Traveller-digest     Monday, September 20 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1110



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Hmmmmmmm...... SnarfQuest 
Re: Ground Forces
Re: Milieu 0 questions
Authors' comments on Santry/Cordova was Re: More M:0 - Politics & Astrography
re: Milieu 0 questions LONG Response
Missing M0 chapters found in M0 Campaign
Re: Ground Forces
Re: One near-C rock, delivered on target!
Trade Practices (was re: Wiring Diagrams)
Re: [Off Topic] Jagannath?
Re: Ground Forces
Re: Time Question(s)
RE: Ground Forces
RE: Foreknowledge of Jump Exit Timing
Re: Time Question(s)
RE: Ground Forces
JTAS#2
Re: More Art
Title Suggestion for GT: Ground Forces
Re: Ground Forces
Re:Ground Forces
Re: Ground Forces

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:13:32 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Hmmmmmmm...... SnarfQuest 

> Have you noticed the similarity between the comic character Snarf (of
> SnarfQuest) and Jar Jar Binks.

Yup.  Interesting, isn't it?

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: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Ground Forces

> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:22:46 -0400
> From: "Thomas Schoene" <TomSchoene@worldnet.att.net>
> 
> > 2.  I'm soliciting titles. SJG definitely wants to change Ground Forces.
> > Right now, I'm leaning towards Imperial Regiments.  Suggestions?
> 
> How about Imperial Legions?  Sounds a little more Roman, which might be a
> bad thing (confusion with Imperial Rome, for example), but it's a little
> smoother.  All IMO.  

Beyond the strong potential for confusion with Rome, there isn't an
organizational level called "Legion" in the Imperial force structure.

> Or maybe Sword and Shield.  This plays off the Regency sourcebook, which
> uses "Sword" to allude to the Imperial Marines and "Shield" for the Army.

That's not bad, though again you might end up fostering confusion with
fantasy RPG.  I'm reminded of the old GDW game "Boots & Saddles", which I
could never get myself to remember was about air cav, not *cav* cav. :) 

How about "Iron Fist" or "By Other Means", both suggesting their role in
the Imperial political structure?

> BTW: nice shooting on Ukkie.

He was a sharpshooter in the service, after all, as was our father.  For
some reason, this genetic legacy has conspicuously avoided me.  Give me a
weapon, and "range safety" becomes an oxymoron.

- -- 
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      "There it is; take it."  - William Mulholland

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:02:37 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Milieu 0 questions

Ewan Quibell <E.D.Quibell@bton.ac.uk> writes:
>> I am also working on a Milieu 0 game, although I'm not planning on using the
>> Long Way Home material.  At least, not in its IG form.  I know there's some
>> history around these scenarios.  Were these BITS pubs originally?
>
>They were. It came in one volume though. If you are interested, they
>may still have some left. Check out http://www.bits.org.uk and look
>under products.

Sadly, the BITS printing of 'The Long Way Home' (published by IG as 'Long
Way Home' and 'Gateway') is now out of print. We're not ruling out
reprinting but it is unlikely to be in the near future (the IG material is
still in distribution and the costs of publishing it are higher than
getting 101 size books out).

At present we are focussing on our new Adventure books (_The Khiidkar
Incident_ and _SpaceDogs_ are the first two examples) and getting the new
101 out (101 Patrons - now edited down).

However, TKI and SD are both compatible with M0 (and were originally
written for that setting). They've since been made more generic and
GURPSified (main stats are GT/T4, with notes for other editions of
Traveller).

Dom
BITS Webmaster

- ----------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: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:26:26 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Authors' comments on Santry/Cordova was Re: More M:0 - Politics & Astrography

The following material has been taken from discussion with Jo Grant, the
author of the Santry and Cordova part of Milieu 0. It is a cut and paste
from a number of posts so may seem a little disjointed!


 13 Jan 98....

SDM>>The problem worlds are Santry and Cordova...

JG>I wrote the bits on Santry and Cordova in the Rules. Someone else decided
>to place them at that place in Core. I thought it was daft as they were
>supposed to be two pocket empires in conflict, yet their mainworlds were
>Jump-1 apart. It doesen't meet at all with the text in the rules unless you
>assume that when they split the capital moved. (Like Terra isn't the
>capital of the Solomani.)

