Traveller-digest      Wednesday, August 4 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 917



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: First In
Re: Yet more filk
Re: Ground To Space Laser Fire....
Re: Xenobiology 101 : Ecology, Environment, and Evolution (long)
Re: Spacedocks
SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (new  in TRAVELLERT ) 
Re: First In
Re B5 and Rules w/ setting vs Setting w/rules
Re: Spacedocks...
RE: Spacecraft Combat ratings questions
Re: RL:There's Oil in them thar Saturnian satellites...
Re: Spacedocks...
Re yet more filk.
Re: Ground To Space Laser Fire....
Re: Spacedocks
Munich
Munich
re Gen Con UK
[BITS] Convention News - Claymore 99
FW: Traveller World Settlement (Was:  Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)

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

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 99 22:28:16 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: First In

On 08/03/99 at 07:43 AM,  "Andrew Akins" <igor@truserve.com> said:

>I'd like to discuss First In for a moment...

>I've been working on some Java software to automate First In (insert
>shameless plug), and I've noticed something - the stats generated are
>very non-Traveller like.

GURPS Space-like is what they are.

>Now, several disclaimers. First, I have discussed this with John.
>Second, I LOVE First In, and as an amature astronomer (minor in
>Astrophysics) I think John has done the best realistic job - compared
>to all the other games I've seen.

Yep, pretty realistic, but...

>The problem is, from a Traveller standpoint, there just aren't too
>many liveable planets. The vast majority of planets generated appear
>to be airless rockballs, no water - including worlds in the lifezone.
>While this may be realistic, it doesn't _feel_ like Traveller.

...this is a game. ;->

>So I guess I have a few questions -
>    One: has anyone else noticed this? 'Cause if you haven't, maybe
>there's a bug in my software.

There might be a bug in your software, but it's not causing this
problem.  If you follow First In rules, strictly, you don't get many
earthlike worlds.  That's realistic, but not Traveller.

>    Two: Is this something that should be changed for a
>"Traveller-esqe" campaign?

IMO, yes.

>    Three: How could it be changed? What tables/rolls/DMs can be
>fiddled with to get a few more planets with atmospheres and
>hydrospheres as mainworlds?

The handwave in my system is the Gaia factor.  IMTU, any world that
comes close to being able to support life does, and the biosystems
themeselves moderate the environment toward an Earth-like mean.

Specifically, what I did was widened the Life Zone, allowed more
borderline worlds to support life, and gave biosystems a lot more
credit than they probably should have.  

Sol system example...if Mars and Venus switched places both would be
candidates for habitable systems.  The new, further out, Venus would
retain atmosphere and water long enough for life to develop and the
life would regulate the temperture and pressure producing a colder
and drier world than Earth, but quite possibily habitable.  The new,
further in, Mars would lose atmosphere fast enough to prevent a
run-away greenhouse from starting early in it's history, giving life
a chance to get a foothold and regulate temperture and pressure
producing a hotter and wetter world than Earth, but also quite
possibily habitable.

I don't care if it's bad science, it works for me.  ;-> 

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 99 23:01:18 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Yet more filk

On 08/04/99 at 10:10 PM,  "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk> said:

>>Pass the Geritol, that made me feel *real* old...

>Well, I try....

Doug, I was older than Nick is now when Traveller was released.
Does that make you feel younger?  ;->

>>You kids.. when I was your age we had to carve our own miniatures, and use
>>low-impact polyhedrals that we bought from Lou Zocchi's little store on the
>>corner!

I remember when Lou Zocchi *started* his little store!  Actually, I
don't, but I could have...wasn't he based in Biloxi, MS? 

>Yeah, and walk to the games shop. Barefoot. In the snow. Uphill
>there, uphill back.
><g>

Nick, you young Whippersnapper!  We didn't even *have* game shops.
We had to make do with back corners in an occasional card and toy
shop.  There we competed for space with the more popular, but
equally socially unacceptable AH, SPI and *GDW* wargames.  That was
the route that got me into RPGs, wargames.

