<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1458</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/7/99 7:43:08 PM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
From:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Reply-to:	traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
To:	traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
Traveller-digest     Tuesday, December 7 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1458<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.<BR>
All rights reserved.<BR>
<BR>
The following topics are covered in this digest:<BR>
<BR>
Re: Starship troopers and electronic warfare<BR>
Re: OT: Space Above and Beyond<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: Farscape<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Are Imperial Marines "Jarheads"? (was: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship  Troopers revisited)<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
RE: GT Nobles (Re: Question)<BR>
GT Nobles<BR>
Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
Re: South Park's Cartman as a Imperial Noble<BR>
Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
Re: GT Nobles (Re: Question)<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:02:48 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: Starship troopers and electronic warfare<BR>
<BR>
On 7 Dec 99, at 16:29, Rick Stump wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Hey, now, to us electronic warfare types, sigs are far better alive than<BR>
> dead ('keep talkin', bubba, I just locked your TOC [tactical operations<BR>
> center]. BWA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!'). My personal favorite trick when I couldn't<BR>
> nail their exact location was to have artillery fire a smoke round near<BR>
> where I knew a unit was hiding and then waiting for a report(them: "Sir,<BR>
> reporting enemy smoke round 500 meters to my south" Me: "adjust 5 north,<BR>
> he, time on target, fire for effect"). Bummer was, the radioman usually<BR>
> bought it, too. So, if they're talking leave them alone - one yap-happy<BR>
> radioman is worth 20 spies any day.<BR>
<BR>
What the hell army were you shooting at? We'd never have bothered using <BR>
a radio for that. If your superior HQ is far enough away that you need <BR>
a radio to talk to them they're no use to you unless they've got a way <BR>
of getting rid of whoever dropped the smoke on you. Some people have <BR>
too much technology, that's their problem.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:02:48 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: OT: Space Above and Beyond<BR>
<BR>
On 7 Dec 99, at 10:55, Douglas E. Berry wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> There were several times when I just said "one grenade."  Since all the<BR>
> actors demanded "face time", they bunched up like a flock of sheep in a<BR>
> blizzard. -- <BR>
<BR>
Sometimes it was down to "one bullet" they were that close together.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:12:31 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
Andrew wrote:<BR>
> With all due respect to Col. Grossman's work, it<BR>
> based on<BR>
> flawed research. Grossman's work is based mainly on<BR>
> the<BR>
> performance of the US army in the 2nd WW and Korea.<BR>
<BR>
Not entirely. His exact, statistical evidence is based<BR>
on WWII/Korea, but apocryphal evidence from other wars<BR>
support his contention.<BR>
<BR>
For example, the Prussian army tested its units'<BR>
marksmanship in 1808. They found that a battalion<BR>
(1,000 men, then) would score 60% hits at 100 yards on<BR>
another battalion-sized target (ie a piece of wood 6<BR>
ft high and a couple hundred feet long). Since they<BR>
could fire a maximum of three round per minute each,<BR>
you'd expect thus 1800 rounds per minute impacting on<BR>
the target battalion. And so, two battalions fighting<BR>
each-other should anhiliate each-other, or cause one<BR>
side to break and run, within a minute.<BR>
<BR>
In fact, only one or two men every minute would fall<BR>
over.<BR>
<BR>
"Well," you say, "men being fired on don't fire so<BR>
accurately, the noise of muskets, the scream of shot,<BR>
the cries of wounded and dying comrades all will make<BR>
you a worse shot." I agree. So, let's say the're only<BR>
one-tenth as good as on the firing range. No, let's<BR>
say they were drunk, too, and only 1% as good. Would<BR>
you agree with that? Is that too generous? You still<BR>
then get 18 shots per minute hitting... Instead, we<BR>
get at best one-tenth as many as that.<BR>
<BR>
