Traveller-digest      Tuesday, August 31 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1043



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Re List and Limits 
RE: SpaceDogs Cover
Re: Honor Harrington Books 
Re: Honor Harrington Books
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
re: streamlining
Re: Flavour... 
Re: Re List and Limits
Re: Honor Harrington Books 
Re: [www] Freelance Traveller Announcement
Re: Honor Harrington Books
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Terraforming
Re: Bob Forward's ideas
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
FW: Re List and Limits
Re: "Tender"/"Riders" combos as freighters
RE: Flavour... 
RE: SpaceDogs Cover
GT: Starships (was Re: GT Armor)
re: Sector Viewer
Re: Here it is...
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:17:00 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Re List and Limits 

> >GT seems a worthy heir to CT, at least as good
> >as MT (without that be-damned Rebellion), and much better than
> >the atrocity TNE made of the OTU.
> 
> Arguable there... The "Bad Dream" approach and the whole GT phenomena (I've
> been opposed to GT since SJG's first offer posted to the list what, 4 years
> ago? For exactly the reasons I dislike the current edition. Which I have,
> have read, and dislike... I'm not slamming it unread...):

I haven't seen it in my FLGS.  Course, we're 250 miles due west of the 20th 
Century here at the best of times...  <grin>

But still, I don't like the idea of 'The Bad Dream', either.  But it's been explained to me that this is an *alternate* TU, not the main line.

Personally, I *LIKE* the Rebellion era.  I just have trouble making sense of the MT rulesset sometimes when I don't have enough sleep under my eyes.  Guess that's why I play it with CT rules.  <shrug>  

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:19:38 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: RE: SpaceDogs Cover

"Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net> wrote:

>Nice sharp thumbnail.  Glad you enjoyed it :)

Just a little Photoshop 4, my dear boy ;-)

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:26:42 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Honor Harrington Books 

> >I just picked up a copy of Weber's 'Honor among enemies' and ended up
> >staying up far too late readying it. Are there any others in the series? I
> >know it's been mentioned on the TML before but I have to confess not having
> >paid too much attention. The book I have is a UK paperback and doesn't list
> >any others in the series...
> 
> Personally, I don't like them, but yes there are I think 5 or more books in
> the series.  It's Weber's most popular character.

Actually, I kinda like 'em.  They're good clean fun space opera.

First book in the series is called 'On Basilisk Station'.  Let me know when you read that one.

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:33:03 -0400
From: "Thomas Schoene" <TomSchoene@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Honor Harrington Books

- ----------
> From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: Honor Harrington Books
> Date: Tuesday, 31 August, 1999 7:10 AM
> 
> I just picked up a copy of Weber's 'Honor among enemies' and ended up
> staying up far too late readying it. Are there any others in the series?
I
> know it's been mentioned on the TML before but I have to confess not
having
> paid too much attention. The book I have is a UK paperback and doesn't
list
> any others in the series...
> 

Dom:

Lots of others, and you kind of started in the middle.  If you liked
Enemies, I think the earlier ones will blow you away.

The first is _On Basilisk Station_, followed by  _The Honor of the Queen_,
_The Short, Victorious War_, _Field of Dishonor_, and _Flag in Exile_.   
_In Enemy Hands_ and _Echoes of Honor_ come after _Honor among Enemies_. 
There are also some collections with stories by other authors; the first
one, _More Than Honor_, is handy for the geography and technology lesson in
the back although I didn't care for the stories that much.  I haven't read
the other one (_The World of Honor_?).

Tom Schoene

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:36:27 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

At 16:38 27/08/1999 +0100, ohn Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net> wrote:

>Your analogy is wrong. Gurps Vehicles _is_ the design system used to
>create all items of equipment in GT. It is the equivalent of FF&S2 for T4.
>I recall you had lots of options in FFS2 too.

I think the point being made is that Gurps Vehicles _isn't_ the design
system used to create all items of equipment in GT.

Instead a modified version is used that bans some tech, changes the
tech level of other things and creates some new tech.

Similarly, standard TNE did not use all the rules in FF&S
(eg FTL comms and warp drive).

FF&S2 had far fewer options. There were optional construction materials,
but nothing you would want to use for a starship hull.

Personally, I think a lot of this could have been solved by sticking
to Trav tech levels and not having this early tect/late tech issue.

Clearly, that wasn't an option open to the writers.

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:39:20 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: re: streamlining

Leonard Erickson wrote:


> 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.

