope this hasn't been bought up before, but could pirates base themselves
on Law level zero worlds, or in other words, not use the starports, but
maintain their ships elswhere. Even as a front for a legit orbital service
(if using smallcraft) or a transport service ran out of a backyard. 

What authority would the Imperium have over law level zero worlds? 

If the pirates were providing some income to the worlds the governments of
these worlds might even want to (secretly) help the pirates.

What sort of action would the Imperium take against such a government if it
found out?

Harry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:52:51 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: RE: Piracy

At 10:44 PM 20/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>I hear a lot of examples of "modern piracy" being quoted on the list. I do
>>not doubt their veracity. But I wonder -- is it really a good parallel? Do
>>modern pirates hijack big freighters? You know, the really expensive ones?
>>I mean, even a small starship in Traveller is really expensive.
>
>Mainly yatches in the Carribean and Mediterran.  In the South China Sea
>it's mainly small merchant ships and refugee boats.  However, wasn't there
>a fairly large freighter taken in the mid 70's..one that US Marines
>recaptured?

I have dim memories of a news item, or some current affairs program that
was about piracy. On this program I think even the big freighters were bing
hit, but only having a small proportion of their cargo taken.

Piracy in a ships boat?


Harry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:10:00 +1000 (EST)
From: "David 'Washu' Moodie" <dmoodie@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Subject: Re: EV Flames & AOTR1

John Wood wrote the following at um, sometime today:

>> 1) The whole EV flame thing....

>As much as I can agree without having seen EV, I agree.  Actually,
>Leroy's "pro" review was almost enough on it's own to make me decide not
>to buy it - all the things he praised were negative points for me.  I'll
>give EV a quick look, but I'll probably just stick with 101 Vehicles.

I just want to know WHY they did EV that way? It doesn't make sense...
Maybe Leroy wrote it ;)


> 2) About the anti-'Aliens of the Rim' thing...

>I'll just insert here that I do not know Dave, Loren, the Keiths, or
>indeed anyone relevant, so I can slag this book off as much as I like...
></IRONY>

But all Daves must be worshipped!
 om.... om..... om.....

Acutally, I'm just one of those weirdoes that likes Dave Nielsen's wit,
because it is disturbingly similar to mine in many ways (on one of my
good days that is). TNE doesn't make me scream and shout but it
balances the gritty feel with a few bad jokes....I just hate the RCES 
callsigns :P

>Your inexperience compared to certain others does not make your opinions
>any less worthwhile - Traveller needs new blood if it is to prosper -
>and anyway, there a plenty of folks here with access to less
>"historical" Traveller than you.  So you can have it both ways! ;-)

I haven't found a good enough opinion to steal yet :)

But seriously:

Yeah, that's what worries me, I get this insistent 'Travellers OK really!'
pouring from the mailing list.... ...but I still think T4's has crashed
and is going to burn... I'd love to support it but I hear more and more
'this book is broken like the rest' rather than  'this book brings
something new and exciting to the Traveller universe and has only 3
typos...'. 

I can't recommend T4 to anyone and not feel guilty about giving them a
raw deal (No, I'm not a store owner...).

I'd choose Bubblegum Crisis (ok so I'm biased on that one), Cyberpunk,
Shadowrun and GURPS over T4 right now (haven't poked through Heavy Gear
because I'm a Battletech supporter).

Of course I'm the only one around here with TNE & MT (Although I've heard
of someone with MT & a little bit of CT) so my pals see me as the SF freak
with this god-like game of epic gearhead proportions (don't quote me on
that).

[snip.]
[Snip..]
[SNIP...AARGHH!!!]

thanks for the Hiver notes too... I agree in many respects but the book
still gets high praise for its detail, cool info and humour from me.... I
just wish I could get hold of the DGP stuff too [stamp in frustration]


David Moodie
_______________________________________________________
THE MANY FACES OF WASHU/NENE ROMANOVA GALLERIES       
http://www.st.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dmoodie/index.html  
- -------------------------------------------------------
Worshipper of Washu, Nene & Traveller : TNE @_@ 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:18:25 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: RE: Piracy

I've had another thought!

<collective groan from TML>

Does anyone have an opinion on when the Imperial rules of war were formalised?

I ask in relation to this thread because privateering may  be a legal way
of one world expressing it's dissatisfaction with another worlds policies,
if the rules of war have not been formalised yet. I know that this sort of
behaviour will definately be frowned upon by the imperium, but does anyone
think that worlds could get away with it?

Also, I have a query about the idea of planetary navies and the territorial
limits of a planet.  (I seem to remember from COACC that it was the 1/10th
diameter limit, which is well above the atmosphere, I think)

Are the SDB's of a planetary navy run by the Imperium or by the local
defence forces?

If it's the locals, do you think they have special permission to operate in
Imperial space? (ie, beyond the 1/10th limit)

If it's the Imperium, this permission must be recprocated, to allow the
SDB's access to the ocean?

Going along on this theme of territorial space.... are the systems minor
worlds and gas giants the property of the Imperium or the planetary
government? 

I know that the planetary governments can maintain colonies on other worlds
in the system, but who is responsible for the legal details (policing,
defence, etc) on the planets and moons that do not have a population within
a system?

Anyones opinions on this matter will be greatly appreciated (it will help
me with details I might not have thought of.)

Harry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:34:38 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Bulkheads

Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote

> Another question came up in my game...
> 
> The characters were trying to cut through an interior bulkhead with the
> TL 10 laser cutter from the CSC.
> 
> I judged the bulkhead to be about 4 cm thick and made of hard steel.

Why wouldn't the bulkhead be superdense too, it is superior to hard
steel ?
> 
> What is your opinion on how thick these interior bulkheads are made of,
> and what do you think the standard material these things are made of
> will be for a TL 12 vessel?

IIRC in Classic Traveller interior bulkheads & hulls each took 1,000
points of bullet dammage or 100 points of energy dammage to cut a person
sized hole in.  This suggests that interior bulkheads have the same
armor factor as the hull.  Interior walls wer thinner & took 100 points
from bullets to cut a hole in
> 
> On a related note, they were thinking of cutting through the hull.  I
> know this is superdense, but how thick do you think a starship hull is?
> If I have that, I can figure cutting time (or even if it is possible) by
> using the materials chart in the CSC.

Why don't you use the TNE rules for hull thickness with the TNE armor
value (40) of the ship to determine how thick the hull will be. In TNE's
FF&s 1 (pg 10) armor value = thickness x toughness(FF&S 1 pg 38)
		40         = ?	       x 14

The hull of the March Harrier is therefore 2.857cm thick.  Describe it
to the players as "a little over an inch" and you'll be fine.

You can use this same system to figure bulkhead thickness.  Just decide
on how strong (TNE armor value) it is, what it is made of (find the
toughness), & divide.

At this point I should note that the CSC does give different values for
the toughness & density of Superdense.  The TNE numbers match the MT
numbers.

R/E your earlier question about where the planets extrality limit is
COAAC may not help you.  COAAC says (diagram on pg 7) that the COAAC
patrols up to the 0.1 diameter limit and the Navy patrols beyond this
limit.  However it could well be the _planetary_ navy patroling at 0.1
diameter so this does not prove that the planet has no authority beyond
th 0.1 diameter limit.

- -- 
 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:48:13 -0700
From: Eric Evans <ebevans@fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Extrality and ownership of starports

I thought I'd share my arrangements for handling extrality in my campaign.

1. The starport is Imperial territory; the Imperium has criminal and
commercial jurisdiction (which means that any contract that you sign within
the extrality line is governed by Imperial commercial law, not by local
law). Extrality emerged as a solution to the difficulties of sorting out
the conflicts in commercial and criminal law during the early centuries of
the Imperium and provides a way for merchants and travellers to interact
with only a single body of laws as they travel from world to
world--extrality is part of the glue that binds the Imperium together. All
worlds with A and B starports have extraterritorial starports. Almost all
worlds with C starports do as well, and even D and E starports will often
have at least a building that is surrounded by an extrality line (makes
contracts much, much easier for all involved).

2. The extrality line is not so much a border as a boundary (more like the
property line outside a Federal building, not the US-Mexico border).
Planetary authorities will be able to undertake hot pursuit across the line
under most circumstances; arrangements will be made in each system to cover
local laws. As a general rule, extrality lines will delay, not stop,
pursuit by local authorities. If local authorities are pursuing you for a
major crime, they're unlikely even to pull up as they pass the extrality
line.

3. The local government has the right to exercise control over all shipping
within the system and to enforce local laws and regulations in space; this
includes the right to undertake health and safety and customs inspections.
In addition, Imperial ships can enforce the Imperial Laws of Space
(restrictions on weaponry, etc.). Ships belonging to any government are
obliged to take action if they detect imminent threats to navigation.

4. Startown is a rough neighborhood for many reasons, but most importantly
because Imperial criminal law is not extensive; most of the corpus of
Imperial law concerns commercial matters (there are for, example, eight
clauses in the Imperial Codex concerning murder and fifty eight extensive
clauses detailing the crime of barratry and the apportionment of
responsibility among the officers involved). There is no regulation of
"morals." Piracy, outside of registered tradewars, is a violation of
Imperial criminal law, and effective pirates are almost certain to violate
any number of provisions of Imperial commercial law.

5. If a traveller commits a crime outside the extrality line, that crime is
considered a violation of local law only, even if the same act, if
committed inside the extrality line would be considered a violation of
Imperial criminal law. The Imperial authorities will allow the suspect to
be extradited and will not interfere with hot pursuit, but will not
prosecute the suspect.

6. Local governments are forbidden from seeking to enforce their local laws
in areas under the jurisdiction of other governments; they cannot dispatch
official agents to apprehend individuals who are accused of purely local
crimes. They are, however, permitted to offer rewards for the delivery of
suspects.

7. The Imperium can, at its discretion, assume jurisdiction over an act
that violates Imperial law, even if that act takes place outside the
extrality line. It does not do so very often, but if it does, one's life
gets very interesting.

8. If you violate Imperial Criminal Law (by, for example, killing someone
in a starport with witnesses around), you're in bad shape. Your identifying
characteristics will be disseminated to all A and B starports using the
xboat network and you'll find thing like making ship payments extremely
interesting.

That's enough for tonight.









- -----------------------------------------
Eric Evans

"There seemed an
                 inevitability in
          degradation"
			  --T.E. Lawrence

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:34:10 -0700
From: "Jory M. Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Pulps

Bruce Johnson wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Jory M. Earl wrote:
> 
> > Vargr : Dogday Afternoons?
> 
> Reservoir Dogs

Ahh, much better actually!  I like it.
- -- 
                              The J-Man
                             GOC Systems
                           j-man@iname.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:09:33 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Megaweapon (continued)

>>Without doing any calculations, I'd expect that the "ideal" impact
>>velocity for an antimatter warhead is something up around 1% of c...
>
>1 persent of what? You must understand i am just a layman, and a simple one
>at that. I did understand that i just have to speed it upp before hitting a
>planet.=20

c is the speed of light (yes, one percent of this is very fast).=20

>What happens if the matter part is the one hitting the antimatter in high
>speed?

This is exactly the same situation. You can never judge which one of the
objects is moving (or if both are). You can only use a point of reference,
in this case the target or the firing ship are the most likely points to
consider static. Every velocity is relative, and can only be measured using
a point of reference.

Consider a car driving at 100 km/h. This velocity is measured using the
Earth as a point of reference. But the Earth is orbiting the Sun at an
enormous speed, and the Sun orbits the galaxy center ... the velocity using
other points of reference is different.

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:17:51 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)

In mail you write:

> Aside:  Picture the K'Kree reaction the first time they encountered my
> version of the Ithklur..  Intelligent, hi-tech, carnivores!!!!

You want a case of the universe playing a bad joke? After reading the
above, I got an *evil* idea...

A non-canon Traveller universe where on the far side of K'kree space
lies an expanding empire. The first encounters between them should be
interesting. I refer of course to the Kzinti Patriarchy. :-)

I'd love to sell tickets to *that* war!

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:55:48 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: International Waters

In mail you write:

>> QUESTION #1:  Interstellar space.
>> 
>> We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
>> the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
>> Imperium?
>
> That was defined in MT's COACC. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy with
> me at the moment.  If no one else weighs in on this thread, I'll dig it
> out tonight.

I dug out my copy. After going thru the whole thing, I found the
following "boundaries"/ranges:

1/10 diameter	Close Orbit. This is the boundary between COACC and
		space navy jurisdiction
50,000 km	range of deep meson sites
500,000 km	Far Orbit. Any hostiles inside this range will be
		engaged by missiles from orbital forts.

I'd say that the "orbital forts" count as "shore batteries" did in the
old days on Earth. So 500,000 km is the limit of planetary sovereignty.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:13:52 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: March Harrier, Dead in the Water

Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>, you asked about your players' March
Harrier being dead in the water and whether the bad guys, with a rate of
fire of about one laser shot every 3 combat rounds, should be able to fire
that often.

Two possibilities:
(a) Return to CT world, where you're not actually getting off 100 shots in
such a short time. Say one shot every minute or two, and blame it on the
lasers over-heating or something.

(b) Your players are most definitely fried and the March Harrier will
shortly become a blinding sphere of energy as it blows up.

Depends whether you really want to teach your players a lesson... if they
have any sense, in case (b), your players have at least one or two 18-second
periods in which to pick up the radio mike and shout loudly: "We're sorry,
no really, honestly, we're very sorry, we surrender, please board us, we're
nice people really..."

Andy :-)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:53:16 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Ships' Registry and Big Brother

In mail you write:

> Moin Simon Early,
>
>> Another long posting!  here is the summary:
>> 250,000 merchant ships in the Spinward Marches, average 1000 T in size.
>
>         Even if you asume the save but overcrowded regency, those are to
>         many. If they where even distributed you would have 570 ships
>         per system. Ok half of them, because a good trader is in jump
>         space half of the time. But the number is still much to high.

So? Why is that "too many" ships? Consider how many freighters there
are on Earth's oceans. Surely the average planet can generate such a
*small* fraction of that number as shipments in/out?

Consider, 570/2 is 285. Divide by 7 gives a bit over 40. So there are
40 or 80 ships "in transit" to or from the jump point at any given
time.  The rest are landed or docked, while they load, unload, dicker
for cargo, etc.

I think 40 departures a day is pretty reasonable for an "average" planet.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:38:49 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Rate of Fire

In mail you write:

> Here's one for you space combat buffs.
>
> Situation:  Bad guy ship is docked with the Harrier, connected by 12
> meters of umbilical.  For various reasons, things go bad for the bad guy
> ship, and it kicks in its maneuver drives while still docked with our
> hero's ship.
>
> The umbilical shreds, and the bad guy ship speeds off, pulling 3 Gs. 
> The Harrier is dead in space and defenseless, for various reasons.
>
> Bad guy ship decides to blast away at this duck in the water.

<snip>

Don't use a space combat system. At those ranges, it just plain doesn't
apply.

Use the "vehicle" combat system. That is, treat it like the starship
firing at a tank approaching it while both are on the ground, or the
tank firing at it. Most of the tactical combat systems have entries for
starship weapons and starship armors in them. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:27:36 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: International Waters

In mail you write:

> QUESTION #1:  Interstellar space.
>
> We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
> the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
> Imperium?
>
> Does the planet run the whole system, or is it more like the 200 mile
> border around the US to international waters?

The *original* limit (right up until mid century) was 3, 5, or 7 miles.
I forget which. But the *basis* for the old limit is the important part.

It was set by the max range of shore based artillery. So basicly, your
"sovereignty" extended as far as your guns could reach. I think that's
a good place to start from.

So what's the max range of a planet based weapon? I seem to recall it
being 30 hexes. And that's about 70 diametes for a size 8 planet.

Though I'll also admit that the 100 diameter limit has to be the "max"
range, as there's no *practical* way to do anything about someone
popping in out there, doing something, and then jumping out again.

So I'd suspect that the official limit is 100 diameters. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1989
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 21 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1990



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Cost of policing NYC
Pirates (again)...
Motor Service in Space?
Re: Interstellar Waters
Re: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)
Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)
Re: Sire, I have a cunning plan...
Extradition et al (was Interstellar Waters)
Pulp
Re: Rate of Fire
RE: Piracy
Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)
Re: List down?
THUDD Idea and Re:Interstellar waters
Re: Gas Giants
THUDD Idea and Re:Interstellar waters
Re: Gas Giants

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:44:36 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Cost of policing NYC

In mail you write:

> Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
>> 
>> The whole analogy between NYC and the Imperium is false anyway. To be
>> anything close to the situation in the Imperium, NYC would have to
>> consist of individual houses each placed in a block-sized park with no
>> trees and bushes at all (And brilliantly lit even at night). Then, if you
>> had about 500 times more cops on your payroll than you had houses, I think
>> the two situations would begin to be somewhat similar.
>> 
>
> Hans, 
>
> You have used this position several times in defending your belief that
> the IN can put as many warships in the sky as necessary.
>
> I have asked this before, and I'll ask it again.  How can the Imperium
> afford to have 500 cops per household?  You say that the numbers support
> it.  I say the numbers are wrong.  If not the economics, then the
> population base would not be able to support this type of military
> structure.


Remember, the "houses" are *worlds*. The "cops" are SDBs. A world
("household") can afford a *lot* of SDBs.

The real problem is that people don't grasp how *big* a planet is. Nor
do they grasp how *exposed* space is. They try to scale things up from
everyday experience and it doesn't work. 

Don't say the numbers are wrong unless you can show an error in the
math. Just because they "feel" wrong, that doesn't mean anything. Not
when dealing with an area outside everyday experience.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:02:20 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Pirates (again)...

Apologies if this has been covered already, but I was thinking about pursuit
of pirates and their bases (leaving aside whether the actual act of piracy
is either profitable or viable in any given situation).

How many worlds are there around the Imperium which are just 'nominal
members'? To my knowledge, those that aren't run directly by Imperial nobles
are pretty much free to do as they like, aren't they. So pirates might be
able to operate a base on such a world, provided that they don't act too
blatantly, and assuming that they have the appropriate government contacts
to ensure that should the Imperium come looking, (a) their presence is
denied and, later, (b) any extradition treaty is ignored/delayed to allow
their escape. If this hypothesis allows pirates to operate from a much
larger array of bases (rather than having to hide in asteroid belts and in
uninhabited systems), then might it not improve the likelihood of their
existence?

As an example, there was a classic Traveller adventure called "The Sable
Rose" in the old White Dwarf magazine which covered a covert Imperial
Marines strike on a pirate base within a night club in the centre of a city.
Since the city's rulers weren't admitting any knowledge of the pirate group,
and the Imperials didn't have sufficient direct evidence to try an
extradition, the covert team was sent in... this not only sounds like a nice
semi-canon source, but also opens up a lot more adventure opportunities than
just having all pirate bases in deepest darkest space... :-)

Andy

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:02:28 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Motor Service in Space?

Paolo Marino <marino@inrete.it> proposed two cases of Joe Lawful and Janet
Never-dowell and the different services each could get from SDBs when
attacked by pirates.

Taking this one step further, suppose a world prefers to use starport
taxation to pay for piracy protection, rather than its own world's taxes.
This might be particularly appropriate for smaller worlds off the beaten
track who don't *rely* upon interstellar trading.

Either your fuel fees, berthing fees, etc. could all be huge, to pay for
those couple of SDBs sitting in orbit, or you can skimp - perhaps refuelling
at the gas giant saves you cash, but means the SDBs would be loathe to rush
to your rescue in the case of a pirate attack.

Taking this another step, take today's medical insurance as an example.
Unless you pay your monthly 'insurance' fees (perhaps more comparable to a
motoring support organisation such as the AA or RAC in the UK) then you
don't get SDB protection on lesser worlds.

"This is starship Alpha, we're under pirate attack. For X's sake send help!"
"This is defence boat Beta. Please transmit your AA membership number."
"Transmitting. Come on guys, any minute now we're going to get blasted."
"Number received. Er, Alpha, you do realise you've only purchased the Silver
Service, don't you? That covers home start, breakdown and pirate attacks by
vessels smaller than 800 tons..."
"Yes, yes, for X's sake save us!"
"...but the Silver Service only promises a 4 hour service, and we've already
received a call to escort a Gold Service ship out of port in about half an
hour's time. Don't worry, we'll be with you in about three hours, once we've
escorted them to the jump point."
"Three hours!!! We're going to be dead by..."<transmission terminated>

Andy :-)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:05:42 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Interstellar Waters

In mail you write:

> OK, let's say they have committed murder on Pysadi.  Are you saying that
> they can retreat to the starport, get on their ship, and lift off before
> the starport people know anything about it.
>
> Then, they can hover in space, taunting the Pysadian government over the
> radio, and the Pysadians can't do a thing about it?

No more than the government of (say) Antigua could do to some American
tourists who did the same. Once the hit international waters, the
Antiguans would have to apply to the US to get them extradited.

> OK, let's make this more complicated.  The characters really didn't
> commit murder in my campaign.  They kicked at an anola, the Pysadian
> sacred animal.  The actual kicker got a year in a Pysadian jail, and the
> rest of the crew were asked (ordered) to leave the planet.
>
> Kicking at a monkey is not an Imperial offense.  So, the characters
> leave the planet, but hover in space in the ship.
>
> The Pysadian's have no jurisdicition here in their own solar system? 
> People can just break their laws (it's a capital offense to kill an
> anola) and retreat to orbit, and everything's OK?

Yep. If I break some religion based law in Iran, get out of the
country, and then start taunting them, they can't do a thing about it. 
(Except offer a reward for my assassination). Ask Salmon Rushdie about
that. 

> I don't know, but I feel that the jurisdiction question is more
> complicated than that.

As a practical matter, your jurisdiction ends at the point where you
are unable to enforce it. Pysadi doesn't *have* the capability of
reaching someone in orbit. 

As a legal matter, things aren't a lot different. Consider the guy
being tried for arson in California. His fire killed several firemen,
and he'd normally be tried for murder. But he was extradited from
Brazil(?) and the *Brazilian* court that ruled on the extradition ruled
that he could only be tried for arson. So California had a choice
between letting him get away, or just trying him for arson.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:14:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Cargo Handling in Traveller (longish)

In mail you write:

> In this scheme, the containers and pins take most of the load in case of
> loss of grav control.  Therefore you'd probably have containers rated
> for different g's or have a max accelleration you could pull w/ AG in
> operative.  There also would be maximums on how many containrs apart the
> ship's structural members could be.  

Given that *current* containers are designed for rough seas, and being
stacked 10 deep, this shouldn't be too hard.

More important is to remember that many *cargos* will have max g loads.
Pull too many gees and that container of lightbulbs is full of broken
glass. This sort of thing would be listed on the manifest, so the crew
would know it.

I expect that some pirates will take advantage of this. If they can
manage to sabotage the ship's g-comp, the captain has a choice between
trying to evade at much reduced acceleration (and risking loss of the
cargo) or letting the pirates have it.

> Some of this is more applicable to large ships than smaller ones. 
> Running a small ship with small cargos on an independant route, you
> might want access to all containers.  You may even carry small
> standardized containers packaged by the customer inside your own
> containers.

Also, current containers come in "half" and even (rarely) quarter-size
units. These require some extra handling unless you are set up for them.

> I can't imagine a design which doesn't allow some manual method of
> releasing the cargo.  At least not on a ship the size of which most PC's
> will be operating.  It may need the release of some electronically coded
> lock (which could be done with a handcomp if the ship's systems are
> down), but should be possible w'out full ships capabilities.  Of course,
> the above disassembly could be required in the case that the access code
> is not available (in the hypothetical piratical case ;).

I rather expect that the "locking" mechanisms will be hydraulically
operated. As will much of the "handling" system. So you can operate
things manually, but it'd take a while. You'd hook something like a
grease gun up to the appropriate fitting and then pump the handle until
you'd built enough pressure to operate the lock. Then move onto the
next pin. After that, you start pumping the *big* lever for manually
operating the "ram" that pushes the container...

It's doable, but not much fun. 
- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:29:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)

In mail you write:

> It seems to me that you could get more for a stolen starship from a chop
> shop [criminal enterprise that steals cars, cuts them into pieces and
> sells the pieces seperately] then if you sold it as a whole.  You simply
> cut out the valuable parts, such as jump drives and computers and sell
> them as used.  They will have ID numbers on them and this will probably
> include some that are too small and/or hidden to burn off so you will
> have to sell them to a less than honest starship repair yard.  They can
> then put these "reconditioned used parts in like new condition aquired
> by salvage" into ships to replace dammaged parts or use them to build a
> new starship.  I suspect that some pieces of starships _will_not_have_
> ID numbers on them and can be sold as "reconditioned used parts in like
> new condition aquired by salvage" even to honest sources.  This will
> only include smaller and "less valuable" but still expensive pieces. 
> This will increase the money you can make.

One thing to remember is that starships are not "mass produced" except
in *rare* cases. A thousand of the same model ship is a *big* run. That
means that parts aren't all that interchangeable. At least not at the
"major sub-assembly" level (j-drive, M-drive, power plant). Some of the
*parts* of those assemblies may be standard. 

> people into buying stolen parts.  Suppose that _your_ starship is
> broken.  You cannot afford to buy the part to fix it.  If you do not get
> the ship back in service you will not be able to keep up on the loan
> payments and the bank will take your ship away.  The bank will not give
> you a loan to buy the parts because your ship is already worth less than
> the ammount remaining on your ship loan.  The repair shop wants cash up
> front so you cannot get it fixed & then skip out on your bill. You do
> however have enough money to buy a "reconditioned used parts in like new
> condition aquired by salvage" part. What do you do ?

Due to the lack of standardization, just as with modern *ships*, you
are more likely to *rebuild* a part than to *replace* it. You can't
just walk into a dealer and order a framistat for a Spofulam Industries
jump-drive from a model XXX freighter. And even if you can, how long
will it take to ship one to you?

Remember, there are a *lot* of ships, and they are mostly *different*.
That's a consequence of the fact that they are expensive. 

When a modern day ship breaks a part, they dig the specs out of the
files and machine a new one....

We do have some "standards" (like the standard components from the ship
design systems) and reality is likely to be that way to some extent.
But even if you ship was built from all standard parts, there's the
matter of how commonly used those standard parts are. If it's standard,
but uncommon, you may have a wait and it may not be available used/stolen.
If your ship is "custom", you are likely to *really* be in trouble.

Of course, if you are a Type S scout, parts are *easy* to find... :-)

What I'm trying to get across is that ships *aren't* cars. And that
*does* make a difference.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:26:23 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sire, I have a cunning plan...

In mail you write:

>>Possibly the best way to ambush someone is to hide next to a asteroid - 
>>there should be a fair number that come within a few million km of a given
>>planet which reduces signature quite a bit.
>
> Ok, so of our astronomers out there, how many such asteroids or similar are
> likely to exist (a) within 100 diameters or so of most planets and (b)
> between worlds (assuming some intra-system traffic).

There's a *big* difference between "a few million km" and the 100
diameter limit. It is extremely *unlikely* that there'd be any
asteroids within the 100 diameter limit at any given time. Unless they
happend to orbit the planet.

> Would this be a sufficiently small number (remembering that even for an
> EMM-masked ship the asteroid must be of sufficient size to disguise the
> ship's signature) that they would generally be shot out of the sky "just for
> safety" by the local patrol ships.

Any such asteroid passing through would get *close* attention, if only
because of the threat it poses to the planet. And shooting them doesn't
really reduce the danger. Then you have to worry about the pieces.

Most likely, anything with an orbit that'd pass close to the 100
diameter limit would have been detected *decades* in advance. And most
likely gently nudged into a "safer" orbit. Or, if it was feasible, it
might get nudged into an orbit around the planet (it'd be useful for a
lot of things).

> Alternatively, what's stopping a ship from trying to give out an
> asteroid-like signature anyway. Presumably suitably
> sensor-reflecting/absorbing paint to give the right sort of returns,
> combined with an appropriate surface configuration?
>
> Perhaps a pirate ship can hide within a 'blow up' asteroid shell, which it
> simply collapses (or bursts out of) once within range of its target?

Only if they are willing to devote a few *years* to the project. Normal
"spacewatch" will have identified all the natural bodies of any size
within a few AU. Anything that appears out of nowhere will be very
suspicious. And asteroids move at fairly slow speeds by Traveller
standards. So you'd have to go into your shell and then spend anywhere
from 6 months to a couple of years waiting until you got into position.

Remember, for that sort of disguise to work, you have to look like a
*normal* asteroid. And they can see those 6 months to several years
before they get close enough to worry about.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:27:48 +1300
From: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Extradition et al (was Interstellar Waters)

>Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:20:57 +0000
>From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
>Subject: Interstellar Waters

[snipperty doh dah sniperty day]

>OK, let's make this more complicated.  The characters really didn't
>commit murder in my campaign.  They kicked at an anola, the Pysadian
>sacred animal.  The actual kicker got a year in a Pysadian jail, and the
>rest of the crew were asked (ordered) to leave the planet.

>Kicking at a monkey is not an Imperial offense.  So, the characters
>leave the planet, but hover in space in the ship.

>The Pysadian's have no jurisdicition here in their own solar system? 
>People can just break their laws (it's a capital offense to kill an
>anola) and retreat to orbit, and everything's OK?

>I don't know, but I feel that the jurisdiction question is more
>complicated than that.

Well in the Traveller Adventure (in the Pysadian episode no less) it is
stated that:

"Pysadi is a member of the Imperium. In theory that means that anyone who
breaks Pysadi's laws and then flees the world *must* (emphasis mine) be
pursued by Imperial authorities and extradited to Pysadi. In practice,
Imperial authorities will not devote effort to searching for thoe who
violate any local laws which are considered to be barbaric or irrational
by the mainstream of Imperial society." (page 58).

I think that pretty much sums things up; steal an Anola and flee and you'll
probably get away with it. Kill a priest in the process of stealing an
Anola and your in trouble.

As to the ship hovering above the world. I think the Pysadians could make
a reasonable case for this being an act of intimidation at the very least,
or failing that a hazzard to navigation, or failing that a hazzard to the
environment (imagine parking a 737 for an indefinite period over a major
city) etc. Basically there are ways and means of getting them to move along.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
The longest distance between two points is with children.
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:48:57 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Pulp

> Bwaps:  Amazing Innovations in Data Filing Technology

Close, but not quite...

Events involving amazing Innovations and of the right application in the
right place and function in Data Filing Technology that are of the
entertaining nature

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:12:43 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rate of Fire

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> Boy, I'm full of questions today!
> 
> Here's one for you space combat buffs.
> 
> Situation:  Bad guy ship is docked with the Harrier, connected by 12
> meters of umbilical.  For various reasons, things go bad for the bad guy
> ship, and it kicks in its maneuver drives while still docked with our
> hero's ship.
> 
> The umbilical shreds, and the bad guy ship speeds off, pulling 3 Gs. 
> The Harrier is dead in space and defenseless, for various reasons.
> 
> Bad guy ship decides to blast away at this duck in the water.

SNIP
 
> I could figure out, based on an ROF of 100 per 30 minutes, that the ship
> can fire once every 18 seconds.  So, every 3 six-second ground combat
> turns, I could give the bad guy ship a shot.
> 
> But, this does sound a bit much.  At this range, the shot is automatic
> (with all the DMs).  It's an Easy task and it cannot be failed.  The bad
> guy ship will hit every time.
> 
> What do you think you GMs out there.  How should I handle this
> situation?  Give the bad guy ship a pop at the character's ship once
> every 3 combat rounds?

I think your players should start looking for a new ship. Sitting there,
firing on an immobile, defenseless target isn't combat...the gunners get
maximum fire and the easy firing solution you came up with...firing on the
Harrier every three combat rounds, and the Harrier will be reduced to itty
bitty metal and plastic bits in fairly short order.

Now, _why_ do the bad guys want to destroy this perfectly good ship
sitting there for the taking? That's the question you should be asking
yourself... 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:37:12 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: RE: Piracy

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Harry wrote:

> At 10:44 PM 20/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >>I hear a lot of examples of "modern piracy" being quoted on the list. I do
> >>not doubt their veracity. But I wonder -- is it really a good parallel? Do
> >>modern pirates hijack big freighters? You know, the really expensive ones?
> >>I mean, even a small starship in Traveller is really expensive.
> >
> >Mainly yatches in the Carribean and Mediterran.  In the South China Sea
> >it's mainly small merchant ships and refugee boats.  However, wasn't there
> >a fairly large freighter taken in the mid 70's..one that US Marines
> >recaptured?
> 

 It was during Ford's administration and was the first US military action
in SE Asia since the end of the Vietnam War. The Mayaguez was siezed by
Cambodian forces, then known as Kampuchea, and in the throes of Pol
Pot's genocidal reign. 