Eris, 
    Heretic, Grognard, and Old Coot! ;->

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:02:29 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Ground To Space Laser Fire....

In mail you write:

> At 08:55 AM 7/31/1999 PST, you wrote:
>>To *incinerate* something (actually "vaporize") you need to figure the
>>mass and "average" composition. Then look up the specific heat of the
>>material. That's the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram (or is
>>it kilo?) one degree C. So figure what it takes to heat it from the
>>starting temp to the melting temp. Now you need to look up the "heat of
>>liquefaction". That's how much energy it takes to change one unit of the
>>solid at melting temp to one unit of *liquid* at melting temp. Then you
>>use the specific heat again to figure out how much energy it takes to
>>raise the liquid to boiling. The you use the heat of vaporization to
>>see how much energy it takes to change a unit of liquid at boiling to a
>>unit of vapor at boiling. 
>>
>>In general it takes *hideous* amounts of power to vaporize anything.
>>
>
>         Hi, Leonard!
>         Thanks very much.  Somewhere in that pile of arcane knowledge of
> yours, you wouldn't happen to know what those numbers (specific heat) are
> for stainless steel and aircraft aluminum?  Thanks.

Let's see what the CRC handbook says for iron and aluminum:

Hmm. I can't find heat of fusion or vaporization. <sigh>

I did find heat capacity, melting & boiling.

          melting  boiling  capacity
          -------  -------  -----------
Aluminum  1051 C   3198 C   0.897 J/g K
Iron      1538 C   2861 C   0.449 J/g K

J/g K = Joules per gram per one degree K temp rise

So to raise one kilo of aluminum from 30 C to 1051 C takes
897*(1051-30) or 915,837 J. Pretty close to a megajoule. 

For iron 677,092 J. About 2/3rds of an MJ. 

*Ignoring* heat fusion and heat of vaporization:

Aluminum  2.84 MJ/kg
Iron      1.27 MJ/kg

I'm sure there are references out there *somewhere* that give this sort
of thing. I just don't have any. I suggest a trip to your local
library. Preferably a college university that has engineering courses.

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:27:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Xenobiology 101 : Ecology, Environment, and Evolution (long)

In mail you write:

> Robert O'Connor writes:
> <snipped>
>>Most soils are complex mixtures of organic and inorganic compounds. Their
>>fertility or carrying capacity varies with their ability to retain
>>nutrients - or toxic materials e.g. clay soils and aluminium salts.
>
>         Soils are also the location of extremely complex and important 
>         communities, made up of arthropods, worms, fungi, etc. These
>         communities tend to overlooked as they are mostly invisible to
>         us.

Check Heinlein's "Farmer in the Sky" for a simplified dissertation on
the subject of just what it takes to turn rock dust, sand and gravel
into fertile soil.

Also check Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" for a (all too realistic!)
discussion of the ecological effects of killing off the "unnoticed"
microfauna of a large area (it's the paper on what extensive use of
chemical weapons would do).

> <snipped>
>>Producers can be further divided into point and area subgroups. Point
>>producers are typically single large organisms (trees, creosote bushes),
>>area producers groups of many small organisms (grass, bacteria). This
>>division is a consequence of scaling laws and niche competition (see 
>>below).
>
>         I don't follow this distinction. Any organism may be large or
>         small, may be solitary or live in groups, etc.

The idea is that the "point" producers produce their chemicals at a
relatively small point, and the chemicals have to diffuse outwards.
Area producers produce chemicals fairly evenly over a large area. 

This sort of thing *does* make a difference.

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:07:53 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Spacedocks

In mail you write:

> I like the idea of the open structure, simply for the economic model (it
> should be less expensive to manufacture... always a concern to official bean
> counters).  They build trucks in a building, but the truck manufacturing
> plant isn't built in another building, so that doesn't concern me.  However
> (and I'm not into the politics of ST, so I'm not sure how the following
> applies), what about security, as in distant spying by radio telescope or
> fly-by?

