Traveller-digest      Wednesday, August 4 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 919



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Yet more filk
Re: UNCLASSIFIED Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (new in TRAVELLERT ) 
Re: Spacedocks
Re: re Gen Con UK
Re: More First In
Re: Yet more filk
Re: re Gen Con UK
Re: re Gen Con UK
Re: First In Subsector Listing
Oops
Re: Traveller World Settlement (Was: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)
Re: First In Subsector Listing
Traveller World Settlement (Was: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)
Re: Traveller World Settlement (Was: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)
Re: First In Subsector Listing
Re:First In
Re: First In
Re: Gen Con UK
Re: Spacecraft Combat ratings question
Re: Spacedocks
Re: Spacedocks
Re:First in subsector listing
Re:More First In
Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (new in TRAVELLERT ) 

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:50:28 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Yet more filk

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


No, but it makes me feel a newbie.....

>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.


Oh, so shops *had* wargames in them then, eh? No Tragic Cards (which, okay,
I admit I play - but I resent in theory) filling up the shelves to the
exclusion of all else?

Ah, the good old days. You don't know how lucky you had it.

Nick

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:53:55 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: UNCLASSIFIED Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (new in TRAVELLERT ) 

>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.


Well, I for one'd be screwed. "Okay guys, we're going to build a thing
called a 'microchip factory' and when we've done *that* I'll show you
something REALLY impressive...."

NB

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:57:52 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Spacedocks

>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.


That'd be using...uhh.....tachyons....then.

And probably inverting the polarity of the quantum phase inhibiter, as well.

Nick

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:59:56 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: re Gen Con UK

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


Did you do the Traveller/Red Dwarf adventure at Baroquon?


>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....


I want to join (I've not been a member for too long now). I'll see you on
Friday, or possibly Saturday.

Nick

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:08:25 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: More First In

>Also, is there any technical reason why Planetoid Belts and Terrestrials
have different
>resource tables (and possible values) - thought PBs were made up of the
same material
>as Terrestrials - just broken up and strewn about. I'm toying with the idea
of giving
>Terrestrials the Planetoid Belt table and see how the numbers pan out.


Isn't the reason because even the minerals that would be buried four hundred
miles down into a planet are within metres (or hundred of metres) of the
surface when that planet's been broken up into planetoids?

NB

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:11:12 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Yet more filk

>...and my IP address was 5.


<chortle>

Nick
- --
(No, I have no idea what a chortle *really* sounds like, and I certainly
can't do one in real life. This is just one of the fringe benefits of
email.)

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:55:00 +0200
From: Volker Greimann <volker@greimann.de>
Subject: Re: re Gen Con UK

At 09:58 04.08.99 +0100, you wrote:

>- SpaceDogs II - fun and games with the Vargr Underdogs
>- Delta 3 is Down - an important Zhodani Courier Mission
>- The obligatory silly Traveller adventure.
Any chance of seeing these on the site some time after the con?

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

>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...
Grr, makes one wish one could be there. Why-o-why does WoTC not have a Gen
Con on 
the mainland as well, btw?

Volker
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Volker A. Greimann --- http://www.greimann.de --- volker@greimann.de

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:13:12 -0400
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: re Gen Con UK

BTW, sorry to interrupt here, but do any of you brits know if the Radio
Series of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is on Compact Disc?  If so,
where may it be purchased?
___________________________________________________________
 J-Man
 ICQ# 2843475
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.
 Email : j-man@iname.com
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/
___________________________________________________________

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:54:20 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jason Kemp" <Jason.Kemp@tdh.state.tx.us>
Subject: Re: First In Subsector Listing

On  4 Aug 99 at 14:10, Traveller-digest wrote, in "Traveller-digest 
V1999 #918":

> From: igor@truserve.com
> 
> In the tradition of Classic Traveller, my First In program can
> generate listings of subsectors. Below is my proposed listing
> format - and an example. I present it for comments:
> 
> 0000-111111111111111-22222-3333-44-5555-66-7-888-999-A-BB-CC-D-EEEE
> -FFFFFFFFF-GH

Andrew,

I love the fact that you've got your app working, and the data
results look very good.  While I can follow your suggested format
with some intrepidation, I'd like to request that if it were
possible, I'd also like to see a subsector listing, generated under
First In rules, with data formatted in a UWP as it exists under
CT/MT/TNE/T4/EtcT.

It's much easier for me to follow than the new format you're working 
on.