Yes, the training was off for WWII and Korea. Yes,<BR>
it's been improved now. What's happened is that armies<BR>
have faced the fact that it's difficult to persuade<BR>
men to kill, and have learned to train them to do it.<BR>
I'd agree that modern-day Rangers do have almost 100%<BR>
firers. But other armies, not so many will fire,<BR>
because of their different training. This is why 100<BR>
rangers were able to hold off 1000 Somalis in 1994:<BR>
less than 100 of those Somalis were actually aiming at<BR>
the Americans.<BR>
<BR>
There is something innate in man to make him fight,<BR>
but there is also something innate in man to make him<BR>
reluctant to kill.<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:20:40 -0800<BR>
From: "Luther Martin" <tml@ksarul.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
Kyle wrote in part:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> There is something innate in man to make him fight,<BR>
> but there is also something innate in man to make him<BR>
> reluctant to kill.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Should this surprise anyone? Consider the rest of the animal kingdom, in<BR>
which animals routinely scuffle over territory, breeding rights, etc. These<BR>
contests are rarely fatal. We have inherited this tendency, just like other<BR>
animals have (even the French).<BR>
<BR>
Back to Traveller, however, there is no guarantee that the other non-human<BR>
species have this tendency. Watch out.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 21:21:31 -0500<BR>
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
At 06:51 AM 12/7/99 -0600, you wrote:<BR>
>  I was really<BR>
>p-o'd after re-reading the book, because the movie seems to have been<BR>
>a systematic attempt to destroy the book.  Dialog and themes and imagery<BR>
>were subtly used to distort and twist the message of the book 180 degrees<BR>
>to the opposite; it was too systematic to be directorial incompetence--<BR>
>he was trying to trash the whole philosophy of the book, or at least<BR>
>make sure no one would read it who had any sympathy for the ideas therein.<BR>
<BR>
AFAIK, the director of the movie was a well known RAH-hater and considered <BR>
RAH to be a Nazi.  Why this guy was picked to make the movie, I have no <BR>
idea....<BR>
<BR>
>That film is evil.<BR>
<BR>
True...<BR>
<BR>
           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will<BR>
                          defend to the death your right to say it."<BR>
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire<BR>
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"<BR>
                          			     -- Albert Einstein<BR>
for PGP public-key and<BR>
more quotes, http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/plan.htm<BR>
WWW Page: http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/                <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:20:59 -0600<BR>
From: "Thomas Vickers" <redroach@flex.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
. This is why 100<BR>
>rangers were able to hold off 1000 Somalis in 1994:<BR>
>less than 100 of those Somalis were actually aiming at<BR>
>the Americans.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I also tend to believe that intense fire support from the "littlebird"<BR>
gunships helped keep the Somalis at bay, especially in the dark, when the<BR>
Rangers lacked their night vision gear.  That is if we are speaking of the<BR>
same incident.<BR>
<BR>
Also, Delta force was orginially run through several test operations to see<BR>
if they would "shoot" when the moment came.  This type of training annoyed<BR>
the Delta Troopers, but it was done due to a very valuable lesson learned at<BR>
the Munich Olympics (?).This was that even highly trained soldiers won't<BR>
always shoot.   One of the German Snipers did not take his shot. That was<BR>
what lead to the athletes' deaths.<BR>
<BR>
So, I tend to agree that no matter how highly trained or motivated you are,<BR>
typically you would prefer not to kill another human being.  Now training<BR>
and reflex may be able to cut back on this tendency, but over all, most<BR>
troops aren't all that thrilled about killing.<BR>
<BR>
TV<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 21:32:13 -0500<BR>
From: "David L. Pulver" <dlpulver@kos.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:46:00 -0800 (PST)<BR>
>From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
>Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
>Sorry to do anything to risk your pride in your<BR>
>"elite" units, but I still think there would have been<BR>