The radio telescope can't get much detail. It's limited by wavelength
and by size. Also, for the sort of "spying" you are talking about, it'd
have to be operated as a giant radar unit. That's about as obvious as
using a searchlight at night.

Flying by too close will result in your violated restricted "air
space". 

It's actually easier to just rig "tarps" over and around items you want
to keep secret rather than enclosing the whole "dock"

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:26:08 +1000 
From: "Hughes, Michael" <Michael.Hughes@cbr.defence.gov.au>
Subject: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (new  in TRAVELLERT ) 

Has anyone done a CYIKAC esque scenario, ie. High tech person stranded in a
low tech environment (without any said tech) who then uses his/her/its/??
more advanced knowledge to prosper. I know Pocket Empires had guidelines on
this stuff, but it was more Macro in nature (plus I'm pretty sure it assumed
that high tech products could still be acquired). 

Personally speaking, being of the humanities strand I'd know I'd be well and
truly... in a bad place. But as for you science types , you'd probably be
kings/queens/kinueens/royal ?? in five years flat.

Plus there'd be some serious groupies.

I know on the TML way back in '91/'92 people had campaigns where crashed
spaceship survivors had dominated the political landscape on human seeded
worlds (including one world whose 'survivors' put grav modules on a 17th
century like man-o'war and made it steam powered), but I lost all that stuff
year's ago. 

Um, I guess that's it. Thanks in advance guys.

'You can't be serious stranger. Guano and charcoal! I'll not have any of
your damned war machines that are powered by bird effluent!' See, I'm pretty
sure I got that wrong too.

Lousy Arts degree.

- - Michael 

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:37:38 -0400
From: "Thomas Schoene" <TomSchoene@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: First In

- ----------
> From: Eris Reddoch <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: Re: First In
> Date: Tuesday, 03 August, 1999 11:28 PM
> 
> On 08/03/99 at 07:43 AM,  "Andrew Akins" <igor@truserve.com> said:
> There might be a bug in your software, but it's not causing this
> problem.  If you follow First In rules, strictly, you don't get many
> earthlike worlds.  That's realistic, but not Traveller.
> 
> >    Two: Is this something that should be changed for a
> >"Traveller-esqe" campaign?
> 
> IMO, yes.

The playtest draft of First In had an alternate system for orbit placement
that started with placing the mainworld somewhere in the habitable zone and
working in both directions from there to locate the other planets.  It went
to essentially the opposite extreme, where there's always a planet in the
habitable zone unless you decide you don't want one. This seemed like a
better solution; I'm not sure why it got dropped.

I'll see if I can dig it up if people are interested (and Jon doesn't
object.)  IIRC, it does not use the Bode Law spacing scheme, which is also
a good thing, because Bode seems likely to be an accident rather than a
law.  

Tom Schoene

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: Re B5 and Rules w/ setting vs Setting w/rules

>    I have to agree, C.E. did not do the show justice at all.  I have run a
>B5 game using MT rules.  It is looking more & more like the Traveller rules
>are a rule set with a setting tacked on, not a setting with rules tacked on.

Having run CE's Bab Project, I will give it the following kudos: CGen and
skill rules are quite well put together, work well together, and are easy
and memorable. Combat, however.... Suffice it to say the Gropo was most
unhappy having to get surgury after being hit in the gut by a Religious
caste Minbari.

>    I.e. CT/MT/TNE/T4 are rules with a setting tacked on, GURPS Traveller is
>a setting with rules tacked on.  It is a question of style.  CT/MT/TNE/T4
>will be classics, while GURPS Traveller will be a flash in the pan.
>
One of my problems is that CT, MT, TNE, and T4 are ALL very different
rulesets in many ways. The closest two being CT & MT... The settings tacked
on to the various editions have been the the most harped on differences,
but the fundamental differences in mechanics are profound, and strongly
seem to flavor the opinions of the various ruleset adherents/proponents.
GT, having almost NO mechanical comparisons with the other rulesets, relies
on reworking, almost from scratch it would seem, the setting which was an
afterthought of the CT rules.

