Traveller-digest     Thursday, August 26 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1023



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

"Tender"/"Riders" combos as freighters
Piracy Debate
Augustus Deo-class Fast Liner (GTL10)
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
Re: 101 Starships
Starship Materials
Galak-class Megafreighter (GTL10)
Re: Streamlining
Fusion Plants . the next generation
Re: Streamlining
Re: Starship Materials
What size ships can land?
Re Emulate CT...
Re GT vs CT/MT/TNE PP
RE: OT Book Help!
Far Trader
RE: OT but related: More art
RE: OT but related: More art

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:23:16 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: "Tender"/"Riders" combos as freighters

>From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net>
>Subject: Re: 101 Starships
...
>>     Well, I tend to build a J-4 "Tender" & J-1 or J-2 "Riders".  So that the
>> "Tender" can move along on the main route & the "Riders" can vist systems
>> off the main route.
>
>This is where the economic problem arises, IMHO.  The tender is having
>to use jump capacity to move a number of ships, each of which _also_ has
>jump capability.  This strikes me as more costly than simply building an
>equivalent capacity of regular freightliners, per dton of cargo moved.

  The economics shouldn't be too bad, but some crucial variables arise:
 1) can the subordinate craft be designed so that when carried their own
internal tankage is available to the tender?
 2) can the scheduling difficulties be overcome such that a standard hull
tender (for the 20% discount) can operate its sub-vessels efficiently?

  I would suggest that for a purpose-designed system the first answer would
be yes; the second issue is more dubious, but some basic work-arounds may
cover it while maintaining much of the cost advantage.

        Steven Hudson

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:19:53 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Piracy Debate

This is Dave Summers not being sucked into the piracy debate.

I did accidentally see a couple of posts, but the treatment
seems to have helped (it was pretty much same arguements as before).

I also noticed that Hans had posted at least once.  I have just
one bit of advice.  Run Hans!  You are getting sucked into a
black hole!  Flee the thread while you still have a life outside
of the pirates in Traveller debate!
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu
(This is the net.  My e-mail address may be in Boston, but I'm in California.)

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:24:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Augustus Deo-class Fast Liner (GTL10)

Augustus Deo-class Fast Liner (GTL10)

A top-of-the-line Solomani design, Augustus Deo-class liners serve
long-haul express routes within the Solomani Confederation. Unlike most
Solomani designs, they are spacious, with a theatre and multi-function hall
to accomodate high passengers.

In 998 Deepak Rao, the notorious terrorist, was captured when he attempted
to hijack the Australis Deo. Although observers expected a lengthy trial,
Rao unexpected pleaded guilty, calling himself a "very bad man who should
be locked away until he can behave himself." While Confederation
counter-terrorist experts were astonished, the passengers and crew of the
Australis Deo were unsurprised. "Even my young niece told him that," said
Hengabar Spofulam. "It is no surprise that he realized it himself." Further
details of the incident, including how untrained civilians overpowered the
ex-commando, have been classified a state secret by Solomani Security.

Crew: 2 bridge crew, engineer, 2 gunners (+4 if more weapons installed), 2
medics, 4 stewards
Passengers: 55 high passengers, 20 low passengers

600-ton USL Hull, DR 100, PD 4, Turret with 3 lasers, Turret with 3
sandcasters, 4 Empty Turrets, Bridge, Engineering, 30 Maneuver, 24 Jump,
180 Fuel, 63 Staterooms, 5 Low Berths (holds 20 cryotubes), 2 Utility, Hall
seating 100 people, Theatre seating 100 people, Sickbay, 69 cargo (+12 in
turrets)

Communicators: Radio 3 million km, Laser 6 million km
Sensors: PESA 48000 km, AESA 160000 km, Radscanner 3200 km
3 360-MJ Lasers: Imp, Acc 32, Dmg 6dx50(2), 1/2D Rng 32720 km, MxRng 98610
km, FP 4
Note: all weapons have SS 30, RoF 1/60

Statistics: EMass 809.0 tonnes, LMass 1121.9 tonnes, Cost MCr 123.6, HP 52200
Performance: Accel 1.0 G (1.3 G empty, 0.5 G overloaded), Jump 3, Air Speed
960 km/h

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

>>We had this debate over the battledress issue. I think there was a ruling
>>somewhere in there about how much area could be covered by the advanced
>>armours.
>
>I didn't participate in that discussion.

I ended up ignoring most of it myself (real life got a bit too real just
then).  I think the catalyst was the Scout Commando Battledress and
"insanely" high armour levels. (Which might have been errataed: I ignored
the issue because I don't run military games anyway.)