SDM>>These are in the middle of the Chanestin Kingdom's cluster, which I would
>>argue means that it would be swamped and fall during the Chanestin/Sylean
>>wars.

JG>I haven't been tracking the info on the Chanestin Kingdom. I was going to
>get around to placing Santry and Cordova a week or so ago which is when I
>noticed that someone had already placed them. Maybe I should just go ahead
>a find a place for them and ignore what is in First Survey. After all, it
>doesn't match the description in the rules.

JG>And Santry and Cordova should be...

SDM>>Re: Santry and Cordova - how about placing them in the cluster around Core
>>1530? I estimated they need three jumps (six parsecs) between them from
>>your write up, and this group gives enough space.

JG>Looks good to me. Do you have Galactic? I can work today on naming the
>stars in the cluster appropriately.

SDM>>It's actually set a bit later (98ish maybe 101) than the description of
>>Santry and Cordova in T4/M0.

>Ah, by then both entities are peaceful capitalistic good citizens of the
>new Imperium. The loyalists of the Santrian Navy who kept fighting got
>written up as pirates and are used to scare merchanter children at bedtime.
>You might introduce the plot outline in the as a legend/fairy tale.


So on this basis I'd put them around Core 1530...

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: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:35:30 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: Milieu 0 questions LONG Response

On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 18:22:55 -0700  "Chad Osborne" <strategos@nctimes.net>
wrote:
>I am trying to set up a campaign based on the Long Way Home/Gateway
>adventure, to introduce some friends to Traveller, but am missing a few
>details (like what year it should be set in.  I'm guessing near 0.)

I have passed this on to Andy Lilly (the co-author) for a definative
answer. But as an aside (1) most IG material initially assumed a date
around 20-30 Imperial (this later changed) and (2) BITS/CORE products were
usually written to be flexible about this. I suspect 20 Imperial would be a
good bet, but it could be set anytime within M0 so long as Gushemege had
not been invested by the Imperials.

>Can anyone tell me if Gaar. (Core 2729) was actually part of the Sylean
>Federation (as indicated by First Survey and Milieu 0 Campaign)?  It seems
>out of place (13 parsecs away, all by itself.)

Two answers -

- -The map seldom ties to the reality of the text. I would take the text as
guidance and remember that in Yr 0 there were 13 systems objecting to the
formation of the Imperium (7 of which withdrew). The nacent Imperium had
also absorbed the Chanestin Kingdom (falls yr 22 p10) which had 25 members
at its height, plus the bulk of the Interstellar  Confederacy (totally
absorbed by Yr 5, collapsed in Yr -1, p11). It is also mentioned that most
of Core has been incorporated (can't find ref but it is in M0) by Yr 0.

- - The map represents the state of play at -25 or so. There is a rapid
expansion as the Chanestin and IC wars happen. Gaar may be a political ally
initially (a staging post for attacks only a subsector from the Chanestin
capital).

>Also, is their any detailed (and preferable canonical) data regarding which
>(specific) planets were in actual contact/alliance/trade with the early 3I?
>Does "Full Data" automatically imply contact?  I need to have a solid
>background in my own head before I open myself up the the (inevitable)
>questions.

I would assume that 'Full data' means that scouts have visited recently,
and trade almost certainly ocurs.
There is no real solid data...

On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:52:49 -0500 "Kurtis Rodgers" <kurtis@fastlane.net>
writes:

>I've my own questions for this list regarding Milieu 0 references.  Most of
>these questions probably don't have 'official' answers, and are really just
>a bitch-list, but I do welcome speculation, opinions, or other comments.  I
>remember when I signed off this list back when IG published First Survey,
>there was quite a bit of grousing about how crappy it was, so this may be
>old hat for some.  :)

Set the wayback machine for 97/98....

>Although Milieu 0 was generally an excellent book (IMHO), it lacked a lot of
>useful specifics, especially when referring to certain worlds or political
>boundaries.  Perhaps some of this was updated in the Milieu 0 Campaign
>hardcover?   Specific references include (page numbers are from my original
>softcover edition):

Page references are the same for both...