> I have dim memories of a news item, or some current affairs program that
> was about piracy. On this program I think even the big freighters were bing
> hit, but only having a small proportion of their cargo taken.
> 
> Piracy in a ships boat?

Precisely...they're coming aboard the freighters and taking the high value
cargo. IIRC the prates in the china sea are using fast, shallow draft 
boats, armed mostly with small arms, and attacking the unarmed small
merchants.

In the 3I, it'd more likely be piracy by small SDB...why does anyone think
the pirates aren't going to eventually get the same things that the good
guys have? Where do you think all those surplus TL-10 SDB's from the
recent THUDDD are going to go when their pocket empires get swallowed by
the 3I?

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 07:46:22 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> One thing to remember is that starships are not "mass produced" except
> in *rare* cases. A thousand of the same model ship is a *big* run. That
> means that parts aren't all that interchangeable. At least not at the
> "major sub-assembly" level (j-drive, M-drive, power plant). Some of the
> *parts* of those assemblies may be standard.

I thought that was the whole line of reasoning behind the 'standard'
ship types (SSDS and QSDS design formats), so that the industrial
planets could ship out standard parts to shipyards all around a sector. 
The actual number of components may differ (this J-drive needs 5
harmonic inducers instead of 4), which explains the variation in volume,
but the parts are 'off the shelf' standard.

> 
> Due to the lack of standardization, just as with modern *ships*, you
> are more likely to *rebuild* a part than to *replace* it. You can't
> just walk into a dealer and order a framistat for a Spofulam Industries
> jump-drive from a model XXX freighter. And even if you can, how long
> will it take to ship one to you?

Even in modern ships there are a lot of interchangable parts.  Even the
reduction gear for a gas or steam turbine ship can be swapped out
between ships of the same basic class (I am speaking toward warships,
the only ones I really know), but below the huge part level, almost
everything is pumps, piping, control circuitry, etc; that is
interchangable.

But again, it is my understanding that ships built from the standard
shipbuilding templates _can_ find parts, regardless of their location. 
Otherwise, to repair damage you would have to rebuild large sections of
the ship, or get it back to a shipyard that has access to the parts and
plans of the original builder.

> 
> We do have some "standards" (like the standard components from the ship
> design systems) and reality is likely to be that way to some extent.
> But even if you ship was built from all standard parts, there's the
> matter of how commonly used those standard parts are. If it's standard,
> but uncommon, you may have a wait and it may not be available used/stolen.
> If your ship is "custom", you are likely to *really* be in trouble.

O.K., I should have read the entire post before I started my reply.  I
still disagree to a certain extent.  Standardization is not something
that is being driven by the manufacturers (like the DVD 'standard').  It
is something, IMHO, that was imposed by the Imperium to facilitate
trade, not to mention support for the fleet.  If the IN deploys a CruRon
out of sector, that CruRon has got to be able to depend on the local
starports for resupply and repair, or it is going to spend a lot of time
in orbit.  Standardization of ship components is the _only_ way to be
able to do this.  Otherwise, the supply lines to the various squadrons
would become so convoluted and require so much support that the IN would
collapse.

But I agree that a custom ship could have some serious difficulty in
those areas that it deviates from standard.

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:25:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: List down?

> Is the list down? I haven't seen a post in about 3 days, I'm wondering if
> the trouble is
> on my end or if this is global. If anyone sees this, could you please let
> me know?

Sendmail is a pain in the butt.  We got a backlog over the weekend that 
exceeded some 9000 messages.  I would run the mail queue by hand (there were
0 errors being logged other than the normal bounces) and it would do a couple
of hundred messages and skip the rest.

Well yesterday I figured it out!  My load avergage was climbing to a point 
where sendmail would stop processing the queue.  So, I made some tweeks and
things got better, but not well enough.  So I made another change over 
night and our mailq is back down to something reasonable.  

As an effect, if you can find this message buried in the middle of the some
8 TML digests and some 200 tml messages that just got pumped out . . .

Rob

- -- 
Rob Miracle
rwm@mpgn.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:57:59 +0100
From: "J." <jonathan@hccm.co.uk>
Subject: THUDD Idea and Re:Interstellar waters

Firstly:
I was looking through my Megatraveller rule books last night and noticed quite
a few pictures of ships with no description or stats etc. (There's even a 
couple on the front cover of the box).
Has anyone ever done designs for these ships?, if not how about having one of 
the THUDD competitions as designing one of them based purely on the picture,
and see who comes up with the best idea of what it might be.

Now onto:
Interstellar waters. I always thought of each system being responsible for
itself and the imperium only intervened when a system couldn't cope. I give
SDB responsibility for the entire system, the only way to escape them is
to jump. I think this gives a better atmosphere if the a ship is trying to
escape the system, they have a choice, they can run and hope the SDB's give 
up the chase or they can attempt a risky "running" jump.
Different systems can have different rules for when the SDB's should give up 
chasing. Clever PC's could find this out and exploit it of course :)

Oh well back to work.

J.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:12:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, David P. Summers wrote:

> Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:00:56 -0400 (EDT), SignalGK@aol.com
> >Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
> >volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?
> 
> Not much.  Certainly less than the transitory changes the comet
> Shoemaker-Levy caused.
> 

Hrmmm....that _does_ beg the question, though. Shoemaker-Levy, IIRC,
mostly burned up in (comparatively) the upper atmosphere. What would
happen if you set off a fusion warhead waaaaaay down in the atmosphere? 
Say near the part where the hydrogen starts turnng metallic?  Would the
pressure be enough to sustain a fusion reaction? Or at least make the
fusion reaction that _does_ occur go on a lot longer and be a lot bigger
than it would normally be? 

It would take a _really_ big, hardened warhead, but wow what you could do. 
That would allow you to terraform _systems_ Even if it didn't light up
like a star, a gas giant 'burning' would put out a lot more energy that
anything in the outer systems would normally get.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:57:59 +0100
From: "J." <jonathan@hccm.co.uk>
Subject: THUDD Idea and Re:Interstellar waters

Firstly:
I was looking through my Megatraveller rule books last night and noticed quite
a few pictures of ships with no description or stats etc. (There's even a 
couple on the front cover of the box).
Has anyone ever done designs for these ships?, if not how about having one of 
the THUDD competitions as designing one of them based purely on the picture,
and see who comes up with the best idea of what it might be.

Now onto:
Interstellar waters. I always thought of each system being responsible for
itself and the imperium only intervened when a system couldn't cope. I give
SDB responsibility for the entire system, the only way to escape them is
to jump. I think this gives a better atmosphere if the a ship is trying to
escape the system, they have a choice, they can run and hope the SDB's give 
up the chase or they can attempt a risky "running" jump.
Different systems can have different rules for when the SDB's should give up 
chasing. Clever PC's could find this out and exploit it of course :)

Oh well back to work.

J.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:12:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, David P. Summers wrote:

> Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:00:56 -0400 (EDT), SignalGK@aol.com
> >Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
> >volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?
> 
> Not much.  Certainly less than the transitory changes the comet
> Shoemaker-Levy caused.
> 

Hrmmm....that _does_ beg the question, though. Shoemaker-Levy, IIRC,
mostly burned up in (comparatively) the upper atmosphere. What would
happen if you set off a fusion warhead waaaaaay down in the atmosphere? 
Say near the part where the hydrogen starts turnng metallic?  Would the
pressure be enough to sustain a fusion reaction? Or at least make the
fusion reaction that _does_ occur go on a lot longer and be a lot bigger
than it would normally be? 

It would take a _really_ big, hardened warhead, but wow what you could do. 
That would allow you to terraform _systems_ Even if it didn't light up
like a star, a gas giant 'burning' would put out a lot more energy that
anything in the outer systems would normally get.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1990
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 21 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1991



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Cost of policing NYC
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1989
Extrality
re:  rate of fire
Re: FF&S armor
Re:  Bulkheads
Re: Why use CORPS?
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Star Wars prequel rumour...
Re: Pulps
Law 0
Vargr Pulps
Re: Material needed for Signal GK 13
java GAL preview
Misjumps
Re: Gas Giants (fwd)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:14:29 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Cost of policing NYC

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> 
> Remember, the "houses" are *worlds*. The "cops" are SDBs. A world
> ("household") can afford a *lot* of SDBs.

I disagree.

> 
> The real problem is that people don't grasp how *big* a planet is. Nor
> do they grasp how *exposed* space is. They try to scale things up from
> everyday experience and it doesn't work.

I understand how big a world is.  I also understand what kind of
infrastructure is needed to support a warship, what kind of rest and
rotation crews need, and how difficult it is to support that away from a
permanent base structure.

> 
> Don't say the numbers are wrong unless you can show an error in the
> math. Just because they "feel" wrong, that doesn't mean anything. Not
> when dealing with an area outside everyday experience.

You are correct.

However, while the numbers say that you can put X SDBs around every
mainworld, the support structure (which is also laid out in canon) says
you cannot support them.

To use the example, that is like saying there are 500 cops for every
household, but only 1 police station per burrough.  The infrastructure
to support that kind of force is not in place, except in one sector.  

Allow me to direct your attention to the Sword Worlds.  Why do you think
there is a Base on virtually every world in that sector?  Because you
need the infrastructure in place to support a permanently based system
defense, in the absence of the technological/industrial/population base
in that system.  

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:05:46 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1989

Is it just my imagination or is the TML reversing the order of some posts,
i.e. of two I sent, the one I sent later turned up earlier, etc.

Andy :-?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:58:06 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Extrality

From: Eric Evans <ebevans@fas.harvard.edu>

>I thought I'd share my arrangements for handling extrality in my campaign.

Eric,

You had some very good thoughts.  I'm keeping your post to ponder while
I figure out how I'm going to run this in my campaign.

Thanks,

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:02:10 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: re:  rate of fire

From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Rate of Fire

>Don't use a space combat system. At those ranges, it just plain doesn't
>apply.

>Use the "vehicle" combat system. That is, treat it like the starship
>firing at a tank approaching it while both are on the ground, or the
>tank firing at it. Most of the tactical combat systems have entries for
>starship weapons and starship armors in them. 

This is a good idea, Leonard.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:08:17 -0400
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: FF&S armor

Tommy Grav Wrote:
> How do you figure out the T4 armor rating when you have the
> FF&S T$-versjon armor rating?

I believe the following procedure should work for converting FF&S T4 version
(FF&S2) armor ratings to T4 armor rating

First: Divided the FF&S2 armor rating by 1.43
       (this converts the from FF&S2 rating to the original FF&S rating)
Second: Use the USP Conversion Chart from SSDS to get the USP rating
Last: Multiple the USP by 10 to get the final T4 armor rating

Chris Cox
"Investment banking galley slave in New York City"
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:53:53 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re:  Bulkheads

Peter wrote:

>Why wouldn't the bulkhead be superdense too, it is superior to hard
>steel ?

Well, I'm of the opinion that deck layouts can be different for the same
class of ship.  Not all Type R Subsidized Merchants will have the same
deck plans, although externally, they look pretty much the same.

At the time of construction, you can lay your bulkheads out in various
ways, allowing you to go with one of the standard interior layouts, or
design one of your own.  This is similar to building a house i.e. the
bridge and engineering will be in the same place on all Type R's, but
you can play around with the common areas.

Given this, I was thinking hard steel would be a better choice.  I could
be convinced to use another material for the bulkheads--which is why I
asked this question.

>IIRC in Classic Traveller interior bulkheads & hulls each took 1,000
>points of bullet dammage or 100 points of energy dammage to cut a person
>sized hole in.  This suggests that interior bulkheads have the same
>armor factor as the hull.  Interior walls wer thinner & took 100 points
>from bullets to cut a hole in

Yes, I looked at this in Snapshot, which is why I went with Hard Steel.
They are suggesting you can take your laser pistol and cut through the
bulkhead by doing 100 points of damage.  A cheap laser pistol does 4D
damage, so you are looking at holing the wall in about 42 seconds (about
7 combat rounds) and completely cutting a man-sized hole to walk through
(not an interior wall) in about 7 minutes.

To me, that sounded more like hard steel rather than superdense.

>Why don't you use the TNE rules for hull thickness with the TNE armor
>value (40) of the ship to determine how thick the hull will be. In TNE's
>FF&s 1 (pg 10) armor value = thickness x toughness(FF&S 1 pg 38)
                40         = ?         x 14

>The hull of the March Harrier is therefore 2.857cm thick.  Describe it
>to the players as "a little over an inch" and you'll be fine.

This is a good idea--and I can easily convert it to CSC T4 values.  MT
had this TNE style of thing too in the back of the MTPM.

>R/E your earlier question about where the planets extrality limit is
>COAAC may not help you.  COAAC says (diagram on pg 7) that the COAAC
>patrols up to the 0.1 diameter limit and the Navy patrols beyond this
>limit.  However it could well be the _planetary_ navy patroling at 0.1
>diameter so this does not prove that the planet has no authority beyond
>th 0.1 diameter limit.

Yes, thanks.  I saw where that was not addressing what I needed it too.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:41:50 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

Douglas E. Berry wrote:

>I use CORPS for a couple of reasons.
>
>1> Easy mechanics.  In CORPS, everything is done with a single 10-sider.
>The task system is wonderfully simple.  If your skill is higher than the
>difficulty, you succeed.  If it's lower, there is one simple chart to
>determine your roll.  Combat is a bit more detailed, but flows nicely once
>everyone is familiar with it.  Combat is also nice and deadly.

This is good. I always try to impress upon my players how deadly weaponry
should be. I sometimes think they suffer from what I call "the 10th-level
fighter syndrome" from the days of our youth, playing AD&D. You know, the
ability to take massive amounts of damage in hit points before you die?

They agree to a point, but tend to want to be John Wayne at times: "It's
just a flesh wound! Charge!!!"

>The skills work on a tiered system.  You have Base, Secondary, and Tertiary
>skills.  You might have Projectile Weapons at 4, Rifle at 2, and M-16A2 at
>1.  When firing your '16, your skill is 7.
>
>2> Detailed characters.  CORPS uses a point-based system for character
>development, with numerous advantages and disadvantages.  Many of these
>ads/disads are defined in vague terms, allowing a player to define them as
>s/he wishes.  For example, a 1pt "Allies" advantage can be a good friend,
>or the entire LAPD if you are an officer of the law.  A nice touch is the
>granting of extra skill points for writing up a good back story for the
>character.

Interesting. So the CORPS system is diverse enough to manage the skills of
Traveller characters. Do you just insert skills like Pilot, Astrogation,
Gravitics, etc.?

>3> Lots of little extras.  There is a great deal of material in the
>relatively small CORPS rules.  A mass-combat system, a set of rules for
>designing paranormal power structures (magic/psionics/whatever),
>campaigning notes, and a decent equipment list.

I'm assuming 3G3 is required for weapons design.

>For Traveller, I use Brilliant Lances for space combat, and build weapons
>using 3G3.  My worlds still use UWPs, but they tend to be hidden behind the
>write-ups I've done for Lunion Subsector.  Social Standing is one tricky
>bit; but I handled it by deciding that anyone who wished to be a noble
>would have to put together a 0pt-package (ads and disads that summed out to
>zero) covering both the perks and downside of being a noble.

I'm considering running a 3D Interstellar Wars era campaign with lots of
departures from canon, and I may well develop my own UWP system as well. I
will use NASA's "Views of the Solar System" site
(http://bang.lanl.gov/solarsys/) as one resource.

Thanks for the info, Doug.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.best.com/~cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:06:12 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

Bruce,

I love reading your opinions...I can't say that I'm thrilled being on
the business end of one tho'!  ;)

[snip]

>>a ship with TL C EMS can be spoofed
>>by a ship with TL D stealth.
>
>The game balance/philosophy problem with this is that Traveller generally has
>very minor differences between tech levels once you get past TL9; there
>are incremental improvements, and sometimes whole new tchnologies, but there's
>nothing like the huge advantage that 1990s TL-8 has over 1950s TL-6. 
>For example, if one TL advantage awas all you needed to make ships nearly
>invisible, the Imperium should hand the Zhodani their turbans during wars.
>The rules, as printed in pretty much every edition, support this.

Well, I could point out that CT (book 2, starships) was pretty clear
that a ship, running silent, was undetectable to 100,000 miles in deep
space, and 10,000 miles in orbit.  Unfortunately, that is the same book
that tells us that jump torpedoes are canon...  :(

I do think, however, that detection of a ship in 'stealth' mode should
be a function of 1) size (a smaller ship is more likely to elude
detection than a large ship), 2) numbers (ie a squadron is more likely
to be detected than a lone ship) and 3) environment (dust cloud,
asteroid belt, etc.)

It is more than just piracy here.  We are eliminating a large chunk of
adventuring here.  To say that from the moment a ship jumps into a
system it falls under the watchful eye of the 'benevolent' Imperial
Navy, until it is handed over to the local custom inspector kills a
whole range of potential adventures (from smuggling to grey ops).  Even
when I have sensors placed, I have allowed for jamming/spoofing from
military sensor suites, stealth technology to avoid detection, and
gathered intelligence to determine weak spots in the sensor grids.

I very much disagree that eliminating this sector of technology
'balances' the game.

>
>The second part is physics. I did the simulatouns that underly the sensor 
>rules in FFS2. It surprised even me how easy it is to see a spaceraft
>against the cold background of space. Even in visible light, a 
>medium-sized sensor (that can fit on a type S) can see another type S just
>by reflected sunlight off the hull at hundreds of thousands of millions of
>kiloemters. The *only* way to defeat that is to make the hull black - 
>but you have to make the hull very, very, very black to win much distance.
>The rules do reflect this - you can buy increasingly good black coatings
>at higher TLs - but the opposition can also buy increasingly good sensors 
>and also bigger sensors - a fixed near-orbit installation around a moderate
>pop world can have a *huge* sensor. 
>
>And that's just visible light. The real problem is IR light. Traveller
>spaceships generate huge amounts of power. If even 10% of that has to be
>reradiated as waste heat, you still have to get rid of a huge amount of power.
>Since only a limited amount of surface area is available you end up with
>very hot (2000K) radiatiors to dump this heat. A cold sensor in space has
>amazing sensitivity to 2000K IR sources. Again, the rules do allow 
>higer TL ships to have increasingly sophisticated masking of their radiators
>(which mostly means arranging them so all the waste goes in one direction,
>which you then turn away from likely enemies) but the sensor's advantage
>is *so* huge that it's hard to imagine maskign winning you back much,
>although there are lots of tricks you can pull. 

Again, I am not an expert here.  I can't give specific examples to
offset yours.  I would say that, generically, improvement in heat
dissapation technology might allow a Sensor Operator to route the waste
energy to specific radiators to mask thier radiation, and provide extra
coolant (gee...LHyd?) to the unmasked portion of the hull to cool it.

Please note, this is a off-the-cuff suggestions for one possibility. 
I'm not even going to _try_ to defend it.  I'm just trying to suggest
that, as currently happens, when one side devises a detector, the other
side devises a counter.  And that the R&D of the large military powers
(the ones with the real money) will be the ones to develop the
technology.  (It's the stainless steel rats that will steal it...)

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Star Wars prequel rumour...

>	Seems that they've cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as Yoda.  Apparently
>Yoda's species shrink as they age.  Reportedly, in Jedi training, he flexes
>and sighs "Look zis good in nine hundred years I vill not"...

I'm going to treat this as a serious rumor, because I've heard more bizarre
that people believed. :)  No, Arnold won't be Yoda, nor will Charlton Heston
(the first rumored Yoda).

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:21:33 -0700
From: kenji@accessone.com (Kenji Schwarz)
Subject: Re: Pulps

Glenn Hoppe wrote:

>On 1997-10-20 16:45, Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote the following:
>
>>> On a similar note: Remember the pulps - you know: Astounding Air Stories
>>> and other early SF.
>>> What would the other races' pulps have looked like? here's a few ideas:
>>>
>>> Solomani: Amazing Science Stories. etc etc.
>>> Daryens (Darrians): Interesting Research Stories.
>>> Hivers: Really Quite Interesting Manipulation Tales.
>>> Vilani: Satisfyingly Traditional Tales Involving The Application Of Proven
>>>   Techniques In Slightly Novel Situations.
>>> Zhodani: Thought-Provoking Mental Stories
>>> Vargr: (No idea. The dog got to it first)
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>>ROFL!  The Vilani one is my favorite. :)
>>
>>How about:
>>
>>Geonee: Astounding Stories of Super-Science Which We Thought Of First
>>K'Kree: Thrilling Lore of Cooperative Efforts in Carnivore Extermination
>>Bwaps:  Amazing Innovations in Data Filing Technology
>
>Aslan: Weird Tales of Cross-Gender Work Sharing
>Ithklur: Novel and Wonderful Adventures at Flea Markets
>Virushi: Amazing Medical Procedures
>Jgd-Il-jagd: Fascinating Air Currents

Sayat:  Lurid Tales of Alien Abduction and Dismemberment;
   or,  All Things Weird and Wonderful;
   or,  Curious Experiments with Battery-Powered... ahem
Prrt: (can't read; they insist on sitting on your lap and blocking your view)
Ebokin:       Bloodcurdling Tales of Impoliteness and Incivility
Ael Yael:     Exciting and Nearly Plausible Hunting Yarns
Girugh'Kagh:  Fulfilling Acccounts of Total and Abject Subservience

Kenji Schwarz
kenji@accessone.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:41:17 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Law 0

The Imperium requires that all member worlds uphold Imperial law. Now, if
wearing blue shoes on a tuesday is illegal in the Imperium, it probably
isn't worth enforcing that law on Blogvit, a law 0 world which has no
Tasteful Clothing Law, unless there's some special reason. Far more likely,
the Tasteful Clothing Law won't apply to sovereign states within the
Imperium since it's quite obviously Not Important Enough To Worry About.


BUT: Certain laws are Important Enough. They form the foundation of the
Imperium and each world must agree to uphold Imperial Law if it is to
become a member. The fact that a particular world has no specific law
against a particular act is irrelevant. That world has agreed to uphold
Imperial Law. If they don't they're not members.


Piracy is an Imperial Felony, or whatever the term is. That particular law
will be enforced very harshly since the pirates don't just sit on the
ground saying, 'Aaagrh matey, we's the baddest there is!' (if they do then
the Imperium probably won't bother about that either since although it's
still a major crime it's not affecting anyone and thus isn't worth
bothering about.) Our Real Pirates don't just sit about debating whether
their trade is possible or not (!), but go out raiding and disrupting
commerce (or get blasted by sysdef command, depending on which side of the
debate you're on.)

The Imperium is going to take direct action against the pirates if they
become a nuisance, and will act against the *world* as well (harbouring
piracy is a direct contravention of the Imperial code of membership.)
Sanctions will be applied (blockade, governmental fines, withdrawal of
services), on an increasing basis. Eventually this might be a full military
'police action' if the problem gets out of hand.

There are adventure hooks here - perhaps a world hires private adventurers
to deal with the pirate problem before the Imperial Intervention is
triggered - perhaps the characters are sent to trigger that intervention -
perhaps the characters are part of the Pirate orgainisation and need to get
out sharpish before the Imperial Spike Teams land (covertly, without
official sanction so the world govt can't whinge). Or perhaps the poor sods
are just in the way as the Imperial Police Action starts. I now which idea
appeals most to me. 

Essentially, if you harbour pirates then you're breaching the Imperial
Charter. Your rights as a member are withdrawn since you obviously don't
want membership - as proven by your own actions. Anything that happens to
you from then on is your own problem and your own fault.

Fascist?Me?

Which brings me neatly to another topic I need info on:


Does anyone know when SolSec was founded. I guess sometime after 9PM,
intended to hold back the Long Night by harsh and deniable action wherever
needed. I can't find a reference in the Solomani book. Is it in the DGP
version?

Any help would be appreciated.
Martin. 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:00:37 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Vargr Pulps

The Dogs of War?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:42:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: SignalGK@aol.com
Subject: Re: Material needed for Signal GK 13

In a message dated 19/10/97 19:38:29 GMT,  eris@pen.net writes:

>> Sorry to say, I've never heard of your Fanzine over here in the US.  How
do
 you distribute?  What do you charge? 

I've always had trouble distributing over in the USA - The magazine is 40 A4
pages plus with additional material (such as subsector data etc) in black
book size. We mainly deal in backgrounds, contacts, equipment (mostly
non-military - or civilian adaptable) and adventures primarily aimed at
referees. Its a bit large for Airmail and I didn't have large enough market
over there to warrent mass mailing.

Andy Lilly, of BITs & Core (co-author of  'The Long Way Home') described SGK
as:

>>Signal-GK has continued (albeit irregularly) to produce excellent quality
work covering alien worlds, alien beings, cultures, adventures, etc.
(primarily in the Dagudashaag sector) over a number of years. Liaison with
HIWG in previous years means that the Dag' data encompasses and expands upon
the 'canon' Traveller background of the CT and MT era

David Johnson (of the excellent Melbourne Times Fame) said >>Y'all are doing
as good a job, in terms of quality as Challenge and Travellers
Digest/Megatraveller Journal

Alan Huscroft said >> I've finally finished reading through SGK, along with
all the extra bits and pieces that go with it. Whew, you don't skimp on the
material do you?

You may well have read material from SGK and not been aware of it: Hubworlds
in NE started out in SGK, the Scanians in 'Long Way Home' was first detailed
in SGK 1 and some of our Aslan variants from SGK 2 were mentioned in
 Solomani & Aslan. Some library data from SGK was reprinted in Imperiallines
5.

Advert over..  This may well be the last issue - 13 as we have now detailed
the entire Dagudashaag Sector (with a great deal of help from  BITs) though
I'm hoping to set up a website in the near future and we are trying to get
permission to publish the entire Library data, our contact articles and our
referees materials and Port of Calls as supplements.

I currently have a few copies of  11 & 12 left and they cost three pounds
fifty each. I cannot handle US currency though I will accept International
Reply Coupons to the current exchange value..

Many earlier issues are now worth well above their original value (an issue 1
recently sold for twenty pounds at a English shop! Ah, fame..)

>>>Is there anyone out there who has any decent adventures, port of calls or
articles that they would like to see in print? 

>>Is the material you are looking for similar to what appeared in early JTAS,
Far Horizons, Traveller Digest..that type material?  What word counts are
you looking for?  What are your policies on copywrite and article reprints?

We are open to most types of material - especially adventures or Traveller
Digest-type articles, If its good and likely to be useful to Referees I'll
print it.. We have done 76 patron-type, small cargoes, legends and lores,
news articles, techy articles (how psionics works, stargates, stealth
technology etc..), contact articles etc. Traveller Digest and Far Traveller
are the closest to house style..

Word counts vary - We've done twenty-thirty page articles before if they are
suitable though generally 2 - 5,000 words are the norm. Shorter articles are
also welcome. Appropriate artwork is also extremely helpful, maps etc. Text
file and graphic attachments are welcome though all executable files are
deleted before download (okay, I'm paranoid!)

Copyright remains with the author though some material - that detailing
library data of Dagudashaag Sector primarily becomes the copyright of Signal
GK. Articles set in Dag' remain the authors though we do ask the right to
reprint it in our planned supplements and our planned website. Most of this
applies to the DDT (Dagudashaag Development Team and pest control) rather
than guests.. Its unlikely that you will be detailing something in the Dag'
so it would remain your copyright and if we wanted to use it again we'd need
to get your permission again..

In a message dated 20/10/97 12:05:19 GMT,  martinjd@globalnet.co.uk writes:

<<  Hi. I may or may not have something for you. Depends on what you want, in
 what format.  Do you publish Traveller fiction? Can you give me any more
idea what sort  of thing you want?  >>

Hi. Yes, I've done a number of pieces of fiction however I personally prefer
non-military stories (2,000 words approx.) which Referees can identify with -
Good NPC's, trade or contact stories.. I don't get off on violence.

The average age of my readership is 26+ , college grads... Both male and
female..

Hope this helps, Please, Please this is an honest request, put finger to
keyboard and send me your work.. 

Cheers

Jae

- -------------------------------------------------------
Signal GK

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:50:29 +0100
From: Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus@lotus.com
Subject: java GAL preview

Yo Folks,
     Some of you know that I've been porting the ttg libraries to java. The
task is largely complete now. It even has (most of) the surface generation
from LIBRARY/SYSGEN. The code has been stable enough to start producing a
java version of Jim's Galactic.
     You can upload this from
ftp://ftp.maths.tcd.ie/pub/jaymin/ttg/ttg.jar. Set your classpath to
include this file and then run the GAL class.
     (eg.
     set classpath .;c:\jdk1.1.3\classes.zip;c:\tmp\ttg.jar
     java GAL
     )
You need a java version 1.1 to run this. (I don't think microsoft's works,
since the f***ed up their release strategy.) Note: this is a java
_application_ not a java _applet_. Having a java-enabled browser isn't good
enough. A good place to start to find java 1.1 for your operating system is
www.javasoft.com.
     I've tested it on Window 95/NT, and on Solaris. I'm reasonably
optimistic that it will work on other platforms.
     If you have a Galactic dataset (you can upload my reference copy from
ftp://ftp.maths.tcd.ie/pub/jaymin/trav/classic.zip) you can point javaGal
at it by editing the gal.prp file in the current directory. Just add (or
change) the line DataBase=<path to top dir>. If you don't have a data set,
it will generate one on the fly, al la Sysgen.
     The UI is largely inspired by Jim's Galactic, but delves into LIBRARY
based UI when it gets deep enough. It isn't nearly as fast as Jim's DOS
version, nor does it support all the features. Jim's will continue to
remain the reference application.
     Although largely functional, it is not yet a finished product. The UI
needs improvement and it is not very good about storing changes you make.
It needs to be able to generate reports. Commentary and suggestions are
welcome from those who actually upload and use it. Particularly in the
following areas:
     * the text of any exceptions generated from the reference data set
     * what ASCII based reports would be useful to have generated and from
what context
     * what you would prefer as menu items and what you would prefer as
mouse activated UI
     * more graphical ways to represent the data
I am not interested in comments from people who have not actually run the
software. Keep in mind that the thrust of this project is to create
canonical traveller data. Ultimately I'd love to allow for user extensions
(such as small planets in the Trojan points of large planets, etc). But not
right now.
     For those of you interested in the code you can upload the sources
from ftp://ftp.maths.tcd.ie/pub/jaymin/ttg/ttgsrc.zip. It is relatively
uncommented and subject to change. I am currently adding in javadoc
comments and normalising the API to java standards so that most of the
pieces can be used as beans. When that is complete there will be another
announcement and the doc will be put on-line.
     I now return you to your scheduled programming...
          Jo

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:24:53 +0100
From: Andy Scarfe <andy@bridgest.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Misjumps

        I will be starting my first traveller campaign soon, although I
jave played in several campaigns in the last 19 years.  My prospective
players are new to traveller, indeed, many are new to SF RPGs.  I am
considering ways to start them off without having to spend several hours
explaining the ins and outs of the setting (non-3I, by the way).  So I
intend to have them misjump into a strange sector where the characters
will know little more than the players.
        My questions are these;
        1) How do you others handle misjumps?  E.g. how long do misjumps
take compared to normal jumps and when, if at all, will a starship crew
know they have misjumped while still in jump-space.  This is important
as their ship will appear in a dangerous part of a system and they will
need to get off ship quickly (I'm hoping to control their options by not
giving them their own starship at first).
        2) What are the effects of jump-space?  During the jump one of
the NPC crew will push the NPC chief engineer out of the airlock as a
crime of passion so will the body still be there?  How will the murderer
react to seeing jump space?
        3) How do you all think that a ship coming OUT of jump-space
appears to any other ships in the area.  How do those aboard experience
it, does the ship jolt, shake. etc.

        I have considered all these points and would welcome other
people's views before I define the answetres for my game.