Also, may I suggest the following, to make the system easier to read, 
and closer to the CT/MT/EtcT UWP set-up:

* Move 8-Starport to before 2-Mainworld Diameter.

* Move 6-Population rating to after 7-Population value, so that it 
reads more easily: 2 4 becomes 2 X 10^4 rather than 4 X 10^2, which 
is opposite of the direction we read them in the current format.

_OR_

Move 6-Population rating to just before H-Planetoid Belts, and move
G-Gas Giants to just after H-Planetoid Belts, to match the MT UWP
code: PBG (Population rating, Number of Belts, Number of Gas
Giants.)

* Move C-Allegiance to after the PBG codes (MT), or to after D-Bases 
(CT.)

* Move E-World Trade Number to after F-Trade Codes.

These changes will make it easier for me, and possibly others, to 
follow, since it will bring the format closer to the classic UWP 
format.  Thanks for all your hard work.

In Service,
Jason

=============================
Jason Kemp, ADS Programmer IV
(512)458-7111 ext. 3375

Internet Address: jason.kemp@tdh.state.tx.us
==============================

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:09:04 -0500 ()
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Oops

Uh-oh, guys -- I think this might be pretty important. From this week's
edition of the Onion (www.theonion.com; "America's Finest News Source"):

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

PLANET EXPLODES

EARTH -- All Earth lifeforms are feared dead in Monday's explosion of the
four-billion-year-old planet, sources report. "We are still searching
through the rubble for any signs of life which may be present," said
American Red Cross volunteer Patricia O'Donnell. "But we stress that the
hope of retrieving survivors is quite slim." A research mishap at Long
Island's Brookhaven National Laboratories is believed responsible for the
catastrophic explosion.

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

ObTrav: Terra/Sol (TNS) -- In an attempt not to be outdone by "those
upstart Darrians," the supreme commander of Solomani Combined-Arms Military
Forces (SCAMFOR) unveiled the "Earth Trigger" at a news conference on
Sunday. ...

Ciao,

Joseph R. Dietrich
yikes@evansville.net

"Well, once again, my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast.
One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences ... but
the other head of science is bad! Oh, beware the other head of science,
Arthur! It bites!" -- the Tick

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:58:07 +0100
From: Mark Watson <markw@antares.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Traveller World Settlement (Was: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999, you wrote:
>    There are several reasons for it.  The 1I, 2I, or 3I could have
>restricted colonization on a world because of an environmental hazard, the
>first people to colonize it could have been wackos.  A Nobleman could keep
>that world as a private hunting ground.  It might not be on a main.
>    While on the other hand a hellworld might be on a main.  It might be a
>dumping ground for criminals.  It might have a rich vein of needed ores.
>    The UWP gives us just the raw data, we still have to do the work.  Take
>a planet with a UWP of D866971-8, or IMHO Earth's UWP.  This is raw data.
>It could mean anything to a good GM.  He could create an earth from it, just
>like the one we live on, or one where psionics have been developed ahead of
>mechanical science.  Or 1,000 different reasons for it to be different from
>earth.  It is up the the GM to think of a reason for something to be, not
>the game.  Remember, this is only raw data.
>

I accept that for the 3I stats (it is after all part of Traveller), but:
- - these tables don't determine 1I/2I population spread, but whether worlds were
settled at all
- - if the settlement is far sparser than the 3I it should be more defensible -
under the 3I almost every system is settled
- - First In actually assumes that environmental suitability would determine 1I
settlement, because its default mechanism for generating population (unlike CT)
also takes this into account. Unfortunately a) canon data already exists for
all mainworlds in the Imperium and b) even if you use the First In method it
generates so few earthlike worlds that 1I settlement is even more rare.

 -- Mark Watson, markw@antares.demon.co.uk

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:18:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: jmaclean@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: First In Subsector Listing

On 08/04/99 14:54:20 Jason Kemp wrote:
>* Move E-World Trade Number to after F-Trade Codes.
>
>These changes will make it easier for me, and possibly others, to 
>follow, since it will bring the format closer to the classic UWP 
>format.  Thanks for all your hard work.

The problem with this is that it makes the trade information more 
annoying to actually *use*.  You need the WTN more often and earlier
than the trade codes so it makes sense to place them first. Besides,
Andrew's current lay-out is based on that used in GT.  

Rather than having a "hybrid" lay-out that crosses the UWP with 
GT conventions, perhaps Andrew would be kind enough to allow people
to choose from GT and genuine UWP options?