>Looking back at the archives I see that someone made a handwave on this.
>It doesn't hold water though. GT sidebar p155 discusses creating non-standard
>hulls using the different armors available in G:Vehicles. In G:Vehicles
>there is
>an example scout ship with composite armor. In G:Space it makes reference to
>using different (unnamed) armor types as a mass/cost trade-off with no limit.

You're right, I hadn't noticed the GT reference.  Hm.  This kinda kicks
most of the designs in 101 Starships out the window, then.

Even worse, we may have a "GT canon contradiction" right here, in that GT:
Imperial Navy is being worked on right now, and we already have several
military ships published. Why do none of them use different armours, if it
makes that much difference?

>>Remember that we're trying to model CT here, not min-max GURPS Vehicles.
>
>We?

Referees and players. The people who create the Traveller universe.

>I thought this was a forum for discussing all aspects of all versions of
>traveller. I personally have no interest in the detailed mechanics of CT
>or maintaining its "purity".

It is. Sorry if I've offended you: it wasn't my intention.

I was trying to point out that GT is a conversion of CT to the GURPS rule
system, and as such not everything in every supplement is available. I've
got Biotech and Ultratech, for example, but I wouldn't assume that
everything listed in those books is available in the Traveller universe.
Ditto for Vehicles.

>Are you saying that Gurps gearheads are not welcome on the list?

Well, they welcome _me_, and I think I qualify as a GURPS Gearhead (GG). At
least, if GT Shipyard and 101 Starships don't make me a GG then I don't
know what will.

>Anyone else want to move over to the Gurps traveller mailing list?

It's been pretty quiet over there lately.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:25:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

>Rob: that's actually a good Idea in general - do you have any Really Big
>freighter?  I'm talking 50kdt+ here....
>
>           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

Not that big. I didn't think it would be economical. Would it? I'll whip up
the Galak class for you and post it later. This is what is currently in 101
Starships:

Ftenrik-class Fleet Transport (GTL12)

A massive freighter with moderate armour and defensive weaponry, the
Imperial Navy never deploys a Ftenrik-class fleet transport without a
strong escort squadron.

Crew: 5 bridge crew, 9 engineers, 10 gunners

10000-ton USL Hull, DR 500, PD 4, Total compartmentalization, 5 Turrets
with 3 lasers each, 5 Turrets with 3 sandcasters each, Nuclear Damper (16
km range), Basic stealth, Basic emission cloaking, Hardened Command Bridge,
Engineering, 515 Maneuver, 400 Jump, 3000 Fuel, 12 Staterooms, 20 Utility,
6000 cargo

Communicators: Radio 3 million km, Laser 6 million km, Meson 0.1 million km
Sensors: PESA 160000 km, AESA 320000 km, Radscanner 6400 km
15 405-MJ Lasers: Imp, Acc 33, Dmg 5dx100(2), 1/2D Rng 41630 km, MxRng
124900 km, FP 7
Note: all weapons have SS 30, RoF 1/60

Statistics: EMass 9085.9 tonnes, LMass 36295.9 tonnes, Cost MCr 1946.3, HP
267000
Performance: Accel 1.3 G (5.1 G empty, 0.3 G overloaded), Jump 3, Air Speed
960 km/h


Toves-class Bulk Freighter (GTL12)

Toves-class freighters are very rare. They are usually owned by
high-population worlds, who use them to bring in food and raw materials-few
other organizations need a freighter with this capacity. Toves are too slow
to be worth arming; instead, they are invariably escorted by a small naval
squadron on anti-piracy duty.

Crew: 3 bridge crew, 5 engineers

10000-ton USL Hull, DR 100, PD 4, Bridge, Engineering, 300 Maneuver, 200
Jump, 1000 Fuel, 8 Staterooms, 20 Utility, 8444.5 cargo

Communicators: Radio 8 million km, Laser 16 million km, Meson 0.02 million km
Sensors: PESA 48000 km, AESA 240000 km, Radscanner 3200 km

Statistics: EMass 3611.7 tonnes, LMass 41907.5 tonnes, Cost MCr 879.7, HP
255000
Performance: Accel 0.6 G (7.5 G empty, 0.1 G overloaded), Jump 1, Air Speed
960 km/h

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:25:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Starship Materials

John Buston raised a good point: there's a contradiction between the GT
rulebook sidebar that says you can use different materials from GURPS
Vehicles when designing ships, and the fact that all GT ships published to
date have just used the standard 'expensive metal' option.

Practically, I think this is because most of the ship designers just used
the standard system, possibly designing a few more modules, without
examining the hulls.

