Traveller-digest      Monday, October 18 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1221



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: The Eternal Legionnaire
Re: Great Task Debate
Traveller Versions and a visit to the Medieval Starship
Re: Population Growth
Re: Great Task Debate
Re: Great Task Debate
Re: Traveller Versions and a visit to the Medieval Starship
Unsubscribing
Re: Norris the Man... 
Re: Craig the Lizard... (was Re: Norris the Man...) 
From the pages of history
Re: Norris the Man
RE: FLASH: J. Andrew Keith is dead.
Re: PBeM TCS Islands Campaign
Re: Norris the Man
Re: Traveller Versions/Supporting our Game (a bit long)
Re: GTL9 5 dTon Shuttle
Re: GTL9 5 dTon Shuttle
Re: Battledress/Battlesuit Protection (GT)
Re: GT Task System
RE: PBeM TCS discussions of late

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

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:10:31 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: The Eternal Legionnaire

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) types:
 >In mail you write:
 >>>If you'd like a zipped file of this song, along with library data set in
 >>>Andrew's FFL universe, and a jpg of what  Andrew thought  the Semti would
 >>>look like (sketched by Bill Keith) - send me an email and I will send it to
 >>>you as an attachment.
 >I only saw this quoted, not the original message. So I can't send an
 >email. Please send me the stuff anyway.

Me too!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. The town was
burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need those sheep anyway.
That's our story and we're sticking to it.  http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:28:22 -0700
From: "Luther Martin" <martin@ksarul.com>
Subject: Re: Great Task Debate

<opinion>
Those who are losing sleep over this are missing the point of RPGs: the GM
uses the game as a meduim to TELL A STORY. Because of this overriding
concern, sometimes accomplishing a particular thing may be more or less
difficult, depending on how it influences the GM's plot. These games are not
simulations of reality. They are just games.

Check out the framework for Cinematic Roleplaying at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9327/rpg.html for a description of how
to implement this idea.
</opinion>

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

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 22:35:35 -0500
From: "Pat Connaughton" <pconn@i1.net>
Subject: Traveller Versions and a visit to the Medieval Starship

Greetings to the List.
I took a short journey today to visit Jay LaRosee at his
lair in O'Fallon, Illinois today. We had a nice visit.
I admired the restored icon of our cult (i mean obsession,
er devotion, oh well you know) the GDW sign proudly
mounted in the gaming area of his shop.

He's got a really nice setup and well worth a visit. Also a
few really nice vintage trav items to sell as well. But enough
of the infomercial. In the course of our chat, we talked over the
last few flame wars and the one that bobbed to the surface like a
3 day old apple was the Traveller Version.

We both came to the conclusion that the best traveller version is the
one that people will play. Period.

My group in St. Louis plays a complied version of CT, Mega-Traveller,
House-rules and a smattering a various other specific rules cadged from
other games that we've all liked. IMHO almost any traveller rules will work,
if not well, then sufficently provided the GM is capable and relatively
evenhanded.

I proposed that it is more fruitfull to devote time and flames to devising
more and better background, diverse histories, great ship design and
the many milleux that seem to pop up crazy.

Sorry for the mini-rant, I better now.
Thanks
Pat Connaughton
ICQ # 2535086
pconn@i1.net
"He who knows not how to dissemble knows not
how to reign"
Tiberius, Emperator and Princips of Rome

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:46:50 +1000
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au>
Subject: Re: Population Growth

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <david.d.jaques-watson@centrelink.gov.au>
To: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Population Growth



>
> Just mentioned this thread to my wife, who pointed out that "breastfeeding
> is a 99% effective contraceptive" is a few percentage points off. Even
tube
> tying is only rated as 97% effective. She pointed out that two of the
> ladies in our church are breastfeeding AND pregnant. One has a
10-month-old
> and is 5 months pregnant, one has a 12-month-old and is 4 months pregnant
> (oh, and had previously tried for 3 YEARS to have a baby). My wife's
sister
> managed to get pregnant while breastfeeding AND on the "little" Pill (her
> two previous pregnancies were also while on the Pill - she seems to take
it
> to _get_ pregnant!  ;-). After that last baby, she had her tubes tied, and
> was told the odds. Her comment was along the lines of, "Oh great! With my
> odds I'll be pregnant within the month!"
>
> Most of these contraceptive methods are dependant on how well your body
> reacts with them (they work well for some and not others).
>
> So, the line about breastfeeding is not as untrue as all those lies about
> "you can't get pregnant the first time" or "you can't get pregnant if you
> have sex standing up" or  "in the shower", but still NOT TRUE.
>
> Sounds like one of those old jokes: "Q: What do you call a woman who had
> sex while breastfeeding? A: A new mother."  ;-)