Anthony Jacson wrote:
>We can predict weather an hour ahead plenty accurately.


You can't have spent any time in England then!

:-)

tc

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:41:14 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Flavour... 

At 07:12 31/08/1999 -0400, "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
wrote:
>> Mike, can I impose on you for a favour?
>
>ACK!!!!!!!!!
>
>That was *SUPPOSED* to be private to Mike Peters.
>
>I rilly oughta start getting more sleep...
>
>Keven

Methinks it's time to test changing your ftp password.

I wonder if you'll still remember it when you are awake.

Will you have caps lock on? (for example)

8-0

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:44:56 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Re List and Limits

In a message dated 8/30/99 10:13:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, aramis@gci.net 
writes:
>
> THey were... Cliff, Leroy and Phil were gearheads, jerks, and
> rules-uber-alles flame-mongers.  Leroy at least had some good ideas, if you
> could get pas t the personaltiy he presented.

That must be another "Phil" - I hope!

From before my time on the list, I assume.

Phil Kitching

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:10:58 -0500
From: "shadowcat" <meow@advancenet.net>
Subject: Re: Honor Harrington Books 

The Honor Harrington books are wonderful Space Opera,
I'm kinda partial to the TreeCats myself.

David Weber is also a game designer in his own right
having done the tactical rules for Starfire.


Shadowcat AKA Kevin Walsh
Captain of the Free Trader Beowulf
ADD/ADHD Advocate
http://www.advancenet.net/~meow

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:29:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: [www] Freelance Traveller Announcement

>Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>Amen, brother, amen.
>>
>>During the summer I had to navigate the BITS website by guessing at
>>filenames, because my monitor was too small to display the entire
>>navigation frame. There's a few other Traveller websites that use
>>Javascript for navigation which I can't access, because Netscape 2* doesn't
>>run the right level of Javascript.
>
>That's why the site now has a no-frames option plus the index page (which
>you can reach by clicking on the main logo) which can get you everywhere on
>the site... I haven't implemented any javascript for the same reason...
>
>BTW - was this the vertical scroll issue?

Yes.

Possible a note explaining that clicking on the logo shows you an index...

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:33:26 +0100
From: "Dr. Nik" <sharik@barrayar.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Honor Harrington Books

In message , Jory Earl <j-man@iname.com> wrote
>>I just picked up a copy of Weber's 'Honor among enemies' and ended up
>>staying up far too late readying it. Are there any others in the series? I
>>know it's been mentioned on the TML before but I have to confess not having
>>paid too much attention. The book I have is a UK paperback and doesn't list
>>any others in the series...

There certainly are. :) Try

On Basilisk Station
The Honor of the Queen
The Short Victorious War
Field of Dishonor
Flag in Exile
Honor Among Enemies
Echoes of Honor (Hardback only)
Worlds of Honor (Hardback only - a collection of short stories)

And in case you've missed them, I'd also recommend the Vorkosigan books
of Lois McMaster Bujold, but that's a whole other crate of
Cetagandans... :)

Nik
- --------------------------------------------------------------
     Nik Whitehead C885587-B S zh++ as+ da+ kk-- A 224
sharik@barrayar.demon.co.uk    http://www.barrayar.demon.co.uk
           Having the moral high ground is good.
   Having the moral high ground and a meson gun is better.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:19:43 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

>> And I'd class *some* properly designed "open frame" ships as
>> "partially streamlined". After all there are a lot of "open frame"
>> objects on earth that handle strong winds ok.
>
> Like craft shaped like hollow cylinders, or box-kites?

Like bridges, oil rigs, construction cranes...

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:21:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Terraforming

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson wrote:
>  
>> And stumbling across a few "Forerunner" artifacts that can't even be
>> *moved*, much less taken apart ought to be good for the more "arrogant"
>> players.
>
> Hee! My thoughts exactly.

Then you *need* to track down as much of Norton's SF as you can. Her
"Forerunners" are a much better model than "Grandfather". And some of
the artifacts we run into are downright scary. 

>> BTW, according to speculation by Dr. Robert Forward the "best" tech to
>> "invent" would be something that converted angular momentum into
>> energy. The conversion factor is *obscene* (based on the way angular
>> momentum contributes to the stress-energy tensor). A barely measurable
>> amount of angular momentum amounts to something like several *kilos* of
>> mass. :-)
>
> Yes, I've read that. I'm sure doing something like this would violates
> conservation of momentum somehow or other....doesn't mean I might not
> stick it in a game sometime, though.