T4, IMHO, will be even less of a splash, unless MWM gets T5 out soon (next
2-3 years), since it shares less with CT/MT/TNE (*pick any one*) than the
others do to CT/MT/TNE (*pick any other one*) , including background and
mechanics.


William F. Hostman
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis http://www.alaska.net/~mhaa
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn t4- tt+ to- ?tg ru+ ge 3i+ jt-() au+ st+ ls ls- kk+
as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+
"Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click interface!"

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:15:54 +1000
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au>
Subject: Re: Spacedocks...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: Spacedocks



>
> Flying by too close will result in your violated restricted "air
> space".
>

I kind of view a navy construction facilities or "navy docks", rightly or
wrongly, like our-world equivilent... that is, in Sydney harbour, you can
sail right past and look over what ever is in port at the moment.  Looking
at pics of SF, I thought it was similar, but I can't say with veracity on
that one.

Unlike many (as it seems) that impose strict airspace restrictions,
security, whatever, in TTU's, I allow for such things in plot elements as
unrestricted space near certain military emplacements during peacetime...
which make it easier to play certain scenarios, not near impossible to play,
YMMV.

> It's actually easier to just rig "tarps" over and around items you want
> to keep secret rather than enclosing the whole "dock"
>

Again, for a sci-fi game element, I'd prefer to have PC's sneak into an
enclosed dock and make their way through a complex than sneak up on a tarp
covered rig and cut a hole in it... purely for plot element and story
telling.  Again, YMMV.

However, this is my line of thinking, not something I recall having done.
For example, to make such a plot workable, I know my old TU had facilities
for sneaking a starship through blind spots in planetary defences and
sensors with the arbitrary decision that they "had" to exist.  To read the
TML, it is near impossible -- if possible at all -- to sneak a land a ship
illegally dirtside when you listen to the posts real life facts and physics
without such an arbitrary call.

ObTrav:  How do other GM's get around this problem?  There are military
grade turret weaponry in a warehouse that *have to be loaded from there* a
few cliks from the Starport and smuggled out.  The activity will draw
attention and by the worlds laws, gives a high chance of being caught.
Therefore the only option is to sneak past the sensors and land, load and
sneak backout...

- -- The Roc

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:13:00 -0400
From: Thad Coons <Sapience@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: Spacecraft Combat ratings questions

Alan Bradley wrote:

>There are descriptions of Milieu 1100 IN squadrons in a couple
>of places. They tend to have about 8 or so major combatants, or
>a single tender and a bunch of battleriders, all _well_ over the
>1000 ton mark, plus about as many escorts, also over 1000 tons. 
>This is the kind of squadron that ballparks to around a trillion
>credits.  

>Actual squadrons designed for play in TCS tend to be rather
>different, of course, since they tend to be optimised for the
>sole purpose of killing other TCS squadrons, and don't have to
>operate in the "real" world.

>The kind of "battle cruiser" that can be designed for a billion
>credits is something like the good old Kinunir class - not a
>battle cruiser in any serious sense of the term, unless you are
>operating in an arbitrarily tonnage limited environment (and
>such environments can be fun, incidentally).

For regular IN squadrons including battle cruisers, battleriders
and tenders and the like, I do use the Trillion credits, and I do
get the kind of numbers you are talking about.
But IS talks about giving hipop worlds, for instance, 3 starship
squadrons and 1200 SDB squadrons. This makes NO sense to me
unless the SDB version of a squadron uses fewer and smaller ships
than the regular naval type.  I got the impression from my
sources that when an IN admiral and the local SDB commander talk
about "major combatants" they are discussing entirely different
animals. The IN admiral is thinking something like 50 kT and up,
and the SDB admiral more like 1 kT. The kind of thing you can get
for a billion credits or two looks to me like about the size an
SDB squadron should be.