Well, since mentioning it to my missus (whom I mentioned was in childcare),
this is now the "hot topic" over lunch with her staff... Seems there are
many such mothers breastfeeding and preggers.  The other staff obviously are
in childcare also, and they to have a lot of contact with a wide spread of
mothers over SE Queensland and near every centre they worked in has had at
least one such mother.

On the pill subject, 3-of-the-4 children we have were conceived while treas
on the pill... as was the one we lost (early miscarriage).  As for tube
tying, even a bloke having a vasectomy still has a 3-4% chance of it not
taking.  Nature is against contraception it seems.

- -- The Roc

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

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 99 23:15:32 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Great Task Debate

On 10/17/99 at 08:28 PM,  "Luther Martin" <martin@ksarul.com> said:

><opinion>
>Those who are losing sleep over this are missing the point of RPGs:
>the GM uses the game as a meduim to TELL A STORY. Because of this
>overriding concern, sometimes accomplishing a particular thing may be
>more or less difficult, depending on how it influences the GM's plot.
>These games are not simulations of reality. They are just games.

Hee!  I suspect you might get some argument that the point of RPGs
is for the *GM* to "tell a story."  Whether I agree or not, I'm not
going to argue with you about it, just mention that there is a
*long* standing debate between dramatists vs simulationists.  And
IMO, each side is right for their own games.


Eris

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:19:31 -0000
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net>
Subject: Re: Great Task Debate

Luther Martin said:

><opinion>
>Those who are losing sleep over this are missing the point of RPGs: the GM
>uses the game as a meduim to TELL A STORY. Because of this overriding
>concern, sometimes accomplishing a particular thing may be more or less
>difficult, depending on how it influences the GM's plot. These games are
not
>simulations of reality. They are just games.


Fair enough, but you know what they say about opinions?

Ahem. I guess I will expose my own...

Opinion, that is. ;)

The only problem is that your opinion is only applicable for extensively
plotted, well-structured games. While extremely cinematic games are
interesting and fun, a really loosely run cinematic campaign *without* a
strong plot is one of the most annoying things to be involved with as a
player.  There are those out there -- especially in the Traveller
community -- who like games that aren't heavily scripted, they like to let
the cards fall where they may.

While I agree with you for the most part, I must say that there's a real
danger in taking the cinematic sentiment too far. Roleplaying games are a
simulation of reality... the consensus reality of a GM and his players. That
is a really important distinction to make.

Different systems allow varying amounts of "reality" to creep into the
flavor and feel of the game. Having played both MegaTraveller and GURPS I've
got to say that, effectively, one is just as "realistic" as the other (the
only difference is that the GURPS framework can be used in extremely
cinematic games and extremely realistic ones).

I tend to be suspicious of those who preach that rules should be realistic
and those who preach that rules should be cinematic... both sides usually
come off sounding like they've found the Holy Grail, the one true method of
playing.

Unfortunately, neither side is "right", because it's not an issue of right
and wrong.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:36:07 -0000
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller Versions and a visit to the Medieval Starship

Pat said:


>But enough
>of the infomercial. In the course of our chat, we talked over the
>last few flame wars and the one that bobbed to the surface like a
>3 day old apple was the Traveller Version.


There is no flame war going on! Even using a loose definition there's been
no real flame war going on. People will differ in opinions, but the
"Traveller Versions" debate isn't even lukewarm (and in my personal opinion
it doesn't look like it's really going to heat up very much).

One of the few problems with the Traveller mailing list is that certain
discussions achieve flame war "status" without ever having really heated up.
Usually, the real problem is that two sides tend to go on about an issue for
a long time, and there are folks who get sick of hearing about it (the
piracy debate never really got hot, but it lasted for weeks on end).