- ------------------
Jim MacLean
Economist, Traveller Fan
Co-Author GT: Far Trader

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:23:03 +0100
From: Mark Watson <markw@antares.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Traveller World Settlement (Was: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999, you wrote:
>      There are several reasons for it.  The 1I, 2I, or 3I could have
>restricted colonization on a world because of an environmental hazard, the
>first people to colonize it could have been wackos.  A Nobleman could keep
>that world as a private hunting ground.  It might not be on a main.
>      While on the other hand a hellworld might be on a main.  It might be a
>dumping ground for criminals.  It might have a rich vein of needed ores.
>      The UWP gives us just the raw data, we still have to do the work.  Take
>a planet with a UWP of D866971-8, or IMHO Earth's UWP.  This is raw data.
>It could mean anything to a good GM.  He could create an earth from it, just
>like the one we live on, or one where psionics have been developed ahead of
>mechanical science.  Or 1,000 different reasons for it to be different from
>earth.  It is up the the GM to think of a reason for something to be, not
>the game.  Remember, this is only raw data.
>

(My mailer sent this before I was finished, darn it)

I accept that for the 3I stats (it is after all part of Traveller), but:
- - these tables don't determine 1I/2I population spread, but whether worlds were
settled at all
- - if the settlement is far sparser than the 3I it should be more defensible -
under the 3I almost every system is settled
- - First In actually assumes that environmental suitability would determine 1I
settlement, because its default mechanism for generating population (unlike CT)
also takes this into account. Unfortunately a) canon data already exists for
all mainworlds in the Imperium and b) even if you use the First In method it
generates so few earthlike worlds* that 1I settlement is even more rare.

Using a fairly broad definition of "eden" world = world with standard
atmosphere and >4 hydrosphere, with canon data, I get about 2-4 worlds per
subsector settled in the First Imperium. Not only is this way out against the 
similar tables in Pocket Empires, but it ignores the fact that a civilisation
initially capable of only Jump-1 would have to provide facilities at far closer
intervals to create a sustainable empire.

Plus the tables provide no way of working out the prevalent tech level during
the Rule of Man. :-)

* to be fair to First In, there are 2 basic system generation methods in
Traveller, post scouts.
The classic method which generates the mainworld first, and which was used to
generate the canon data, is the default.  Alternatively you can generate the
extended system data first, and then use the world with the largest population
as the mainworld.
First In has the default/alternative the other way round, but you could still
use the classic way - though unfortunately the GURPS Space/Behind the Claw world
descriptions are less efficient for this method than was the CT UPP.

- --
Mark Watson, markw@antares.demon.co.uk

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:58:07 +0100
From: Mark Watson <markw@antares.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Traveller World Settlement (Was: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #915)

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999, you wrote:
>    There are several reasons for it.  The 1I, 2I, or 3I could have
>restricted colonization on a world because of an environmental hazard, the
>first people to colonize it could have been wackos.  A Nobleman could keep
>that world as a private hunting ground.  It might not be on a main.
>    While on the other hand a hellworld might be on a main.  It might be a
>dumping ground for criminals.  It might have a rich vein of needed ores.
>    The UWP gives us just the raw data, we still have to do the work.  Take
>a planet with a UWP of D866971-8, or IMHO Earth's UWP.  This is raw data.
>It could mean anything to a good GM.  He could create an earth from it, just
>like the one we live on, or one where psionics have been developed ahead of
>mechanical science.  Or 1,000 different reasons for it to be different from
>earth.  It is up the the GM to think of a reason for something to be, not
>the game.  Remember, this is only raw data.
>

I accept that for the 3I stats (it is after all part of Traveller), but:
- - these tables don't determine 1I/2I population spread, but whether worlds were
settled at all
- - if the settlement is far sparser than the 3I it should be more defensible -
under the 3I almost every system is settled
- - First In actually assumes that environmental suitability would determine 1I
settlement, because its default mechanism for generating population (unlike CT)
also takes this into account. Unfortunately a) canon data already exists for
all mainworlds in the Imperium and b) even if you use the First In method it
generates so few earthlike worlds that 1I settlement is even more rare.

 -- Mark Watson, markw@antares.demon.co.uk

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 99 16:19:53 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: First In Subsector Listing

On 08/04/99 at 03:18 PM,  jmaclean@ix.netcom.com said:

>On 08/04/99 14:54:20 Jason Kemp wrote:
>>* Move E-World Trade Number to after F-Trade Codes.