Andy

Andy Scarfe                     E-mail: andy@bridgest.demon.co.uk
"I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them but they were only 
satellites.  It's wrong to wish on space hardware"  Billy Bragg

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:02:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants (fwd)

For some reason, this bounced back to me...and I'd like to know what
people think of this

Bruce 
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:12:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pill.pharmacy.arizona.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, David P. Summers wrote:

> Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:00:56 -0400 (EDT), SignalGK@aol.com
> >Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its entire
> >volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?
> 
> Not much.  Certainly less than the transitory changes the comet
> Shoemaker-Levy caused.
> 

Hrmmm....that _does_ beg the big question, though. Shoemaker-Levy, IIRC,
mostly burned up in (comparatively) the upper atmosphere. What would
happen if you set off a big fusion warhead waaaaaay down in the
atmosphere? Say in part where the hydrogen starts turnng metallic? 
Would the pressure be enough to sustain an ongoing fusion reaction? Or
would 'lighting' a GG this way simply blow off a lot of atmosphere? Or
just make a big burp?

It would take a _really_ big, hardened warhead, but wow what you could do. 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1991
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@MPGN.COM".  If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, October 21 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1992



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: International Waters
re: Piracy
Re: Cost of policing NYC
B5 and T2300
Re: Megaweapon (continued)
Re: New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)
Re: control systems
Re: Motor Service in Space?
Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
Re: Rate of Fire
Re: Bulkheads
Usefulness of list (was Re: WHOA! (Read This, It's true, and brief))
Terraforming GG moons (long)(was Re: Gas Giants)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:49:15 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: International Waters

>He was right.  You double the distance (double Pysadi's size 4 world to
>a size 8, then halve the time on the chart to see how long it will take
>to get to the jurisdiction line without decelerating).
>
>How many times in the past can this maneuver have been used?  You could
>use it for the planet to jump point calculation--and reenter space from
>jump already moving at a good speed--decreasing travel time by several
>hours on each end.

This is the way I have always done it. I can't think of a time I have ever
used a "standing jump" in my campaign.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:13:10 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: re: Piracy

>>This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
>>lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,
>>but are these "pirates" lone shipowners attacking free traders?
>>I think not.
>
>
>Pirates also appear in encounter tables in CT and MT (at least).

I already said the word "pirates" appears many times in Traveller. That's
why I put it in quotes; I was quoting the book. But how many times do the
words "lone shipowners attacking free traders" appear? The encounter tables
don't say this. MMT, JTAS, and Traveller Digest don't say this. The canon
examples of pirates I could found were fleets of warships and corporate
dirty tricks squads. Why should I assume the pirates in the encounter table
are so different from the pirates in published adventures?

My complaint with the piracy advocates is their use of canon piracy (fleets
of warships from secure bases outside the Imperium) to claim that a totally
different form of criminal activity (local shipowners with armed far
traders) is widespread. I'm not saying it couldn't be, I don't have all the
books, I'm just saying that it doesn't logically follow.

I think this is also pertinent to the estimation of the size of a system's
defenses. If the typical pirate band was a half-dozen battleships then a
SDB or two would not be effective in stopping it. And this is the size of a
canon pirate band; in Rubicon Cross the pirates of the New Order had more
than "five combat-ready ships with full armament" in the system. The
Castran Marauders and Reavers had fleets rivalling that of a pocket empire.

I can understand why referees want pirates to have only a few small ships;
this lets the players fight them. I just don't think such weak "pirates"
are plausible or supported by canon. Unless you're playing a Pocket Empires
game even a small pirate band would vastly overmatch any player's ship.

Even so, I think one could still successfully incorporate pirates into a
campaign so long as the players don't try to confront them directly. In
Rubicon Cross the pirates for some reason decide to send only a single
ship's boat to investigate the players. In Lords of Thunder the players can
investigate pirate bases or informers and tip off the Gateway Navy.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:06:08 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Cost of policing NYC

At 12:16 PM 10/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
>> The whole analogy between NYC and the Imperium is false anyway. To be
>> anything close to the situation in the Imperium, NYC would have to
>> consist of individual houses each placed in a block-sized park with no
>> trees and bushes at all (And brilliantly lit even at night). Then, if you
>> had about 500 times more cops on your payroll than you had houses, I think
>> the two situations would begin to be somewhat similar.

>You have used this position several times in defending your belief that
>the IN can put as many warships in the sky as necessary.
>
>I have asked this before, and I'll ask it again.  How can the Imperium
>afford to have 500 cops per household?  You say that the numbers support
>it.  I say the numbers are wrong.  If not the economics, then the
>population base would not be able to support this type of military
>structure.

They can afford it because of the decisions made by the designers of the
game system.

1.  Starships are expensive, thus there are not very many of them to track.

2.  The area that needs to be covered is pretty small - ~1.5 hours from
planet to jump limit.

3.  A warship that can smash a civilian ship is not sufficiently more
expensive that a civilian ship to make them rare.  (My BOTE calculations
showed that the cost of a merchant ship is roughly 1/3 jump drive, 1/3
maneuver drive, roughly 1/6 power plant, and roughly 1/6 everything else.)
Note that a 95Mj laser is only a megacredit, which is pretty damn piddly
compared to the cost of the drives - a ship carrying 3kt of container cargo
here costs $150M.  A ship doing the same in Traveller costs about 25 times
as much, depending on your $<->Cr conversion.

(By the way, Dave, this does support your piracy contention that targets of
opportunity would be taken - the equipment to do it is cheap compared to
the ship.  We still disagree on where it could be done.)

Point 3 is important - given the low cost of a warship, it is worth
maintaining  a nasty SDB for antipiracy work if it will stop even one
action against ships a tenth its size and cost a year.  If you assume a
large load on insurance, it is still worth doing for three such events.  If
you assume you need ten ships, then it is worth maintaining a fleet of ten
SDBs to prevent one piracy action a year against ships of similar size.

SDBs will also be far cheaper than the ships they attack, because they do
not have that jump drive, which is roughly a third of the cost of a warship.

This is very, very different from today, where warships cost a hell of a
lot, and they have a lot of space to cover.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 97 16:28:00 EDT
From: Glenn Myers <gem188@ansyspo.ansys.com>
Subject: B5 and T2300

Hi all,

Now that Leonard E. has fessed up regarding B5's use of mass drivers, does 
anyone know if B5 has any Trav2300 influences? While watching the latest 
episode this past weekend, I was inspired to drag out my Starcruiser rules.

I'm not sure but I think I could use SC to creat a reasonable version of the 
Agamemnon.

Aside from the lack of det-laser missles on B5, lots of the technology seems 
very similar to T2300.

The one thing that annoys me is that B5 allows impact missles to clobber 
vessels defended with beam weapons.

Does anyone have the B5  rules to shed light on these topics.

Bye,

Glenn

______________________________________________________
Glenn E. Myers
ANSYS Inc.                Email: glenn.myers@ansys.com
275 Technology Drive      Phone: (412) 514-2913
Canonsburg, PA 15317      Fax:   (412) 514-3118
______________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:40:09 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Megaweapon (continued)

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm wrote:

>=20
> This is exactly the same situation. You can never judge which one of the
> objects is moving (or if both are). You can only use a point of reference=
,
> in this case the target or the firing ship are the most likely points to
> consider static. Every velocity is relative, and can only be measured usi=
ng
> a point of reference.
>=20

But what gets real scary is that the speed of light is c no matter what
refrence system you use. If you travel at 50% of c towards a star the
light from the star will stil be traveling towards you at c. The theory of
relativity is a wierd thing. :-)

> Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

Tommy Grav                  tommy.grav@astro.uio.no   =20
Institute of Astrophysics   http://www.uio.no/~tommygr/
University in Oslo          "If you value your lives, be somwhere=20
Norway                       else!" - Ambassador Delenn B5=20

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:36:27 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)

At 02:17 AM 10/21/97 PST, Leonard wrote:

>I wrote:

>> Aside:  Picture the K'Kree reaction the first time they encountered my
>> version of the Ithklur..  Intelligent, hi-tech, carnivores!!!!

>You want a case of the universe playing a bad joke? After reading the
>above, I got an *evil* idea...

>A non-canon Traveller universe where on the far side of K'kree space
>lies an expanding empire. The first encounters between them should be
>interesting. I refer of course to the Kzinti Patriarchy. :-)

>I'd love to sell tickets to *that* war!

Except the Kzinti *always* attack before they're ready.  I asked Larry
Niven about that bit of Known Space lore at the 1993 Worldcon, he replied
that without it, the history of KS would have ended with a detailed
description of a few million Kzin feasting on the human race.  I took this
to be a good reason why the Vargr didn't overwhelm humaniti during the Long
Night.. they always over-reached themselves.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: TravelrTNE@aol.com
Subject: Re: control systems

What do the various control systems mean?  I mean, i think i understand the
mechanical, electronic.  but what are the computer linked, dynamic linked,
holographic linked, synaptic linked, and synaptic fluidic.  I understand the
semantics... maybe not for dynamic... but what kind of advantages do the more
advanced control systems give?  Also... are the "enhanced" (mechanical and
electronic) just merely improvements on the previous?  

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:56:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Motor Service in Space?

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Andy Lilly wrote:

> Taking this one step further, suppose a world prefers to use starport
> taxation to pay for piracy protection, rather than its own world's taxes.
> This might be particularly appropriate for smaller worlds off the beaten
> track who don't *rely* upon interstellar trading.
> 
> Either your fuel fees, berthing fees, etc. could all be huge, to pay for
> those couple of SDBs sitting in orbit, or you can skimp - perhaps refuelling
> at the gas giant saves you cash, but means the SDBs would be loathe to rush
> to your rescue in the case of a pirate attack.

And merchants that refuel at the gas giant and needs help will be charged
a large extra fee for the services of the SDB. :-) Nice I like this
thought.   

> 
> Taking this another step, take today's medical insurance as an example.
> Unless you pay your monthly 'insurance' fees (perhaps more comparable to a
> motoring support organisation such as the AA or RAC in the UK) then you
> don't get SDB protection on lesser worlds.
> 
[Fun scenario snipped]
> 
> Andy :-)

Or you could use the common rescue plot of today. If the people in need of
rescue has operated negligent, the bill for the rescue will be charge
them. A norwegian explorer of the Antarctic was billed over 2 million
kroner, thats about 300.000$ when one of her teammates fell into a crack
and needed to be flown out of there. Anoter incident was two guys that
were going to row from Norway to the Shetland Islands on the coast of
Scottland. Because of poor planning and inadequate equipment they needed
rescue, an operation that took almost a week and required countless hours
of flighttime. The bill, given to the adventurers, were at 11 million
kroners.

This would really discourage gas giant refueling.

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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:51:33 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

At 07:59 PM 10/20/97 +0200, Tommy Grav wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
>> Paul D. Owensby writes:
>> >b) there ain't no friggin way the Imperium is going to be able to keep up
>> >to date records on every 40 and 50 year old freighter on a subsector-
>> >wide basis, not to mention a sector-wide database,
>> 
>> Why would it be any more difficult than, say, keeping a record of all cars
>> in the US? As for keeping it up to date, when a ship moves from one end of
>> the Imperium, it moves at jump-1, 2, or 3. Information about it would move
>> at jump-4 or better. The records of a world with very little traffic would
>> be less than up-to-date, granted, and it would be possible to outrun your
>> data if you go to such a world, but that just means that you merit extra
>> attention from the patrol there. And if the traffic is so low, they will
>> have time for you.
> 
>I really admire your confidence in the computers and the clerks of the
>future. I just don't see it the way you do :-) A registry containing a
>couple of millions ships spread around the galaxy is going to be very
>hard to keep track of.

I just have to disagree.  The number of items to track is not that large,
and the cost of the things tracked is high, which usually means people will
try.  Every ship has a cost, present day, of several hundred million
dollars, which makes it worth someone's time to track.  I was told recently
that a small "yacht" today can be had for a million bucks, and a small
sailboat in the hundreds of thousands.  Thus, there are quite a few of
them.  The high cost of drives indicates fewer ships in Traveller.

Bad data can be put into the record.  There is no question at all, but you
need only have enough good data for you to be found, eventually, and
someone who cares enough to look.  For example, if they have a list of who
claimed to go where, then you would need to pay a clerk to give you an
alibi, which is harder to do after the fact, especially if you are running.
 Sure, you could do it, but it makes it harder, and you had to have a first
split somewhere.

When your ship was purchased, a note was appended to the XBoat traffic
containing the ID information.  This propagated at J5 or so, and eventually
reached the entire Imperium.  If you were speedy, you could easily have
outpaced the information, which would cause the authorities to be
interested in you.  Perhaps not enough to stop you, but they would look
twice, much like driving a red sports car without plates.  The cop may or
may not stop you, but he or she will look, and if there is something
specific, then this might pique their curiosity.

....
>They will know who owns the ship,
>who manufactured it, its ID-number and such info. What cargo it has
>carried, where it has been, who the captain and the crew is will be much
>harder to keep tabs on.

Agreed.  No question, for the reason you mentioned, plus a raft of others,
until someone has need to navigate the system to find data on you.  Once an
act of piracy is reported - an investigator will check your back trail.
You may have enough bad links to break the trail, but they are going to be
motivated to do data searches, given that it costs mostly computer time,
not human time.

>Say you attempt
>to hi-jack a trader (just let us assume that piracy exists.) You fail and
>imideatly jump to the next system. While you are in jump, the naval
>vessels of the world you jump from investigate the insident, making 100%
>sure that you are the criminal and not the other way around (you might
>just have jumped to avoid being the victim).
....
>At least a couple of days work, maybe a week
>or two before there can be put out a general piracy alert on your ship.

You missed one point - I do not claim that they would nail you on the next
jump, but that once they decided they _were_ interested in you, they would
likely get you, unless you kept fleeing at high speed right out of the
Imperium.  After an incident, investigators would, if it was serious
enough, check out all parties involved.  Assume it took a month - you might
be three jumps away.  If they can get enough data to prove that you are the
person to look at, then the message goes out a month behind you, and your
success at staying ahead of that message would vary.

As long as you ran faster than the message, you could make it to the
border, but then you would have a hard time coming back.

>> It's not that not appearing on the list will be any particular hardship
>> for any ship with its papers in order, it's that such a ship is suspicious
>> and can expect more than cursory attention.
>
>But what is suspicious behavior? You seem to set the limit very low.

If you are driving a new car without plates, police look at you more than
if you are not.  They may not pull you over, but a suspicious act might
just get you stopped, and your life gets much more difficult if you happen
to be driving the same kind of car as was recently reported as having
committed a robbery.

Scott

Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 97 17:06:21 -0400
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
Subject: Re: Rate of Fire

Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote:
> Here's one for you space combat buffs.

OK ...

> The Harrier is dead in space and defenseless, for various reasons.
> Bad guy ship decides to blast away at this duck in the water.

That's bad.  Very bad.

> I'm trying to figure out how many to hit throws I can give the bad guy
> ship in 30 minutes.

No hit throw needed.  As many shots as he feels like firing will hit at
those ranges, against a non-maneuvering target.

> Referencing SSDS in Starships, I understand the rate of fire for most
> laser weapons in space combat is 100 shots per 30 minutes.

Right.  ANY QSDS/SSDS laser can run at 100 shots per 30 minutes if enough
power is availble.  Some lasers can fire as fast as 800 per 30 minutes (but
most can't due to cooling and power problems - generally only warships have
lasers that fire this fast).

Some designs only allocate enough power for a ROF of 10 or 50, though (if
additional power can be had, say, by diverting power from the maneuver
drive) these weapons can also fire at ROF 100.

> And, the target is usually considered to be doing
> everything it can to not get it--at least moving!

Right.  A non-evading target at extremely short (under hundreds of km) range
is basically a sitting duck, and should recieve all of the shots fired.

> What I'm trying to do is take this abstract system and make it more
> specific for this particular encounter.  I'm really trying to find out
> how fast the bad guy ship can damage the Harrier.

If you want to be realistic about it, the Harrier is toast unless the Bad
Guy decides to stop firing for some reason, and the best bet for the PCs is
probably vacc suits and individual re-entry kits.  You can give them a few
seconds by declaring that the Bad Guy needs to get a few tens of km away
before their fire-control will react sensibly to the Harrier (spacecraft
fire control systems will probably have trouble with targets closer than
that, because normal engagment ranges are in the thousands of km).

> I could figure out, based on an ROF of 100 per 30 minutes, that the ship
> can fire once every 18 seconds.  So, every 3 six-second ground combat
> turns, I could give the bad guy ship a shot.

Yep.

> But, this does sound a bit much.  At this range, the shot is automatic.
> The bad guy ship will hit every time.

Pretty much.  This is WHY you surrender when your drive is out and the
turrets aren't working.

To put it into familiar terms for your PCs, the Enterprise is dead in space,
the shields are down, and there's no power for the weapons.  The Klingons
are pissed off since you've damaged their ship, and they're coming around
for another pass with the photon torpedos.  What are the chances of a miss?
What does Kirk do?

(If they don't get the hint, have them watch Star Trek III again).

> What do you think you GMs out there.  How should I handle this
> situation?

Well, what is it that you want to do here, as GM?

Do you want to destroy the Harrier?  Do you want the PCs to surrender (if
they're smart, they will)?  Do you want to scare some sense into them?

If you want to destroy the Harrier, it should be possible, no sweat.  An
extremely annoyed Bad Guy ship pounds the hull for as many shots as he
likes, until the largest pieces of the Harrier are little blobs of molten
hull.

If you want the PCs to surrender, have the Bad Guys shoot them a few times,
and then pause and wait for the PCs to surrender.  If they don't, then shoot
a few more times.  Repeat until they either surrender abjectly or die of
stupidity.

If you want to give the PCs a good scare, have the Bad Guys pump a few shots
into their hull, and then have the cavalry appear out of jumpspace.  Suddenly,
the Bad Guy has more important things to worry about than putting shots into
a disabled ship that's going nowhere.  It's a little melodramatic, but it works.


wildstar@qrc.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Prepare the Wave Motion Gun!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:58:22 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: Bulkheads

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:16 PM
Subject: Bulkheads


>Another question came up in my game...
>
>The characters were trying to cut through an interior bulkhead with the
>TL 10 laser cutter from the CSC.
>
>I judged the bulkhead to be about 4 cm thick and made of hard steel.
>
>What is your opinion on how thick these interior bulkheads are made of,
>and what do you think the standard material these things are made of
>will be for a TL 12 vessel?
>
>
>
>On a related note, they were thinking of cutting through the hull.  I
>know this is superdense, but how thick do you think a starship hull is?
>If I have that, I can figure cutting time (or even if it is possible) by
>using the materials chart in the CSC.
>
>Kenneth.

Kenneth,

The way I look at things (somewhat colored through CT) is that most Interior
walls on a star ship are light weight plastics that can be moved and
adjusted as needed, with a number of bulkheads made from approximately 1 cm
thick superdense for support and safety (peirced by iris valves, etc, and
with pressure secure conduits for control runs, Life support conduits are
equipted with automatic chopper valves that close when a section
depressures). I typically seperate the ship into sections such as Control,
Living Quarters, Engineering and Cargo, each independant and seperated from
the other sections by a pressure wall, any walls in these sections are
lightweights and, with more or less effort, removable.

I like this system since I tend to design ships that do dual purpose. Cargo
holds can be turned into passenger quarters by erecting lightweight plastic
walls.

Outer hulls are usally triple the thickness of the inner walls on unarmored
ships and armor adds to that thickness. This thickness is more for sheilding
against impact than structual integrety.

None of this is based on anything scientific, just a general feel.

Relating this to the Real World(tm) though, in the refinery I work in our
largest Crude Oil tank is large enough to set a 747 jet in without touching
the sides. It's self supporting rolled plate steel (normal carbon steel), at
the base (I've been told) it is approximately 1 inch thick, tapering to
about 1/2 inch thick at the top of the the tank.

Don't know if any of this helps, but there it is.

Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:21:25 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Usefulness of list (was Re: WHOA! (Read This, It's true, and brief))

douglas@teleport wrote:
>Peter H. Brenton wrote:
>> Glenn Wrote:
>> >There seems to be, in recent posts, an increasing hostility on this list.
>> >
>>
[Snip]
>> Glenn has expressed my views precisely.  This list has always been
>> productive, but less so recently (I delete whole swaths of "Piracy"
>> discussions lately).
>>
>Maybe I missed something...  Has the piracy thread been uncivil?  I've
>been following it pretty closely, (I for one, AM interested in it) and
>except for a few remarks it has been pretty clean.
>
>And, it occurs to me, it has spawned a range of side issues dealing with
>some pretty fundamental subjects (industrial capacity, Imperial
>economics, ship numbers in space and orbit, naval deployment strategies,
>etc).

Sorry, I assumed Glenn was talking about the Piracy thread.  The few times
I dipped into it I found the discussion to be relatively useless (he said,
she said, but this handwave means this and that theory says that...ad
infinitum) and at least a little hostile, in the argumentative sense.  If
there were good spinoffs I wish I had caught them, but in general I saw no
change of the subject line and deleted anything with the word "piracy" in
any form for a long time (including today).

By useful I refer to either actual whole (or draft for discussion) house
rules, vehicle/weapon/ship designs, adventure hooks, play aids, web site
references, works of fiction or reference materials, answers to specific
questions, etc.

I do not consider arguments terribly useful, nor esoteric discussions of
how many black globe generators can fit on the head of a pin, or why a
particular canon historical event or assumption is impossible.  I do not
read into the historical backgound that closely and encourage my players to
not take it too seriously either.  Arguments with no conclusion that
produces a rule or design or playing aid leave me saying "why did I read
all that?".

It lowers that all important "signal to noise" ratio for which this forum
has usually been better than any newsgroup.

That is not to say that they have no place on this list.  I do not wish to
censor or regulate other's views nor do I want a moderator to do so unless
there is some abusive or illegal behavior occurring.  The purpose of the
message above was to express my own opinion of the piracy thread and other
'confrontational' discussions.

Pete

Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:56:31 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Terraforming GG moons (long)(was Re: Gas Giants)

Bruce Johnson Wrote;
>On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, David P. Summers wrote:
>
>> Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:00:56 -0400 (EDT), SignalGK@aol.com
>> >Does anyone know what would happen if a battle cruiser was to fire its
>>entire
>> >volvo of nuclear missiles into the atmosphere of a hydrogen gas giant?
>>
>> Not much.  Certainly less than the transitory changes the comet
>> Shoemaker-Levy caused.
>>
>
>Hrmmm....that _does_ beg the question, though. Shoemaker-Levy, IIRC,
>mostly burned up in (comparatively) the upper atmosphere. What would
>happen if you set off a fusion warhead waaaaaay down in the atmosphere?
[snip]
[Disclaimer: I'm guessing here]

Ok, you've got a turbulent, layered hydrogen/ammonia/helium/etc gas
atmosphere under extreme pressure.  As we know, pressure causes tremendous
heat, and possibly fusion is occurring.  Now add an explosion.  The
explosion would need to be tremendous to do more than mix up the available
gasses a bit.  The huge pressures would have the effect of dampening the
explosion in the first place so all you would be doing with a relatively
small explosion is roiling things up.

But I think Bruce is talking about a *big* explosion (big big big!) like
that found in a Fission or, better yet, Fusion reaction.

In this case we have not only the heat and light energy of the explosion
itself, but the energy of all those excited particles running around.  I do
not think you could "induce fusion" simply by setting off a big bomb (it
would have to be a bomb so big...just fuggedaboutit! not to mention adding
mass to the GG to effectively make it into a star).  You could, however,
cause a "flare" of large proportions which emits a lot of radiation as the
fusion level spikes locally (local in a gas giant is a lot of territory)
and throws particles every which way.

Effects?  Perhaps the region of the GG would be bathed in all sorts of
radiation, frying electronics and essentially jamming any transmissions
except line-of-sight maser or laser and making sensor tasks harder.  Any
installations in orbit around the GG could be in serious trouble, depending
on all sorts of factors.  Moons of the GG may be temporarily warmed up
(from 50 Kelvin to 65 Kelvin maybe), but the long term effects would be nil.



>It would take a _really_ big, hardened warhead, but wow what you could do.
>That would allow you to terraform _systems_ Even if it didn't light up
>like a star, a gas giant 'burning' would put out a lot more energy that
>anything in the outer systems would normally get.

Perhaps the better answer would be an array of solar or fusion powered
particle beam satellites of low, but constant, intensity in a frequency
which resonates with the plasma of the gas giant's surface.  Over time
(decades) the increase in heat would become measurable, the atmosphere of
the GG would slowly expand from the added pressure, fusion in the core may
occur in a low-key fashion, and one or two of the innermost satellites
might even heat up to, say, 100K (-275 F).

Hmm, in fact the fusion satellites would get their energy from the gas
giant's hydrogen atmosphere itself, converting it into energy.  But why do
it this way (assuming your goal is terraforming the GG's moons)?  Most of
the created energy just radiates out into space, when you just want to heat
up one planet, right?  Why not build an orbital platform which beams some
form of energy directly at the planet in question, fueled by the Hydrogen
from the gas giant?

You would need to heat up the planets surface (which ideally would be
mostly water ice) using the full spectrum of energy...from RF to light to
microwave.  Assume a very large reflective dish with a primary emitter
array giving off a large variety of rays that you do not want to fly your
vessel through (It would be a bit like getting close to a star).  Perhaps a
virtual consellation of satellites would be needed to get the right amount
and mixture of radiation on target.

This would begin melting the ice into water, then vapor which would become
the atmosphere of the planet.  Something would have to be done to prevent
the atmosphere from leeching out into space, which is a complicated balance
here on Earth.  You have the magnetosphere keeping the ionosphere in place,
which holds the rest of the atmosphere in place along with the gravity of
the earth (which would be insufficient all by itself).

If the moon in question did not have a molten core rotating inside the
crust (which, planetary theory says, acts like a big alternator, causing
the magnetic fields around the planet) the ionized outer atmosphere would
leech into space, causing a loss of atmosphere (this does happen actually,
but very slowly, and it's offset by other factors, so they say).

Moving the emitter's primary location up and down near the equator would
melt the oceans, but allow much of the water and other chamicals to remain
locked into polar icecaps.  The size of the icecaps would depend on whether
there was sufficient land to poke up above the level of your new oceans and
how deep you wanted the oceans.

Once a large amount of the water was liberated into atmospheric gasses, and
the ocean levels were set, the rays from the satellites would be partially
blocked by the gas mixture, leaving mostly visible light energy to reach
the surface.  Before this point you would probably need to heat the whole
surface of theplanet (except the poles).  After this point the atmosphere
would be better at retaining the heat from the "dayside".

If there is sufficient reflective material on the surface (land more than
water) then the heat from the light energy that gets through will reflect
back up to the atmosphere, which, in a well known greenhouse effect, will
reflect it back.  This is what we want, a level of greenhouse that
stabilizes the temperature at a balmy 90F or so at the equator (depending,
again, on the ice caps, usable land, etc).  The emitters can be replaced
with mostly visible/UV/IR light emitters (perhaps could be that all
along...but I'd think the extra energy would helpin the beginning) and the
colonists can begin moving in.

Ok, I'm simplifying vastly here.  But it could happen!

Pete


Peter H. Brenton : pbrenton@mit.edu
"Shiela-X where are you"

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1992
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 22 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1993



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Jump Weapon?
Re: st of Policing NYC
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Pulp
Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
Re: Cost of policing NYC
Re: Sire, I have a cunning plan...
[T97#1983] International Waters
Re: Why use CORPS?
Re: control systems
Re: Gas Giants (fwd)
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Interstellar Waters
Re: Piracy
Re: Extrality and ownership of starports
Re: Piracy
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Events in Imperial history
Megaweapon calculation, no recalculated

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:15:32 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Jump Weapon?

Hi,

	During tonight's Trav sesh, I explained to one of my players - Steve -
about the 100 diameter jump limit. I also told him that a ship attempting
jump while still on a planet would destroy much of it. This is my
understanding at least.

	Steve them asked what was to stop someone from performing a suicide jump
on a planet. I couldn't answer him. Can anyone else do so?

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:55:03 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: st of Policing NYC

Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:05:58 -0700, Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
>OK.  We've spent 1% of the milbudget and covered New York.  That does
>not solve the problem for Philladelphia, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles
>or Dallas.
>
>No matter where you concentrate the money, there will be other holes.
>And if you spend the entire defense budget (or welfare budget, or
>whatever budget) then you have stripped one whole sector of your
>government services to cover another.

Um, that wasn't 1% of the _nations_ military/police budget to stop
transit crime in NYC.  It was 1% of _NYC's_ budget.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:43:31 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:12:56 -0700 (MST), Bruce Johnson
<johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
>Hrmmm....that _does_ beg the question, though. Shoemaker-Levy, IIRC,
>mostly burned up in (comparatively) the upper atmosphere. What would
>happen if you set off a fusion warhead waaaaaay down in the atmosphere?
>Say near the part where the hydrogen starts turnng metallic?  Would the
>pressure be enough to sustain a fusion reaction? Or at least make the
>fusion reaction that _does_ occur go on a lot longer and be a lot bigger
>than it would normally be?

Jupiter is not big enough, by a decent margin, to sustain such
a reaction.  Wether you could get a bigger reaction if you could
somehow get a warhead down there, I don't know.  Though I'm not
sure what one would be intending to blow up...

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:41:25 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Pulp

At 08:48 AM 10/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> Bwaps:  Amazing Innovations in Data Filing Technology
>
>Close, but not quite...
>
>Events involving amazing Innovations and of the right application in the
>right place and function in Data Filing Technology that are of the
>entertaining nature

...this being the 38th issue of publication, following the 37th, and to be
followed by the 39th. As this issue is sold, work continues on the 42nd
issue according to our set schedule.

- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry       dberry@hooked.net |
|      http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|------------------------------------------|
| "Writing is like prostitution. First you |
| do it for the love of it, then you do it |
| for a few friends, and finally you do it |
| for the money."               -- Moliere |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+


  

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:40:27 GMT
From: johnl@vnet.net (John Lansford)
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:37:29 +0200 (METDST), you wrote:


>
>Why would it be any more difficult than, say, keeping a record of all cars
>in the US? As for keeping it up to date, when a ship moves from one end of
>the Imperium, it moves at jump-1, 2, or 3. Information about it would move
>at jump-4 or better. 

Except couriers don't go from every world to every other world within
jump-4 range at one time. Since a Jump-4 takes as long as a Jump-1,
you could easily stay ahead of your records for quite a long time
before even the first report got to every world within a reasonable
range.

>The records of a world with very little traffic would
>be less than up-to-date, granted, and it would be possible to outrun your
>data if you go to such a world, but that just means that you merit extra
>attention from the patrol there. And if the traffic is so low, they will
>have time for you.

If there's a patrol there at all. 

>It's not that not appearing on the list will be any particular hardship
>for any ship with its papers in order, it's that such a ship is suspicious
>and can expect more than cursory attention.

Since we're talking about "low traffic" worlds, though, these systems
would be serviced by smaller ships anyway. Not enough profit margins
for larger merchant ships, so there would be more, not less small
independently owned merchants at these worlds.

John Lansford

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:28:36 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Cost of policing NYC

Scott Ellsworth wrote:
> >I have asked this before, and I'll ask it again.  How can the Imperium
> >afford to have 500 cops per household?  You say that the numbers support
> >it.  I say the numbers are wrong.  If not the economics, then the
> >population base would not be able to support this type of military
> >structure.
> 
> They can afford it because of the decisions made by the designers of the
> game system.

With all due respect Scott, if you are going tell me that I have to
accept your position on the numbers because it is canon, then you need
to abide by the restrictions canon makes with regard to
permanently-based system defense.

If the planet does not have the Tech Level _AND_ Population OR a
Navy/Scout base, then the planet cannot support a system defense.  An
SDB is, by definition, not jump capable, and would _not_ be in place in
this type of system.

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:43:08 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Sire, I have a cunning plan...

Shandow writes

>There's a *big* difference between "a few million km" and the 100
>diameter limit.
The 100 diameter limit for Earth is 800,000 miles, which is 1.3 million km.
1.3 is a few. 

>It is extremely *unlikely* that there'd be any
>asteroids within the 100 diameter limit at any given time. Unless they
>happend to orbit the planet.

I disagree. We only need asteroids maybe 10 times the size of the ship
(I should so simulations to qunatify this), particularly if you 
clamp to it and shuit everything down and/or just continuously
maneuver to keep the asteroid between you and the planet.