>We both came to the conclusion that the best traveller version is the
>one that people will play. Period.


That's where you're wrong! The best Traveller version is the one I play.
Wanna fight? ;)

>other games that we've all liked. IMHO almost any traveller rules will
work,
>if not well, then sufficently provided the GM is capable and relatively
>evenhanded.


That's the real problem, isn't it? GMs are in such short supply that one
must search like Diogenes to find a fair and even handed one.

>I proposed that it is more fruitfull to devote time and flames to devising
>more and better background, diverse histories, great ship design and
>the many milleux that seem to pop up crazy.


Well, keep in mind that a few task systems that can be grafted on to GURPS
have come out of the discussion, and more than a few mistaken assumptions
have been cleared up. It's not like the debate has been completely useless.
I have to say that I've found it rather interesting so far.

This happens every once in awhile, an issue comes up and is discussed at
length which is Traveller related but that doesn't really interest everybody
on the list. A few people that aren't interested will try to sweep the
discussion under the carpet. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but keep
do keep in mind that some people are actually interested in the mechanics of
the various systems that Traveller has used.

>Sorry for the mini-rant, I better now.


No problem! ;)

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:37:54 -0400
From: johannes@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Unsubscribing

I must go, my home planet needs me.  But before I depart, can someone remind me how to unsubscribe this list?

John

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:22:18 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Norris the Man... 

<cross-posted to the Future of the Imperium Workgroup list>

> Me:
> > > The route across the Great Rift is actually quite viable, once you
> assume,
> > > or create, some *very* high capacity calibration points*.  You might
> have
> > > trouble getting J-3 squadrons across, but J-4 shouldn't be too hard. 
> Of
> > > course, ISTR that some of the big ship designs that were J-4 in CT were
> J-3
> > > in MT.  Tanker squadrons might help.
> 
> > From: Steven Bonneville
> > Tanker squadrons would be required, just to keep the CP fueled.  A BatRon
> > can suck down a million or two displacement tons of fuel easily.  So can
> > a TankRon that's coming back for more fuel.  If you need to pass through
> > more than one CP, it'll be tricky to keep them supplied.
> 
> Yes, the logistics of all this would be pretty serious.  That's why it
> doesn't happen very often.

A given.
 
> I've always considered Arbellatra's march to the Core as being through
> Corridor, with Soegz leading a column on her coreward flank, clearing out
> corsairs.  Olav's march would have been through Corridor too.

What was the prevailing tech back then?  TL12, TL13?  At TL13, they'd have 
J4, which would help, but lack decent maps of the space they'd need to go 
through, which would hinder.  Gripping hand says, they'd take the easy way 
out and go through Corridor.
 
> I figure that the whole idea is pretty sensitive to advances in Jump
> technology.  In Cleon's day, the Rift would have been much more of a
> barrier.  (And there would have been nowhere to go to.)

The big problem would be the lack of accurate charts of the Rift.  There are 
places you could go that would let you pack fuel in for other ships and 
resupply your caches from 2 parsecs away.  True 'flying gascan' scenario, but 
do-able at a high enough tech level.
 
> But then - there *is* a famous military rift-crossing in canon.  This is
> the Julian seizure of the Antares cluster, behind the Imperial front lines.
>  This required going across the Lesser Rift, which wasn't all that "lesser"
> in practical terms, especially given the, at best, TL12 ships involved.
> 
> If Norris' fleet gets away with a rift-crossing like this, it would go down
> in the history books.  If they are then destroyed, it would be like the
> Russian Navy sailing around the world prior to the battle of Tsushima....

He'd have the advantages of a higher baseline technology (TL15/16 in the 
TNE), accurate charts of the Rift, and the knowledge that it *could* be done.
 
> > > I don't own FFW.  What are the jump capabilities in it like?
> > 
> > Imperial BatRons are J3/J4, selected CruRons are J5 or even J6. 
> (Colonials
> > and Planetary are much slower.)  TankRons are J3.  AssaultRons are J4. 
> The
> > TankRons are useful more to speed up refueling time in some situations
> than
> > to make jumps into deep space due to the way the rules work.
> 
> Thanks for the info.  I thought that this was the likely range of figures.
> 
> The rules for TankRons probably don't matter in this case, unless someone
> got really crazy and fought a whole Imperium-wide civil war!  Mmm.  The
> Rebellion as FFW/Imperial Squadrons PBEM game....  (Drool...)  