>Chanestin Kingdom (p. 9) - an interesting war of conquest takes place with
>this political entity during the formation of the 3I.  All we are told is
>that it is located in the rimward subsector O-Dunea, and has its capital on
>a world called Keshi.  First Survey does list Keshi at Core 1938, a rather
>modest low pop, tech 7 world.  Of course, it also lists a Keshi at 0816 - go
>figure.  The Atlas of the Imperium confirms a Keshi at 1938, listing it as
>hi-pop.  No other details.

1938 is the correct one. It meets the 25 worlds in 5 parsecs test. 0816 is
in Interstellar Confederacy territory and isn't in a cluster... I would
assume (and I think that this was the TML conclusion) that Keshi was
ultimately hit with nasties by the Imperium, smashing its infrastructure
down 4 tech levels. If the data is -25 this is a problem, but it could be
later data.

>Interstellar Confederacy, a.k.a. the Great Spiral (p. 10) - a long, detailed
>war is described with the Confederacy, which occupied 32 worlds in two
>spinward subsectors (I-Bunkeria and J-Cemplas).  Specific world names used
>in the history of this war include Marsus, Protalus, and Sketola - these are
>the main worlds of the Confederacy, and all are listed in both atlases.
>There are a lot of other world names cited, some of which I can find entries
>for, and some I can't.  Better than poke in the eye with a sharp cattleprod,
>I suppose.  :P

I tried to locate them all, but suffered. I had a load of notes, which I
binned when IG folded and 'At the Crossroads' was cancelled.

>Pholishie (p. 22) - I love the Things that Have Gone Wrong section of the
>'School of Contact'!  This is a wonderful rogue world "well out into the
>Fringe" - not so much as a sector name.  I'm not manually searching the
>entire freakin' First Survey for this name.  I intend to import the best
>sector data listings I can find into a database so I can run some real SQL
>queries against it for names like this.  I'm betting I'll have to
>arbitrarily place this one somewhere on my own.

Yes. I believe Jo Grant used a world from his campaign. The Fringe is way
past Core Sector in M0...

>Santry-Cordova Cluster (p. 23) - a real cluster #&$@!, if you ask me.  A
>neat story about warring states encountered by the Imperium, with no
>location given.  Except, of course, that First Survey lists Santry (Core
>1736) and Cordova (Core 1836) as adjacent worlds in the Dunea subsector.
>This puts them smack up against the Chanestin, whose capital is only 2
>parsecs away from Cordova.  Yet the Scouts only contacted them in -16,
>despite having been at war with the Chanestin since -107.  Doh!  The entire
>description of both the history and the war belies the astrography.  Gonna
>have to completely relocate/rename this entity elsewhere.

See other post. The Core 1530 cluster is the best bet.

>Lastly, there was an allusion many months ago on the list to the infamous
>Law Level data snafu being the result of a bug in software IG used to
>'retrograde' the existing sector data.  Fact?  Rumor?  Any idea what kind of
>algorithm was being used to transform the data?

AFAIK you are correct. An adaption of the TNE Collapse process was used
(IIRC) For what it's worth, I believe the M0 writers were working off the
Atlas of the Imperium and early drafts of the data...

Thad Coons <Sapience@compuserve.com> writes:
>Chad Osborne wrote:
>>I am trying to set up a campaign based on the Long Way
>>Home/Gateway adventure, to introduce some friends to Traveller,
>>but am missing a few details (like what year it should be set
>>in.  I'm guessing near 0.)
>
>My guess would be pick your year, preferably before IE 50.
>TLWH refers to the Sylean Scout Corp (misspelling for Corps?)

Not necessarily a mispelling; it could just be English English not American
English. TLWH was a BITS publication first before IG took it. Have a look
at the -ize/-ised bits to see which is what

<snip>

>    A week or two ago I posted a list of trade links within the
>subsector which I recently derived for MTU based on the rules in
>GURPS Traveller Far Trader. It's not complete yet since it
>doesn't include the links to industrial worlds in neigboring
>sectors, but it's a start. I gave Dom Mooney conditional
>permission to post a map based on it on the BITS web site, but it
>might not have made it up yet. If it's not up yet or you missed
>it, I can send you a copy of what I gave.