There is certainly not an exhaustive survey of 100-m-dimaeter asteroids
that pass within a few million km of earth. Based on the discovery rate
of ~few km earth-crossers and the general ratio of big to small I would
there to be one or two, especially in systems with crowded asteroid
belts.

>Any such asteroid passing through would get *close* attention, if only
>because of the threat it poses to the planet.

They'd certainly all be known. They wouldn't be continously tracked
due to the "threat it poses to the planet" - it's not like asteroids are
likely to suddenly change course; you track it once, determine its orbit, and
then ignore it for a few million years.

If you're worried about pirates, then you do aim your sensors at
the hex with the asteroid in it (there are rules for this in the DSR), but
I wa thinking in the context of a system that could only afford maybe one
orbital sensor array, with a bored and under-skilled operator...he'd check
out each asteroid maybe once a day; and even specific-hex checking out
only gets you +1 in sensitivity, which is more than offset by the landed
bonus to stealth.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:27:12 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: [T97#1983] International Waters

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:20:28 -0400, Hans Rancke-Madsen
<rancke@diku.dk> wrote:=20

>Kenneth Bearden writes:
>>We had a discussion about Interstellar space--specifically, where does
>>the jurisdiction line fall between planetary governments and the
>>Imperium?

[deletions]

>All in all I would suggest that the planet has full jusridiction below a
>certain level, with the space immidiately over the spaceport excepted, =
and
>joint jurisdiction throughout the system (ie. they can act against =
Imperially
>accepted crimes if they want to, but can't act against crimes that are =
only
>crimes locally).

My take on this is that it _does_ vary from planet to planet, as
follows:

If the planet is capable of maintaining jump-capable ships, its
jurisdiction encompasses the entire metasystem (which is
identical to the entire system in a single-star or
close/planetary multi-star system, and includes the planets and
primary of far companions).

If the planet is capable of manufacturing and supporting SDBs,
its jurisdiction is the entire system.  This does not include the
planets or primary of far companions, unless at least one colony
has been established by the planet in the far companion system.

If the planet is capable of COACC (i.e., can launch satellites
and maintain an air force), its jurisdiction is to the jump
limit, although the Imperial governor will generally defer to the
planetary government on non-critical issues outside the jump
limit but within the system.

If the planet is incapable of COACC (i.e., cannot field and
maintain an atmospheric military force - manned balloons count),
jurisdiction extends to the limits of military projection, though
it is strongly recommended that the Imperial governor defer to
the planetary government in all but the most critical matters
with respect to atmospheric control.

There are some exceptions to the "defaults" above; for example,
the planetary government always has the right of first
exploitation of all bodies in the system, and may license those
rights for royalties or other concessions to outside entities -
or not, as the case may be - and the Imperium is bound to enforce
or assist in the enforcement of those rights and concessions,
even if the planetary government is not capable of enforcement or
exploitation.

[more deletion]

>Since the starport is outside Pysadian jurisdiction, IMO they couldn't =
even
>force them to leave the planet. Though they could ask the spaceport
>administrator to send them off. His jurisdiction may extend to 10 =
diameters
>(though I would have said 100 diameters).

In most cases, probably a distinction that makes no difference -
it would make sense for the starport to recruit locally if the
local educational and technological standards were up to it.  By
far, the majority of the personnel manning the starport should be
locals, with foreigners perhaps being used in certain critical
areas requiring intimate knowledge of tech not within the
capabilities of the planet.  Administrators should, as a matter
of policy, be locals to the greatest extent possible.

- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:55:37 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

At 08:41 AM 10/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Douglas E. Berry wrote:

>Interesting. So the CORPS system is diverse enough to manage the skills of
>Traveller characters. Do you just insert skills like Pilot, Astrogation,
>Gravitics, etc.?

Yep.  In my game, each skill has tech level as part of it's Secondary.  For
example, you might have Pilot-5, TL13-3, Anderman Trader-1

>I'm assuming 3G3 is required for weapons design.

It's very useful for that.  BTW, Hyperbooks On-line has an Excel 5.0
spreadsheet for about $6 that makes 3G3 a dream to use.

>I'm considering running a 3D Interstellar Wars era campaign with lots of
>departures from canon, and I may well develop my own UWP system as well. I
>will use NASA's "Views of the Solar System" site
>(http://bang.lanl.gov/solarsys/) as one resource.

Wander out to my page for a link to the Accrete site, as well as two
versions of the program.  Accrete develops realistic star systems based on
what we know about the conditions that resulted in our solar system.

>Thanks for the info, Doug.

De nada, it was the least I could do between bouts of mudslinging and
hiding my complete lack of knowledge about Traveller...  :)


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:05:43 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: control systems

At 04:46 PM 10/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>What do the various control systems mean?  I mean, i think i understand the
>mechanical, electronic.  but what are the computer linked, dynamic linked,
>holographic linked, synaptic linked, and synaptic fluidic.  I understand the
>semantics... maybe not for dynamic... but what kind of advantages do the more
>advanced control systems give?  Also... are the "enhanced" (mechanical and
>electronic) just merely improvements on the previous?  

"Linked" means that they are linked with the computer.  Such system pass
partial control to the vehicle's computer.  A modern example would be the
F-16C Fighting Falcon, which interprets the movement of the control stick
and decides how to best achieve the maneuver.

"Dynamic" are re configurable controls.  The desktop used by most O/S on
today's computers are a primitive version of this.  On a dynamic control
panel, I could set the colors, change the bias to account for my
left-handiness, prioritize certain readouts, etc..

Holographic controls are like dynamic, but work with 3-D "virtual" controls
and heads-up displays.

"Synaptic" systems actually learn the oddities of a particular operator,
and allows the system to anticipate what the operator will want.  This can
be as simple as bringing up the proper panel before the operator can
request it, or instigating evasive maneuvers before the pilot could
possibly react.

This is paraphrased from FFS2, pg 71.




- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:59:46 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants (fwd)

The Other Bruce writes

>What would
>happen if you set off a big fusion warhead waaaaaay down in the
>atmosphere? Say in part where the hydrogen starts turnng metallic? 

Still not much. You'd get an extra burst in the initial explosion - kind
of like if you had surrounded your warhead with extra deuterium/tritium/
whatever - but it wouldn't be sustained. The metallic hydrogen is
going to convect or conduct away the heat too quickly - the whole core
would warm up slightly rather than any spot getting hot enough to sustain
fusion. You're just way, way too far way in temperature and pressure
from stellar conditions. 

(For example, 70-jupiter-mass brown dwarfs actually have a fair amount
of fusion happening early in their life, but in the end cool down too much
to sustain it - a 1-jupiter-mass object is so low-mass that even if you
could ignite the *whole* core it would cool down very rapidly (although
that "very" might be by astronomical standards - a few thousand years), but
anyway the core is too big to ignite.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:54:20 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

>I do think, however, that detection of a ship in 'stealth' mode should
>be a function of 1) size (a smaller ship is more likely to elude
>detection than a large ship), 2) numbers (ie a squadron is more likely
>to be detected than a lone ship) and 3) environment (dust cloud,
>asteroid belt, etc.)

A lot of this is in the DSR. I may have come across too strongly about 
the chance of detection...certainly if all sorts of circumstances combine
you can become very hard to detect.

>We are eliminating a large chunk of adventuring here.

That certainly wasn't my intention - my intention was to give quantitative
rules for sensor performance and for all the tricks that could be performed.
As I said, it turned out that ships were surprisingly easy to detect - but
ref's aren't *obliged* to accept that; if you want a poor-sensor campaign
then you can still use the rules, just knock a point or so off all the
sensor sensitivity. 

But even if you use the rules as printed, there are lots of tricks PCs
can use, and if you spend enough money you can indeed make a very stealthy
ship, and if you know where the opposing sensors are located you can
use agressive baffling, and if the opposing sensors are in orbit you can
time your arrival to use their blind spots, and if they're on the ground
you can also use blind spots, and you can hitch a ride with an
asteroid or comet, or you can look for a system with heavy dust.
There are rules for it all...

>I would say that, generically, improvement in heat
>dissapation technology might allow a Sensor Operator to route the waste
>energy to specific radiators to mask thier radiation, and provide extra
>coolant (gee...LHyd?) to the unmasked portion of the hull to cool it.
>Please note, this is a off-the-cuff suggestions for one possibility. 

it's a good suggestion - and that's essentially what advanced and
extreme masking in FFS2 do.

Take a look at FFS2, the errata, and the DSR; if you enjoy this sort of
sensor-and-masking stuff you might like them quite a bit - and if you want
ECM to be better or sensors to be worse that's easy to adjust.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:23:52 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Waters

At 02:05 am 10/21/97 PST, you wrote:
>No more than the government of (say) Antigua could do to some American
>tourists who did the same. Once the hit international waters, the
>Antiguans would have to apply to the US to get them extradited.

	If they're in _international_ waters, why do they have to ask the US to
extradite them? If I understand Admiralty law correctly, ALL military
vessels, of any nation, have not only the right but the obligation to
enforce the law on the high seas. 'Course, there's the diplomatic
unpleasantries ...
- -- 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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:56:10 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy

At 11:06 pm 10/19/97 PST, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
>> You have crippled the ship (victim) in 5 minutes: The easiest way to do
>> this is to kill the power plant, so no gravity... Otherwise the merchant
>> captain, knowing that the SDB is (in your argument) 85 min out puts the
>> ship in a deadmans tumble so you can't recover it.
>
>You can set the ship to spinning about any axis. But only one of them
>at once. So "tumbling" is the wrong word.

	IIRC, you can indeed have an object spinning about one axis, and
precessing about another ... in effect, tumbling.
- -- 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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:19:57 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Extrality and ownership of starports

At 01:48 am 10/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>2. The extrality line is not so much a border as a boundary (more like the
>property line outside a Federal building, not the US-Mexico border).
>Planetary authorities will be able to undertake hot pursuit across the line
>under most circumstances; arrangements will be made in each system to cover
>local laws. As a general rule, extrality lines will delay, not stop,
>pursuit by local authorities. If local authorities are pursuing you for a
>major crime, they're unlikely even to pull up as they pass the extrality
>line.

	FWIW, I have personally observed a local sheriff in hot pursuit, sirens
howling, blow right past the armed sentry at the gate of an Air Force base,
which is a federal reservation ... basically an extrality line. Now, I
don't know if there were existing agreements, he called ahead, whatever.
But he sure surprised the poor airman who thought he'd be safe if he ducked
on base.
- -- 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: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:19:19 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Piracy

Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au> writes:
>I hope this hasn't been bought up before, but could pirates base themselves
>on Law level zero worlds, or in other words, not use the starports, but
>maintain their ships elswhere. Even as a front for a legit orbital service
>(if using smallcraft) or a transport service ran out of a backyard. 
> 
>What authority would the Imperium have over law level zero worlds? 

As the example of Tarkine in District 268 tells us, the Imperium have (or
at least assume) authority over any world that supports piracy and is too
weak to defend itself against the Imperium.

However, I am not cliaming that any pirate who was able to regularily
capture merchants wouldn't be able to buy all the clandestine support he
needs. What I question is his ability to do so (and his motive, given
that he already owns a multi-million credit ship).
 
>If the pirates were providing some income to the worlds the governments of
>these worlds might even want to (secretly) help the pirates.

Sure, no question about that.
 
>What sort of action would the Imperium take against such a government if it
>found out?

Send a squadron or fleet and replace the local government.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 03:59:25 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

douglas <douglas@teleport.com> wtites:
>Well, I could point out that CT (book 2, starships) was pretty clear
>that a ship, running silent, was undetectable to 100,000 miles in deep
>space, and 10,000 miles in orbit.  Unfortunately, that is the same book
>that tells us that jump torpedoes are canon...  :(

??? I thought the jump torpedoes came from _Leviathan_ and nowhere else?
 
>I do think, however, that detection of a ship in 'stealth' mode should
>be a function of 1) size (a smaller ship is more likely to elude
>detection than a large ship), 2) numbers (ie a squadron is more likely
>to be detected than a lone ship) and 3) environment (dust cloud,
>asteroid belt, etc.)
> 
>It is more than just piracy here.  We are eliminating a large chunk of
>adventuring here.  To say that from the moment a ship jumps into a
>system it falls under the watchful eye of the 'benevolent' Imperial
>Navy, until it is handed over to the local custom inspector kills a
>whole range of potential adventures (from smuggling to grey ops).

Contrary to what you may think, I agree with you one hundred percent. 
I've said several times that I use pirates and lonely unpatrolled
systems myself. All I'm saying is that I would be much more comfortable
with it if I didn't have to suspend my disbelief so damn much. If, for
example, the ratio of high-population worlds to other worlds were a lot
smaller, if high-population worlds didn't have naval budgets directly
proportional to their population, and if civilian ships were a lot less
expensive than military ships than they are at the moment. 

>Even when I have sensors placed, I have allowed for jamming/spoofing from
>military sensor suites, 

The trouble with jamming is that it is like flashing a big strong light in
the direction of the guy you're trying to jam. It tells him that you are
there and gives him a nice target to aim for. He may not know just who you
are, but that's not much of a comfort if he can just check your body
afterwards ;-)

>stealth technology to avoid detection, and
>gathered intelligence to determine weak spots in the sensor grids.

Sure, it would be much better for gaming potential if ships could hide in
empty space. Come up with a stealth field and get it approved by Marc and
I will give you a sitting ovation (you wouldn't be able to see me stand
anyway ;-) But you'll just have to realize that you would need to introduce
some physics nullifier to do so (My own suggestion, if you recall the
discussion some months ago, was a heat sink into another dimension that was
only accessible in deep space (and thus couldn't mess things up down inside
a gravity well). If you make the dingus really expensive you get the added
bonus of making military ships more expensive than civilian ships).



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:45:13 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Events in Imperial history

John Wood asks:

>I have the feeling I'm missing something obvious, but I'd like to know
>roughly when the following occurred in Third Imperial history:
> 
>1. First encounter with each of Aslan, Vargr, Hivers, K'Kree, Zhodani.

Aslan:	Once the scouts reached the pocket empires in Reavers' Deep,
        Solomani Rim and Magyar. Propably around 200. They got dragged
        into a war with them that ended in 380.

Vargr:  More or less from the start, but the Vargr camapigns run from
        210 to 348.

Hivers: Don't know.

K'Kree: Don't know.

Zhodani: First contact in 50. Imperium began exploring into Zhodani
         territory around 500.

> 2. When it was first realised the Droyne were a major race.

In 790. (Or was it 670? My memory is playing tricks on me...)

> 3. When trade began with the coreward end of the Hinterworlds.

Don't know.

> 4. When and where the 3rd Imp first collided with the Solomani sphere.

The Old Earth Union was peacefully absorbed by the Imperium in 588. The
Solomani Sphere was originally an autonomous region of the Imperium that
was created in 704 and was left to its own devices (with the very odd
exception of the Psionic Suppression manipulations) until the Solomani
Confederation was established in 871. From 871 to 950 the Solomani thought
of themselves as independent while the Imperium didn't think about them
much. In 950 the Imperium abolished the Solomani Autonomous Region and
tried to reintegrate the territory into the mainstream Imperium. Since the
Solomani had thought the Region abolished 80 years earlier they resented
that.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 06:13:06 +0200
From: Goran Sjoberg <NGC1201@communique.se>
Subject: Megaweapon calculation, no recalculated

So if i diddle my pocket brain for a while i get that i "only" have to
accelerate the missile or torpedo to approx 299'996,8 km per second to get
a devastating result. Well, i guess it cannot be done.. 

Recomputed.. it should be 2999,96 km per second, but even that would be
impossible..

goran

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1993
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 22 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1994



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Megaweapon calculation,,, goossshhh!
Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
RE: Piracy
Definition: Grav Compensator
RE: st of Policing NYC
RE: Jump Weapon?
Re: Rate of Fire
Re: Piracy
Re: 2300AD overview???
Lighting up gas giants...
Re: Why use CORPS?
Re: Sire, I have a cunning plan...
Re: java GAL preview
Re: Jump Weapon?
Re: Gas Giants
Re: Megaweapon (continued)
Re: New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)
Re: Misjumps
Newt Pulp
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1992
Re: Events in Imperial history

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 06:08:13 +0200
From: Goran Sjoberg <NGC1201@communique.se>
Subject: Megaweapon calculation,,, goossshhh!

So if i diddle my pocket brain for a while i get that i "only" have to
accelerate the missile or torpedo to approx 299'996,8 km per second to get
a devastating result. Well, i guess it cannot be done.. 

Damn!

Another good idea down the drain. BUT.. Then what is a quantum torpedo as
they say it in staw twek?

BTW: is it possible to accelerate a torpedo by using subspace? And will it
"hit" when it is in subspace??

Goran

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 06:16:13 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

Tommy Grav writes:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

>>        ...As for keeping it up to date, when a ship moves from one end of
>>the Imperium, it moves at jump-1, 2, or 3. Information about it would move
>>at jump-4 or better. The records of a world with very little traffic would
>>be less than up-to-date, granted, and it would be possible to outrun your
>>data if you go to such a world, but that just means that you merit extra
>>attention from the patrol there. And if the traffic is so low, they will
>>have time for you.
>  
>I really admire your confidence in the computers and the clerks of the
>future. I just don't see it the way you do :-) A registry containing a
>couple of millions ships spread around the galaxy is going to be very
>hard to keep track of. I grant you that there will be good lists of the
>largest ships, but small freighters, free traders, yatchs and so on is
>impossible in my view to keep tabs on. They will know who owns the ship,
>who manufactured it, its ID-number and such info. What cargo it has
>carried, where it has been, who the captain and the crew is will be much
>harder to keep tabs on. And the clever and resourceful captain will have
>no trouble bribing clerks on low tech worlds to put new owners on the
>ship, put forth false cargo papers and so on.

As for cargo, I don't think a ship registry file would bother with that.
The crew would be listed in the ship's log (propably difficult, but not
impossible, to tamper with). But the name of the captain could easily
be included in the ship registry. You don't change captains the way you
change your shirt.

>Also with the x-boat route how does the ships info reach the system before
>the ship? 

On the well-travelled routes the information goes by X-boat and will
arrive in advance of the ship. In backwater systems the information
goes by naval couriers, by passing patrols and by relief ships. That's
where a ship may sometimes outrun its information.

>Say you attempt to hi-jack a trader (just let us assume that piracy
>exists.) You fail and imideatly jump to the next system.
>[...]
>At least a couple of days work, maybe a week or two before there can be
>put out a general piracy alert on your ship.

I never said a pirate couldn't escape by jumping away. On the contrary,
I have several times said that any reasonably competent captain can
lower the odds of getting caught after jumping into a system considerably,
no matter how well patrolled. What he can't do is get close to a patrol
ship and get away unscathed. And I claim that in order to catch a
merchant, he will have to get close to a patrol ship, assuming that
the navy have as many ships as their budget implies and that they have
as few places to guard as the rules about jump travel implies.

>>It's not that not appearing on the list will be any particular hardship
>>for any ship with its papers in order, it's that such a ship is suspicious
>>and can expect more than cursory attention.
> 
>But what is suspicious behavior? You seem to set the limit very low.

1) A ship that dosen't appear on the ship registration file is suspicious.
2) A ship that dosen't have the captain that the SRF lists is suspicious.
3) A ship with high G rating, heavy armament, and no legitimate business
   in the system is suspicious.
4) A ship that arrives at the jump limit and hangs around there is VERY
   suspicious.
5) A ship that tries to get within shooting range of another ship is VERY,
   VERY suspicious.
6) A ship with high G rating, heavy armament, and no legitimate business
   in the system that arrives at the jump limit and hangs around there 
   and then tries to get within shooting range of another ship is VERY,
   VERY, VERY suspicious... ;-)

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:15:06 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: RE: Piracy

>Does anyone have an opinion on when the Imperial rules of war were formalised?
>
>I ask in relation to this thread because privateering may  be a legal way
>of one world expressing it's dissatisfaction with another worlds policies,
>if the rules of war have not been formalised yet. I know that this sort of
>behaviour will definately be frowned upon by the imperium, but does anyone
>think that worlds could get away with it?

Since piracy is specifically prohibited by article IV of the Warrant of
Restoration, the document that founded the Third Imperium, and Sylea has
nuked starports it merely *suspected* of harboring pirates, I would think
it extremely unlikely.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:43:16 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Definition: Grav Compensator

>So how about some folks out there who want definitions, post some
>messages with Subject: "Definition: xxxx", and us "techy" types can try
>defining them. Then the "non-techy" types can let us know what they
>want more details about, and what they feel isn't needed.

What a timely suggestion. Just last weekend my players and I were
discussing how grav compensators worked. In my campaign, grav compensators
are what provide artificial gravity inside a ship as well as counteracting
the ship's acceleration.

The 3 Gs of a TL 12 grav compensator can only counteract 2 Gs while
providing a 1 G artificial gravity. In my campaign the thrust axis of most
ships are perpendicular to the ship decks (90 degrees to what is usually
show in Traveller deck plans, in Star Trek, and in ocean-going ships). This
is necessary so that ships can accelerate safely at 1 G above the
compensated acceleration, as shown in SSDS. The 1 G left over is what holds
them down. Ships that have decks parallel to the thrust axis can only
accelerate up to their G compensation, and when they do that the inside of
the ship is at zero G! Comments?

The reason this came up in my campaign is that the players asked if the
compensator could affect things outside the ship's hull. Specifically, they
wanted to tug a derelict ship by "grabbing" it with the G compensator. I
said no, that the compensator can't penetrate the ship's hull, but couldn't
give a good reason why it is able to penetrate things like bulkheads, cargo
containers, or battle dress. Can anybody help me out?

Some other ideas we kicked around without resolving involve how
controllable grav-compensators are. Can you have different compensation in
different areas of the ship? I would assume so since the old toroidal lab
ship had artificial gravity even if not rotating. If this is the case, why
couldn't you arrange it so people could walk around on the ceiling as well
as the floor and thereby double the floor space? Why not manipulate it so
cargo just 'falls' in and out of the hold instead of needing cranes or
loaders? You could set them to fractional Gs to avoid damage.

- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:55:17 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: st of Policing NYC

My mistake.  Since you referred to a military budget, which NYC would not have, I assumed you were referring to the Federal Budget.

My apologies.

douglas

- ----------
From: 	David P. Summers[SMTP:summers@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: 	Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:55 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	Re: st of Policing NYC

Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:05:58 -0700, Douglas R Glatz <douglasg@pogo.wv.tek.com>
>OK.  We've spent 1% of the milbudget and covered New York.  That does
>not solve the problem for Philladelphia, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles
>or Dallas.
>
>No matter where you concentrate the money, there will be other holes.
>And if you spend the entire defense budget (or welfare budget, or
>whatever budget) then you have stripped one whole sector of your
>government services to cover another.

Um, that wasn't 1% of the _nations_ military/police budget to stop
transit crime in NYC.  It was 1% of _NYC's_ budget.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:04:56 -0700
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: RE: Jump Weapon?

What would stop someone from performing a Jump from a planet.  Well, let's 
see - You would have to be a Computer 2/Astrogator 2 to write the software 
to allow a jump from those coordinates, or be at least a Engineer 1 to try 
and override the manual safeties and either have Pilot 1 or have a suicidal 
pilot (or engineer) to do the work.

Other than that, if someone wants to take a multi-MCr carnival ride to 
h*ll, I can't see anyway of stopping them.

- ----------
From: 	Bruce E J Lewis[SMTP:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk]
Sent: 	Tuesday, October 21, 1997 4:15 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	Jump Weapon?

Hi,

	During tonight's Trav sesh, I explained to one of my players - Steve -
about the 100 diameter jump limit. I also told him that a ship attempting
jump while still on a planet would destroy much of it. This is my
understanding at least.

	Steve them asked what was to stop someone from performing a suicide jump
on a planet. I couldn't answer him. Can anyone else do so?

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:13:44 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Rate of Fire

>Right.  ANY QSDS/SSDS laser can run at 100 shots per 30 minutes if enough
>power is availble.

One rule that was in BL/TNE that we should probably resurrect is that
unless the ship was designed to power the laser at ROF 100 - which usually
means military ships - you need a Gunnery or Engineering roll to avoid
overheating an ROF10 laser at ROF100. So it's possible if the Harrier's
opressors are a civilian ship that it can "only" fire 1 shot / 3 minutes...
which is still bad news.

Another thing to note is that - T4's combat rules to the contrary - pounding a
ship with laser fire is not goint to make it mystically run out of hitpoints
and explode; it'll just be increasingly full of small holes, with more
systems out and maybe some crew casualties, but it won't explode.

bruce

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Piracy

In a message dated 97-10-21 03:10:57 EDT, you write:

<< Mainly yatches in the Carribean and Mediterran.  In the South China Sea
 it's mainly small merchant ships and refugee boats.  However, wasn't there
 a fairly large freighter taken in the mid 70's..one that US Marines
 recaptured? >>

The SS Mayaguez, siezed by Cambodian terrorists...Marines assaulted their
island base and suffered heavy casualties, and the crew had already been
released.  Marines also boarded the ship, which had been abandoned.  (IIRC,
the Cambodes didn't realize it was a US vessel at the time of siezure, and
dropped it like a hot rock)
The book Air War: Vietnam has an entire section devoted to the Mayaguez
incident.

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 05:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: 2300AD overview???

In a message dated 97-10-21 04:24:35 EDT, you write:

<< from a CT perspective, what is better/worse about the 2300AD 
 series? >>

Well, from my view, one of the best things about the 2300 system was the
background.  I like the idea of nations in space, esp since it allowed a
little nationalism to enter into the plots.  The character gen system was a
step in the right direction, (Traveller:2300 was the "grandfather" of the GDW
House system, which was refined after that into 2300AD, then Twilight:2000,
then Dark Conspiracy, then TNE)  The down side of it was the fact that there
were gaping holes in the rules, the starship combat and design system weren't
very good (although MUCH less intensive than FFS) and the background kinda
limited the game a bit (Humanity had explored what it could, but the
stutterwarp drive had a 7.7ly range...and at a certain point you couldn't go
anywhere else because of that.)

2300AD was a great system for playing the Aliens or cyberpunk-style
campaigns...I think it's a shame it never got the treatment that Twilight or
TNE got.  On the other hand, nothing can beat out CT for it's overall system!

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:48:42 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Lighting up gas giants...

	How about a bunch of automated 10,000+ dton platforms with
contragrav, scoops, a fuel refinery, and a horking big laser (of
appropriate wavelength to penetrate the GG's atmosphere) or PA gun pointed
right down at the metallic hydrogen core?

	Just set up an automated mining/factory facility on a convenient
moon.  Keep it churning them out until the GG starts heating up to desired
levels.  Stand back and have other civilizations wonder at your species'
strange and worrisome artisitic sensibilities that allow you to squander
resources like this.

	As well, in wartime, no invader in their right mind would go
anywhere near the GG :).


	More stupid GG tricks:  How about some sort of absolutely
outlandishly large (like utterly huge) magnetic containment field generator
floating in the atmosphere, whose fields are shaped exactly like  rocket
combustion chambers... one pointing out, the other pointing in towards the
core.  Have a bunch of the aforementioned big lasers focussing on their
centers.  Have the lasers heat up the atmosphere inside the fields a la
HEPlaR.  In order to refuel, just switch part of the fields off and let
more atmosphere flow in.  Proceed to reduce the GG's orbital velocity and
wreak havoc with the entire system.  Be the envy of your local yacht club.
Make headlines across the Imperium.  Get carted away by men in white.

	Of course, this would be TL-Yaskodray only knows what, and only he
would know what the point of the exercise would be, but still, it'd be
pretty funky.

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:01:42 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

>Wander out to my page for a link to the Accrete site, as well as two
>versions of the program.  Accrete develops realistic star systems based on
>what we know about the conditions that resulted in our solar system.
>

Accrete has BIG problems coming up with starsystems that resemble those we
recently found (with huge GGs near the star etc). Otherwise it is OK.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:00:01 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Sire, I have a cunning plan...

>They'd certainly all be known. They wouldn't be continously tracked
>due to the "threat it poses to the planet" - it's not like asteroids are
>likely to suddenly change course; you track it once, determine its orbit, and
>then ignore it for a few million years.

If my PCs are like most people in the Imperium then they'd need to track
ALL asteroids lest people mount T-plates on them and make big holes in the
ground wehere their enemies used to live.

My players actually contemplated hurling a relativistic bowlingball into a
hospital-asteroid to kill off a criminal kingpin that had insulted them (OK
maybe he tortured them a bit as well), never mind the thousands of patients
resident at the hospital.

I talked them out of it...


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:37:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: java GAL preview

In mail you write:

> software. Keep in mind that the thrust of this project is to create
> canonical traveller data. Ultimately I'd love to allow for user extensions
> (such as small planets in the Trojan points of large planets, etc). But not
> right now.

Just a note. It'll have to be one *massive* planet to have even a small
planet in its Trojan point. Even Jupiter can't manage anything more
than small to medium asteroids there. Anything much bigger is too big
to fit the "conditions".

The moon's trojan points essentially have coarse *dust*. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:06:15 +1300
From: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Jump Weapon?

>Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:15:32 +0100
>From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
>Subject: Jump Weapon?

>Hi,

>	During tonight's Trav sesh, I explained to one of my players - Steve -
>about the 100 diameter jump limit. I also told him that a ship attempting
>jump while still on a planet would destroy much of it. This is my
>understanding at least.

>	Steve them asked what was to stop someone from performing a suicide jump
>on a planet. I couldn't answer him. Can anyone else do so?

The short answer is nothing. But it would achieve very little other than
the destruction of the ship.

  Andrew etc.
    a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz

****************************************************************************
The longest distance between two points is with children.
****************************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:45:21 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

In mail you write:

>> Not much.  Certainly less than the transitory changes the comet
>> Shoemaker-Levy caused.
>
> Hrmmm....that _does_ beg the question, though. Shoemaker-Levy, IIRC,
> mostly burned up in (comparatively) the upper atmosphere.

And your missile won't?

> What would
> happen if you set off a fusion warhead waaaaaay down in the atmosphere? 
> Say near the part where the hydrogen starts turnng metallic?  Would the
> pressure be enough to sustain a fusion reaction? Or at least make the
> fusion reaction that _does_ occur go on a lot longer and be a lot bigger
> than it would normally be? 

Somebody went into this in an Analog article some years back. The
pressure just isn't there. You need pressures *way* above degeneracy
levels to get fusion to work. So "mere" metallic hydrogen pressures are
nothing.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:07:15 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Megaweapon (continued)

In mail you write:

>>So to get a "good" reaction instead of this silly "sputtering" (which
>>is *still* dangerous and destructive), you want the antimatter to hit
>>the planet at a speed such that the blast on contact won't do more than
>>slow it up a bit.
>>
>>Without doing any calculations, I'd expect that the "ideal" impact
>>velocity for an antimatter warhead is something up around 1% of c...
>
> 1 persent of what? You must understand i am just a layman, and a simple one
> at that. I did understand that i just have to speed it upp before hitting a
> planet. 

"c" is the speed of light. Approximately 3x10^8 meters/second.

> What happens if the matter part is the one hitting the antimatter in high
> speed?

Doesn't matter. According to the principle of relativity, you can just
as easily consider the missile to be motionless and the planet to be
rushing towards it at great speed. The results *must* be the same.

Now if it's a *small* piece of matter rushing towards the missile,
things get messier.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:00:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)

In mail you write:

> At 02:17 AM 10/21/97 PST, Leonard wrote:
>
>>I wrote:
>
>>> Aside:  Picture the K'Kree reaction the first time they encountered my
>>> version of the Ithklur..  Intelligent, hi-tech, carnivores!!!!
>
>>You want a case of the universe playing a bad joke? After reading the
>>above, I got an *evil* idea...
>
>>A non-canon Traveller universe where on the far side of K'kree space
>>lies an expanding empire. The first encounters between them should be
>>interesting. I refer of course to the Kzinti Patriarchy. :-)
>
>>I'd love to sell tickets to *that* war!
>
> Except the Kzinti *always* attack before they're ready.  I asked Larry
> Niven about that bit of Known Space lore at the 1993 Worldcon, he replied
> that without it, the history of KS would have ended with a detailed
> description of a few million Kzin feasting on the human race.  I took this
> to be a good reason why the Vargr didn't overwhelm humaniti during the Long
> Night.. they always over-reached themselves.