OTOH, assuming that John is correct that you can get an extra G
acceleration (or more armour) by using advanced materials (and his numbers
look correct to me), that begs the question: what is the game reason that
all the published military ships don't use advanced materials?

I can see three choices here:

1) Errata the GT sidebar that allows advanced materials (ie. prohibit them).

2) Handwave a reason why they aren't used for starships.

3) Redesign existing military ships to use advanced materials.


Now, personally I like the idea of military ships being intrinsically
different from civilian ships (in more than just the amount of armour).
OTOH, I don't want GURPS Traveller to drift too far from the Traveller
background, and I certainly don't want GT to be a system where all the
official ships are intentionally suboptimal.


What do other folks think?

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Galak-class Megafreighter (GTL10)

Galak-class Megafreighter (GTL10)
Designed by Robert Prior

This starship was designed using the rules in GURPS Traveller

Ship Description


Crew: 5 bridge crew, 99 engineers


50000-ton USL Hull, DR 100, PD 4, Bridge, Engineering, 2370 Maneuver, 1500
Jump, 10002 Fuel, 52 Staterooms, 100 Utility, External Cradle (Launch),
35816 cargo

Communicators: Radio 3 million km, Laser 6 million km
Sensors: PESA 48000 km, AESA 160000 km, Radscanner 3200 km

Statistics: EMass 28492.8 tonnes, LMass 190951.0 tonnes, Cost MCr 6726.8,
HP 765000
Performance: Accel 0.5 G (3.0 G empty, 0.1 G overloaded), Jump 2, Air Speed
960 km/h


Design Spreadsheet

Structure	Spaces	Mass	Cost	Area	Crew
50000-ton hull	(50000.0)	462.6	25.5	47380.6	0.0
Airtight sealing	0.0	0.0	5.1	0.0	0.0
Armour: DR100, PD4	0.0	2312.9	30.6	0.0	0.0
Drive Modules	Spaces	Mass	Cost	Area	Crew
Engineering module	1.0	3.7	0.3	0.0	0.0
Jump drive (2 parsecs)	1500.0	5442.0	4650.0	0.0	60.0
Jump tanks	10002.0	11793.4	1600.3	0.0	0.0
Reactionless thruster (0.5G)	2370.0	7308.6	379.2	0.0	39.5
Workspace Modules	Spaces	Mass	Cost	Area	Crew
Bridge	2.5	7.8	4.0	0.0	5.0
100 utility modules	100.0	1043.1	30.0	0.0	0.0
External Cradle	0.5	5.7	0.1	0.0	0.0
Hold	35816.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Accommodation Modules	Spaces	Mass	Cost	Area	Crew
52 staterooms	208.0	113.2	0.6	0.0	0.0
Miscellaneous Items	Spaces	Mass	Cost	Area	Crew
Fuel	(10002.0)	0.0	3.5	0.0	0.0
Cargo	(35816.0)	(162425.6)	0.0	0.0	0.0
Launch	(10.0)	(32.7)	(3.6)	0.0	0.0
Totals	Spaces	Mass	Cost	Area	Crew
Fully loaded & fitted out	50000.0	190951.0	6733.9	47380.6	104.0
Unloaded with skeleton crew	50000.0	28492.8	6726.8	47380.6	104.0


(Designed with GT Shipyard: GURPS Traveller's Starship Design Software.
Copyright Robert Prior, 1998)

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:32:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Streamlining

In mail you write:

>         Just because something is not done does not mean that it
>         cannot be done.  Drawing on the various posts on this subject,
>         one might assume that:
>
>         1) non-streamlined ships are unstable in atmosphere and
>            require specific software to fly
>
>         2) even with this software, unstreamlined ships in
>            atmosphere move slowly and are unable to handle stormy
>            weather

I'd make that "unable to handle *weather*". Even fairly "light" winds
(say 15-20 mph) are going to make things *really* difficult. And as
we've been discovering in recent years, "clear air" is not *calm* air.
More than one airliner has taken a surprise roller coaster ride in what
everyone *thought* was clear, calm air. 

>         3) landing unstreamlined ships requires special docking
>            facilities on the ground that are specific to that
>            particular class of ship (and may also require special
>            modifications to the ship).

Personally, I'd try for a lake. A shallow one. Shallow enough that part
of the ship would be above water if it turned out to be too heavy to
float, and deep enogh that it *could* float if it was light enough to.

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:15:16 +1000
From: dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Fusion Plants . the next generation

Bugger. Lotus notes encoded the text from excel instead of copying it
accross. Sorry about the bandwith.

Secont attempt. This is the Traveller Fusion plants from MT/FFS1 to allow
better representation in GV.