No more so than converting mass to energy "violates" conservation of mass.

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:31:02 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Bob Forward's ideas

In mail you write:

>>BTW, according to speculation by Dr. Robert Forward the "best" tech to
>>"invent" would be something that converted angular momentum into
>>energy. The conversion factor is *obscene* (based on the way angular
>>momentum contributes to the stress-energy tensor). A barely measurable
>>amount of angular momentum amounts to something like several *kilos* of
>>mass. :-)
>
> Ah, but Bob Forward has such wonderful Traveller ideas! It's nice to see
> that people are finally beginning to take them seriously with the
> ground-laser-powered launchers.


Forward's but one of *many* people pushing that idea. 

> Hmm... I bet Ditzie could have some fun with _that_ one...

One of the early version of the concept had anti-missile laser
installations being used for launchers most of the time. 

A planet that used laser launchers not just for small cargo and
personnell pods would be a *nasty* surprise for anybody figuring on
conquering the "low tech" planet. 

Asuuming multiple launch sites, the ones for the "small" pods would
have *banks* of gigawatt lasers with ROFs in the range of 100+ pulses
per *second*. 

The major launch sites might go as high as a terawatt, again with
*dozens of high pulse rate lasers. 

Being within line of site of a major launch site would *not* be
healthy. And getting too close to a "minor" site wouldn't be real
healthy either. 

If they use laser asissted propulsion *between* planets, then it just
gets worse. 

Matter of fact, there are a *lot* of things that work well at one tech
level, but won't even get *built* if the next tech level seems to be
"in sight". But *if* they are built, folks that either don't remember
them, or who come from a culture that skipped that stage are in for
some *rude* shocks. :-)

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:43:46 -0500
From: ehenry@newberlin.org (Eric Henry)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

< delurking >

Except for the Big Blue crane here in Milwaukee.  A wind of 25 mph toppled
it over during a lift of the new stadium roof.  Three were killed.


- -----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)


>In mail you write:
>
>>> And I'd class *some* properly designed "open frame" ships as
>>> "partially streamlined". After all there are a lot of "open frame"
>>> objects on earth that handle strong winds ok.
>>
>> Like craft shaped like hollow cylinders, or box-kites?
>
>Like bridges, oil rigs, construction cranes...

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:43:09 +0800
From: "Antony Farrell" <Skaran@bigpond.com>
Subject: FW: Re List and Limits

I have played all editions of Traveller except T4 though I own it. I also
play Gurps regularly and though I like parts of the GT system I would not
play Traveller using it. I prefer TNE, I have heard some gripes about the
inconsistancies between TNE and earlier editions, granted, but I found the
internal inconsistancies annoying. Like 2 piloting skills based on the
displacement of the craft, I could never see why a 95 ton displacement
shuttle which might mass more than a 100 ton displacement scout used a
different skill or a cascade from the other. Other examples weapon systems
which were incompatible with each other. Wait till you see a MT grav tank
with a ships laser turret on it!

Antony

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:39:53 -0400
From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>
Subject: Re: "Tender"/"Riders" combos as freighters

>Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:34:49 -0700
>From: "Legate Legion" <legate@futureone.com>
>Subject: Re: "Tender"/"Riders" combos as freighters
>
>From: Steven Hudson <shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca>
>
>>  TCS has basic rules on linking ships' controls for Jumps, but it doesn't
>>allow J-drive linkages; the strong implication is that it's impractical.
>
>    And, yet the idea is canon.  *weg*  Sorry, "Death of the Singing Star",
>IIRC is a canon source for Traveller.

I'm not familiar with that adventure (? article?). Could you give the
complete citation, please? Thanks.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:30:28 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: Flavour... 

Too many hours at the engines there, Romli?  >:D
Jesse




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Keven R.
> Pittsinger
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:13 AM
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: Re: Flavour... 
> 
> 
> > Mike, can I impose on you for a favour?
> 
> ACK!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That was *SUPPOSED* to be private to Mike Peters.
> 
> I rilly oughta start getting more sleep...
> 
> Keven
> 
> -- 
> tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>                                                      
> Science-Fiction Adventure
>                                                      In Reavers' Deep
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:31:42 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: SpaceDogs Cover

Ahh, one of my favorite programs.  Use it daily!
Jesse




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of SD Mooney
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:20 AM
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: RE: SpaceDogs Cover
> 
> 
> "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net> wrote:
> 
> >Nice sharp thumbnail.  Glad you enjoyed it :)
> 
> Just a little Photoshop 4, my dear boy ;-)
> 
> Dom
> 
> ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
>                        MiB - Marines in Battledress
>    "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
> Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:16:27 -0400
From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>
Subject: GT: Starships (was Re: GT Armor)