So? That just means that the Kzinti won't *win* the war. There's no way
that they'll let plant-eaters conquer them. So it'll be a long,
drawn-out stalemate. And as we know, the Kzinti *do* learn patience if
you hit them over the head long enough.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:24:59 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Misjumps

In mail you write:

>         1) How do you others handle misjumps?  E.g. how long do misjumps
> take compared to normal jumps and when, if at all, will a starship crew
> know they have misjumped while still in jump-space.  This is important
> as their ship will appear in a dangerous part of a system and they will
> need to get off ship quickly (I'm hoping to control their options by not
> giving them their own starship at first).

There have been several sorts of tables for misjumps over the years.
They *can* take longer (or shorter!), but as I recall that was most
often a case where the "misjump" *was* the wacky duration.

But I tend to agree with a post Marc Miller made a month or so back.
They'll know it's a misjump as soon as they make the entrance into
jumpspace. So they get to spend the week (or whatever) *worrying* about
where they'll come out.

>         2) What are the effects of jump-space?  During the jump one of
> the NPC crew will push the NPC chief engineer out of the airlock as a
> crime of passion so will the body still be there?  How will the murderer
> react to seeing jump space?

Jumpspace is not supposed to be all that good to look at. It doesn't
automatically drive you nuts, but it sure doesn't help you stay sane.
And most folks agree that anything that gets much beyond the hull while
in jumpspace (more than a few meters) will be precipitated out of
jumpspace one subatomic particle at a time more or less along the
ship's path. 

The "few meters" means that you *can* actually do things like repair
battle damage while in jump. Or sneak out an airlock at one end of the
ship to sneak in through another so as to get "behind" someone. It's
just risky, and requires *real* steady nerves. Think of it as being
like crawling around on the bottom of an 18-wheeler as it goes
barreling down the freeway. You can do it, but you'd be very aware of
what happens if you move too far away.

>         3) How do you all think that a ship coming OUT of jump-space
> appears to any other ships in the area.  How do those aboard experience
> it, does the ship jolt, shake. etc.

There are lots of different opinions on this. There is a concensus that
there's *some* sort of "glow" or even a sort of "light show" effect as
the ship enters or leaves jump. And since you have this mass that
wasn't there a second ago, any kind of mass detector or gravity sensor
will notice a "pulse" as the ship appears.

I assume that the folks onboard feel *something*. And that it's "worse"
for a misjump.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:22:43 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: Newt Pulp

To sum up....

Events involving amazing Innovations and of the right application in the
right place and function in Data Filing Technology that are of the
entertaining nature this being the 38th issue of publication, following the
37th, and to be followed by the 39th. As this issue is sold, work continues
on the 42nd issue according to our set schedule which was arranged in to its
rightful place by the wisdom of the editor at the time of the publishing of
the issue that was issued as the first

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:11:15 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Lars Adler <adler@hartree.pc.Uni-Koeln.DE>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1992

subscribe traveller
unsubscribe traveller-digest

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:10:42 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: Events in Imperial history

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> John Wood asks:
> 
> >I have the feeling I'm missing something obvious, but I'd like to know
> >roughly when the following occurred in Third Imperial history:
> > 
> >1. First encounter with each of Aslan, Vargr, Hivers, K'Kree, Zhodani.

A _great_ reference is http://www.prairienet.org/~dmckinne/timeline.html
the _Traveller Integrated Timeline_. Don has done an AWESOME job
with this page. All dates are in Third Imperial standard.

> Aslan:  Once the scouts reached the pocket empires in Reavers' Deep,
>         Solomani Rim and Magyar. Propably around 200. They got dragged
>         into a war with them that ended in 380.

- -1980     First Solomani contact with Aslan. GDW, Alien Module 1 - Aslan,
          p. 35.

The Aslan didn't do much until the Long Night however, when they began
serious expansion. It was their good luck that there were no human 
empires of any size present, as the Aslan have trouble cooperating in 
large numbers and generally lag Imperial/Solomani tech.

> Vargr:  More or less from the start, but the Vargr camapigns run from
>         210 to 348.

- -2800     ?2:  (c) First Zhodani contact with Vargr in Gvurrdon sector. GDW,
          Alien Module 4 - Zhodani, p. 8.
- -2400     ?2:  Vargr raids on Vilani space begin. GDW, Spinward Marches
          Campaign, p. 18.

The Vargr have been pestering the Vilani for a loooong time. Maybe it's a
Zhodani plot!

> Hivers: Don't know.

- -1802     First Solomani contact with Hivers. GDW, Alien Module 6 -
          Solomani, p. 12.

> K'Kree: Don't know.

- -200      ?2:  (c) First human contact with the K'kree. GDW, Alien Module 6
          - Solomani, p. 12.

The Hivers and the K'kree had met, fought a long war and settled their 
borders long before the met humaniti though.

> Zhodani: First contact in 50. Imperium began exploring into Zhodani
>          territory around 500.

- -187      First Zhodani/Darrian contact. GDW, Alien Module 8 - Darrians,
          p. ????.
50        First Imperial contact with Zhodani. GDW, Alien Module 4 -
          Zhodani, p. 8.

> > 2. When it was first realised the Droyne were a major race.
> 
> In 790. (Or was it 670? My memory is playing tricks on me...)

790       Droyne recognized as major race. GDW, Supplement 8 - Library Data
          (A-M), p. 8.

> > 3. When trade began with the coreward end of the Hinterworlds.

- -2100     Explorers from the Rule of Man explore Hinterworlds sector. GDW,
          Challenge #39, p. H2.
- -700      Solomani sleeper ships arrive in Hinterworlds, occupying coreward
          rimward portions. GDW, Challenge #39, p. H2.

> > 4. When and where the 3rd Imp first collided with the Solomani sphere.
> 
> The Old Earth Union was peacefully absorbed by the Imperium in 588. The
> Solomani Sphere was originally an autonomous region of the Imperium that
> was created in 704 and was left to its own devices (with the very odd
> exception of the Psionic Suppression manipulations) until the Solomani
> Confederation was established in 871. From 871 to 950 the Solomani thought
> of themselves as independent while the Imperium didn't think about them
> much. In 950 the Imperium abolished the Solomani Autonomous Region and
> tried to reintegrate the territory into the mainstream Imperium. Since the
> Solomani had thought the Region abolished 80 years earlier they resented
> that.

You got it Hans.

I got all of this in 5 minutes. All praise Don McKinney!

Ethan
- --
Ethan Henry                     ehenry@magma.ca

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1994
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 22 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1995



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Definition: Grav Compensator
Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)
Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
Re: Cost of policing NYC
Cargo Handling
Re: Why use CORPS?
Re: Rate of Fire
Re: Gas Giants
J-Space (my ideas on it)
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: AM- Torp
Re: Definition: Grav Compensator
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)
Extrality
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Piracy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:19:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:

Having only used optical sensors to detect comets, I have a open question
to Bruce. Is it possible for a ship to use the backgroundlight from stars
to hide the ship? I have experienced comets to avoid my detection on some
pictures with the NOT-telescope because they lie right infront of a
background star. I realize that staying inbetween the sensor and the star
would be a darn hard thing to do, but would it be possible?

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: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:05:38 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Definition: Grav Compensator

Richard Hough wrote:
>  
> The 3 Gs of a TL 12 grav compensator can only counteract 2 Gs while
> providing a 1 G artificial gravity. In my campaign the thrust axis of most
> ships are perpendicular to the ship decks (90 degrees to what is usually
> show in Traveller deck plans, in Star Trek, and in ocean-going ships). This
> is necessary so that ships can accelerate safely at 1 G above the
> compensated acceleration, as shown in SSDS. The 1 G left over is what holds
> them down. Ships that have decks parallel to the thrust axis can only
> accelerate up to their G compensation, and when they do that the inside of
> the ship is at zero G! Comments?

There was a *big* discussion about this last year. I don't want to
rehash it again. Suffice it to say you are right, but there are *some*
advantages to putting the decks the way most Traveller plans and ST
have.

> The reason this came up in my campaign is that the players asked if the
> compensator could affect things outside the ship's hull. Specifically, they
> wanted to tug a derelict ship by "grabbing" it with the G compensator. I
> said no, that the compensator can't penetrate the ship's hull, but couldn't
> give a good reason why it is able to penetrate things like bulkheads, cargo
> containers, or battle dress. Can anybody help me out?

The most elegant handwave I've seen kicked around is that grav
compensation and artificial gravity is a "field effect". That is, it
only affects the area between the floor and the ceiling. The floor acts
as one "pole", and the ceiling the other. If one or the other isn't
operating you get nada.

That's why it doesn't penetrate the hull, but everything else between
the floor and ceiling is affected.

> Some other ideas we kicked around without resolving involve how
> controllable grav-compensators are. Can you have different compensation in
> different areas of the ship? I would assume so since the old toroidal lab
> ship had artificial gravity even if not rotating. If this is the case, why
> couldn't you arrange it so people could walk around on the ceiling as well
> as the floor and thereby double the floor space? Why not manipulate it so
> cargo just 'falls' in and out of the hold instead of needing cranes or
> loaders? You could set them to fractional Gs to avoid damage.

The handwave above neatly solves the problem of people walking on the
ceiling and the floor. It's a field effect (like magnetism) and one pole
is "up" and the other "down". You can reverse the polarity and have
people walking on the ceiling, but never floor and ceiling at the same
time.

If it did work that way, imagine the poor saps who decide to jump in the
air. Falling in two directions sounds like a recipe for torn ligaments
or ... worse. :)

I handwave compensation as being provided by a mechanism different from
artificial gravity. Compensation can only do just that: compensate for
inertial forces. Cancel 'em. You can't create a new force to "push" the
container out the door. You can only cancel (to a limit) G's pulled in
the lateral/vertical direction.

You can have different gravity fields on different areas of the ship,
just by varying the strength of the grav "plates".

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:24:17 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)

>Another thing to note is that - T4's combat rules to the contrary - pounding a
>ship with laser fire is not goint to make it mystically run out of hitpoints
>and explode; it'll just be increasingly full of small holes, with more
>systems out and maybe some crew casualties, but it won't explode.


Hmm. Here's a question then. If a hit by a laser holes a section with
atmosphere and a lhyd tank, won't the two mix and combust (assuming the
laser also provides a spark)? Of course, millitary vessels would probably
be depressurized before seeing combat and the crew wearing vacc suits.
Given the timescale involed, so too civilian ships, I suppose.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:24:21 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

<vreeeee!!!! slice>
>Jumpspace is not supposed to be all that good to look at. It doesn't
>automatically drive you nuts, but it sure doesn't help you stay sane.
<sizzle-sizzle flop>


A minor rant...

I know a little of psychology (and you know what they say about a little
knowledge). Still, I have a very hard time with the concept of the mere
sight of jumpspace being a variable affecting "sanity." It smacks of
psuedoscience to me, a result of a poor understanding of paychology. What
exactly would the mechanism be that would be a factor in mental
dysfunction? Stress? This is really the only thing I can think of -- and if
that is the case, then I have a hard time with the argument that looking at
jumpspace is any more destructive than looking at any other really
disturbing phenomena.

Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. To me, this just smacks too
much of the quasi-Lovecraftian, psychodynamic (and even mystical) ideas of
how the human brain works.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:52:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> Tommy Grav writes:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
> 
> As for cargo, I don't think a ship registry file would bother with that.
> The crew would be listed in the ship's log (propably difficult, but not
> impossible, to tamper with). But the name of the captain could easily
> be included in the ship registry. You don't change captains the way you
> change your shirt.

Just to take a real life example. Some days ago, a fishingship was boarded
outside the coast of Australia for illegal fishing. The owners are thought
to be some norwegains but that is not certain. This illustrates how
difficult it can be to know the owners of ships. As for the captain, I
know that large tankers change captains every second or third week. It
might very well be that this is true for ships of the Imperium. I think
that the Imperium is likely to not be really interested in who the captain
is as long as he can produce some legimate papers.

> 
> >Also with the x-boat route how does the ships info reach the system before
> >the ship? 
> 
> On the well-travelled routes the information goes by X-boat and will
> arrive in advance of the ship. In backwater systems the information
> goes by naval couriers, by passing patrols and by relief ships. That's
> where a ship may sometimes outrun its information.
> 

But info reaching the next jump-1 system is going to take on week, the
same as for the X-boat, so they'll reach there before the info. Reaching
the highport would take hours and then your off to the next port. Now the
info has had a chance to reach this port before the pirate, and I admite
that he now has to be clever. What he could do is make the ship appaered
to have been sold in the previous system, an exchange perhaps, with the
crew being replaced. Just on of the top of my head example. 

> I never said a pirate couldn't escape by jumping away. On the contrary,
> I have several times said that any reasonably competent captain can
> lower the odds of getting caught after jumping into a system considerably,
> no matter how well patrolled. What he can't do is get close to a patrol
> ship and get away unscathed. And I claim that in order to catch a
> merchant, he will have to get close to a patrol ship, assuming that
> the navy have as many ships as their budget implies and that they have
> as few places to guard as the rules about jump travel implies.

All he has to do is be closest to the ship he wants to attack. He
brodcasts a mayday signal, and since the merchant he is wants has to come 
to the rescue (the laws of the high sea applied) he just waits until it is
real close. Then he broadcasts a thight beam message that the turrets of
his ship is locked onto the victim and that he just act naturally. He then
starts the docking procedure, gets his cargo (there is no way in hell that
a SDB is going to fire at two ships 15m apart at a distance of several
thousand km. As the last of the cargo is brought aboard the ships jump
engine is fired up, and while maintaining the closeness to the victim you
just jump out of there.

Another way to get to your victim is to insure that you are the closest
ship to it, send a thight beam message that unless he sends out a mayday
signal and act in trouble he'll be blasted out of the sky. Then as the
mayday signal is broadcast sped to his "rescue" and continue with the
scenario above. It just ain't that hard if you have some brains. 

> >But what is suspicious behavior? You seem to set the limit very low.
> 
> 1) A ship that dosen't appear on the ship registration file is suspicious.
  Of course, but any pirate with respect for himself will have several
  entries on the ships registration file, at least one.  

> 2) A ship that dosen't have the captain that the SRF lists is suspicious.
  Why? Say my captain falls ill and is replaced by another company captain
  at some port. Why is this suspicous? You can't stop freighters and
  merchant so that they loose good money because one name is wrong. The
  captain is just an employee of the owners and can be fired, replaced,
  fall ill, die, get heartsick, get a promotion, be drafted, quit and
  there is no way that the Imperium can or is interested in keeping this
  info up to date, in all and every sytem. If the ship is stopped for
  customs searches and the captain has some papers he'll be accepted.     

> 3) A ship with high G rating, heavy armament, and no legitimate business
>    in the system is suspicious.

  This is not how I see the Imperium, where nobles, megacorporations, rich
  fellows all travel in the thousands to and from worlds continously. Is a
  merchant doing trips outside the imperium suspicous just because he is
  armed. And I think that large amount of the travel in the Imperium will
  be incidents were there to the burecrates of the starport appears to be
  no legitimate busniess, else than just passing through on my way to
  somewhere else.      

> 4) A ship that arrives at the jump limit and hangs around there is VERY
>    suspicious.

  Of course, but no one is going to do that, execpt the USL traders that
  jump in, have their cargo unloaded, new cargo loaded, fuel refilled and
  jump on. Out by the jump limit magacorps will have depots to cut down on
  time. Cargo is shipped out to the jump limit before the ship appears,
  and cargo is shipped to the world after the ship has jumped. And from
  time to time, a corporate yacht will use the same depot, and the SDB
  don't want to shot it down just because it hanged out at the jump limit.
  The jump limit will IMHO be a very croweded place.     

> 5) A ship that tries to get within shooting range of another ship is VERY,
>    VERY suspicious.

  Since shooting range is 30.000km for short range thsi is just
  ridicoulus. All ship going towards a world will be in the same hex or
  adjenct hexes and therefor within firering range.

> 6) A ship with high G rating, heavy armament, and no legitimate business
>    in the system that arrives at the jump limit and hangs around there 
>    and then tries to get within shooting range of another ship is VERY,
>    VERY, VERY suspicious... ;-)
> 

See as above.

>       Hans Rancke

The more and more I think about it, I really don't see the Imperium as a
big brother that has killed piracy. Even with 100 SDB in one crowded
system there will be oppertunities. 

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: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:31:40 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Cost of policing NYC

At 04:28 PM 10/21/97 -0700, Douglas wrote:
>Scott Ellsworth wrote:
>> >I have asked this before, and I'll ask it again.  How can the Imperium
>> >afford to have 500 cops per household?  You say that the numbers support
>> >it.  I say the numbers are wrong.  If not the economics, then the
>> >population base would not be able to support this type of military
>> >structure.
>> 
>> They can afford it because of the decisions made by the designers of the
>> game system.
>
>With all due respect Scott, if you are going tell me that I have to
>accept your position on the numbers because it is canon, then you need
>to abide by the restrictions canon makes with regard to
>permanently-based system defense.

>If the planet does not have the Tech Level _AND_ Population OR a
>Navy/Scout base, then the planet cannot support a system defense.  An
>SDB is, by definition, not jump capable, and would _not_ be in place in
>this type of system.

Fair enough.  _I_ would have designed things such that an SDB could be
maintained on site, but then, I would have designed things such that it
would be needed, and insufficient to stop all piracy, even around mid sized
worlds.  I think this makes for a more exciting game, and the jump drive
just works too close to planets for my taste.  I would be happier if jump
drive started where thrusters stopped, making the entire solar system an
interesting place.

I think my earlier point still stands, even if I cannot have cheap SDBs in
systems where they would just rust.  The weaponry and armor that makes a
warship usable are very cheap compared to the cost of the rest of the ship,
so it does not take many losses before it is worth having protection.

Again, BOTE, I figured that when a 4Kt merchant and a 4KT warship cost
within 10% to a factor of 2 of each other, rather than different by several
orders of magnitude as on Earth now, it takes very few losses to make a
loss worth preventing.  As best as I can tell, the line is going to be
somewhere between one prevented loss of a ship one tenth the cost, and one
prevented loss of a ship equal in cost to the proposed warship.

Whether this comes via convoy, or via escort, or via SDB is not as
important as the economic truth that insurance of some kind will exist, and
that it will try to prevent crushing losses.  There will be people who go
outside the protection of the convoys, Navy, bases, whatever, but if the
risk is high, and the return low, it will not happen often.

Further, given that the "cost of the umbrella" is low compared to the cost
of the vessels that might get lost, it is going to be very, very important
for a world to put in some kind of suppression system if they want any
traffic at all, and important for the Imperial reputation.  I figured that
was what those fighters proposed by Cleon were for - low grade pirate
suppression.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:55:07 +0100
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Cargo Handling

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) mentioned about Cargo Handling in
Traveller:

>More important is to remember that many *cargos* will have max g loads...
<snip>
>Also, current containers come in "half" and even (rarely) quarter-size...

All covered in the Hazard Profiles in 101 Cargos... :-)

Yes, okay, so life's descended upon me in a huge pile of something which,
although it smells quite pleasant, is preventing me spending much time in
fulfilling requests for BITS/CORE products. Or, to translate, real work has
intervened big time (if you've seen any big press announcements about Nortel
innovations in Internet technology of late...).

So, apologies to all you waiting out there, but mass-scale printing is
nearly ready, then hopefully distribution can be sorted out.

Andy :-)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:44:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: SemoFetus@aol.com
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

>Well, first let me say that I agree with what Douglas wrote 100%! The task
>system in CORPS is simple (and you don't have to use the chart if you don't
>want to, since it all reduces to a simple equation), and the rule book has
>lots of detail (every time I look through the book I find at least one
>thing that I didn't know was there, or that I had forgotten about) for
>those that want it. I have to admit the combat system is perhaps the most
>daunting part - it is fairly detailed (without resorting to charts) and may
>not suit some people. My players tried it, and then asked for something
>simplier. I don't doubt that if everyone knew the combat rules well that
>combat would run smoothly - its just learning the combat rules that is the
>problem.

CORPS sounds pretty interesting, but one important question.  Is point based
chargen the _only_ form of chargen?  I'm not a big fan of point based
character generation (in real life, people's advantages are very rarely
balanced evenly with their disadvantages.  Some people get lucky, and some
people don't).

Semo

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:08:50 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Rate of Fire

Bruce Johnson wrote:

> Now, _why_ do the bad guys want to destroy this perfectly good ship
> sitting there for the taking? That's the question you should be asking
> yourself...

'Tis good, sobering, GM advice, this is.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:26:53 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Gas Giants

>Somebody went into this in an Analog article some years back. The
>pressure just isn't there. You need pressures *way* above degeneracy
>levels to get fusion to work. So "mere" metallic hydrogen pressures are
>nothing.

Unless you subscribe to the cold fusion nuttery. There seems to be somthing
there but not necessary fusion.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:17:52 -0400
From: "Glenn Crawford" <glennc@nelvana.com>
Subject: J-Space (my ideas on it)

	> During tonight's Trav sesh, I explained to one of my players - Steve -
> about the 100 diameter jump limit. I also told him that a ship attempting
> jump while still on a planet would destroy much of it. This is my
understanding at least.

Depends on the definition of IT. The ship, yes. The planet, no.
A ship jumping on planet would have a rather good chance of vanishing into
J-space forever and being destroyed by the reality therein. 

I define the effect of gravity as compressing J-space, and instead of a
bubble you would get an ellipsoid resulting in part of the ship being
outside the J-drive protection. The ship would be torn to pieces. The people
on the planety would see the ship glow blue, then stretch and then vanish.
The problem would occur in a very tny pocket of J-space. 

This is why J-drive is based on volume, because it has to make a correct
bubble size. The bubble is typically one-two meters bigger than the ship in
all dimensions. If you put a scout J-2 into a Free Trader, it would take a
few hours of changing the volume parameters. In other words a 100 ton J2 is
not a 200 ton J1 without some modifiers. Basically, you would have to tell
the J2 100 ton to reduce the dimensionality by 50% (I needed a  word for how
deep into J-space you go by J#) and increase volume by 100%.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:27:32 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

At 10:24 AM 10/22/97 -0500, you wrote:

>A minor rant...
>
>I know a little of psychology (and you know what they say about a little
>knowledge). Still, I have a very hard time with the concept of the mere
>sight of jumpspace being a variable affecting "sanity." It smacks of
>psuedoscience to me, a result of a poor understanding of paychology. What
>exactly would the mechanism be that would be a factor in mental
>dysfunction? Stress? This is really the only thing I can think of -- and if
>that is the case, then I have a hard time with the argument that looking at
>jumpspace is any more destructive than looking at any other really
>disturbing phenomena.

I used to know a girl who was epileptic, and couldn't go to movies because
the high speed flicker caused her to have seizures.  I've also kept track
of "face" sightings, which shows the human mind's ability to pull familiar
patterns out of random things.

It has been shown that certain sights can have a direct influence on the
mind, and the disturbing aspects of j-space is just an aspect of that.
Personally I see the j-space effect as being similar to a bad LSD trip..
There's nothing really there to look at, so your mind begins putting things
in for you...

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 97 18:45 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: AM- Torp

In-Reply-To: <v03007805b0715a71004d@[18.77.3.40]>

Peter,

> >> My thought is "antimatter torpedo".
> >
> >I recommend mesons and nukes. They are safer
>  
> Not to mention in the right TL...
>  
> As far as I remember, antimatter power and weapons began at TL16 (MT
> Referees Manual).  Antimatter missiles are the same.  I believe the problem
> is containement.  Also remember that creating antimatter requires energy
> equal to the annihilation energy.  This is considerable, even with Fusion.

Antimatter missile?

You mean like the one carried by that helicopter(!) on p91 of EV...?
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:42:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jim Heivilin <ccbanzai@showme.missouri.edu>
Subject: Re: Definition: Grav Compensator

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Richard Hough wrote:
>said no, that the compensator can't penetrate the ship's hull, but couldn't
>give a good reason why it is able to penetrate things like bulkheads, cargo
>containers, or battle dress. Can anybody help me out?
I would think the field generators would be mounted in the floor (the
ones to create the 1G of artificial gravity) or they would have
projectors mounted there (more likely and less 'overhead' of
equipment). So if they wanted to rip up the decking to get the grav
compensators out, rewire them for power and control and mount them
someplace to point them at the derelict they could do that.

>Some other ideas we kicked around without resolving involve how
>controllable grav-compensators are. Can you have different compensation in
>different areas of the ship? 
We play that you can.  In fact to while away time in jump space on
trip one of our guys designed a voice activated control module to
allow us to vary the gravity if we get boarded again.  6Gs in the
corridor or cargo bay will slow down most people.

>as the floor and thereby double the floor space? Why not manipulate it so
>cargo just 'falls' in and out of the hold instead of needing cranes or
>loaders? You could set them to fractional Gs to avoid damage.
Might work until the containers reach the grav field of the planet or
station.

Jim

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jim Heivilin, ccbanzai@showme.missouri.edu, 
  http://www.missouri.edu/~ccbanzai
  http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/game (game site)
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yaphet Blue, Chief Engineer, A.S.S. Bounty, 
  master saxophonist, former scout, sometime financier
  yblue@bounty.arlea.irurk.net
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "We go where the wind takes us, of course we operate mostly in 
  vacuum!"  Dr. Percival Caernarvon, Ship's Doctor, A.S.S. Bounty
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:49:06 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

Here is an idea for masking IR:

Fabricate a lightweight, collapsible framework that fits over the aft
half of the ship.

Stretch black mylar, or some other material, over the framework - to
provide for optical camoflage.

Attach piping (or allow for flow in 'pockets' in the material) to the
fuel supply, and allow a flow of LHyd through the material.

In case of emergency, the framework can be jettisoned, and direction of
thrust will take you away from the LHyd-filled piping.  The material
should be sensor-transparent, or allow deployment of the passive array.

What do you think?  I'd like to throw this at the party (tho' more from
a stumbling across a MilInt operation than from a pirate encounter) next
game, so I'd appreciate feedback.

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:01:12 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)

Joseph R. Dietrich wrote:
> 
> >Another thing to note is that - T4's combat rules to the contrary - pounding a
> >ship with laser fire is not goint to make it mystically run out of hitpoints
> >and explode; it'll just be increasingly full of small holes, with more
> >systems out and maybe some crew casualties, but it won't explode.
> 
> Hmm. Here's a question then. If a hit by a laser holes a section with
> atmosphere and a lhyd tank, won't the two mix and combust (assuming the
> laser also provides a spark)? Of course, millitary vessels would probably
> be depressurized before seeing combat and the crew wearing vacc suits.
> Given the timescale involed, so too civilian ships, I suppose.

I've actually always assumed 'Interior Explosion' to be caused by a
number of different factors.  The pressure tanks themselves, keeping
enough atmosphere to re-air the ship 1.5 times (I only allow reduced
pressure if they explosively decompress) - well if you've ever seen a
oxygen bottle propel itself through a bulkhead, you would have a great
deal of respect for the amount of energy compressed gasses have.  Mixing
Lhyd and O2, boom.  Mixing exotic gases (required for M-drive and
J-drive operation), boom.  Hits on the hi-power network (ever seen a
transformer go in a rainstorm?), boom.  Hits on ordinance (especially
those nasty demolition kits), boom.  Hits in the paint locker, boom.

There are a lot of combustible materials aboard a ship!

So far as  catastrophic destruction of the ship, well - that's got to be
the fuel tanks letting loose (unfortunate mixing of the Hi-pressure O2
and LHyd systems), of (if you have a missile launcher) a magazine
explosion.

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: GDWGAMES@aol.com
Subject: Extrality

Dave Golden

> FWIW, I have personally observed a local sheriff in hot pursuit, sirens
> howling, blow right past the armed sentry at the gate of an Air Force base,
> which is a federal reservation ... basically an extrality line. Now, I
> don't know if there were existing agreements, he called ahead, whatever.
> But he sure surprised the poor airman who thought he'd be safe if he ducked
> on base.

There is a great scene in a movie about the Berlin Airlift (the title slips
my mind, but it starred Montgomery Clift and Paul Douglas). American airman
and his newly found German Girlfriend are slumming in Berlin, during which
time the poor schlub loses his uniform and military ID, and finds himself in
the Soviet secto, dressed in borrowed civies and without papersr. As he and
the woman try to sneak back into the American sector, they are nabbed in the
middle of a large open square by the Soviet MP. They scream for help to the
American MP, who comes over and is joined by the British MP. The Russians
claim the couple is in the Russian sector, but the Yank says the line is over
there, and the couple is in _his_ jurisdction. Both sides appeal to the Brit,
who says that the whitewashed line on the sidewalk is worn away. An argument
ensues, and draws a crowd who proceed to join in the dabate (No, I remember
clearly, it was straight out from the streetlight over there!"). As the
argument between MPs over who has jurisdiction gets more and more heated, the
Airman and his ladyfriend back slowly away, blend into the crowd and move
away, unnoticed.

I never found a situation where I could work that into Traveller. Wonderful
scene, though.

Incidentaly, when I wrote the Champa Starport article for JTAS, I took the
word "Extrality" from one of historian Barbara Tuchman's books, who says it
was originally used to describe the situation in the Trade Ports in China
during the period 1890-1930. It seemed a useful term to hijack for SF use.

Loren Wiseman

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:10:56 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

At 10:24 AM 10/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
><vreeeee!!!! slice>
>>Jumpspace is not supposed to be all that good to look at. It doesn't
>>automatically drive you nuts, but it sure doesn't help you stay sane.
><sizzle-sizzle flop>

>A minor rant...
>
>I know a little of psychology (and you know what they say about a little
>knowledge). Still, I have a very hard time with the concept of the mere
>sight of jumpspace being a variable affecting "sanity."


The way I play it is that the laws of physics are fundamentally different,
such that jumpspace is anathema to our spacetime, our matter, and so on.
Normally, you are in a nice, safe jump bubble which keeps it far enough
away that edge effects are not important.  When you gaze at it through a
view screen, it is merely disturbing, like an Escher print writ large - the
things which are happening in it are fundamentally not possible in a
universe we know, and only marginally possible at an interface.

This, per se, does not drive people batty, but it is a tremendous stressor.
 Any Psi talents often hurt, because you may well get false signals from
the boundary.  Add the fact that your mind works no better than anything
else native to this set of fundamental laws, and you are really in dire
straits if you are "right up against it."

A Physics prof I know used to tell stories about a chap at one of the big
accelerators, who was prized because he would fix them with the fields on.
His comment was "It feels really weird when you turn your head."  Given the
magnetic fields in there, I cannot be surprised.  I assumed close proximity
to it was part of the problem, and why pictures of it do not prepare you well.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:26:17 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Piracy

<html>
At 05&#58;56 PM 10&#47;21&#47;97 -0600, you wrote&#58; <br>
<blockquote type=cite>At 11&#58;06 pm 10&#47;19&#47;97 PST, you
wrote&#58;<br>
&gt;In mail you write&#58;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; You have crippled the ship (victim) in 5 minutes&#58; The
easiest way to do<br>
&gt;&gt; this is to kill the power plant, so no gravity... Otherwise the
merchant<br>
&gt;&gt; captain, knowing that the SDB is (in your argument) 85 min out
puts the<br>
&gt;&gt; ship in a deadmans tumble so you can't recover it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;You can set the ship to spinning about any axis. But only one of
them<br>
&gt;at once. So &quot;tumbling&quot; is the wrong word.<p>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IIRC, you can indeed have an object spinning
about one axis, and<br>
precessing about another ... in effect, tumbling.<br>
- -- Dave
Golden&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<a
href="http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj">http&#58;&#47;&#47;www.pcisys.net&#47;~goldendj</a>
- --<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;
goldendj@pcisys.net&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
finger for PGP key<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED
***<br>
</blockquote><br>Well could the terms roll, yaw and pitch have any
meaning?&lt;G&gt;<br>
They are the terms for movement(spin) along each axis. Each term refers
to a different axial spin.<br>
But Dave already know these terms very intimately.&lt;G&gt;<p>
<br>
<BR>
<div>-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-</div>
<div>(c)1997 Sam Thomas&nbsp; |Email:sinbad@dfw.net|</div>
<div>Sinbad Sam, Owner and Operator of Sinbad Sam's Saloon </div>
<div>Chief Weapons Designer For Reddkneck Arms and Munitions</div>
- -----------------------------------------------------
</html>

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1995
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 22 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1996



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Definition: Grav Compensator
Traveller Items for Sale
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Jump Weapon?
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
"Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol
Re: Vargr Pulps
Re: Vargr Pulps
Re: New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Terraforming GG moons
re: Piracy
Re: AM- Torp
The unsuppressed Pirate, part 2
Jump Space technical Qs...
Re: AM- Torp
Re: Newt Pulp
Re: Why use CORPS?
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Reversed order of posts 
Begging, and Offering...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 20:35:45 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

>A minor rant...
>
>I know a little of psychology (and you know what they say about a little
>knowledge). Still, I have a very hard time with the concept of the mere
>sight of jumpspace being a variable affecting "sanity." It smacks of
>psuedoscience to me, a result of a poor understanding of paychology. What
>exactly would the mechanism be that would be a factor in mental
>dysfunction? Stress? This is really the only thing I can think of -- and if
>that is the case, then I have a hard time with the argument that looking at
>jumpspace is any more destructive than looking at any other really
>disturbing phenomena.