What is the role of SDBs, anyway? For moderate population worlds
that can only afford a squadron or two, it must be principally to
discourage piracy, chase smugglers, and rescue stranded pilots
(Rather like the US Coast Guard) but how many squadrons do you need for
that kind of work? For high pop worlds, it looks more like
keeping potential invaders from having a free hand in case the
regular navy is out chasing wild geese.
  

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 01:13:03 -0400
From: Thad Coons <Sapience@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: RL:There's Oil in them thar Saturnian satellites...

Bruce Macintosh wrote: 

>If this doesn't get our lazy butts into space, I don't know what
>will...

Tell it to Congress. I just read an editorial that claims they're
cutting NASA's budget AGAIN. 
Then again, maybe you should tell it to Bill Gates and persuade
him to invest one of his billions in some of these private
companies that are trying to develop cheaper alternatives for
earth-to-low orbit transportation. As long as he doesn't try to
run it like M$...
  

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:25:37 +1000
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au>
Subject: Re: Spacedocks...

Oh!  And thanks for your reply, but I wasn't speaking from a reality aspect
when I put forward my thought about security, which may well be the way the
future goes with it, but not many movies or books would I think, and that's
what made me ask... must be the writer in me :^)

- -- The Roc

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com>
> To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 2:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Spacedocks
>
>
>
> >
> > Flying by too close will result in your violated restricted "air
> > space".
> >
> etc...

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:08:04 +0100
From: "Derrick Jones" <dojones.whitestar@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re yet more filk.

paint, spit, breakfast cerals.....You were lucky!

But if you told the kids of today, they wouldn't beleive you!

(it could have got seriously out of hand if someone didn't
say that soon! I remember a 6 (yes six month) session of
exactly that, but then again, we had to work more often in 
those days, and if't'slave master caught you talking you'd
be well in fer it!......)

Oh shit! Not again!


Derrick

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 09:36:47 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Ground To Space Laser Fire....

At 18:02 03/08/1999 PST, hadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
>In mail you write:
<snip>
>*Ignoring* heat fusion and heat of vaporization:
>
>Aluminum  2.84 MJ/kg
>Iron      1.27 MJ/kg
>
>I'm sure there are references out there *somewhere* that give this sort
>of thing. I just don't have any. I suggest a trip to your local
>library. Preferably a college university that has engineering courses.

heading to my favourite site for this sort of data:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/index.html

Aluminium
  Enthalpy of fusion       [/kJ mol^-1]:  10.7 
  Enthalpy of vaporization [/kJ mol^-1]: 293 
  Enthalpy of atomization  [/kJ mol^-1]: 326

Iron
  Enthalpy of fusion       [/kJ mol^-1]:  13.8 
  Enthalpy of vaporization [/kJ mol^-1]: 347 
  Enthalpy of atomization  [/kJ mol^-1]: 415

I'll leave it to Leonard to actually use these numbers. ;-)

Phil Kitching
- --
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 09:50:56 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Spacedocks

At 10:19 04/08/1999 +1000, "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
>... However
>(and I'm not into the politics of ST, so I'm not sure how the following
>applies), what about security, as in distant spying by radio telescope or
>fly-by?

In ST, the Federation has the Argos array that can, from within its
own borders, get a clear enough picture of someone on Romulus so that
he can be identified - even though he's a well known personage who has
been disguised well enough that a Romulan standing next to him won't
recognise him.

So security looks like a real problem it that universe.

Phil Kitching
- --
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:25:56 +0100 
From: BRIAN CABAAL <boc@raidtec.ie>
Subject: Munich

Does anyone know where I can find a gaming shop in Munich?

- -Brian Caball

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:25:56 +0100 
From: BRIAN CABAAL <boc@raidtec.ie>
Subject: Munich

Does anyone know where I can find a gaming shop in Munich?

- -Brian Caball

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:58:14 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re Gen Con UK

"Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk> writes:
>I'm planning on being at GenCon UK this September in Loughborough (my first
>real Con - woo!).
>
>Are any other Brits on the list planning on going?