>>These changes will make it easier for me, and possibly others, to 
>>follow, since it will bring the format closer to the classic UWP 
>>format.  Thanks for all your hard work.

>The problem with this is that it makes the trade information more 
>annoying to actually *use*.  You need the WTN more often and earlier
>than the trade codes so it makes sense to place them first. Besides,
>Andrew's current lay-out is based on that used in GT.  

Um, well only if you're using GT:FT will you use WTN more than the trade codes. Remember, there are still a lot of, maybe more, CT/MT/TNE travellers than GT travellers out here.

>Rather than having a "hybrid" lay-out that crosses the UWP with  GT
>conventions, perhaps Andrew would be kind enough to allow people to
>choose from GT and genuine UWP options?

I agree. That is a practice I wish was followed by SJG in all their GT works. ;->

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 19:54:06 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: Re:First In

>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.

There was a very short thread about this in digests 748 to 752. Hopefully more
people have First In now.

>One: has anyone else noticed this? 'Cause if you haven't, maybe there's
>  a bug in my software.

I posted in the previous thread that, using First In, I tried to generate an
earth like planet in the hab zone of a star completely at random and it took me
46 attempts to do so. Then getting an earth like temperature was even more
difficult. Rob Prior also posted that Scouts was similar in this respect.

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

I like it generating "realistic" systems. I also feel that there should be sets
of refinements to allow it to meet each persons TU requirements. 

>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 Base Orbital Radius & Bode constants could be made more continuous. The
discrete numbers First In generates using D6s give a smaller probability that a
world will fall into the hab zone, than a continuous sequence would. This should
increase the overall probability that a world falls in the hab zone by about 10%
(every little helps). So indirectly it helps by giving you more planets in the
hab zone to work with.

You could use a linear probability method for planet size (e.g. size 1-10 [or
0.5-10.5]), rather than a bell curve using 2D6-2 (or 1-8 for 2D6-4). This gives
you more variation in size, increases the average planet size by 0.5, and ups
the odds of an ocean planet by about 10%.

You could use a different planet size distribution that favored bigger planets. 
e.g. 3D6-3, rerolling any result over 10.

You could also roll planet size twice and keep the biggest.

You could stick with younger stars, say Disk population and younger (which seems
reasonable anyway). Thereby increasing average planet density (step 9) and hence
its size class (step 12).

I think you are still going to get a lot of small Desert worlds and very small
rockballs. To be earthlike and uninhabited they must have been terraformed
sometime in the last million years or so. So handwaves involving ancients and
TL9+ technologies may still be required. 

Perhaps just say that all Desert and Hostile worlds in the Life-zone have been
terraformed. This doesn't seem unreasonable in the OTU. Then use reduced
penalties on the hydrosphere table (halved? minimum of one?). 

The rules allow you to vary all hydrosphere results by up to 5% so you could
have up to 5% hyrographics, quite legally, regardless of a roll of zero :)

I don't know what you can do with the very small and tiny category worlds (size
3 or less). I personally would be tempted to drop them as habitable planets and
ignore canon (gasp).

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:17:39 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: First In

John Buston wrote:
 
> I posted in the previous thread that, using First In, I tried to generate an
> earth like planet in the hab zone of a star completely at random and it took me
> 46 attempts to do so. Then getting an earth like temperature was even more
> difficult. Rob Prior also posted that Scouts was similar in this respect.

wanna see worse? Try getting accrete (I think Doug Berry has a link to
it via his web site), which is a system generation model built on
real-world constants and assumptions.  I think I ran it about 120 times
before I got a habitable planet. 

All this aside, what do people count as 'habitable'? I have the Spinward
marches data in a database, and I can generate some numbers based on it.
(I also have all of the rest of the second survey, as well as the first
survey data, so I can look at statistics for the entire 3I)

at a first guess are we only talking standard atmosphere, with 30-80%
hydrophere? What about tainted atmosphere? Thin? Should I look at
10-100% HYD, only excluding pure dry worlds? 

- -- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:05:27 +0100
From: "Mark Preston" <mark@mpreston.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Gen Con UK

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Regrettably not. I gave up last year when I saw the prices they were
charging. A pity, really, but I do think WOTC have ruined what was
about the best major con left.