Any flames, the email address is above.

     Fusion Power Plants


Plant     GTL  TL   Mass Vol  Cost Power
Fusion    10   12   2.0  35.31     2mc   2mw
Fusion    12   15   1.0  3.531     2mc   6mw


Darryl
Visit our Web Site : http://www.ParraCity.nsw.gov.au

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:51:55 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michel R Vaillancourt <misha@empire.atlantic-online.ns.ca>
Subject: Re: Streamlining

> > Also, at 20 mph weather, such as storms, moves a *lot* faster than your
> > ship can dodge. Since weather is a chaotic system, the Imperium won't
> > be able to predict it any better than we can. So you could easily start
> > a descent (or a takeoff) and a couple of hours later find yourself in
> > the path of a squall line that was "supposed" to be nowhere near you.
> > Or trying to dodge a jetstream.
> 
> We can predict weather an hour ahead plenty accurately.
> 

	I believe weather *control* is TL13, CT....

	--Michel

	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-
		Michel R. Vaillancourt
		misha@atlantic-online.ns.ca

	   Dad, Hubby, MIS Manager, Gamer, Author, SCAdian....
		"Who the heck has the time to have a LIFE?"
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-
		Into Cyberpunk?  Check Out:
		"http://www.atlantic-online.ns.ca/cp2020"
		Into Traveller?  Check Out:
		"http://www.atlantic-online.ns.ca/traveller"
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:55:31 -0400
From: "Sword Worlder" <swordworlder@clinic.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Materials

Strike that sidebar while you still can, before a bunch of ships get into
publication.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TRAVELLER Domain
http://www.downport.com
Colin Michael, Webslinger

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
> 1) Errata the GT sidebar that allows advanced materials (ie. prohibit
them).
> What do other folks think?

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:01:58 +1000
From: david.d.jaques-watson@centrelink.gov.au
Subject: What size ships can land?

Dear Folks -

<up periscope>

Legat Legion wrote:
>    Well, the idea makes sense.  If a 100K dTon Battle-Rider are better than
>a 100K dTon Battleship, then why not use the same system for merchant
>shipping?

>>purely from the figures, SL may be required logistically.

>    I would have to say, SL.  As they will have to land on a planet.

(Just popped into the TML to have a look around, and noticed this
discussion.)

This may have been asked already, but is G:Starships going to define the
max tonnage that can enter atmosphere? Or land?

For the record, my (simplified) take is:
     - 10,000 tons is the most that can land on the ground on its own
landing legs (as long at it it correctly braced internally, of course)
     - 100,000 tons is the most that can land in water (or on some
specially-built support pads)
     - most craft that can land are 5000-6000 tons or less (which is why I
made Beowulf Down's largest landing pad a 6000 ton pad).
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson        Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw                       davidjw@pcug.org.au
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQ'D DISCLAIMER - material & opinions contained within are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the
position of Centrelink or any other Commonwealth Government agency.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: Re Emulate CT...

>>Remember that we're trying to model CT here, not min-max GURPS Vehicles.
>
>We?
>
definitely. Reread your GT Book... it clearly states that GT is an
emulation of traveller, not mainstream GURPS. It expressely includes some
tech limits, and others should be extrapolated from them.

>I thought this was a forum for discussing all aspects of all versions of
>traveller. I personally have no interest in the detailed mechanics of CT
>or maintaining its "purity".

Definitely not all aspects... MWM has set some limits, and Rob set a few
others... common courtesy says a few others should be avoided (Like
kvetching about your GM's nosepicking, etc)...

And while I speak only for myself here, I don't really consider GT to even
be Traveller...

>Are you saying that Gurps gearheads are not welcome on the list?
>
Min-maxers have not been welcomed on this list in the 4 years I've been on
it... they tend to get obnoxious and asked to leave. Gearheads are not of
necessity min-maxers. Min-maxing gearheads create such "un-travelleresque"
things as the BD in GT:SM; things which have no buisiness in Traveller, but
are doable with GURPS.

>Anyone else want to move over to the Gurps traveller mailing list?

No one is likely to stop you from so doing, but keep in mind that this list
focuses on Traveller first, Rules Second, and minmaxing is lost somewhere
way down the list (At least since Phil, Cliff, and Leroy left), and
minmaxing G:V is something the non-GT'ers like myself would rather not see.

William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
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+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: Re GT vs CT/MT/TNE PP

>(I have ignored Fusion Plus, for while I
>worship Greg Porter as Gaming God (tm) F+ was not Traveller)
>
F+ was Marc Miller's idea, IIRC, not Greg Porter's. At least MWM announced
it about the same time he announced T4 was in the works...