BITS will be there for four days. In a break with previous tradition we are
moving the stand from the demo hall to the trade hall, and having a
separate demo area. We will be running three tournaments -

- - SpaceDogs II - fun and games with the Vargr Underdogs
- - Delta 3 is Down - an important Zhodani Courier Mission
- - The obligatory silly Traveller adventure.

plus demos ranging from normal Traveller (CT/MT/TNE/T4/GT) to games like
ACQ and the Full Thrust Traveller version we've been working up. It's
probable that we will have a computer demonstrating Rob Prior's MacOS
software.

There will be up to four new releases if all goes will. Only one of these
is a 101 book. ;-)

It's likely that the big box of old Traveller material will also make it to
the stand, selling at the low prices BITS members have got used to...


I will be there from Wednesday night, and the stand should be up Thursday
AM. Andy Lilly will be there for a few days, and other BITS members are
likely to be around. Come and see us at the stand! If you'd like to a demo
or to run or play we'll be there. If you want to help, let me know....

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
"In the End I found beginnings, not a vision, a wake up call.
Raised from the dead by a beating heart and at last I can
  see it all. And my eyes were opened to the darkness.."
                  Fish /Raingods with Zippos/
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:07:59 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: [BITS] Convention News - Claymore 99

BITS - British Isles Traveller Support

http://www.bits.org.uk/

Further details for Claymore 99
- ----------------------------------------
The convention will be held at the Meadowbank Stadium in Edinburgh on August
7th for the 3rd year running and will be a huge wargaming show with trade
stands, displays, public participation and a large bring and buy section for
figures and RPG's alike.  Doors open at 10am and entry is around 2-3 with
usual concessions.

BITS presence is strengthened this year with 3 members - Trusty John Allan
Brown, Jim Trappit and Richard Talbot will run a series of skirmish
scenarios in
various miniature scales - my own scenario will be a 25mm attack on an
Imperial outpost during the FFW by Ine Givar terrorists using Ground Zero
Games figures and sci fi buildings by Grendel miniatures.  John and Jim both
plan to run various 15mm scenarios.  The management of the convention try to
lean away from roleplaying but as long as we have the Traveller flag flying
it will be ok.

END

Dom (BITS Webmaster)

- -------------Dom Mooney---webmaster@bits.org.uk----------------
                 BITS - British Isles Traveller Support.
 http://www.bits.org.uk/              mailto:bits@bits.org.uk
Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
GURPS is a registered trademark of Steve Jackson Games, Inc.
BITS and CORE are trademarks of BITS UK Limited.
All rights reserved.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:26:46 +0800
From: "Antony Farrell" <Skaran@bigpond.com>
Subject: FW: Traveller World Settlement (Was:  Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com] On Behalf Of Anthony
Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, 4 August 1999 7:57
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
Cc: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
Subject: Re: Traveller World Settlement (Was: Re: Traveller-digest V1999
#915)


Legate Legion writes:
>
>     There could be other reasons to settle a world, other than climate.
> Mineral wealth could be one.  Think about it.  If world A is perfect in
> everyway, but does not have mineral X & you need mineral X for Jump Drive
&
> world B is a hellhole, but is very rich in mineral X, you will settle
both.
> A for food & living space, B for Mineral X.  That could be the reason for
> the 2d6-2 roll for population.

No, this is a reason for a random factor in population.  The point is not
that climate should _solely_ determine population -- the point is that it
should _affect_ population.  Certainly, there could be high-pop hellworlds
and low-pop garden worlds, but they should at least be unusual.

There is a world in the Solomani Rim I cannot remeber its name, which is a
garden world in all aspects, lots of native life etc. Only problem was it
harbored an organism which removed metals, including iron from anything it
was in contact with. The colonists all died of anemia with their equipment
breaking down around them. The world was interdicted.

In the TNE era I hope it is widely known that the world is interdicted and
why, else that organism is going to spread. I would be surprised if the
interdiction squadron or satellites survived the virus era.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #917
**********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.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