It's just people having read too much Niven.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:07:46 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Definition: Grav Compensator

On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Glenn Hoppe wrote:

> 
> If it did work that way, imagine the poor saps who decide to jump in the
> air. Falling in two directions sounds like a recipe for torn ligaments
> or ... worse. :)


Or, given the height of most starship decks, you'll a) be smacking into
each other all the time, and b) since your inner ear will be on the
'wrong' side of the gradient, you'll experience the unique sensation of
having half your body think it's hanging from the ceiling.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:06:18 CDT
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@cmi.csc.com>
Subject: Traveller Items for Sale

Well, I've got to let go of two Traveller pieces, and rather than see
them sit in the bin of old Traveller stuff at the local Wierd Pete's,
I want them to find homes where they'll be used...

So, I'm going to auction off my old Mayday (1983, mostly unpunched) and
my Imperium (1977, "Conflict Game Company" it claims, some unpunched).

Please contact me via e-mail, not to the list.  I'll post updates every
couple of days to the list and the bidders, and I'll use the going, going,
gone system.  Winners pay shipping, etc...

Thanks!


DonM.
- --
=========================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist,              (217) 239-8365 = 
= Computer Sciences Corporation, Champaign, IL     dmckinne@cmi.csc.com =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998 =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org    (217) 469-9917 = 
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:38:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

>Jumpspace is not supposed to be all that good to look at. It doesn't
>automatically drive you nuts, but it sure doesn't help you stay sane.

I have visualized jumpspace as black ... very black ... this would of course
not help anyone to stay sane, but it would not be a problem either (unless
you where afraid of the dark :-)

I was wondering if there is any canon description of how jumpspace looks ...
can someone answer that question for me?

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Weapon?

> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:15:32 +0100
> From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
> 
> 	During tonight's Trav sesh, I explained to one of my players - Steve -
> about the 100 diameter jump limit. I also told him that a ship attempting
> jump while still on a planet would destroy much of it. This is my
> understanding at least.
> 
> 	Steve them asked what was to stop someone from performing a
> suicide jump on a planet. I couldn't answer him. Can anyone else do so? 

I've never (IMTU) seen jump failures as causing much *outside* damage at
all.  A ship jumping from a planet's surface might cause some collateral
damage -- e.g., pulling a hunk of the ground and random pieces of nearby
equipment into jumpspace with it, and perhaps releasing a brief, mild
burst of high-energy radiation -- but mostly it'd just misjump wildly with
massive damage to the drive (tiny chance) or flat-out disappear forever,
presumably scattered as component quarks across a 72-parsec-diameter
sphere.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:23:08 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

Joseph R. Dietrich wrote:
> 
> <vreeeee!!!! slice>
> >Jumpspace is not supposed to be all that good to look at. It doesn't
> >automatically drive you nuts, but it sure doesn't help you stay sane.
> <sizzle-sizzle flop>
> 
> A minor rant...
> 
> I know a little of psychology (and you know what they say about a little
> knowledge). Still, I have a very hard time with the concept of the mere
> sight of jumpspace being a variable affecting "sanity." It smacks of
> psuedoscience to me, a result of a poor understanding of paychology. What

"pay"chology, huh? Makes cents. ;-)

> exactly would the mechanism be that would be a factor in mental
> dysfunction? Stress? This is really the only thing I can think of -- and if
> that is the case, then I have a hard time with the argument that looking at
> jumpspace is any more destructive than looking at any other really
> disturbing phenomena.

Well... some of we heretics subscribe to the notion that jumpspace is
also the carrier medium through which psionic powers propogate. If one
allows psionics in a campaign, then a little jumpspace dementia doesn't
hurt.

Maybe people see their own grisly deaths ... or the end of the universe,
of all time. Maybe the brain is overloaded with sensory input, or the
complete incoherence of that input causes certain areas to shut down.
Perhaps a hypnotic effect is at work ... once you look, you can't tear
yourself away; look too long -- and that's all you'll *ever* see.
<shudder> Now *that's* disturbing. I think our experience of disturbing
phenomena is quite narrow, and you might be premature in thinking that
jumpspace can't be more destructive than the most disturbing phenomena
we know.

> Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. To me, this just smacks too
> much of the quasi-Lovecraftian, psychodynamic (and even mystical) ideas of
> how the human brain works.

I empathize with your statement. But jumpspace *is* a mysterious,
mystical place.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:45:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: "Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol

Heres a little toy sure to make Hengebar drool! :-)

Antioch Arms (a subsidiary of X-TEK Industries, LIC) presents...

The "Noisy Cricket" TL-12 Personal Plasma Pistol

Pulse Energy: 0.0625Mj
Firing Unit: 0.25kg/300cr
Support System: 0.25kg/300cr
EPG Action: 0.00625kg/0.0375cr
EPG Cartridge: 0.15kg/1.5625cr
Magazine(1 shot): 0.25kg/2.5cr
Recoil System: 0.3125kg/187.5cr

Loaded Mass: 1.22kg
Price: 791.90cr
Range: 25m
Damage: 10
Recoil: 25(?!?)

This little gem was designed in response to the various FS dueling weapons 
designed by Hengebar Spofulam.  Using his expertise in high energy weapons, 
the Commander decided to produce a 1 shot plasma pistol.  The result is the 
"Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol, so named that during its first test firing, 
the gunman was thrown back several meters due to the awesome recoil of this 
weapon.  This effect reminded the Commander of an old Terran 2D film in 
which agents gunned down aliens with a similar fictitious weapon.

OOC:  Gawds!  I never thought the recoil on this thing would be so high. 
 This is truly a  "Noisy Cricket"! :-)  I would think a Formidable or 
Staggering roll of STR would be necessary to avoid injury when firing this 
weapon.

Enjoy this little bit of insanity! ;->
 ----------------------------------------
\\  //  "New Technologies for the New Imperium"
T E K   Military and Civilian Contractor
//  \\  Contact cmdrx@magicnet.net or bprankard@theiia.org

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 97 21:10 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Vargr Pulps

In-Reply-To: <199710211545.QAA23230@sand.global.net.uk>

> The Dogs of War?

The Dogfather
Twelve Puppies
Invasion of the Doggy Snatchers
Jurassic Bark
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 97 21:10 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Vargr Pulps

In-Reply-To: <199710211545.QAA23230@sand.global.net.uk>

> The Dogs of War?

The Dogfather
Twelve Puppies
Invasion of the Doggy Snatchers
Jurassic Bark
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 97 21:10 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: New foe for the K'kree (was Re: AOTR)

In-Reply-To: <971022.020012.9H5.rnr.w165w@krypton.rain.com>

Leonard,

> > Except the Kzinti *always* attack before they're ready.  I asked Larry
> > Niven about that bit of Known Space lore at the 1993 Worldcon, he replied
> > that without it, the history of KS would have ended with a detailed
> > description of a few million Kzin feasting on the human race.  I took this
> > to be a good reason why the Vargr didn't overwhelm humaniti during the Long
> > Night.. they always over-reached themselves.
>  
> So? That just means that the Kzinti won't *win* the war. There's no way
> that they'll let plant-eaters conquer them. So it'll be a long,
> drawn-out stalemate. And as we know, the Kzinti *do* learn patience if
> you hit them over the head long enough.

Of course, we all know it's just a manipulation by the Hivers to kill off all 
the psychotic Kzin and so turn them into a more peaceful race...
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                        http://www.cix.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:52:58 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

At 08:35 PM 10/22/97 +0100, Anders wrote:

>It's just people having read too much Niven.

It is impossible to read too much Niven.


- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry       dberry@hooked.net |
|      http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|------------------------------------------|
| "Writing is like prostitution. First you |
| do it for the love of it, then you do it |
| for a few friends, and finally you do it |
| for the money."               -- Moliere |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+


  

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 20:39:16 +0100
From: Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus@lotus.com
Subject: Re: Terraforming GG moons

But a Gas Giant is (mainly) made of Hydrogen. Hydrogen is explosive. Can
you just light a match to set it off?
[runs and ducks]

But seriously...
>The explosion would need to be tremendous to do more than mix up the
available
>gasses a bit.
    I agree wholeheartedly. It takes a lot to make any sort of impression
on a Gas Giant. They are so big. It is flat impossible to "ignite" a gas
giant and create any sort of long-term fusion. A fusion reaction is mainly
driven by pressure, not heat or any such. Unless you significantly add to a
Giant's Mass it just won't light.
    However, scale can work to your advantage too.  Some sort of
catestrophic impact might set some sort of reaction going on a temporary
basis. And temporary for a Gas Giant can be measured in centuries.
    Say you did your accelerate_your_planetoid_at_1G for a few months, but
not at the giant, but one of its less commercially viable moons. If you can
whack it soft enough not to fragment it, but hard enough to change its
momentumn significantly you might get it to spiral in. (Repeat as
necessary.) Now something the size of a galelian moon might cause the giant
to sputter for a while.
    In a Bughunters game I ran recently there was a cold-ish gas giant,
mainly metallic hydrogen, in close orbit around a pithy M-class star. There
was a ring like structure made up mainly of conductive metal that some
handwaving aliens used to manipulate the magnetic field of the gas giant,
and consequently the star itself to create a solar flare. The solar flare,
in turn, threw enough ions into the whole system which the gas giant
focused like a lens and rather smashed apart a battle fleet. The magnetised
remains settled in harmonic points forming the previously mentioned metalic
ring material.

    No matter how bizzare, anything that seems to have any plausability
whatsoever turns out to be far more expensive than covering the planet with
domes and giving all the citizens warm mittens. Occum's razor wins in the
end.



>You would need to heat up the planets surface
An idea a saw a long time ago was about seting up satelites that would
unfold into huge arrays of micro-thin reflective material. This would
reflect daylight onto major US cities. The costing said it was cheaper than
all those streetlights. Needless to say this was before the Environmental
Lobbiests had any power.


>If there is sufficient reflective material on the surface
Actually I forgot about albedo. The easiest, and probably cheapest, way to
heat a planet is probably to paint it black. (Wouldn't the Goths be happy?)
Image some sort of microbe that can live in minimal conditions, breeds like
bejaysus until saturated, and carries a black pigment. Saves hours of
brushwork.
It would be a bit drab, but warmer.


Actually, in 2010 they ignite Jupiter via magic replciating black boxes.
Clarke usually has his science pretty accurate (unless he is waving a magic
wand like the star drive in Rendezvous with Rama). Anyone read the book?

Cheers,
Jo

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:00:32 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: re: Piracy

Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:13:10 -0800, Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
>>>This may seem heretical, but just how "canonical" is piracy really? Sure, a
>>>lot of "pirates" are mentioned in the JTAS, sourcebooks, and adventures,
>>>but are these "pirates" lone shipowners attacking free traders?
>>>I think not.
>>
>>
>>Pirates also appear in encounter tables in CT and MT (at least).
>
>I already said the word "pirates" appears many times in Traveller. That's
>why I put it in quotes; I was quoting the book. But how many times do the
>words "lone shipowners attacking free traders" appear? The encounter tables
>don't say this. MMT, JTAS, and Traveller Digest don't say this. The canon
>examples of pirates I could found were fleets of warships and corporate
>dirty tricks squads. Why should I assume the pirates in the encounter table
>are so different from the pirates in published adventures?

The pirate encounters in CT, as least I don't have MT in
front of me, are lone ships....

>My complaint with the piracy advocates is their use of canon piracy (fleets
>of warships from secure bases outside the Imperium) to claim that a totally
>different form of criminal activity (local shipowners with armed far
>traders) is widespread.

Well, as one "piracy advocate" this is not my approach.

>I can understand why referees want pirates to have only a few small ships;
>this lets the players fight them. I just don't think such weak "pirates"
>are plausible or supported by canon.

Well, that is what we are disagreeing about.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:09:25 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: AM- Torp

>Antimatter missile?
>
>You mean like the one carried by that helicopter(!) on p91 of EV...?

Wasn't there somebody that said EV was useful as a playing aid ? ;)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:16:38
From: Paolo Marino <marino@inrete.it>
Subject: The unsuppressed Pirate, part 2

Still about piracy... I understand the various arguments *against* it, but,
IMHO, there is a very canonical reason to accept the fact the Piracy is a
constant threat in any milieu, even during CT. 

If piracy wasn't so common, why should the Imperium allow any civilian ship
to mount weapons? Whenever you buy or have a ship built for you, you may
*always* get "civilian grade" weapons and defense systems, no question asked.

This means that the Imperium admits that Piracy is always possible. If this
was not the case, nobody could have weapons/armor/sandcaster on his ship.

Comments?



__  Paolo Marino  __          |Inrete Games Page: www.inrete.it/games/gms.html
 mc4799@mclink.it (Preferred)  | marino@inrete.it (Best for MIME/BinHex)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:15:10 -0500
From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
Subject: Jump Space technical Qs...

Here's another.

What equipment is required to enter and maintain Jump Space?

Weird, right?  I know a jump-drive is needed (duh) :)

Look at it like this.

I am sitting still, I prepare and enter jumpspace.  Now, does the jump drive need to 
remain functional during the entire jump?  Or is it only used to get you into jumpspace 
and once there, the whole ship could turn off power, including the jump drive?  IOW, it 
makes the jump-tunnel and then you enter it and that is all there is to it...

Or, does the jump drive get you into jumpspace and need to be functioning to maintain the 
jump?

The reason I am asking is I'd like to know what equipment is vital during the move through 
jumpspace.  What could be turned off for repair during the week-long jump?  What could 
randomly 'fail' that would keep them in jump?  What if the jump-drive failed, would they 
fall from jumpspace?  Die?  Be 'Lost-in-Space' (Danger Will Robinson).

I hope I am making this clear.  Am I?

Thanks!
Kevin
 The Perfect Game - http://www.peiprog.com/PerfectGame
========================================================
 Serving enthusiasts of computer baseball simulations
========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:25:30 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: AM- Torp

Andrew Said
>Peter,
>
>> >> My thought is "antimatter torpedo".
>> >
>> >I recommend mesons and nukes. They are safer
>>
>> Not to mention in the right TL...
>>
[snip]
>Antimatter missile?
>
>You mean like the one carried by that helicopter(!) on p91 of EV...?

I dearly hope its an "anti-material" missile.  I'll look tonight.  A Helo
would have a hard time getting to minimum safe distance.

Pete


Peter H. Brenton
MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center
(617) 253-3185
pbrenton@mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:42:08 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Newt Pulp

At 09:22 AM 10/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>To sum up....
>
>Events involving amazing Innovations and of the right application in the
>right place and function in Data Filing Technology that are of the
>entertaining nature this being the 38th issue of publication, following the
>37th, and to be followed by the 39th. As this issue is sold, work continues
>on the 42nd issue according to our set schedule which was arranged in to its
>rightful place by the wisdom of the editor at the time of the publishing of
>the issue that was issued as the first

Or, translated into the Newt's language:

Blorb.


- --

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Douglas E. Berry       dberry@hooked.net |
|      http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/      |
|------------------------------------------|
| "Writing is like prostitution. First you |
| do it for the love of it, then you do it |
| for a few friends, and finally you do it |
| for the money."               -- Moliere |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+


  

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:46:27 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

At 12:44 PM 10/22/97 -0400, you wrote:

>CORPS sounds pretty interesting, but one important question.  Is point based
>chargen the _only_ form of chargen?  I'm not a big fan of point based
>character generation (in real life, people's advantages are very rarely
>balanced evenly with their disadvantages.  Some people get lucky, and some
>people don't).

Point-based is the only way to go, but there's nothing to say that you
can't have unbalanced characters.  I regularly have players with far too
many points in disads who insist that each and every point is needed for
the character concept.  On the other hand, the player who gave me his
20-page background story got 500 SP to spend.  He made himself a retired
Admiral with contacts *everywhere* and an encyclopedic knowledge of local
space.


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|  Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net   |
|         Proud Gearhead & Planetologist         |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|  "Who am I?  I am Susan Ivanova, Commander.    |
| Daughter of Andre and Sophie Ivanov.  I am the |
| Right Hand of Vengeance and the boot that is   |
| going to kick your sorry ass all the way back  |
| to Earth, sweetheart.  I am Death Incarnate,   |
| and the last living thing that you are ever    |
| going to see.  *God* sent me."                 |
|    from "Between Darkness & Light" -Babylon 5  |
+------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:52:28 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

>Fabricate a lightweight, collapsible framework that fits over the aft
>half of the ship.

It'd have to be extremely black - charge them the Military Ultrablack cost
(about MCr 1 pe rm2, I think) and calculate the signature based on the surface
area of the black stuff. 

I think, in th eend, something like this won't buy you anything. It'll
still be getting heat input from sunlight and also from any radiators on
the ship that face the black thing, so you'd have to cool it pretty
agressively - it's probably easier just to shut down the facing radiators and
cool the hull, which is what Advanced and Extreme Masking in FFS2 do.

(In fact, my intent with Extreme Masking and Military Ultrablack was that
they be so expensive that they mostly get used for spy ships like this.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:00:03 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)

>There are a lot of combustible materials aboard a ship!
No more so than a modern naval vessel - which only explodes when you hit a
magazine; missile magazines in Traveller should be less explosive.

>So far as  catastrophic destruction of the ship, well - that's got to be
>the fuel tanks letting loose (unfortunate mixing of the Hi-pressure O2
>and LHyd systems), of (if you have a missile launcher) a magazine
>explosion.

There's probably nowhere near enough O2 onboard to make a ship explode.
Still, I don't mind one "ship explodes" critical hit on the critical hit
chart - what I object to is the "whittle off enoguh hit points and it explodes"
in T4.

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:02:13 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

>I realize that staying inbetween the sensor and the star
>would be a darn hard thing to do, but would it be possible?

Very hard, because the sensors are very high-resolution - you'd have to
be right on top of the star (within a fraction of an arcsecond) to
Not Be Seen; if the opponent was accelerating at all it would be very
hard to maintian this situation.

The one exception is thelocal sun, of course - coming from the same
direction as the local sun (with in 15 degrees) gets you a big bonus
to signature. It's possible I could add an even bigger bonus for being 
within 1 degree of the sun, though that's hard to do on a hexgrid it might
be useful to do in roleplaying situations (maybe an extra -1 to passive
and -0.5 to active for being *right* in front of the sun, which is only 
allowed for non-maneuvering sensors.)

Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:05:12 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Reversed order of posts 

>Is it just my imagination or is the TML reversing the order of some posts,
>i.e. of two I sent, the one I sent later turned up earlier, etc.

This happens to me regularly. I have accepted it as a fact.

Can it have something to do with the way the posts are sent through the net?
Perhaps they travel along different routes or something ...
Does anyone know why this happens?

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:11:53 GMT
From: jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: Begging, and Offering...

.... which, in this case, both amount to the same thing -
=46reelance Traveller wants material.

The Beg:
=46reelance Traveller can always use material. We're also
interested in opening up new directions for our Traveller
Resource to follow.  I can't think of everything; I need your
help - ideas, articles, reviews, useful stuff, neat stuff,
interesting stuff... it's all grist for the Freelance Traveller
mill.  Let me know.

The Offer:
=46reelance Traveller can always use material (Sounds familiar,
doesn't it?).  The Editor also feels that material should never
be lost.  If you have a Traveller web site that you can no longer
maintain, either because of lack of access, lack of funds, or
lack of time, Freelance Traveller is willing to absorb the
material.  Let me know, and we'll work out how and when.
- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jeff.zeitlin@mail.execnet.com

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1996
***********************************
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, October 22 1997    Volume 1997 : Number 1997



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Trade in Aramis
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: "Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Fleet deployment
Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)
Jump Weapon?
Re: The unsuppressed Pirate, part 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:18:05 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Ship's registry and Big Brother

Tommy Grav writes:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
>I think that the Imperium is likely to not be really interested in who the
>captain is as long as he can produce some legimate papers.

Yes, yes, but if he isn't the captain they expect then he will have those
papers inspected more thoroughly than if he is. Just like you can expect
to be more thoroghly questioned if you aren't the owner of the car you're
driving when a cop pulls you over.

>>On the well-travelled routes the information goes by X-boat and will
>>arrive in advance of the ship. In backwater systems the information
>>goes by naval couriers, by passing patrols and by relief ships. That's
>>where a ship may sometimes outrun its information.
> 
>But info reaching the next jump-1 system is going to take on week, the
>same as for the X-boat, so they'll reach there before the info. Reaching
>the highport would take hours and then you're off to the next port. Now the
>info has had a chance to reach this port before the pirate, and I admite
>that he now has to be clever. What he could do is make the ship appear
>to have been sold in the previous system, an exchange perhaps, with the
>crew being replaced. Just on of the top of my head example. 

You appear to think that I'm talking about a ship that was captured in the
first system and jumps to another. I would never expect a pirate to be that
stupid. If he does manage to capture a ship he'll jump to some secret
hideaway and try to disguise it. What I'm talking about is that if you
plan to do something blatantly illegal in the next system, you don't jump
in with your own transponder broadcasting, because you don't wan't to be
identified, now do you? So you have to use a fake transponder signal. And
that has to be either a legitimate ship that is in the database or a
completely unknown identity. In either case it is not something you
want to use more than once and it is not something you'd want anyone
to check even once. Which means you have to behave with exquisite
normalcy while you are in the system.
 
>>And I claim that in order to catch a merchant, he will have to get close
>>to a patrol ship, assuming that the navy have as many ships as their
>>budget implies and that they have as few places to guard as the rules
>>about jump travel implies.
> 
>All he has to do is be closest to the ship he wants to attack. He
>brodcasts a mayday signal, and since the merchant he is wants has to come 
>to the rescue (the laws of the high sea applied)

The nearest patrol vessel will of course start to move towards him too.
Indeed, if the 3G acceleration of the patrol ship will allow it to reach
him before the 1G of the merchant, then the merchant will not even have
to respond at all. And how did he get that close to the merchant in the
first place? If pirates are such a big threat then traffic patterns will
be enforced. Besides, he dosen't know what he will find when he arrives
at one of these small systems. There may not be any victim at all. Even
if he is aiming for a scheduled ship, jump uncertainty can put him 48
hours away from him.

>he just waits until it is real close. Then he broadcasts a tight beam
>message that the turrets of his ship is locked onto the victim and that
>he just act naturally.

There's no way he can be sure that the victim isn't using a tight beam of
his own to talk to the patrol ship, but that dosen't really matter,
because the patrol ship is on its way anyway. More seriously, he'd better
be sure his victim isn't equipped with weapons of its own, since if it
is, it will have its turrets manned and be looking for the first bit of
suspicious behavior as a signal to blaze away. Finally, he can't be sure
that the victim won't decide to make a run for it anyway, forcing him to
jump off with empty pockets.

You keep forgetting that a pirate ship is an expensive investment that
has to make you a return. If you have to keep jumping back and forth
between marginal systems for months before hitting on the ideal piracy
situation, then you are apt to lose your ship to the recievers before
you make your first capture.

>He then starts the docking procedure, gets his cargo (there is no way in
>hell that a SDB is going to fire at two ships 15m apart at a distance of
>several thousand km. As the last of the cargo is brought aboard the ship's
>jump engine is fired up, and while maintaining the closeness to the victim
>you just jump out of there.

The jump from inside the 100 diameter limit is the least of the hazards,
true enough.

>Another way to get to your victim is to insure that you are the closest
>ship to it, send a tight beam message that unless he sends out a mayday
>signal and act in trouble he'll be blasted out of the sky. Then as the
>mayday signal is broadcast sped to his "rescue" and continue with the
>scenario above. It just ain't that hard if you have some brains.

I agree that if you have brains and no one else has any then it is easy. 
 
>> 1) A ship that dosen't appear on the ship registration file is suspicious.

>Of course, but any pirate with respect for himself will have several
>entries on the ships registration file, at least one.  

Oh, dear. Now he is betting his life on some clerk staying bribed. Did you
talk about brains? 

> > 2) A ship that dosen't have the captain that the SRF lists is suspicious.

>Why? Say my captain falls ill and is replaced by another company captain
>at some port. Why is this suspicous? You can't stop freighters and
>merchant so that they loose good money because one name is wrong.

Any merchant has to spend a few hours in port while he unloads and loads.
That will give you an opportunity to check him out.

>The captain is just an employee of the owners and can be fired, replaced,
>fall ill, die, get heartsick, get a promotion, be drafted, quit 

And if the new captain has the proper papers and the ship's identifying
marks check out then there is no problem.

>and there is no way that the Imperium can or is interested in keeping this
>info up to date, in all and every sytem. If the ship is stopped for
>customs searches and the captain has some papers he'll be accepted.     

Sure, and then the authorities have enough information about the ship to
identify it again. Go ahead and plunder a ship on the way out, if you like.
Did you talk about brains?
 
>>3) A ship with high G rating, heavy armament, and no legitimate business
>>    in the system is suspicious.
> 
>This is not how I see the Imperium, where nobles, megacorporations, rich
>fellows all travel in the thousands to and from worlds continously. Is a
>merchant doing trips outside the imperium suspicous just because he is
>armed?

Not if he has some legitimate business. But if a ship has a high G rating
and heavy armaments, then the number of places where it can make a living
is severely limited.

>And I think that large amount of the travel in the Imperium will be
>incidents were there to the burecrates of the starport appears to be
>no legitimate busniess, else than just passing through on my way to
>somewhere else.      

Au contraire. A starship is an expensive thing. A single mid passage will
cost Joe Average most of a year's income. The number of people who can 
to jump somewhere just for the heck of it is not large. Most ships will
have a reason to be where they are. The rest will get extra attention from
the authorities.
 
>>4) A ship that arrives at the jump limit and hangs around there is VERY
>>   suspicious.
> 
>Of course, but no one is going to do that, execpt the USL traders that
>jump in, have their cargo unloaded, new cargo loaded, fuel refilled and
>jump on. Out by the jump limit magacorps will have depots to cut down on
>time. Cargo is shipped out to the jump limit before the ship appears,
>and cargo is shipped to the world after the ship has jumped. And from
>time to time, a corporate yacht will use the same depot, and the SDB
>don't want to shot it down just because it hanged out at the jump limit.
>The jump limit will IMHO be a very croweded place.     

In a system with only a few million inhabitants? I think not.
 
>>5) A ship that tries to get within shooting range of another ship is VERY,
>>   VERY suspicious.
> 
>Since shooting range is 30.000km for short range this is just ridicoulus.
>All ship going towards a world will be in the same hex or adjenct hexes
>and therefor within firering range.

If they arrived at exactly the same time, yes. The odds against that
happening in a system with a few hundred ships per year traffic are
literally astronomical. And any ship that sits on the ground for days
without doing anything and then "just happening" to decide to leave
right after another has blasted off will be asked to wait while the
authorities goes through their papers one more time. You seem to assume
that only the pirates will have any brain. I just don't see it that
way. More the other way around, if anything.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:20:42 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

>I used to know a girl who was epileptic, and couldn't go to movies because
>the high speed flicker caused her to have seizures.  I've also kept track
>of "face" sightings, which shows the human mind's ability to pull familiar
>patterns out of random things.
>
>It has been shown that certain sights can have a direct influence on the
>mind, and the disturbing aspects of j-space is just an aspect of that.
>Personally I see the j-space effect as being similar to a bad LSD trip..
>There's nothing really there to look at, so your mind begins putting things
>in for you...

Does this mean that you would see strange moving THINGS just outside your
field of vision, half-visible staring faces in the murky darkness etc. ?

Sounds like a really bad experience. If you are going to get out there and
repair something, you'd better keep your eyes on what you're doing.
Otherwise, you might get scared and lose your grip ...

I imagine there must be tales told among starship crew ... stories about
horrible monsters dwelling in jumpspace, and at very rare times attacking
ships through some defect in the protective bubble.

Modern science denies all such rumours as paranoid fantasies, of course ...=
 :-)

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:27:29 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Trade in Aramis

Someone raised the question of just how many merchant ships there are in
the Imperium. Here are some calculations I did years ago about the
merchant tonnage in Aramis Subsector:


"The Traveller Adventure" gives enough information about trading companies to
make some educated guesses about the total size of the trade fleet. It should
be noted, however, that a number of assumptions that may not be true at all
are necessary. Don't take the following for more than it's worth.

TUKERA LINES: Provides scheduled services along X-boat routes. Has major
offices at Aramis and Junidy and minor on Towers, Nasemin, Natoko, L'oeul
d'Dieu, and Dhian.

Assumption: Tukera has about one 1000 T long-liner per office + several
3,000 T freighters operating in Aramis for a total of perhaps 20,000 T.

AKERUT LINES: Runs feeder routes throughout the sub-sector. Has approx.
50 5,000 T freighters. 25% of shipping is outside subsector for a total of
187,500 T.

IMPERIALLINES: Facilities on Violante, Pysadi, Reacher, Patinir, Dhian,
Carsten, Feneteman, Yebab, and Jesedispere. Supposedly each facility has 2
2,000 T freighters assigned (Not quite true, but that must appear reasonable
to outsiders). That would be a total of 18,000 T.

OBERLINDES: Are "roughly parallel to Akerut", another 187,500 T.

AL MORAI: 1 1000 T liner to L'oeul d'Dieu and another to Aramis: 2,000 T.

OUTSIDERS: Just as 25% of Akerut (and presumably Oberlindes) shipping goes
outside Aramis, outsiders would constitute some of the traffic in Aramis.
I'm going to assume it amounts to about the same, or 125,000 T.

Total for the large shipping lines: 540,000 T

Assumption: The small fledgeling lines and the free traders account for about
the same or another 540,000 T (A shaky assumption, I admit).

Total: 1,080,000 T of shipping in Aramis Subsector.

The total population of Aramis Subsector is about 33 billion (not 111 billion
as is claimed in _Spinward Marches_). That would make the merchant fleet about
1 T per 30,000 citizens, which I consider far too little, but there it is.
Perhaps Aramis is truly a backwater when it comes to trade.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:42:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

>>It's just people having read too much Niven.
>
>It is impossible to read too much Niven.

Forgive my ignorance, but I do truly need enlightment.

Who is Niven? I have never heard of him/her ...

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:41:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: "Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol

[description of handgun for suicides snipped]

>OOC:  Gawds!  I never thought the recoil on this thing would be so high.=20
> This is truly a  "Noisy Cricket"! :-)  I would think a Formidable or=20
>Staggering roll of STR would be necessary to avoid injury when firing this=
=20
>weapon.

You are clearly designing weapons using some kind of rules system ... from
what book?

Are there systems for designing other things as well (my players have weird
ideas) ? Missiles, ship cannons etc. ...

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:44:51 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

<snippy>
>The way I play it is that the laws of physics are fundamentally different,
>such that jumpspace is anathema to our spacetime, our matter, and so on.
>...  >When you gaze at it through a view screen, it is merely disturbing,
>like an
>Escher print writ large - the things which are happening in it are
>fundamentally not possible in a universe we know, and only marginally possible
>at an interface.
<snip>


The problem with this is that your senses can only deal with certain
stimuli. Any other data is pretty much ignored, or just turned into random
noise (press on your eyes while they are closed to see what I mean. You
will see "stars," or some other type of random light pattern if you press
hard enough. This is because the receptors of the retina are interpreting
the pressure the only way they can).