- - -----Original Message-----
From: Nick Bradbeer <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
<traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
Date: 03 August 1999 23:22
Subject: Gen Con UK


>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?
>
>Nick
>
>
>
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN6i5Jt+RIMRAvRI5EQINMwCgtRCg1Sfeu5dX+BuDDor7Ll9L398Anibg
XPgieULgGvF66jHkhczPzsbR
=Wgxm
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:00:55 -0400
From: Thad Coons <Sapience@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Spacecraft Combat ratings question

>        Anything less than 1000dton is a criticals-magnet,
>waiting for some lunatic with several rows of USP9 lasers and
>missles to alblatize the armor belt and convert it to a smear of
>plasma.

   I take it that SDBs typically aren't _meant_ to stand up to
ships of the line. Most of them most of the time are sitting
around waiting for something to happen, which is usually ethics
adjustment (mostly smugglers & speeders) and flaming idiot
cleanup (S&R). Quite a few them are patrolling class B ports and
medium population worlds that might be able to afford a single
destroyer if they saved for a century or two.
   If your hipop worlds want something that can survive long
enough to keep the marines from landing anywhere valuable until
the Navy gets its pants pulled back up and comes to the rescue, I
don't see any compelling reason they can't turn in ten squadrons
of "ordinary" SDBS for one with ships ten times bigger.
  

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 22:00:41 GMT
From: j_pete@bellsouth.net (Pete)
Subject: Re: Spacedocks

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:07:53 PST, you wrote:

>In mail you write:

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

How about "restricted space space"?


================================================================================
- - Pete                                                      j_pete@bellsouth.net

"Thoughts of sex distracted me and now I have to immolate myself to subdue the
 buzzing in my head!"                 -Tom Servo

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

Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:20:01 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Spacedocks

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


Or even, <shock>, "restricted space"?

NB
- --
Just a wacky thought...

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

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:22:29 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: Re:First in subsector listing

>In the tradition of Classic Traveller, my First In program can generate listings of 
>subsectors. Below is my proposed listing format - and an example. I present it for 
>comments:

>0000-111111111111111-22222-3333-44-5555-66-7-888-999-A-BB-CC-D-EEEE-FFFFFFFFF-GH

I have never been a fan of codified data and the UWP/UPP. I would prefer a more
descriptive output, column headings, and a key (e.g. what the letter codes mean
- - Co, Bur, Im, NiVa). Perhaps you could use icons for each section of the code
(e.g. wingdings characters - water droplet for hydrographics, etc.). I have
always hated having two codes for the population, why not just give the
population total. Also combining BG as one number makes me cringe. Sorry to be
so negative but I like things easy to understand. I have always thought that
codified data is a sure way of turning off a large proportion of your potential
target auience.

The bases column seems to be missing.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:22:43 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: Re:More First In

>On page 60, the Planetoid Belt Value table - its impossible to roll 18 (and get 
>Motherlode) because all dms are negative.  

There is no DM for the middle zone. So 18 is possible there.

>Also, is there any technical reason why Planetoid Belts and Terrestrials have different 
>resource tables (and possible values) - thought PBs were made up of the same material 
>as Terrestrials - just broken up and strewn about. I'm toying with the idea of giving 
>Terrestrials the Planetoid Belt table and see how the numbers pan out.

I assumed planets were more stratified, so that stuff that was in PBs may be
deeply buried in planets. I would expect mineral wealth of planets to rise with
density. There again I would expect dense planets to exist in the same system
where PBs had higher resource values. Perhaps this table should correlate with
age of the star. Younger stars have better resources?

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

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 22:37:45 GMT
From: j_pete@bellsouth.net (Pete)
Subject: Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (new in TRAVELLERT ) 

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:55:13 -0400 (EDT), William Prankard
<cmdrx@magicnet.net> wrote:

>
>I have done something similar in which the PC's ship misjumps and they
>wind up on a primative world.
>At least at first it seems primative.  It's fun to watch the PC's waste
>their ammo on thugs and highwaymen and get a false sence of security.
>
>What the PC's don't realise is the fact that "magic" exists on this world.
>They soon see that when they encounter their first 'wizard'.
>
>The 'magic' is of course high technology and psionics.
>
>I have used this scenario many times at conventions, with interesting
>results.  Got the idea from an old issue of Challenge.  Can't remeber the
>issue number, but the article was called "Just Like Magic" or something
>similar.
>
That was Challenge # 46 pgs 14-20. I don't have that issue but this is
what the Index in Challenge # 50 said.



================================================================================
- - Pete                                                      j_pete@bellsouth.net

"Thoughts of sex distracted me and now I have to immolate myself to subdue the
 buzzing in my head!"                 -Tom Servo

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #919
**********************************

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