I'll sit that one out, thank you...

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, 18 Oct 1999 01:26:22 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Craig the Lizard... (was Re: Norris the Man...) 

<crossposted to Future of the Imperium Work Group list>

> > > > The route across the Great Rift is actually quite viable, once you
> > > > assume, or create, some *very* high capacity calibration points*.  You
> > > > might have trouble getting J-3 squadrons across, but J-4 shouldn't be
> > > > too hard.  Of course, ISTR that some of the big ship designs that were
> > > > J-4 in CT were J-3 in MT.  Tanker squadrons might help.
> >
> > > From: "Keven R. Pittsinger"
> > > Sounds like, his best move would be to cross the Rift and hook up with
> > > Craig.  If he could sidestep Corridor, he could even pick up troops and
> > > ships from the Aslan that Craig got close to...  Interesting...
> >
> > I think that is, quite literally, going too far!

I don't think so.  In fact, it *would* be doable, as well as being totally 
unexpected.

> > I would tend to assume that there is only a few places where the Rift can
> > be crossed, most of which can be guessed at by looking at Atlas of the
> > Imperium.   IIRC, it's quite easy for Norris to join up with
> > Strephon,  but quite difficult for him to join up with anyone else.  (I'm
> > not sure if that is coincidental.)
> >
> > Joining up with Craig means going through the Aslan, or Strephon *and*
> > Dulinor.

Only if he goes through Corridor.  Hell, the *Aslans* have a J5 route across 
the Rift into the Spinward Marches; the guys doing that Imperium-wide tour 
took it on their way home.

> Ah yes a rift too far.

*chuckle*

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, 18 Oct 1999 16:21:27 +1000
From: dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au
Subject: From the pages of history

I got this from the GZG mailing list, fyi:

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:31:59 +1300
From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Re: IMPERIUM 2000

Imre wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> It looks like Avalanche Press is gong to be re-doing GDW's Imperium!!!
> If you know more about this, please let me know.
>         http://www.avalanchepress.com
> Their Great War At Sea serries is awesome.  I hope they do more than
just update the graphics...  There was a sequal that was never
published.
> IAS


Darryl

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:02:40 +1000
From: david.d.jaques-watson@centrelink.gov.au
Subject: Re: Norris the Man

Dear Folks -

Hans mentioned:
>I know that in _The Kinunir_ we are told that an Imperial Warrant is an
>anonymous "get out of anything free" card made out to bearer. If you want
>to believe that, feel free. But I prefer to regard this particular piece
>of canon as on a par with the information that four Kinunirs are strong
>enough to cow the entire Regina subsector...

FWIW, some alternative Warrants have been voiced on the TML as part of the
Kinunir discussion. They are compiled in my "Tavonni Repair Bays" under
"CANON PROBLEM 3: The Kinunir Question".
<plug plug>  :-)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:32:53 +0100
From: "Trevor, Peter" <Peter.Trevor@rb.cwplc.com>
Subject: RE: FLASH: J. Andrew Keith is dead.

Pat Connaughton wrote:
> A toast - J. Andrew Keith, we shall not look upon his like again.

Amen.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:46:17 -0400
From: Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca>
Subject: Re: PBeM TCS Islands Campaign

Mark S Peace writes:
<snipped>
>Would we have to build couriers, or would this just be taken
>for granted?

	I prefer keeping the couriers in.  The whole dynamic of
	communication is pivotol.

Peez

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:01:18 -0500 ()
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net>
Subject: Re: Norris the Man

>        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
>        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
>        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
>        to put down any military operations that threathen
>        the peace of the Imperium."
>
>                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir


That's because the troops are all Imperial Uber-Marines equipped with the
dreaded GURPS Traveller Commando Battledress. ;-)

Tschuess,

Joseph R. Dietrich
yikes@evansville.net

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:56:12 EDT
From: JLAROSEE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller Versions/Supporting our Game (a bit long)