>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:38:57 +0100
>From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
>Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
>
>>Let's say you are playing Gurps:Cliffhangers. Your GM might allow you
>>to build a weird power using Gurps:Supers rules. That doesn't mean he
>>or you want to turn your campaign of mystery men and strong-jawed
>>archaeologists into a campaign of flying people in tights shooting 
>>energy blasts, whether you still play on 1930's Earth or not.
>
>Your analogy is wrong. Gurps Vehicles _is_ the design system used to
create all
>items of equipment in GT. It is the equivalent of FF&S2 for T4. I recall
you had
>lots of options in FFS2 too.
...
>You are going to hate GT Starships, which is about exactly this kind of
thing.

I hope not.

I'm sorry, John, but I have to agree with the original poster (apologies:
I've lost track of who that was). GURPS Vehicles isn't so much a design
system, as a metasystem -- a toolkit for deciding what features you-the-GM
want to incorporate in your universe. My charter is to do some
pre-selection for you, consistent with the GURPS Traveller background as
published. If nothing applicable has been published for GT, I am supposed
to "be familiar ... with the original /Classic Traveller/ source material"
and look there for my parameters.

"Traduttore, traditore." (Italian: "The translator is a traitor.") I don't
expect I can please everyone.

I still intend to include some optional material, a la FF&S, so that people
coming to GT from TNE (say) don't have to go back to VE2 to figure out how
HEPlaR should work. There is also *absolutely nothing* to prevent you from
exploiting the full range of options available in VE2 (or any other GURPS
sourcebook) for your Traveller universe; I just can't publish that way.

Anyone interested in how I'm putting this book together can check out:

http://www.io.com/~thrash/ROE.html

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:48:34 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: re: Sector Viewer

Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com> writes:
>Here's a question: having finally gotten the PalmPilot version of gcc up
>and running, does anyone on this list own a PalmOS device? Any interest in
>a sector viewer for the Palm? Any input on what version of Traveller it
>should support - the plain CT/MT info or should I run out and get First
>In to add all that funky G:T stuff in instead?


Can I echo those like Dom and Juliean who've given a thumbs up to this?

I would love to see 'plain' info and/or First In.  Far Trader data would be
great too.

Having just got hold of a Palm IIIx myself and been really sold on it as a
'life - changing' (I know, sad, isn't it) tool, the only thing it needs to
round it off is Traveller development!  As the Library I work in has just
bought the O'Reilly _Palm Programming: The Developer's Guide_ by Rhodes and
McKeehan (well alright - as Technology Librarian I ordered it) maybe I
should just go learn C and try it myself.

Perhaps there's enough of us for a TML: Palm sublist...

My *only* frustration with the Palm has been discovering that TML digests
get truncated around 1 in 4 times.  (There's an upper limit of 8000
characters on incoming email).

tc

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:50:28 -0500
From: Kenneth Bearden -- Walker Jane Productions <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Here it is...

Phil Kitching wrote:

> Actually, this might be a good idea for skills as well - skill 1
> is kept forever but sill 5 needs a regular infusion of xp to avoid
> slipping to skill 4.
>

I tried wiping out XP after every failed skill improvement test, but that
wasn't very popular.  I like the new system better anyway.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:24:47 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

>> Like craft shaped like hollow cylinders, or box-kites?
>
>Like bridges, oil rigs, construction cranes...


I wouldn't want to fly any of the above.

NB

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:18:36 -0500
From: Eris reddoch <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

Andrew Moffatt-Vallance wrote:

> > >Let's say you are playing Gurps:Cliffhangers. Your GM might allow you
> > >to  build a weird power using Gurps:Supers rules. That doesn't mean he
> > >or you want to turn your campaign of mystery men and strong-jawed
> > >archaeologists into a campaign of flying people in tights shooting
> > >energy blasts, whether you still play on 1930's Earth or not.

> > Your analogy is wrong. Gurps Vehicles _is_ the design system used to create all
> > items of equipment in GT. It is the equivalent of FF&S2 for T4. I recall you had
> > lots of options in FFS2 too.