<hack>
>Any Psi talents often hurt, because you may well get false signals from
>the boundary.
<slash>


Given the great big honkin' handwave that Psi effects are, I can accept this.


<chop>
>I assumed close proximity to it was part of the problem, and why pictures of it
>do not prepare you well.
<chop>


The proximity I could understand -- there is a possible physical mechanism
there. But I highly doubt that just *seeing* jumpspace would have any
effect.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:44:53 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

>I used to know a girl who was epileptic, and couldn't go to movies because
>the high speed flicker caused her to have seizures.  I've also kept track
>of "face" sightings, which shows the human mind's ability to pull familiar
>patterns out of random things.
>
>It has been shown that certain sights can have a direct influence on the
>mind, and the disturbing aspects of j-space is just an aspect of that.
>Personally I see the j-space effect as being similar to a bad LSD trip..
>There's nothing really there to look at, so your mind begins putting things
>in for you...


Like when you are laying awake at night, at the edge of sleep in a dark
room, staring at that shirt draped over the chair, and it begins to move
and says "How'ya doing?"
:)

However, there is no reason to believe that this effect is any greater than
seeing things in any random stimuli. I may be incorrect in this, but it
seems to me that some of the Traveller stuff insinuates that *just looking*
at the phenomena is enough to cause dysfunction, whether or not there is a
pre-existing condition (like your aquaintance who has epilepsy).

Unlike LSD, which has a physiological effect, looking at jump space is just
that -- looking. If what was seen was a phenomena "not natural to this
universe," it would not cause a mental disorder just because one saw it.
Rather, it would just look meaningless.

Now, actually having *proximity* to a jumpspace boundary, where there might
be a physiological effect -- I can see this as causing possible illness.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:44:48 -0500
From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

>Here is an idea for masking IR: ...

<snipped description>

>What do you think?  I'd like to throw this at the party (tho' more from
>a stumbling across a MilInt operation than from a pirate encounter) next
>game, so I'd appreciate feedback.


Umm. Where does the heat go?

I mean, if you use LHyd to cool whatever is radiating heat, that LHyd gains
heat. To cool the LHyd again, you would have to generate more heat (because
to cool the LHyd you would have to do work on it), and so on, ad infinitum.

Isn't that the problem with IR masking? The laws of thermodynamics?

Somewhere you are going to have to radiate the heat. Am I right,
physics-guys? :)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:32:59 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Fleet deployment

Continuing the thread about how the Imperial Navy would be deployed, here
are some calculations I've made about the IN:


AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPERIAL NAVY IN THE CLASSIC ERA
===================================================

Main sources: _Fighting Ships_, _Spinward Marches Campaign_ and _Rebellion_.

NUMBER AND TYPE OF SHIPS

_Rebellion_ p. 27 states that each sector of the Imperium theoretically has a
group of fleets numbering about 1000 ships. This number includes combat vessels
such as cruisers, carriers, battleships, and _some_ escorts (emphasis mine).
It does not include auxiliaries, support ships, and scouts.

The first ambiguity lies in just what kind of escorts are included in the 1000
ship figure and what kind are not. Are the 5,000 T _Sloan_ class escorts so
big that they are counted, or is there a class of escorts smaller than a
light cruiser (30,000 T ships), but bigger than Sloans?

Perhaps one should postulate an escort class of around 10-20,000 T, big enough
to mount a spinal weapon, but too light to be classed as even a light cruiser.
A bit inelegant, especially since FS states that escorts are ships of up to 
5000 T and that the presence of a spinal mount is what distinguishes a
cruiser, but OTOH, are there really no ships in the 5,000-20,000 T range?
And this way we can define 'combat vessels' as ships with spinal mounts and
auxiliaries as ships without. 

Perhaps the simplest solution is to ignore the ',and some escorts' part and
still consider the presence of a spinal mount the criteria for being part of
the figure.

The second ambiguity is whether battleriders are included in the figure or
not. I would have preferred that they were not, but the one detailed squadron
I know of (the 154th Battle Rider Squadron described in SMC) clearly implies
that they are.
 
In the following for ease of reference I'm going to use the word 'armada'
about the sector fleets and reserve the word 'fleet' for the sub-sector-sized
fleets that the armadas are composed of. Also 'combat vessels' for the ships
included in the 1000 ship figure and 'auxiliaries' for all the ships that
isn't.

If the 1000 ships are for a sector with a full sixteen sub-sectors, then the
average fleet has 1000/16 = 62.5 ships. Since there are 320 regular fleets in
the Imperium, the total of combat ships for the Imperium would be around
20,000.

Further down it is stated that a regular fleet has between 2 and 10 squadrons
amounting to a total of between 50 and 200 ships. This would appear to average
out to 125 ships per fleet with an average of 6 squadrons per fleet and 21
ships per squadron.

Possibly this means that the squadrons are combat vessels _plus_ escorts and 
that the 125 ship figure includes auxiliaries. This would give us a navy of
20,000 combat vessels and a like number of auxiliaries.

However, FS states that CruRons are generally of 4 to 8 ships and the examples
in it implies that 8 ship BatRons are the norm. (Also, I seem to remember
squadrons of non-combat vessels mentioned somewhere, but I can't recall the
references).

Possibly the 2-squadron fleets and 25-ship squadrons are rare and almost all
fleets have 8-10 squadrons with almost all squadrons running to between 8 and
20 ships (half combat vessels and half escorts). With an average of about 9
squadrons per fleet and 14 ships per squadron we'll get about 20,000 combat
vessels and the same number of escorts. This still leave the pure auxiliary
squadrons like tanker squadrons and patrol squadrons (PatRons ;-) unaccounted
for, but it's a start.

SIZE AND COST OF A SQUADRON

The 154th Battle Squadron detailed in SMC consists of:

  1 300,000 T _Lurenti_ Class Carrier @ MCr23,056         =  23,056
  7 20,000 T _Nolikian_ Class Battle Riders @ MCr9,268.25 =  64,878
200 50 T _Sylean_ Class Heavy Fighters @ MCr105.33        =  21,066
  7 5,000 T _Sloan_ Class Escorts @ MCr3,334.5            =  23,342 
  
A total of MCr132,342 of which MCr109,000 goes to the combat vessels and the
remaining 17.6% goes to the escorts.

Obviously this must be one of the cheapest squadrons in the navy. If all the
20,000 combat ships cost around MCr19,000 (including the cost of its pendant
auxiliary) then the total cost of the regular Imperial navy would be TCr380.
This would represent 15% of the Imperium's total military investment, which
would make the whole shebang cost TCr2,533. Annual maintenance would run to
TCr254. Divided by the 15 trillion inhabitants of the Imperium that would be
Cr17 per man.

If we assume that the ships in FS constitutes a representative sample, then
we see that the average cruiser/carrier is of 52,714 T and costs MCr31,193.
If we reduce that to 50,000 T and add the cost of a 5,000 T escort apiece,
the average cruiser works out at roughly MCr33,000. The three battleships
average 300,000 T and costs MCr206,106 apiece, which with the escort and a
little rounding comes to MCr210,000.

Unfortunately, that just isn't enough. Even if we assume that ALL the combat
ships are battleships, it still only amounts to a total cost of TCr4,200,
which works out at a military budget of Cr187 per inhabitant of the Imperium.
If we assume a ratio of battleships to cruisers similar to the one in FS
(3:7), the the cost falls to TCr1723, or Cr77 per inhabitant.

Of course, we might say that we still haven't accounted for most of the
auxiliary ships yet. We've included one 5,000 T escort for each combat ship,
but what about the couriers, destroyers, smaller escorts, transports and
tankers that appear in FS and elsewhere? For example, I happen to believe that
a navy would have a massive number of couriers, say 20 per fleet, but even
6400 couriers only amount to another 1.6 TCr. The same would apply to
destroyers and the like -- you need a huge number of them to affect the budget
noticeably. Some of the other auxiliaries like tankers would cost more
individually -- the milion T _Gorodish_ class fleet tenders mentioned in FS
might run to MCr400,000 apiece, but how many of those are the average fleet
likely to have? One? Two? OK, that's another 256 TCr, which is a help, but it
still leaves a long way to go. Remember that every credit we increase the
budget with represents another 3000 destroyers (just to pick an example), and
we know from the recent pirate debate that the Imperium apparently lack the
small ships to police all its member worlds adequately. So we may push the
budget up to Cr85/man by use of the smaller fry, but not much more than that.

There are two more possibilities that I can see. One is that battleriders are
NOT, after all, included in the 1000 ship figure. If a carrier and half a
dozen dreadnaught-sized battleriders counted as one ship instead of 6, then
we could get some really expensive ships. Unfortunately battleriders tend to
be cruiser-sized. The carrier needed to carry 6 200,000 T battleriders would
have to be about 2-2.5 million tons and the maximum size of a ship in CT is
1 million. A 1 million T carrier would only amount to about twice the cost
of the average battleship (MCr430) and according to FS the 500,000 T
_Tigress_ class dreadnaught is the largest ship in the Spinward Marches. A
500,000 T carrier would cost about the same as an average dreadnaught, which
leaves us back where we started.

The other possibility is that a large number of ships are laid up in
ordinary. That would require that part of the annual budget was used to
maintain these inactive ships, which would make the active part of the navy
a correspondingly smaller share. If we assume that the wartime budget of the
Imperium is 1.5 times the peacetime budget (a guesstimate based on the
various government multipliers in TCS) and that there would be enough ships
in ordinary to operate on the wartime budget, then there would be about one
ship in ordinary for each two active ships and about 6% of the budget would
be spent on maintaning them. If instead we assume that peacetime spending is
the 3% of GNP that _Striker_ gives and wartime spending would be 15% of GNP
then the Imperium could have EIGHT ships in ordinary for each active ship and
spend 45% of its peacetime budget on maintaining them. That would push the
military spending up to about Cr150/citizen. Whether you like the idea of an
Imperial reserve fleet of 160,000 combat vessels is another matter. (There is
some small support for the notion in the fact that acording to _Arrival
Vengeance_ ships are still being reactivated in 1123, six years after the
beginning of the Rebellion, with at least two more years to go before they
are finished. OTOH it requires an implausibly long view to maintain reserves
that will take 8 years to activate...)

And in the end, even with the best will in the world it appears that the 
Imperial navy is only about half the size that it should be (Cr150 would be
1.5% of the GNP and we were calculating with 3%).

To those who would suggest that perhaps the Imperium feels so secure that it
is using even less than the standard 3% peacetime spending I'd like to point
to the Solomani, Zhodani, and K'Kree and suggest that it is rather implausible
that the Imperium would feel so secure.

I'd like to finish off by re-emphasizing that all those ships, the 20,000 
combat vessels, the 20,000 big escorts and the unspecified number of lesser
ships only represent 15% of the Cr150. Another 15% goes to the subsector
fleets and the remaining 70% goes to planetary defenses, though admittedly
6-40% of that (4.2-28% of the total) would go to armies.

My own suggestion is to halve the contribution that population 9 worlds CAN
make to the military budget and halve it again for pop 10 worlds (and then
after the fact come up with whatever handwaving you need to accept that). If
the high-population worlds can't manage as much as the rest, then the high-
pop worlds of the Imperium's neighbors can't either, so the Imperium won't
need to be paranoid about spending less money than they.

What do you think?


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8
  

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:17:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm" <jenry023@student.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)

>>There are a lot of combustible materials aboard a ship!
>No more so than a modern naval vessel - which only explodes when you hit a
>magazine; missile magazines in Traveller should be less explosive.

This may be true, but there is a great potential for fires in various parts
of the ship. And fires within a contained area (such as a spaceship) can be
quite deadly unless you are using some kind of breathing apparatus.

>There's probably nowhere near enough O2 onboard to make a ship explode.

OK, to set this issue straight, you will need to relax. Sit down in a
comfortable chair, close your eyes and take a deep breath ...   :-)

In school, we turned a small metal can upside-down, added some hydrogen ...
instant ear-popper ! And we used only the oxygen in the normal air we=
 breathed.

>Still, I don't mind one "ship explodes" critical hit on the critical hit
>chart - what I object to is the "whittle off enoguh hit points and it=
 explodes"
>in T4.

Yes, I agree with this one. A ship won't explode if it is fired upon
multiple times with each hit doing only minor damage. Instead it would
probably get de-pressurized, electronics would get destroyed, crew would die
etc.

What would be left would be a dead husk ...

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm  (Link=F6ping, Sweden)

"And I froze there, crouching in the small of plastique from the bolts,
because that was when the Fear found me, really found me, for the first=
 time"

Hinterlands, William Gibson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:15:23 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Jump Weapon?

> From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>

>         During tonight's Trav sesh, I explained to one of my players - Steve -
> about the 100 diameter jump limit. I also told him that a ship attempting
> jump while still on a planet would destroy much of it. This is my
> understanding at least.

No, your understanding is wrong.  If you jump from inside a gravity
well, you increase your chances of misjump, but that's all.  Nothing bad
happens to the planet, except for a small disturbance as the atmosphere
rushes in to the place where your ship was.

Maybe there's a small energy discharge, too.  Someone needs to look at
Starship Operators' Manual (or I will when I get home).

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:47:09 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: The unsuppressed Pirate, part 2

Paolo Marino wrote:
> 
> Still about piracy... I understand the various arguments *against* it, but,
> IMHO, there is a very canonical reason to accept the fact the Piracy is a
> constant threat in any milieu, even during CT.
> 
> If piracy wasn't so common, why should the Imperium allow any civilian ship
> to mount weapons? Whenever you buy or have a ship built for you, you may
> *always* get "civilian grade" weapons and defense systems, no question asked.
> 
> This means that the Imperium admits that Piracy is always possible. If this
> was not the case, nobody could have weapons/armor/sandcaster on his ship.
> 

You are RIGHT!  Because anti-piracy work is the function of the Navy,
and they have destroyed it (so say the
build-ships-til-you-can-walk-to-the-mooners) - the mere fact you would
_want_ weapons on your ship indicates a nefarious purpose.

Let's have turret buy back days!  Trade missiles for mittens!  Lasers
for liberty!  Plasma Guns for *hey - where did you get THAT!*

The heck with bothering with ship registration, if they have a turret,
pull 'em over!  Hell, if they have a turret, they're probably guilty,
blast 'em!!

And while we are at it, 1 G is good enough for civilian ships.  Anything
more and you are probably plotting on overtaking someone.  SLOW DOWN
those hopped up ships!

Let's institute mandatory downloading of your ship's log when you jump
into a system.  This way, no smuggling, swearing, or gambling can occur
while in Jump Space.  Properly instituted, the logs will be a record of
everything that occurs on the ship (interfaced with the now-obsolete
Anti-Hijack program, there will be a fairly complete record of
everything that occurs on the ship, as well as complete IDs on the crew
and passengers.)  These logs won't fill up much of the infinite memory
mandated for Navy ships (the complete Imperial ship's registration, crew
qualification, and hot sheet), and hell, sailors are bored because they
don't have lives (being permanently stationed over some podunk
spaceport, on never-ending anti-piracy patrols that are for show anyway
- - there are no pirates left) - they can go over them to be sure
everything is on the up and up.

Actually tho, when you think about all those Patrol Cruisers and SDBs
that are built and put into service for a/piracy work, and all the crews
that man them - it makes more sense to just skip building the ships and
put a Naval representative on each ship that is released into commercial
service.  This permanently installed representative of the Empire can
ensure that the ship is only used for legal purposes; that the captain
always pays his ship's payment; that the engineer never swears; and that
the steward always helps little old ladies across the street.

[babbling quietly in his corner of the interworld]

douglas

- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1997
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 23 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1998



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Reversed order of posts 
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**
Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)
Re: Why use CORPS?
destroy this perfectly good ship (was something else)
Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Starship classification scheme
Re: Jump Space technical Qs...
Armadillo Limo (TL6)
Re: AM- Torp
Re: Begging, and Offering...
Re: Trade in Aramis
RCES on TML ;-(
Re: Bulkheads
Re: Megaweapon calculation,,, goossshhh!
Re: Hiding in plain sight
Re: Hiding in plain sight

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:55:47 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Reversed order of posts 

At 00:05 23/10/97 +0200, Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm wrote:
>>Is it just my imagination or is the TML reversing the order of some posts,
>>i.e. of two I sent, the one I sent later turned up earlier, etc.
>
>This happens to me regularly. I have accepted it as a fact.
>
>Can it have something to do with the way the posts are sent through the net?
>Perhaps they travel along different routes or something ...
>Does anyone know why this happens?
>
	I don't know. However, I help run another mailing list on the net that
has nearly 800 people on it. I think Traveller has around 300, I'm not sure.

	We used to use the Majordomo software on our list, the one that TML
uses now, but since myself and three friends took it over, we opted for the
Listserv software instead.

	When we had Majordomo to serve the list, messages then also took around
six hours to get back.

	Now, Listserv sends messages out to every subscriber within a few seconds
of it being sent. Yes, you aren't seeing things. I can send a message to
our list and I can get it back between ten seconds and a minute, and so can
everyone else on the list.

	The only people who seem to ocassionally have problems are AOL
subscribers, but I think it's something to do with the list being hosted by
AOL and the way they prioritise messages. They do it for free by the way,
under some 'give the net back to the people' policy.

	Anyway, sorry for being off-subject, and for not mailing the list
administrator directly (we dislike that on our list too!) but I didn't know
who to contact.

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:06:28 -0700
From: douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm wrote:
> >in for you...
> 
> Does this mean that you would see strange moving THINGS just outside your
> field of vision, half-visible staring faces in the murky darkness etc. ?

Especially in the first day, before you recover from planetside liberty.

> 
> Sounds like a really bad experience. If you are going to get out there and
> repair something, you'd better keep your eyes on what you're doing.
> Otherwise, you might get scared and lose your grip ...

Actually, you do not go outside the skin of the ship during Jump.  The
bubble only extends a meter, more or less, from the skin of the ship. 
The more isn't so bad, the less is fatal, and very unpredictable.  (Just
a side note, I had a player running a scientist who got a lab ship as a
muster out benefit.  I let him keep it with the understanding that he
had it on permanent loan from the university, and that he had two other
professors and thier grad students along.  One of the profs was a
J-space physist with a specially wired vacc suit he kept trying to
convince people would interface with the ship's J-field and protect them
from J-space...I never did talk one of the PCs into trying it out 'for
the advancement of knowledge'!)

> 
> I imagine there must be tales told among starship crew ... stories about
> horrible monsters dwelling in jumpspace, and at very rare times attacking
> ships through some defect in the protective bubble.

Few creatures have the imagination, or the superstition, of sailors.  :)


- -- 
_________________________________________
E-Mail: douglas@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~douglas

All I ask of a firearm is that it be reliable, accurate, and capable of
dropping a god at 500 meters
__________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:16:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com>
Subject: Re: B5  **Spoiler Alert**

James, you're giving incorrect info about the CC situation.  I don't think
such counts as a spoiler, but just in case....

Quoth James Lindsay:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 97 14:07:13 -0500, Eris Reddoch wrote:
>
>    ***SPOILER ALERT***
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudia allegedly
> left the series because she wanted to take time off to do some non-B5 stuff
> (essentially removing her from a total of only 4 episodes).  JMS wanted her
> to be in all 22 episodes of season five, and she eventually left.

Incorrect, as JMS and multiple cast members have explained -- I think most
of the backstory should be available on the Lurker's Guide.  Claudia
wanted to _be_ in 18 episodes, but to _be_paid_ for 22, whether she
appeared in them or not.  That would violate the other actors' contracts,
and was unacceptable.  JMS was willing to limit her to 18 episodes (at
standard pay) or take her for the full 22.  It was Ms. Christian's sole
and entire decision to leave the show, and her subsequent distortions and
misrepresentations have certainly blackened her name in my view.

> Kinda strange that they don't want to give one of their long
> time cast members a few episodes off, and then go ahead and replace her
> with someone that will appear in a little over one-third of the final
> season.

Kinda strange, indeed.  Because it isn't true.

- ----------------------------*------------------------*------------------------
 Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett  |"Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga user,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett | sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean scholar,
  Email: jlockett@io.com    | fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 20:29:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: DustyLV769@aol.com
Subject: Re: Stolen Starhips (was Re:The whole piracy thread)

In a message dated 97-10-22 01:32:18 EDT, douglas@teleport.com (douglas)
writes:

<< Standardization of ship components is the _only_ way to be
 able to do this.  Otherwise, the supply lines to the various squadrons
 would become so convoluted and require so much support that the IN would
 collapse. >>

Isn't this where the idea of the IDP came about?  I believe it was mentioned
in TNE, that the IDP (Imperial Data Package)  where like standard
manufacturing templates in use thoroughout the Imperium...if a company or
individual could get his product into IDP, he was virtually assured of a
fortune.  Anyway, I may be wrong about this...does anyone else remember
seeing this?

Ed Jenkins (DustyLV769@aol.com)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:43:13 +1100
From: Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
Subject: Re: Why use CORPS?

>CORPS sounds pretty interesting, but one important question.  Is point based
>chargen the _only_ form of chargen?  I'm not a big fan of point based
>character generation (in real life, people's advantages are very rarely
>balanced evenly with their disadvantages.  Some people get lucky, and some
>people don't).

Yes, the points system is the only form of character generation (in the
main book). I tend to like it, since it means no character is going to be
more powerful than the others without some form of limitations. However, I
realise that some people don't like that form of generation.

I guess if you wanted to add some randomness to character generation, but
without changing much else, one way to do it would be to have players role
for how many points they get to generate their character with. For a
"realistic" campaign, CORPS assumes that characters start with 100
Attribute Points and 50 Skill Points (of course, the GM can change this).
So, perhaps players could start with something like 80 + 6d6 AP, and 40 +
4d6 SP (just off the top of my head).

If you want to get away totally from points generation then you could, but
you would have a lot more work to do. But the result could probably still
be slotted into the CORPS system without too much effort.

Something else to bear in mind is that all players wont start of with the
same number of points any way, since age modifies the starting points.

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.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:33:28 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: destroy this perfectly good ship (was something else)

> From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
> Bruce Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Now, _why_ do the bad guys want to destroy this perfectly good ship
> > sitting there for the taking? That's the question you should be asking

> 'Tis good, sobering, GM advice, this is.

This is a real stalemate (and hence a good role-playing opportunity). 
The bad guys find that they can't successfully board the good guys'
ship; indeed, they've been driven off. The good guys can't get away, and
can't disable or destroy the bad guys (or the whole boarding thing
wouldn't have happened).  The bad guys can just go away, but the prize
is too tasty to leave behind.  

Players and referee can be on either side in this scenario.  What can be
done?

Bad guys can threaten to blow good guys away if they don't give up. 
This is a bluff, maybe.  Maybe the bad guys really need a new ship, or
really need the cash from selling a captured ship.  Maybe they don't;
maybe they just don't want any witnesses to be rescued by the
authorities.  That's the only motivation that I can think of to respond
to the question posed above.  

Bad guys can starve the good guys -- just hang with them, don't let them
move the ship to safety or replenishment, and wait until life support or
food gives out.  If the good guys' ship's atmospheric integrity has been
breached, how long can they stand to live in their vacc suits?  Of
course, the good guys might have years' of supplies aboard.  Location is
a big factor here -- if someone can respond to a distress signal
("Mayday ... mayday ... Free Trader Beowulf ... scrzzxxx"), the bad guys
can't wait too long.

Bad guys can get creative.  Maybe they try boarding from a new
direction, or multiple boarding parties (nature of good guys' ship and
bad guys' crew are the big factors).  Maybe they try misdirection, like
sending a false signal (from another ship, or from their own after
appearing to have given up); or opening communications and lying in some
convincing and useful way ("Capt. Kouros, we've got your mother here. 
Maybe you'd like to speak with her.  Of course we know her maiden name. 
It's, it's, it's .... Blearrgch!").  

Bad guys can use a manpower advantage, or can appear to do so.  Bad guys
keep making boarding attempts on the good guys' ship, but then don't
consummate.  Good guys have to keep responding -- because they don't
which attack is real -- so they don't get any sleep.  Bad guys either
have a bigger crew (unlikely, given the scenario) or are mostly resting
while a skeleton crew pilots in and out and fakes the attacks.

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:41:41 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

Looking at jump space makes you insane.  

> From: yikes@evansville.net (Joseph R. Dietrich)
 
> I know a little of psychology (and you know what they say about a little
> knowledge). Still, I have a very hard time with the concept of the mere
> sight of jumpspace being a variable affecting "sanity." It smacks of
> psuedoscience to me, a result of a poor understanding of paychology. What
> exactly would the mechanism be that would be a factor in mental
> dysfunction? Stress? This is really the only thing I can think of -- and if
> that is the case, then I have a hard time with the argument that looking at
> jumpspace is any more destructive than looking at any other really
> disturbing phenomena.
> 
> Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. To me, this just smacks too
> much of the quasi-Lovecraftian, psychodynamic (and even mystical) ideas of
> how the human brain works.

(1)  What's wrong with quasi-Lovecraftian psychodynamic mystical ideas? 
What are the Hivers but the Elder Gods?  Who is Grandfather but Him Who
Must Not Be Named?  It wasn't that long ago that this very list had a
long exploration of the Cthulhu Mythos in Traveller.  That exploration
nearly drove Doug (or was it Craig?) Berry mad.  (Footnote: The idea
that looking at jump space makes you crazy is explored in some detail by
Larry Niven in his early works.  I don't recall a hard science
explanation there, however.)

(2)   Towards a hard science explanation:  Let's start with the nature
of vision.  Vision is the interaction among some kind of radiation,
photoreceptor cells in the eyes, the optic nerve, the part of the brain
that processes signals from the optic nerve, and the cerebral cortex.  

What kind of radiation emanates from jump space?  It may not be entirely
within our familiar spectrum of visible light; it may not even be
electromagnetic radiation, but I'll leave further exploration of that
issue to the physicists and other scientists among us.

The radiation hits the photoreceptor cells in the eyes, causing an
electrochemical reaction (or not, depending on the radiation; if it's
outside the visual spectrum, that means that it doesn't stimulate the
photoreceptor cells to send signals down the optic nerve that the
cerebral cortex eventually translates as vision).  The electrochemical
reaction causes an electrical signal to travel from the synapse between
the photoreceptor cell and the first nerve down the first nerve to the
synapse between the first and second nerve, where a second
electrochemical reaction occurs, and so on to the optic nerve and then
to and through the neural pathways in the brain.  

Which chemicals (called neurotransmitters) are involved in the
electrochemical reactions depends on what light -- that is, what energy
wavelength -- is stimulating the photoreceptors (and my physiological
psychology textbook is in storage, so I can't identify the chemicals). 
The cerebral cortex then interprets these electrical signals as light or
dark, and what color.  

So what may happen when this unidentified radiation from jump space
stimulates the photoreceptors?  It may cause the nerves in the optic
nerve system to send signals to the nerves in the brain that cause those
nerves to produce or activate inappropriate neurotransmitters, leading
to all sorts of problems (at the referee's discretion, I suppose).  

Some examples of neurotransmitter problems that I remember (or maybe
misremember) from my physiological psychology class are the following:  

Some forms of schizophrenia are caused by inadequate production of
dopamine.  If there is inadequate dopamine at the dopamine receptor
sites, one's threshhold for perception drops to a maladaptive level --
you start literally hearing things, things that you otherwise would have
tuned out, like the people talking in the next room.  

LSD either replaces serotonin at the receptor sites in the brain's dream
center, or causes prodction of serotonin while one is awake (I've
forgotten which).  The result is vivid wakeful dreams, i.e.,
hallucinations.  I think that naturally occuring hallucinogens -- like
peyote -- do the same thing.  

Opiates replace endorphins at the receptor sites in the brain's pleasure
center, and cause a much stronger electochemical reaction.  The
resulting euphoria is debilitating. 

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:39:30 -0500
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Starship classification scheme

A fellow on the Star Wars RPG has developed a Starship Designation System
for said game. It is a work that a Vilani would just *love*, and might be
of interest to Traveller refs/players/aficionados. While some of the terms
are setting-specific to the SW-RPG (and some just don't make sense), the
author based the work on modern classification schemes (US Milspec, I
think).

I think it is a pretty keen piece of work, worth taking a look at. It's
about 24k, though, so I won't post it to the list. But if anyone is
interested, email me and I'll send you a copy. I put it in plain vanilla
ASCII.

Joseph Dietrich
yikes@evansville.net

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 20:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Space technical Qs...

> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:15:10 -0500
> From: "Kevin L. Kitchens" <peiprog@feist.com>
> 
> What equipment is required to enter and maintain Jump Space?

Allen wrench, roll of heavy-duty duct tape, staple gun, toothpicks... :)

> Weird, right?  I know a jump-drive is needed (duh) :)

Required to *enter*.  Maintain is a whole different question.

> Look at it like this.
> 
> I am sitting still, I prepare and enter jumpspace.  Now, does the jump
> drive need to remain functional during the entire jump?  Or is it only
> used to get you into jumpspace and once there, the whole ship could turn
> off power, including the jump drive?  IOW, it makes the jump-tunnel and
> then you enter it and that is all there is to it... 

Canon has always insisted that, once you're in J-space, you're there for a
week, no exceptions (save misjumps, but you can't control those).  If one
could drop out of jump by turning something off, people would use it for
fast in-system microjumps...jump, wait an hour, turn something off, be
billions of km from where you started.

So, either (a) there is something you can turn off to drop out of J-space,
but it inevitably destroys the ship (a la a catastrophic misjump), or (b)
there is simply no off switch -- that is, you could melt down the J-drive
and you'd still coast merrily on toward your orignal breakout place and
time.

> Or, does the jump drive get you into jumpspace and need to be
> functioning to maintain the jump? 

Well, my guess is this:  Maintaining the jump is free; however, without
continuing control from a functioning J-drive (requiring negligible power,
like a few kilowatts maximum), the shape of the "jump bubble" will tend to
slowly distort over time, possibly intersecting with the ship itself if
this goes on too long.  When that happens, parts of the ship may just
disappear, other parts become a bit 'warped' (as if given a slight twist
through a higher dimension), and crew members will most definitely start
getting *massive* jump-sickness, complete with the psychological effects. 
If enough of the ship gets eaten or warped, or the crew get too badly
exposed, they'll die.

> The reason I am asking is I'd like to know what equipment is vital
> during the move through jumpspace.  What could be turned off for repair
> during the week-long jump?  What could randomly 'fail' that would keep
> them in jump?  What if the jump-drive failed, would they fall from
> jumpspace?  Die?  Be 'Lost-in-Space' (Danger Will Robinson). 

(Again, in my view...) All J-drives are designed so that the jump-entry
mechanisms can be powered down separately for in-jump maintenance, with
the jump-bubble-maintenance equipment continuing to operate on a separate
power supply and control system.  Also, since J-bubble distortion is slow,
hot-shot engineers have been known to take the maintenance system off-line
during jump, working on it for a few hours then bringing it back up before
the bubble can drift too far.  One can only imagine the fun which ensues
when such an engineer hits the ON button and nothing happens but a few
wisps of smoke drifting out of the ventillation slots...

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: 23 Oct 1997 03:15:19 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Armadillo Limo (TL6)

Armadillo Limo (TL6)
Designed by Robert Prior

Summary:
     1.20 displacement ton box;  10.8 tonnes;  kCr 99.10
Chassis:
     16.8 kL box (3.10 m long x 2.1 m wide x 2.1 m high);  Structure: 507 kg
of hard steel, rated for 1.0Gs, body 1.0 cm thick, 6 armour rating
     
Performance:
     1.00 MW TL4 Internal Combustion power plant;  Fuel: 800 L of
hydrocarbons (800 kg), 8 hours supply
     Propulsion System: 1.00 MW wheels with puncture-proof tires;  Maximum
Speed: 100 km/h;  Range: 800 km;  Agility: +3DM
Crew & Passengers:
     Crew roster: driver;  1 crew station;  4 roomy passenger seats
Communications:
     Subcontinental Radio (100 W, TL6, SmVcl)
Sensors:
     No sensors installed.
Other:
     Options: wet bar
     Safety Features: anti-theft system
     852 L of cargo space

Many VIPs need to travel in comfort and safety. Many more want the cachet of
seeming to need protection. Whether the dangers are real or imaginary, the
Armadillo provides excellent protection. 