Hi-
  Thanks Pat for the comments on Medieval Starship; I do enjoy showing off 
the store to fellow Travellers.
   My .02cr on Traveller Versions; I don't care what you play- just play and 
promote it to others. For me, I like having a strong, consistant history and 
background in which to play. When I talk to others, its nice when we all have 
the same understanding and common knowledge of the different timeframes. 
Which one is best depends only (IMHO) on what type of adventure campaign 
suits your group's interest; exploring, commerce, political intrique, 
whatever.
   Rule sets don't matter to me; if they address the "known physics" of the 
game, I don't care how you get from point A to B. House rules just reflect an 
adjustment by the GM to the quirks and left turns of imaginative players. So 
long as the GM is consistant, I can play and enjoy his campaign.
   Now my rant:
   What I don't like is our contentment to just seek out and game with other 
legacy Travellers. Our player pool is shrinking and with it the incentive for 
publishers to support us with new material. The TML list just compiled wasn't 
very long. How many of us running/participating in campaigns actively seek 
fresh meat, I mean players? How many of us talk the game but haven't sat down 
at a table with other players in a long, long time?  When was the last time 
you saw Traveller featured at a Con? Maybe you have, but I haven't. I 
provided some prize support for the Con in my area and specified it for 
Traveller. The Con staff called back and said nothing was scheduled, did I 
have a second preference? And this was a Con SJG attended.
   Are many of us just closet gamers, meeting secretly and never sharing with 
our aquantances/co-workers our hidden passion? Are we embarrassed at still 
playing an "old" game? Am I preaching to the choir? Probably, but I worry 
that the current generation of fellow Travellers is shrinking (as recent sad 
news points out-sorrow :-( ) without a new generation rising in its place. I 
think its past time to give our game some visability.
Jay LaRosee
Medieval Starship
 
   

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: GTL9 5 dTon Shuttle

Thomas Schoene writes:

> Advanced material exists at any TL. But merchant craft at any TL probably
> shouldn't use them, because they are too expensive to be worth it.   

Advanced materials _might_ exist at any given TL.  In general, 'early' in any TL, no advanced materials should be available, since they have not yet been developed (or in the TU, the machinery to work with them has not been set up).

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: GTL9 5 dTon Shuttle

Bont writes:
> Actually, with the Contragrav, you can use 1.65 G for the 
> acceleration in orbital calculations.  And I didn't say it was the 
> optimal solution.  I just said it was the most flexible.

No, you can't use 1.65 Gs.  Contragravity merely negates gravity, it doesn't give any bonus thrust.  It basically means you can figure travel times as if they were straight-line paths in deep space (with no major gravitational fields involved).

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Battledress/Battlesuit Protection (GT)

Terry Carlino writes:

> I must admit confusion as to the design method used for the Commando
> Battledress and how it fits into the design system. I recently picked up
> Ultra-Tech and Ultra-Tech 2. I hoped that these volumes would help banish
> my confusion, but no luck.

Apparently designed with GURPS Vehicles.  I've never seen any worksheets attached to it, but I've done similar designs, and decided they were sort of stupid.
 
> So where did DR 1200 come from? Did the designer use GURPS Vehicle's
> battlesuit design rules to create the commando armor? Who did the design?

I don't know.  The vehicle designs in Star Mercs were generally contributed, but I don't know who did that particular one.

> And how does the +250 DR come in? Does this mean that against energy
> weapons Commando Battledress has a DR of 1200+250=1450 or is the DR
> 250+250=500 against energy weapons no matter that the actual DR is?
DR 1450 is correct.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: GT Task System

Robert Prior writes:
> >Given GURPS meanings, those would be:
> >Simple: +5 (most people can default and succeed)
> >Routine: +0 (anyone skill 10+ will probably succeed eventually)
> >Difficult: -5 (an expert, with skill 16+, may need multiple attempts)
> >Formidable: -10 (someone who is brilliant, with 20- skill, might fail)
> >Impossible: -15 (in a realistic setting, skills above 20 basically don't
> >occur, so no-one has a significant chance of success).
> 
> Hm.I think you're overestimating the difficulty of the tasks. In
> MegaTraveller, skill level 3+ is professional, with a further 1-2 bonus for
> stat. This means that a "professional" would have at least +4 on all tasks;
> an "expert" would have a skill level of 5+, and very possibly a high enough
> stat to get +2, so an "expert" would get about +6 or +7.  All of these on a
> 2d roll, of course.
> 
> A "Routine" task succeeds on 7+. A professional would need only 3+ (on 2d)
> to succeed - the best odds they could get anyway (as 2 is automatic
> failure). A "Difficult" task requires 11+, so for a professional that's
> about 7+, and for an expert that's about 4+ or 5+.
> 
> You also had the option of doing a task "cautiously", which made the task a
> level easier (assuming that you first passed a determination roll). In my
> group, most people did Formidable tasks this way, and often the Difficult
> ones as well.
> 
> Anyway, back to GT. If an expert has a skill level of 16+, what about a
> professional? (Ie. what is the difference between a competent doctor and a
> world-famous one.