>I have calculated the Fusion plants for GT (FFS1 and MT have the same
>stats). Conversions may be wrong, let me know if it is>

FF&S1 and MT DO NOT have the same Fuel Consumption rates! MT measures
Fusion in KL/hour, while FF&S1/TNE measures in KL/year!... Then again, MT's
rates work out to a month's fuel being about the same ammount as under
CT... TNE's assumes most CT fuel was maneuver fuel/reaction mass.

>dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au writes:
>> In Gurps Traveller, the fusion plants are larger and less efficiant than in
>> MT/FFS1.
>They're larger.  Not sure if they're less efficient, they run 10 megawatts
>per ton.
TL 15 powerplants
TNE/FF&S1:  6 MW per KL, thus 3 MW/Tm or 84 MW/Td
MT: Max of 18 MW per KL, thus 9 MW/Tm or 243 MW/Td
    base of 6 MW per KL, thus 3 MW/Tm or 81 MW/Td
	(Tm = Tons Metric)
	(Td = Tons Displacement)
CT: 250 MW/Td

Interesting that I never before noticed that FF&S1 lacks the Scale
Efficiencies table for power plants.

William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
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+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:54:52 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: OT Book Help!

Oh bloody hell!  I read that book (or something DAMN close!) but I couldn't
tell you the author, title, etc.  It was more than a couple of years ago.

Sorry dude,
Jesse




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Kurt
> Feltenberger
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 12:23 PM
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: OT Book Help!
>
>
> Hi guys!
>
> I need a bit of help tracking down a book I had, but lost.  It
> dealt with a
> group of people, both military and civilian historians, going from the
> present day back in time to December of 1941.  The current president is
> suffering from cancer and is in critical condition when an archivist
> discovers some log books that show that an American researcher in the
> Philippines seems to have discovered the cure for cancer.  Two small
> problems...the rest of the notes are lost and the researcher himself
> disappeared during the Japanese invasion of the islands.  The heros use a
> modified 737 to travel back in time.
>
> Alas, I've lost the book, forgot the title and author, and am considering
> basing a scenario off of it in the future.
>
> Considering how well read this list is, I was wondering if
> someone has read
> this and can lend a hand with the title.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kurt Feltenberger
>
> "To our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations,
>     may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!"
>       ~Stephen Decatur
>
>
mailto:kurt@blazenet.net

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:42:28 -0400
From: Thad Coons <Sapience@compuserve.com>
Subject: Far Trader

Sorry if this is a repost...

I saved up my nickels to get Far Trader, and I'm impressed. 

Before I do my trade routes for the expanding Sylean Federation c. -29, 
I need a conversion from GURPS TL to Trav TL. It's been posted a
couple of times, but I never needed it before and now I can't find it.
Could someone either post it or send me a copy?
  

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:11:29 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: OT but related: More art

Don't forget to turn on the anti-aliasing option in Terragens :)  I've d/l'd
the program and played with it a very little bit.  Looks pretty cool for
anyone who wants to try it out!

Ah, the Trepida.  Always like the looks of it anyway :)

Jesse




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Michael
> Peters
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 3:51 PM
> To: TML
> Subject: OT but related: More art
>
>
> A quick note. I've uplaoded a render of the grav tank I've been working
> on. Take alook and let me know what you think.
>
> P.S.If these notes are bothering people let me know and I'll stop, it's
> judt the feed back has been really helpful.
>
> Address:
> http://members.home.net/travelleri/index.html
>
> follow link to ART page.
> --
> Mike Peters
> travelleri@home.com
>

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:12:36 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: OT but related: More art

YOU'VE got?!?!  :P

[securely Tongue in Cheek BTW]

Cheers & Beers,
Jesse





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Bruce
> Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 4:14 PM
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: Re: OT but related: More art
> 
> 
> Michael Peters wrote:
> > 
> > A quick note. I've uplaoded a render of the grav tank I've been working
> > on. Take alook and let me know what you think.
> > 
> > P.S.If these notes are bothering people let me know and I'll stop, it's
> > judt the feed back has been really helpful.
> 
> cool! It's a Trepida, BTW. Looks a bit shiny...I think you'll need to
> rough it up a bit on the surface. (He says blithely...;-)
> 
> And these notes ARE bothering the hell out of me!!! They're reminding me
> that I have got tons of unfinished stuff lying around I should finish
> ;-P
> 
> Maybe this weekend...I've got more projects going than I can shake a
> mouse at...
> 
> -- 
> Bruce Johnson
> University of Arizona
> College of Pharmacy
> Information Technology Group
> 

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1023
***********************************

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