The one megawatt Olson-Bliinu internal combustion power plant provides speed
and comfort, Piiran tires contribute excellent handling, and one centimetre
of hardened steel is proof against small arms and light anti-tank weaponry. 
The driver can be in constant communication, while up to four passengers
travel in comfort, soothed by a built-in wet bar.


Designed with CSC (software Copyright Robert Prior, 1997)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:43:24 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: AM- Torp

> [snip]
> >Antimatter missile?
> >
> >You mean like the one carried by that helicopter(!) on p91 of EV...?
> 
> I dearly hope its an "anti-material" missile.  I'll look tonight.  A
Helo
> would have a hard time getting to minimum safe distance.

Nope, it's an Anti-matter missile.  It also has a Force field to boot!

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:36:13 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Begging, and Offering...

Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
> 
> The Beg:
> Freelance Traveller can always use material. We're also
> interested in opening up new directions for our Traveller
> Resource to follow.  I can't think of everything; I need your
> help - ideas, articles, reviews, useful stuff, neat stuff,
> interesting stuff... it's all grist for the Freelance Traveller
> mill.  Let me know.

Well, feel free to put those TNS releases I've been posting in
it. I can send you the Word 7 documents if you like.
- -- 
Erwin Fritz
Unix/NT/LAN Guy
Gilbert Laustsen Jung Associates Ltd.
http://www.glja.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:13:04 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Trade in Aramis

Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
> 
> Someone raised the question of just how many merchant ships there are in
> the Imperium. Here are some calculations I did years ago about the
> merchant tonnage in Aramis Subsector:

Good stuff for this man's Traveller campaign.

Kenneth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:08:55 +0000 ()
From: kraehe@bakunin.hb.north.de (Michael Koehne)
Subject: RCES on TML ;-(

	Sorry folks,

	I had several misspostings on the TML of articles that should
	go to the RCES list, I hope to improve.

- -- 
 mailto:kraehe@bakunin.north.de		http://human.is-bremen.de/~kraehe
		" CETERUM CENSEO MSDOS ESSE DELENDAM "

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 97 23:54:30 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Bulkheads

On 10/22/97 at 01:58 AM,  "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
said:

>The way I look at things (somewhat colored through CT) is that most
>Interior walls on a star ship are light weight plastics that can be moved
>and adjusted as needed, with a number of bulkheads made from approximately
>1 cm thick superdense for support and safety (peirced by iris valves, etc,
>and with pressure secure conduits for control runs, Life support conduits
>are equipted with automatic chopper valves that close when a section
>depressures). 

That's pretty much how I do it too.  I use bulkheads for support and to
compartmentalize the ship into air-tight sections.  Some interior walls are
set in place, but some are movable partitions of light metal or laminates
of one kind or another (I don't use plain plastic for fire/fume reasons).

>I typically separate the ship into sections such as Control,
>Living Quarters, Engineering and Cargo, each independant and seperated
>from the other sections by a pressure wall, any walls in these sections
>are lightweights and, with more or less effort, removable.

Absolutely!  If you want more safety (like on warships) you increase the
compartmentalizing, with the ultimate being each compartment is airtight
and protected from "blowouts."  For civilian ships, I don't go that far,
but for warships it's pretty close to the standard.

>I like this system since I tend to design ships that do dual purpose.
>Cargo holds can be turned into passenger quarters by erecting lightweight
>plastic walls.

Right and fuel tankage can be in collapsible spaces that give more room
when you are carrying less fuel.  That might not be canon, but I use it.

>Outer hulls are usally triple the thickness of the inner walls on
>unarmored ships and armor adds to that thickness. This thickness is more
>for sheilding against impact than structual integrety.

I think 2 cm of steel (or better) would be overkill for any *major*
interior bulkhead.  I also place airlocks between major sections of a ship
(Engineering and Bridge certainly) to isolate and protect them from
depressurization and blowouts.  Half this thickness would work for other
bulkheads..actually, 2 or 3 mm of steel should do.  Ceilings (and floors)
are configured as bulkheads to reduce the chance of blowouts crossing
decks.  Partitions separating cabins and other spaces are more for privacy
and sound baffling as anything so they can be as thin or thick as you want.

When it comes to hulls, I use a double hulled approach (sometimes tripled
on warships).  The inner hull is thin-ish (1 to 2 cm).  The outer hull is
the "armor" and is as thick as as you desire.  Between the inner and outer
hull is a gap of about 1.5 meters where piping, wiring, AG/CG modules, and
other equipment is installed.  Maintenance and Technical staff spend a
*lot* of time in the "inter-hull" spaces.

Decks are a standard 3.5 meters with 2.5 between floor and overhead in
standard spaces.  Between overhead and floor are crawl spaces where control
and service conduits are placed and serviced.  In Engineering and Cargo
spaces decks are often double high (7 meters) with the overhead exposed for
easy access.

Just my way of doing things.


Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 00:18:30 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Megaweapon calculation,,, goossshhh!

On 10/22/97 at 06:08 AM,  Goran Sjoberg <NGC1201@communique.se> said:

>So if i diddle my pocket brain for a while i get that i "only" have to
>accelerate the missile or torpedo to approx 299'996,8 km per second to get
>a devastating result. Well, i guess it cannot be done.. 

>Damn!

>Another good idea down the drain. BUT.. Then what is a quantum torpedo as
>they say it in staw twek?

A fancy photon torpedo. I believe it's still a matter/anti-matter device
maybe with some sort of "black hole" (quantum singularity) tie in. Of
course, with ST there's a new field/particle/effect in every episode. ;->

>BTW: is it possible to accelerate a torpedo by using subspace? 

In Star Trek, a torpedo can travel at "warp" speeds, yes.  The torpedo
velocity is given as vi + (vi*0.75)/c, where vi is the initial velocity at
which the torpedo was launched (from the _ST-TNG Tech Manual_). The torpedo
doesn't have a warp drive, but it has a short range AM fuel cell and a set
of "sustainer coils" that "grap and hold a hand-off field from the launcher
tube.  Their effective tactical range is about 3.5 Mkm.

>And will it "hit" when it is in subspace??

In Star Trek, yes...well, sort of.  My understanding is that the ships
aren't really *in* subspace they just *use* subspace to travel faster than
light. It really is a matter of warping space thereby shortening the
distance traveled. Phasers, OTOH, are limited to c and aren't effective at
near and trans-light velocities.

I play/GM Star Trek games too. ;->

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:10:21 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

In mail you write:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
>
> Having only used optical sensors to detect comets, I have a open question
> to Bruce. Is it possible for a ship to use the backgroundlight from stars
> to hide the ship? I have experienced comets to avoid my detection on some
> pictures with the NOT-telescope because they lie right infront of a
> background star. I realize that staying inbetween the sensor and the star
> would be a darn hard thing to do, but would it be possible?

Consider that the sensors looking for the ship have a *lot* more
parallax to work with. It's hard to spoof sensors seperated by a few
hundred thousand km. At least by hiding in a signal source. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:53:11 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Hiding in plain sight

In mail you write:

> Here is an idea for masking IR:
>
> Fabricate a lightweight, collapsible framework that fits over the aft
> half of the ship. 

It's not just the aft end of the ship that needs masking. The living
areas are at around 300k.

> Stretch black mylar, or some other material, over the framework - to
> provide for optical camoflage.

Easiest is to use a "bubble" of something like mylar and "inflate" it
with a whisper of gas. Like the old Echo satellite (a 50 foot sphere of
mylar which packed into something the size of a shoebox, and was
"inflated" by the tiny amount of air trapped inside.

> Attach piping (or allow for flow in 'pockets' in the material) to the
> fuel supply, and allow a flow of LHyd through the material.

The LHyd *won't* help. Not for long anyway. It'll *quickly* get hotter.
And compared with the heat output of a ship, it only takes an hour or
two to use up alll the Lhyd you can carry. 

And worse, LHyd temp is the *wrong* temp to hide with. You either need
to be at 3K (cosmic background) or at the temp of a natural body at
that distance from the star (likely 200-300K). LHyd is 20k. That may
*sound* close to 3K, but it isn't. When measured in K, temp differences
are effectively *logarithmic*. So the differences between 3K and 30k
and 300K are about the same, thermodynamically speaking.  And 20K is
pretty close to 30k on that scale. (about 7 times as hot as 3k, and
1/15th as hot as 300k).

> What do you think?  I'd like to throw this at the party (tho' more from
> a stumbling across a MilInt operation than from a pirate encounter) next
> game, so I'd appreciate feedback.

As I note above, you *can't* carry enough "cold" stuff to absorb your
heat output for a reasonable time. 

What you *can* do is spread your heat output over a larger area. But it
takes a *lot* of area. Still, it's doable for *large* bubbles and
*small* ships. Say a thousand meter bubble with a "recon" configuration
fighter in it. 

That, by the way is why pirates get nervous when snuggling up to
"natural" bodies as camoflage. There are stories of the pirate who was
just settling down to wait for a target when the crew of the covert
surveillance ship inside the fake asteroid knocked on the airlock and
took them prisoner.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1998
***********************************
Traveller-digest     Thursday, October 23 1997     Volume 1997 : Number 1999



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: SDB/population ?
Re; insurance, etc.
Re: SDB's
Re: Interstellar Waters
Re: Extrality and ownership of starports
Humour?
Re: Fleet deployment
Re: IN in CT
The unrepentant Pirate
Re: The unsuppressed Pirate, part 2
Jspace again
Jspace
Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?
Re: Lighting up gas giants...
Re: Megaweapon calculation, no recalculated
Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?
Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)
Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)
Re: Definition: Grav Compensator
Re: Jump Weapon?
Re: "Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol/FF&S recoil

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:27:51 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: SDB/population ?

Hello,
>I have asked this before, and I'll ask it again.  How can the Imperium
>afford to have 500 cops per household?  You say that the numbers support
>it.  I say the numbers are wrong.  If not the economics, then the
>population base would not be able to support this type of military
>structure.

  If a fundamental disagreement about naval budgets exist, perhaps
that should be returned to. As far as SDB's and patrol ships go, I
don't see that population is particularly relevant. The typical 400
Dt SDB from Supp:7 has ~10 crew, which expands to a still modest 100
total crew and support personnel even using the wildly pessimistic
x10 figure that (IIRC) applied to heavy bombers in WW II.

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:28:16 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re; insurance, etc.

Hello,
>You miss the third possibility, that it's not so much theft as
>'kidanpping' for ransom. 
....
>This applies to starships, too. A shipowner, or shipping corporation might
>well be willing to pay to get a ship back without adverse publicity that
>could affect things like insurance premiums, cargo bookings, various
>contracts (which may have specific clauses dealing with security, etc) or 
>completion bonds.
>
>The latter might well be the big ticket...some completion bonds can be
>extremely punitive.

  Wouldn't the carrier/shipping company still be hosed from the moment
when the ship is "rerouted"? The cargo will be late, and you may not 
know for some time whether you'll ever see it again. As indicated by
others, the potential value of the ship renders hanging around a bit
too poor a cost-benefit option. 

  Again, as a possible scam, some scenarios emerge :)

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:28:26 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: SDB's

Hello,
>>> >  Maybe we should clarify what sort of ship gobbles up an SDB,
>>> >even under near-ideal conditions? Remember, the SDB doesn't
>>> >have 20%+ wasted on J-fuel/drives, let alone cargo, nor does
>>> >it require commercial rates of return on its' military gear
>>> >costing.
....
>In the end, as you said, the SDB only gains 20% being non jump
>capable and 400 tons is not large as ships go.  I would not want
>to be able to depend on dominating every engagement with one.

  Neither would I, but my backers might have provided spares nearby.
More importantly, it's not "only" 22+%; that 22+ is removed from the
value under 100% that's already used on useless garbage like a bridge,
comp, staterooms, ship's boat (if any), power plant, M-drive, etc.
I tried to work some numbers through during a recent (boring) lecture
and determined that i) TL 12 power plants require _loads_ of cash, and
ii) my armour will be maxed out, and my pirate foe hasn't allocated
for _cargo_ yet.        (all assumes TL 12, HG rules)

  Under High Guard, unless you can get nukes or a USP 5 laser battery,
you can't really hurt that SDB, while it has no such difficulty.

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:20:46 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Interstellar Waters

In mail you write:

> At 02:05 am 10/21/97 PST, you wrote:
>>No more than the government of (say) Antigua could do to some American
>>tourists who did the same. Once the hit international waters, the
>>Antiguans would have to apply to the US to get them extradited.
>
>     If they're in _international_ waters, why do they have to ask the US to
> extradite them?

I was assuming that they'd head for home eventually. Also, since they'd
likely be on a US "flagged" vessel, the Coast Guard could swing by and
nail them if asked nicely.

> If I understand Admiralty law correctly, ALL military
> vessels, of any nation, have not only the right but the obligation to
> enforce the law on the high seas. 'Course, there's the diplomatic
> unpleasantries ...

Yes, but that "law" is *not* the law of any particular nation. It's
Admiralty law. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:31:23 -0700
From: Evyn MacDude <wmacdude@Concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Extrality and ownership of starports

David J. Golden wrote:

>         FWIW, I have personally observed a local sheriff in hot pursuit, sirens
> howling, blow right past the armed sentry at the gate of an Air Force base,
> which is a federal reservation ... basically an extrality line. Now, I
> don't know if there were existing agreements, he called ahead, whatever.
> But he sure surprised the poor airman who thought he'd be safe if he ducked
> on base.
> -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
>    goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
>     *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 Most areas where there are multiple Jurisdiction's the Law Enforcement agencies
involved will
have some sort of mutual support agreement. Including the right of passage while in
"Hot
Pursuit".
Example: The agreement between CHP and the NHP states Seven miles of shared
jurisdiction
on either side of the state line.

- --
Evyn,
Warleader of the Clan MacDude
Yuppie Hunter of the Forgotten Surf
 Fortalice Desertum
 AD. 1997

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:46:25 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Humour?

Hello,
....
>> This means that the Imperium admits that Piracy is always possible. If this
>> was not the case, nobody could have weapons/armor/sandcaster on his ship.

>And while we are at it, 1 G is good enough for civilian ships.  Anything
>more and you are probably plotting on overtaking someone.  SLOW DOWN
>those hopped up ships!

  Hmm, I hate to say it, but this made for a really neat plot for one
of Brian Daley's "Han Solo" novels - obtain (faked) authorizations to
allow the Falcon to operate under the new performance envelope regs in
the Corporate Sector. They figured that anyone with a fast ship, lotsa
guns, a bit of cargo, and the sensors and firecon of a small warship
might be tempted to do something illegal with it.

>Let's institute mandatory downloading of your ship's log when you jump
>into a system.  This way, no smuggling, swearing, or gambling can occur

  Makes sense to me. Or, at least it would if it were _my_ Pocket Empire.
<drool>. Do I get secret police, too?

>while in Jump Space.  Properly instituted, the logs will be a record of
>everything that occurs on the ship (interfaced with the now-obsolete
>Anti-Hijack program, there will be a fairly complete record of
>everything that occurs on the ship, as well as complete IDs on the crew
>and passengers.) 

  Actually, as has been pointed out elsewhere, near future tech can make
most crime absurdly risky - imagine "Murder on Arcturus Station" with
functioning cameras in every corridor.

>put a Naval representative on each ship that is released into commercial
>service.  This permanently installed representative of the Empire can
>ensure that the ship is only used for legal purposes; that the captain

  Interesting idea, but probably unworkable, if for no other reason than
that it exposes the officer to corruption. :)

        Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:53:09 -0800
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: Fleet deployment

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> wrote

> AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPERIAL NAVY IN THE CLASSIC ERA
> ===================================================
> If instead we assume that peacetime spending is
> the 3% of GNP that _Striker_ gives and wartime spending would be 15% of GNP
> then the Imperium could have EIGHT ships in ordinary for each active ship and
> spend 45% of its peacetime budget on maintaining them. That would push the
> military spending up to about Cr150/citizen. Whether you like the idea of an
> Imperial reserve fleet of 160,000 combat vessels is another matter. (There is
> some small support for the notion in the fact that acording to _Arrival
> Vengeance_ ships are still being reactivated in 1123, six years after the
> beginning of the Rebellion, with at least two more years to go before they
> are finished. OTOH it requires an implausibly long view to maintain reserves
> that will take 8 years to activate...)

The people that are reactivating ships start with the most suitable
ships for reactivation & work their way down to older ships of lesser
quality.  Ordinarily it would not take eight years for this process but
ordinarily there is not a Civil War going on.  Maybe the Naval personnel
responsible for reactivating ships were a bit busy fighting & repairing
dammage to newer, better, ships to devote much time to reactivating 175
year old TL 13 ships that were second line ships during the Third
Frontier War and have been in ordinary for 130 years or so...  Normally
the Naval personnel responsible for reactivating old ships would not be
doing anything else but the Rebellion was not normal circumstances.

- -- 
 pnewman@alaska.net		Peter Newman 
- --------------------------------------------------------------
"I have been nothing but compassionate and understanding. I mean, all
you had to do was to admit you were wrong and I was right and everything
would've been fine." - Ivanova to Winters in Babylon5: "Divided
Loyalties"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:44:55 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: IN in CT

Hello,
>AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPERIAL NAVY IN THE CLASSIC ERA
>===================================================

  I don't recognize any flaws in the numbers, but I'll try and
compare more closely this weekend. Actually, I first thought
they were too high, but the case looks compelling.

>are finished. OTOH it requires an implausibly long view to maintain reserves
>that will take 8 years to activate...)

  You're obviously not paranoid enough to be in charge. Now, _that_
reminds me of Niven :)  Besides, leaving them in orbit is free.

>My own suggestion is to halve the contribution that population 9 worlds CAN
>make to the military budget and halve it again for pop 10 worlds (and then
>after the fact come up with whatever handwaving you need to accept that). 

  Definitely. I don't see how high pop must mean a proportionately
high industrialization rate, which seems to be the relevant value
for both shipbuilding capacity, and the metal-eaters portions of
the budget.

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:45:17 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: The unrepentant Pirate

Hello,
>> Still about piracy... I understand the various arguments *against* it, but,
>> IMHO, there is a very canonical reason to accept the fact the Piracy is a
>> constant threat in any milieu, even during CT.
>> 
>> If piracy wasn't so common, why should the Imperium allow any civilian ship
>> to mount weapons? Whenever you buy or have a ship built for you, you may
>> *always* get "civilian grade" weapons and defense systems, no question asked.
>> 
>> This means that the Imperium admits that Piracy is always possible. If this
>> was not the case, nobody could have weapons/armor/sandcaster on his ship.

  I'm trying to figure out how difficult piracy is/isn't, and under
what circumstances. I suggest there are situations where it will be
possible, and that allowing civilian vessels arms protects the small
traders from some of those situations, and can allow the larger ships
of the big corps to function as naval auxiliaries, at least inasmuch
as they become difficult targets for little 400 Dt commerce raiders.

        Yours truly,
                Steven Hudson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:05:25 +0200
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: The unsuppressed Pirate, part 2

>If piracy wasn't so common, why should the Imperium allow any civilian ship
>to mount weapons? Whenever you buy or have a ship built for you, you may
>*always* get "civilian grade" weapons and defense systems, no question asked.
>
>This means that the Imperium admits that Piracy is always possible. If this
>was not the case, nobody could have weapons/armor/sandcaster on his ship.
>
>Comments?

They could have some US style sociological hangup.

Stemming back from the Imperiums formation in order to get more starsystems
joining the Imperium they were allowed to keep their merchants armed to
"supress piracy".

As the Imperium grew the need for this antipiracy thing went away but
whenever an Emperor tried to take away the merchants/shipowners "right to
bear arms" they reacted violently with a knee-jerk response about
big-brother behaviour, tyranny, individual freedom etc very similar to US
today. This could also explain why the Imperium seem to allow such
destructive weaponry without license - a thing albeit cool roleplayingwise
seem very unrealistic.

(If somebodys ego got brushed by this view of certain aspects of US culture
please take it to private e-mail as most listoids are far to wise to have
an interest in an NRA vs commie-liberals flamewar)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:57:40 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Jspace again

Nonono! The psi readings aren't false! 

THEY tell you they are, to make you think it's safe.

But it's not. 

THEY wait in jumpspace, forvever hunting, gliding beneath the surface!

I can hear them whispering!

My name!

They have found me!

THEY are coming!

AAARGH!

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:53:29 +0100
From: "MJ Dougherty" <martinjd@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Jspace

Jspace isn't particularly disturbing. A bit disorientating, leading to a
mortal fear of falling off into it, yes, but not likely to cause instant
insanity.

The REAL problem is the *things* you see in there. 
The ones that break the surface occasionally. 
I can see them now, moving just below the surface of reality... waiting.
Hungry.

Waiting. 

Thirsting.

For me.

AAAAAARGH!

Martin.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:36:46 +0200
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <grei5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?

CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
>=20
> In a message dated 97-10-18 12:41:29 EDT, you write:
>=20
> <<
>  Does one exist???
>=20
>   >>
> MegaTraveller 2- Quest for the Ancients had a great on built in.
Speaking of which: At which stage did the production of MT 3 stop?
Is there a story outline somewhere? If so, i=B4d be interested to see it!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:30:37 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Lighting up gas giants...

In mail you write:

>
>
>         How about a bunch of automated 10,000+ dton platforms with
> contragrav, scoops, a fuel refinery, and a horking big laser (of
> appropriate wavelength to penetrate the GG's atmosphere) or PA gun pointed
> right down at the metallic hydrogen core?

No such wavelength exists. And PA or Laser, you'd be lucky to get 1% of
the way to the core.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:32:16 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Megaweapon calculation, no recalculated

In mail you write:

> So if i diddle my pocket brain for a while i get that i "only" have to
> accelerate the missile or torpedo to approx 299'996,8 km per second to get
> a devastating result. Well, i guess it cannot be done.. 
>
> Recomputed.. it should be 2999,96 km per second, but even that would be
> impossible..

It's quite possible. A 1000 kilometer long mass driver running at 1
million g will accelerate an object to 1.5% of c. :-)

And the speed might not need to be that high.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:36:46 +0200
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <grei5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: CT or T4 Character Generator for PC?

CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
>=20
> In a message dated 97-10-18 12:41:29 EDT, you write:
>=20
> <<
>  Does one exist???
>=20
>   >>
> MegaTraveller 2- Quest for the Ancients had a great on built in.
Speaking of which: At which stage did the production of MT 3 stop?
Is there a story outline somewhere? If so, i=B4d be interested to see it!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:48:50 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Ship's explosions (was Re: Rate of Fire)

In mail you write:

> Hmm. Here's a question then. If a hit by a laser holes a section with
> atmosphere and a lhyd tank, won't the two mix and combust (assuming the
> laser also provides a spark)? Of course, millitary vessels would probably
> be depressurized before seeing combat and the crew wearing vacc suits.
> Given the timescale involed, so too civilian ships, I suppose.

Hydrogen and oxygen, like all gas mixtures have definite limits to
flammability. Exceed the limits (either too much or too little) and the
mix won't ignite. For example, for the *really* deep dives, a mixture
of hydrogen and oxygen is used as the breathing mixture. There's so
*little* oxygen in it that it won't ignite. 

Also, Lhyd is *cold*. That means it'll take a lot of energy to get the
mix up to ignition temp. In fact, the main result of spraying LHyd into
the air will be that the air liquifies! Or even *freezes*.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:35:14 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jumpspace dementia (was Re: Misjumps)

In mail you write:

> <vreeeee!!!! slice>
>>Jumpspace is not supposed to be all that good to look at. It doesn't
>>automatically drive you nuts, but it sure doesn't help you stay sane.
> <sizzle-sizzle flop>
>
>
> A minor rant...
>
> I know a little of psychology (and you know what they say about a little
> knowledge). Still, I have a very hard time with the concept of the mere
> sight of jumpspace being a variable affecting "sanity." It smacks of
> psuedoscience to me, a result of a poor understanding of paychology. What
> exactly would the mechanism be that would be a factor in mental
> dysfunction? Stress? This is really the only thing I can think of -- and if
> that is the case, then I have a hard time with the argument that looking at
> jumpspace is any more destructive than looking at any other really
> disturbing phenomena.
>
> Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. To me, this just smacks too
> much of the quasi-Lovecraftian, psychodynamic (and even mystical) ideas of
> how the human brain works.

Ever try looking at a 4 dimensional object? I've got a computer program
that will display it (in 3d if you have a pair of 3d glasses) and let
you rotate and translate it along all *four* axes. (1)

The point being that the brain models reality. When it encounters a
portion of reality that doesn't fit the model, it tries to make it fit.
If that doesn't work, *sometimes* (and I do mean *sometimes*) it'll
modify the model. 

Several psychological disorders are little more than operating with a
model that has a poor fit to reality ("They are all out to get me").
And some others are the result of an inability to update the model. 

Given that the laws of physics out side the jump bubble are *different*
and may involve extra dimensions, it's possible that you could see
things that your "model" can't accomodate. And not be *able* to come up
with a model that they fit. That will *not* be good for your sanity.
At the very least, it'll make folks uncomfortable ("It *can't* be doing
that..."). More "rigid" types could actually crack.

It's just a matter of adaptability. Some folks can't adapt to severe
changes in reality. And what you'd see outside the bubble could count
as a "severe change"

(1) while I haven't played with it enough to say for certain, I am told
by semi-reliable sources that *some* people can learn to "visualize" in
4 dimensions. After playing with the 4d program for a while, they can
confidently *tell* you what will happen if you make various moves. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:26:47 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Definition: Grav Compensator

In mail you write:

>>So how about some folks out there who want definitions, post some
>>messages with Subject: "Definition: xxxx", and us "techy" types can try
>>defining them. Then the "non-techy" types can let us know what they
>>want more details about, and what they feel isn't needed.
>
> What a timely suggestion. Just last weekend my players and I were
> discussing how grav compensators worked. In my campaign, grav compensators
> are what provide artificial gravity inside a ship as well as counteracting
> the ship's acceleration.
>
> The 3 Gs of a TL 12 grav compensator can only counteract 2 Gs while
> providing a 1 G artificial gravity. In my campaign the thrust axis of most
> ships are perpendicular to the ship decks (90 degrees to what is usually
> show in Traveller deck plans, in Star Trek, and in ocean-going ships). This
> is necessary so that ships can accelerate safely at 1 G above the
> compensated acceleration, as shown in SSDS. The 1 G left over is what holds
> them down. Ships that have decks parallel to the thrust axis can only
> accelerate up to their G compensation, and when they do that the inside of
> the ship is at zero G! Comments?

Actually, the forces are "different", at least in *direction*. So you
have 1 G "artificial gravity" holding you to the floor. That's in
*addition* to the 3 g of g-comp that keeps you from thinking the wall
is a floor. Since the vectors are different, you are ok (no more than 3
g in any given *direction*.

For the ship with the decks aligned perpendicular to the thrust axis
(like on the Broadsword Merc Cruiser), you can run at 4 G thrust, use 3
g of g-comp to neutral 3 g of it, and let the remaining 1 g hold you to
the floor.

> The reason this came up in my campaign is that the players asked if the
> compensator could affect things outside the ship's hull. Specifically, they
> wanted to tug a derelict ship by "grabbing" it with the G compensator. I
> said no, that the compensator can't penetrate the ship's hull, but couldn't
> give a good reason why it is able to penetrate things like bulkheads, cargo
> containers, or battle dress. Can anybody help me out?

Sure. The "problem" with generating "gravity" is that extended sources
behave in ways that aren't terribly useful. For example, the field from
a flat "plate" (like a deck) has *no* decrement. That is, aside from
"edge effects", if it attracts with one g at 1 meter, it'll do so at
infinity (of course to avoid the edge effects, it'd have to be
infinitely wide :-). 

This causes unwanted problems. So the way they generate the field in
the ship is to have *paired* plates. The floor attracts with .5 g, the
ceiling pushes with .5 g. This helps reduce edge effects inside the
ship, but also tends to "confine" the field (think of the field between
opposing magnetic poles). The dipole field drops off *fast* outside the
plates. There is some residual field, but it just makes crawling around
on the hull "interesting". 

> Some other ideas we kicked around without resolving involve how
> controllable grav-compensators are. Can you have different compensation in
> different areas of the ship? I would assume so since the old toroidal lab
> ship had artificial gravity even if not rotating. If this is the case, why
> couldn't you arrange it so people could walk around on the ceiling as well
> as the floor and thereby double the floor space?

Because that would require a plate in the middle doing the "repelling",
Otherwise tuning both floor and ceiling to "pull", would result in zero
g between them. Remember, the forces have to reach all the way to the
"ceiling". Otherwise your head would be in free fall. 

But it's generally assumed that you *can* adjust the gravity in your
stateroom. And hijackers dread the thought of the captain getting to
the controls for the grav plates (that corridor just became an elevator
shaft, with you at the top, and under 3g!).

> Why not manipulate it so
> cargo just 'falls' in and out of the hold instead of needing cranes or
> loaders? You could set them to fractional Gs to avoid damage.

Because that requires a lot of *local* control over the field. The
plates aren't set up for such fine control. It'd require using smaller
plates (more expensive for the same area covered) and a *lot* more
computer power.

BTW, the only real "handwave" in the above is the bit about *how*
rapidly the field drops off outside the ship. If I recall what I've
been told correctly, dipole type fields drop off according to an
inverse cube law (when you aren't close to the source). I suspect that
there'd still be a noticeable field for a ways outside the hull.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:06:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump Weapon?

In mail you write:

>      During tonight's Trav sesh, I explained to one of my players - Steve -
> about the 100 diameter jump limit. I also told him that a ship attempting
> jump while still on a planet would destroy much of it. This is my
> understanding at least.
>
>     Steve them asked what was to stop someone from performing a suicide jump
> on a planet. I couldn't answer him. Can anyone else do so?

It's always been my understanding that trying to jump from a planet's
surface results in an *automatic* misjump. Probably the sort where all
they ever find is mangled fragments spread evenly over the sector.

Anything outside the jump field (ie, all but a few cubic yards of the
planet) is safe.

The the "suicide" jumper might take a "divot" out of the tarmac, but
that's about it.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:39:11 -0500
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>
Subject: Re: "Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol/FF&S recoil

Bill Prankard wrote:

>
>The "Noisy Cricket" TL-12 Personal Plasma Pistol
>
>Pulse Energy: 0.0625Mj
>Firing Unit: 0.25kg/300cr
>Support System: 0.25kg/300cr
>EPG Action: 0.00625kg/0.0375cr
>EPG Cartridge: 0.15kg/1.5625cr
>Magazine(1 shot): 0.25kg/2.5cr
>Recoil System: 0.3125kg/187.5cr
>
>Loaded Mass: 1.22kg
>Price: 791.90cr
>Range: 25m
>Damage: 10
>Recoil: 25(?!?)
>
>This little gem was designed in response to the various FS dueling weapons
>designed by Hengebar Spofulam.  Using his expertise in high energy weapons,
>the Commander decided to produce a 1 shot plasma pistol.  The result is the
>"Noisy Cricket" Plasma Pistol, so named that during its first test firing,
>the gunman was thrown back several meters due to the awesome recoil of this
>weapon.  This effect reminded the Commander of an old Terran 2D film in
>which agents gunned down aliens with a similar fictitious weapon.
>
>OOC:  Gawds!  I never thought the recoil on this thing would be so high.
> This is truly a  "Noisy Cricket"! :-)  I would think a Formidable or
>Staggering roll of STR would be necessary to avoid injury when firing this
>weapon.


	Kewl!  Uncle Hengie has put the design bureau back into detox for a
week as punishment for not having thought of it first :).

	Seriously, though, the recoil is scary.  I've done a few full-auto
weapons where the recoil on full auto was 5.  The recoil on the .600 Nitro
Express revolver that I did back in September was 5.41.  .44 Automags (of
which I did several a little while back in an effort to really optimise a
design) tend to result in approximately 3.1-3.3 recoil.  I would think that
a recoil of 25 could be potentially fatal to the shooter.

	What all this does is beg the question of what exactly the recoil
numbers in FF&S mean.  What is the maximum recoil for a handgun?  A rifle?
How does recoil relate to strength?

Roderick Darroch Elliott <rde@ican.net>

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1999
***********************************