Not in FFS2.  There wasn't any optional (or alternate) technology in
the second version. There was in the first version, the one for use
with TNE, the one that I like the best. <g>

> No the analogy is quite correct. VE2 is the design system for the _entirety_
> of GURPS, as FFS2 is the design system for the entirety of T4. The difference
> is that GT does not use the entirety of GURPS, only those portions that fit
> the setting. You wouldn't use FTL radio, parachronic transporters, Cosmic
> power plants, soulburner engines etc in Traveller, yet they appear in VE2. The
> important difference between FFS and VE2 is that what appears in FFS is
> part of the Traveller setting (or clearly labeled as "alternate" in FFS1),
> whereas the same is not true of VE2.

In FFS v1, the GM was responsible for choosing a technological
framework of which standard and alternate technologies could (and
couldn't be used)...exactly like the GURPS GM using VE2. VE2 is a
toolbox of possible technologies, all aren't available in *all*
campaigns.

FFS2 presented a subset of the technologies given in FFS1 limited to
those deemed suitable for a "standard Traveller" game. GT and its
supplements are supposed to be doing the same for VE2, but it's not a
finished product yet.  There are still burrs that need to be knocked
off the molds.

> > GT is not exactly the same as CT (or T4, TNE, MT). Why do I need to say that?

Because on the TML there are some people that consider (pick the
above) to be "the one true way" and all deviations there from to be
heresies. No, I'm not joking.  

>From what was written in GT (and since) its goal is to be a close
emulation of the "feel" of CT. That's good enough for lots of us, but
not all, so expect sporadic, loud complaints whenever GT deviates from
strict CT/MT/TNE or T4...depending on who's canon gets spiked...to
make a play on words. <g>
 
> > Standard Traveller Setting?  Is that another phrase for CT? I am not proposing
> > changing the setting.  Are you trying to start a system war?

Start?  The Canon Wars between the various factions *never* end in
here, they just die down when the participates get exhausted, only to
resume again a few weeks/months later. <g>  We won't admit it, but we
secretly like it that way...the constant fighting make us stronger
(hum, sounds like DBZ). <g>

> In the case of GT yes it is. All the GT material has been written with the very
> specific instruction from SJG to reproduce the look and feel of CT as closely
> as possible. The problem with GT is it is quite possible to change the setting
> without intenting to do so. All published GT warships have used expensive
> metal armour, if ships using a significantly better form of armour start appearing,
> the setting has been changed. Now an experimental design using better armour
> might be possible (bleading edge tech) and would probably make a nice
> adventure hook. However, such things should not be regarded as standard. If
> they are, then for some unknown reason, all the major starfaring nations of the
> Traveller setting are deliberately and knowingly building substandard warships.
> That is a major change to the setting.

Andrew is correct and armor appears to me to be a big sticking point,
or maybe better to say DR vs the effectiveness of weapons. 

Personally, I much prefer the TNE/T4 style of presenting armor, but I
like the GURPS scale for weapons. What I am doing is using TNE armor
scaled to produce GURPS scale DR and weapons that do GRUPS scaled
damage.  This avoids the thorny problems of VE2's armor. My ships have
Crystaliron and Superdense armor but the DR's (or AV's) are based on
TNE-AV*14 per cm and give values that work with GURPS weapon damage
levels.  Examples:

  20 cm of Hard Steel is DR 560 and is about 50/50 against a 5dx32
weapon
   2 cm Crystaliron is DR 224 and is about 50/50 against a 6dx10
weapon
  
 Min DR for a spacefaring ship is DR 140  

> > I am not making something that is markedly different. Just using the design
> > system to add chrome and "realism". I want my ships to make sense under the
> > system I am using. I hate inefficient design. Gearhead is as Gearhead does :-)

As do all gearheads. <g>  

However, remember that the various versions of Traveller have a 20+
year history of beating the sharp edges off Traveller gearhead
designs, GT has less than 1 year. There is still a lot of bashing to
do on VE2 before it matches Traveller's traditional gear, and yes that
is the goal for a subset of VE2 (or VE2 inspired) design rules to
produce gear that matches Traveller gear and vehicles.

> > In fact I am not particularly concerned with making more powerful combat ships,
> > I don't do combat. I am much more interested in scouts and merchant vessels,
> > which would actually be less powerful.

> > You are going to hate GT Starships, which is about exactly this kind of thing.

We'll see. <g> I'm sure *some* people will hate Starships. Personally,
I'm more afraid I'll be disappointed with what I can pull out of
Starships...however I am still hopeful.

Eris,
	Have Heresy, Will Traveller!

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1043
***********************************

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