If I get everything together it should go up tonight... I am interested in
it because I am thinking of developing some of the material which I wrote
for 'At the Cross Roads' into a subsector sourcebook..

>Kurtis Rodgers wrote:
>>Although Milieu 0 was generally an excellent book (IMHO), it
>>lacked a lot of useful specifics, especially when referring to
>>certain worlds or political boundaries.  Perhaps some of this
>>was updated in the Milieu 0 Campaign hardcover?   Specific
>>references include (page numbers are from my original softcover
>>edition):
>The hardcover adds several new chapters:

All of which may be found at the following URL, Marc having given
permission for Bryan to post it.

http://members.aol.com/kagekiha/traveller/m0.htm

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: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:35:24 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Missing M0 chapters found in M0 Campaign

The missing chapters may be found at:

http://members.aol.com/kagekiha/traveller/m0.htm

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: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 06:38:41 -0400
From: Thom Jones-Low <tjoneslo@together.net>
Subject: Re: Ground Forces

> 
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 06:50:08
> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <gridlore@pop.mindspring.com>
> Subject: Ground Forces
> 
> I've been informed that I will be writing the GT: Ground Forces book.
> Cheer or grumble as you wish.  Couple of requests:
> 
> 1. Does anybody have a copy of Invasion: Earth they'd like to sell?  Or
> could at least send me copies of any flavor text about dates, units
> involved, etc,.?
> 
> 2.  I'm soliciting titles. SJG definitely wants to change Ground Forces.
> Right now, I'm leaning towards Imperial Regiments.  Suggestions?
> 

	I vote for GT: Imperial Legions or GT: GROPOS in that order.
- --
	Thomas Jones-Low
	tjoneslo@together.net

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: One near-C rock, delivered on target!

>And what the hell was Ukkie thinking? What was the point? I have seen a lot
>of bad behaviour on mailing lists, the usenet, chatrooms, etc., but that
>primate takes the cake. Is the human species devolving?

"Ukkie" sounds 13-14. Spend some time watching young adolescents on their
own (or where they figure any authority can't ID them) and you'll see the
same type of behaviour.

Mind you, I pegged Clif at 16, too, so I'm not infallible. Some adolescents
just don't grow up :-(

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:28:38 -0400
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU>
Subject: Trade Practices (was re: Wiring Diagrams)

William F. Hostman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
and if in the imperium,  pray that the IN and IISS don't find out... There
are numerous references in canon to the "Tech Sales Limit" (altho all are
in fill text rather than rules material)... An air-raft exceeds the 4 tl
limit...
>>>>>>>>>>
That air raft? It doesn't "belong" to the medieval smith, it's there to
support your trade station, just like those half-dozen guys with
laser rifles. Once your trade station no longer needs the smith,
he suddenly doesn't get to borrow the nice flying carpet or the
super-powered bodyguards anymore.

Agreed, these kinds of tactics should make the IISS quite testy,
if they find out. I get the feeling that an IISS observer may be the
least popular person on an exploratory trade mission.

Walt Smith

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: [Off Topic] Jagannath?

>>     Odoric reported that some worshipers
>>     deliberately allowed themselves to be crushed beneath the
>>     vehicle's wheels as a sacrifice to Vishnu. That story was
>>     probably an exaggeration or misinterpretation of actual events,
>>     but it spread throughout Europe anyway.
>
>No, it wasn't really that much of an exaggeration. In the town of Puri, in
>India, there is an yearly festival, which is pretty well documented. At
>different points in history pilgrims would throw themselves under the
>wheels.

Some Christians in the Phillipines crucify themselves in a festival. (Which
may or may not be yearly - my Tagalog wasn't up to reading the paper, and
my translator didn't want to talk about it much.)

Takes all types, and so on...

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Cook <markc@peak.org>
Subject: Re: Ground Forces

Doug Berry <gridlore@pop.mindspring.com> writes:

> 2.  I'm soliciting titles. SJG definitely wants to change Ground Forces.
> Right now, I'm leaning towards Imperial Regiments.  Suggestions?