The basic 'you can get a job' level is usually 12.  Some areas require higher skill, however.  Doctor being one of those heavily trained professions, the average skill level for doctors is probably significantly higher than for most professional skills.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:28:12 -0500
From: Donald McKinney <dmckinne@itds.com>
Subject: RE: PBeM TCS discussions of late

The Classic Traveller starships is hosted by egroups.com...
As moderator, and ref of ongoing (and FIXED) TCS game, I'll
invite you...

>Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:55:11 -0400
>From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
>Subject: Re: PBeM TCS Islands Campaign: Interested? 
>
>> "Matthew Bond" <mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk> writes:
>> >A couple of people have contacted me regarding playing in a PBeM TCS
>> >campaign.  If sufficient people contact me, then I'll run one.
>> 
>> 
>> It may be worth looking at the SCTA list on onelist (the CT starships
list)
>> which is already in the midst of a TCS Islands game. All the rules
>> decisions should be in the archives?
>
>Where's this list at?
>
>Keven
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:25:53 -0700
>From: "Mark S Peace" <mark.s.peace@dunelm.org.uk>
>Subject: Re: PBeM TCS Islands Campaign: Interested?
>
>If you run an Island clusters campaign, any of the main players would suit
>me - how about Sansterre?.  Probably best to avoid 'New Home'.  I don't
>imagine the 1 higher TL is enough to compensate for the much lower
>population.  (Are there any population multipliers published for Island
>Clusters, or are the populations all 100mil, 1bil, 10 bil etc?)

There aren't any published with TCS, and the Rebellion/TNE pop multipliers
aren't balanced.  I did some up for the current game.

I'm actually playing as New Home, while moderating.  I have two neutral guys
(who designed the neutral fleets, Zuflucht and Colchis) verify my builds and
orders.

The first turn's largest battle was an attempt by a significant power to 
conquer New Home.  He was not prepared for massed mesons.  I allowed him
to tow his cripples and retreat after the first HG exchange.

>I've probably got more questions than answers in terms of running a PBEM.
I
>assume you would have to run all the battles yourself (with the players
just
>submitting detailed orders. (eg If xxx then flee to aaa system, if yyy
>fight - keep these ships in reserve, attack large ships with major weapons,
>engage fighters with missiles etc.)  Would we have to build couriers, or
>would this just be taken for granted?

The battles so far have either been easy math (small neutral fighter
squadron vs. powerful player fleet) or played on IRC...  That worked real 
well...


>Without trying to be too pessimistic, has anyone actually completed an
>'Island Clusters' campaign?  I imagine it could go on for months/years?
>
>Mark.

This was a pain in the ***; however, I just finished converting it over to 
Microsoft Access...  All I have to do is update the "task group table", and
two queries handle the "forces report" (where all your stuff is), and the 
"status report" (what your stuff can see).

I've added a pre-game intelligence rule (40% of starting tonnage and all 
older [previous TL] designs) and a tactical intel (what you can see).

Check out the ct-starships archive at egroups.com for more details!
We're reposting the pre-game intel designs right now, due to the need
for some design corrections :)


DonM.
- --
========================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, ConfigMgt 3x Team Lead         dmckinne@itds.com =
= International Telecommunications Data Systems         (217) 239-8365 =
= 2109 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL                         (217) 351-8250 =
= Winter War 27 Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 4-6, 2000 =
= winterwar@prairienet.org        http://www.prairienet.org/winterwar/ =
========================================================================

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1221
***********************************

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