Hey, Doug!  You were in the military.  I'm surprised you didn't already
think of this one: "Beach-head."  (Oh, wait; you were in the *army*.
Never mind.) :^)

        - Mark C.
          EOD, USMC, 1st MarDiv, 1st CEB (Camp Pendleton), Class of '75

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 mark f. cook   *   shoestring graphics & printing   *  markc@ssgfx.com
 7160 n.w. somerset dr. * corvallis, or, 97330  *  http://www.ssgfx.com
 Phone: 541-745-5709                                  Fax: 541-745-5818      
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Time Question(s)

> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:20:58 -0500
> From: "Pat Connaughton" <pconn@i1.net>
> 
> Sorry to trouble you all with what may be a tired old horse
> of a question but here it goes.

Actually, this one hasn't been discussed very much, so it's a fresh newish
horse. :)

> In my traveller group, we recently had a guest player who asked
> just how time dialation functioned during higher accelerations to
> jump point and if there was any meaningful accumulated duration
> buildups for PC's?

Probably not.  Two useful factoids to remember for quick qualitative
judgements on relativity are:

1) A g-year equals c.
2) Relativity doesn't make a big difference below 0.5 c.

In other words, one years' sustained acceleration at 1 g results --
*ignoring relativity* -- in a velocity quite near c.  This is useful
because it can be used to derive other, more game-relevant figures using
simple multiplication and division.  For example, a week (1/52 of a year)
at 1g get you up to roughly 0.02 c; a day at 6 g gets you to (6/365)  or
about 1/60 c.  Note that even at 6g (the highest sustained acceleration
you're likely to have available on a crewed ship in Traveller), it takes a
month of acceleration to reach 0.5 c, where relativistic effects start to
be really noticeable.  Since most runs will be far briefer (one or two
days) and hence stay at much lower speeds, relativity can safely be
ignored in-game unless the characters do some truly unusual normal-space
travelling.

- -- 
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      "There it is; take it."  - William Mulholland

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:52:30 +0100
From: Mark Watson <markw@antares.demon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Ground Forces

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Smart, David J (David) wrote:
>Hey, Doug!
>
>Do you (or anyone else) have any material on elite *provincial* units
>within the Imperium? I've just found an article on the Australian
>force leading the U.N. effort in East Timor which sparked my curiosity.
>
>It seems Australia is sending in the Gurkhas.

I think those are "British" Gurkhas - there are 270 in Interfet. I don't know
if Australia also maintains a Gurkha force - India certainly does.

And 30 British Special Boat Squadron troops (probably) have gone in as well.
Interesting article on the SBS here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_452000/452319.stm

Detail on the make up of Interfet here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_445000/445404.stm

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:59:31 -0400
From: Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca>
Subject: RE: Foreknowledge of Jump Exit Timing

Charles Collin writes:
>Hi all.  A question that has probably been discussed before, but...Do
>starship crews know when they're going to exit jump?  How long before the
>event?  How precisely?  I'm not sure if there's a canonical reference for
>this (or several contradictory ones :-) but I'd like to know what you say
>in IYTUs.  It's important to a scenario I'm cooking up...

	IMTU the timing can usually be predicted within a few minutes
	to an hour, depending on the pilot's skill, when jump is
	initiated.  The jump drives do not run during jump (only at 
	the beginning), and there are no clues or energy readings that
	indicating impending return to normal space.

Peez

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Time Question(s)

> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:18:49 -0400
> From: Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca>
> 
> 	I hate to step into a thread that I haven't been following,

And this'll teach you why you hate it. :)

> 	but here it goes: Has anyone pointed out that it is velocity
> 	rather than acceleration that is pertinant to time dialation?

Sorry, incorrect.  General relativity shows that acceleration (or
equivalently, being in a gravity field) also causes time dilation,
independent of the relative-motion-induced dilation covered by special
relativity. 

> 	Even if a vessel reaches "reletivistic speed" on the way to
> 	jump diameter, it will only be moving that fast at the end 
> 	of the trip (By the way, even at 6G from a size A world, a 
> 	vessel will only be moving at about 0.000046 c).

Quite true, and it turns out that for reasonable accelerations and trip
times, the GR (acceleration-induced) component is also vanishingly small.

By the way, general relativity's acceleration-based dilation is critical
to resolving the infamous Twin Paradox of special relativity.  Since the
travelling twin must accelerate several times during the trip, unlike the
stay-at-home twin, the former is unambiguously younger when they reunite. 

- -- 
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      "There it is; take it."  - William Mulholland

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:02:19 -0400
From: Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca>
Subject: RE: Ground Forces

Douglas E. Berry quotes:
>>Hey, Doug!
>>
<snipped>
>>It seems Australia is sending in the Gurkhas.
<snipped>

	The Australians have Gurkhas?

Peez

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:16:48 -0700
From: "Darren Sherbot" <dsherbot@rockies.net>
Subject: JTAS#2

Of immediate interest to this group would be the sale of  JTAS #2,6,7, & 8.
These are duplicate copies (VG- to VG+) that I would be willing to part with
to another GDW fan for a nominal fee. Unfortunately, I listed them on Ebay
first last Friday not discovering this site until yesterday so the price is
now out of my hands....but worth the heads up to this group perhaps?

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:19:13
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <gridlore@pop.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: More Art

At 11:58 AM 9/20/1999 -0700, you wrote:

><pout> And _no_ one has mentioned the _real_ 'Furthur', yet, and it was
>even in the news recently: Ken took it to merrie ol' England for the
>eclipse, and a cross England trip.

Didn't hear about that!  I had the chance to have a close look a Furthur
when they were making a road trip through the City.  History with a bad
transmission.
- -- 
Douglas E. Berry       gridlore@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone,
but they've always worked for me.
             -- Hunter S. Thompson

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:46:39 -0500
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net>
Subject: Title Suggestion for GT: Ground Forces

I think that the title "Into the Mud" would be a good one.  That way, if
you see fit, you can include the following quote from T.R. Fehrenbach's
_This Kind of War:  A Study in Unpreparedness_ (AUSA hardback edition,
pg 290):

**begin quote**

Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had
forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it,
pulverize it and wipe it clean of life -- but if you desire to defend
it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the
ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into
the mud.

**end quote**

Res ipsa loquitur.

- -- 
AuricTech Shipyards Journeyman Gearhead
"Gold-Plated [tm] solutions for copper-plated problems!" (r)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:35:12 +0200
From: Volker Greimann <volker@greimann.de>
Subject: Re: Ground Forces

At 10:48 20.09.99 -0600, you wrote:

>I like Imperial Regiments.  However, if I might be so bold at to 
>suggest a few alternates, just in case:
>
>GT: Imperial Service
>GT: Planetside
>GT: Of Duty and Drop Troops
>GT: No Nobler Service...
>GT: The Imperium Wants You!
Or how about 
GT: Dirtsiders
GT: Stargrunts


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

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:37:19 +0200
From: Volker Greimann <volker@greimann.de>
Subject: Re:Ground Forces

At 11:52 20.09.99 +0100, you wrote:
>>2.  I'm soliciting titles. SJG definitely wants to change Ground Forces.
>>Right now, I'm leaning towards Imperial Regiments.  Suggestions?
>
>Last In
>
>Low Guard
>
>Down Force
Damn, you now owe me 30 $ for a new keyboard ;-)
Volker
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Volker A. Greimann --- http://www.greimann.de --- volker@greimann.de

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:14:14 -0500
From: Eris reddoch <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Ground Forces

Volker Greimann wrote:
> 
> At 10:48 20.09.99 -0600, you wrote:
> 
> >I like Imperial Regiments.  However, if I might be so bold at to
> >suggest a few alternates, just in case:
> >
> >GT: Imperial Service
> >GT: Planetside
> >GT: Of Duty and Drop Troops
> >GT: No Nobler Service...
> >GT: The Imperium Wants You!
> Or how about
> GT: Dirtsiders
> GT: Stargrunts

Ah, heck!  I wasn't going to play, but...


GT:  Blasters and Battledress

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1110
***********************************

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