>a majority of non-firers. <BR>
><BR>
>ObTrav: this will be more so in the future, since the<BR>
>intensity of operations will be greater, the<BR>
>battlefiled larger, more dangerous, and louder than<BR>
>before (the progression that has occurred throughout<BR>
>the centuries). How does the Imperium treat its burned<BR>
>out soldiers? Its retured soldiers? Once full-time<BR>
>service appeared, nations ahd to provide pensions etc,<BR>
>since a group of disgruntled ex-servicemen who only<BR>
>know how to fight can be a problem....<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav again, a friend of mine and I both read Grossman and spent some time<BR>
discussion the applications to sf gaming. Some not-to-serious thoughts.  <BR>
<BR>
Grossman and others point out the "non-firers" situation does not apply to<BR>
aircraft or vehicle crews, as they are bombing/shooting at very long range<BR>
and/or destroying "hardware" or "structures" rather than people they can<BR>
see. Grossman also points out that most serious "non-firing" occurs when<BR>
you can see the face of your enemy. This is one reason why, especially in<BR>
pre-gunpowder battles, fleeing troops are massacred: it is easier to run<BR>
through or shoot an opponent in the back. (Of course, he's not defending,<BR>
which is another reason...)<BR>
<BR>
In Traveller, troops often wear full-body combat armor or battledress.<BR>
They may also be using HUDs and fighting at night with thermal imaging or<BR>
Light intensification gear, HUDs, etc.  In short, they are watching a video<BR>
game and firing at faceless humanoid targets.  Would this increase "shoot<BR>
to kill" rates?<BR>
<BR>
Testable issue:   do firing rates increase when humanoid troops engage<BR>
non-humanoids or robots?  <BR>
<BR>
Not-so-serious thought:  Grossman's work obviously explains the situation<BR>
in STAR WARS.  Imperial Stormtroopers do not want to kill rebels, who are<BR>
obviously human, wearing either civilian dress or ordinary military<BR>
uniforms and open helmets.  On the other hand, rebels can easily kill<BR>
stormtroopers, who they can perceive as "faceless".  Stormtrooper accuracy<BR>
improves markedly when they are facing obviously non-human jawas or big<BR>
sandcrawlers...  Most Imperial Stormtroopers are simply firing into the air.<BR>
<BR>
Ob-GURPS Trav issue:  Grossman's "natural warriors" are those who have the<BR>
Combat Reflexes advantage.  Anyone else should have 1/2 Acc bonus at best.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:28:09 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
From: Douglas E. Berry <gridlore@pop.mindspring.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Just to make it plain, I never paid to see that film.  The first time I<BR>
saw<BR>
> it all the way through was at a convention.  I had heard all the horrid<BR>
> reports from the set.  No power armor, no political text at all.  Just<BR>
> Verhooven, whose idea of a subtle statement is to only empty two mags into<BR>
> a body, instead of four.<BR>
<BR>
Well, one could argue that point that Vehoeven runs *much* more deeply than<BR>
that. I won't, because it's far afield and I don't really think it'll change<BR>
your opinion of the movie.<BR>
<BR>
> But if you are going to so completely destroy a man's book (not one of his<BR>
> best, I'll agree, but one that was a big influence on my decision to join<BR>
> the Army) with the casual air he gave it..  ick.<BR>
<BR>
I wouldn't call it casual at all. It was obviously very deliberate.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 21:28:07 -0500<BR>
From: "Josh W. Spencer" <macmanjws@earthlink.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
Cynthia Higginbotham wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> We're all ex-Navy in this house.  We just kept saying, "Yeah,<BR>
> the M.I. are definitely jarheads. See the screwthreads on their<BR>
> foreheads?"<BR>
<BR>
Leave it to the marines, whose a***s ride in OUR equipment! And of<BR>
course, as a fellow ex-Sailor, I too know what NAVY stands for:<BR>
<BR>
Never<BR>
Again<BR>
Volunteer<BR>
Yourself!<BR>
<BR>
Too Bad Jarhead Jargon isn't up, or else I'd direct you to it.<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Josh<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 21:35:53 -0500<BR>
From: "Josh W. Spencer" <macmanjws@earthlink.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Farscape<BR>
<BR>
Charles Collin wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> Just a note to my fellow Canadians (and Americans near the border?):<BR>
> Farscape is on YTV Wednesdays at 8:00.<BR>
<BR>
Here in the USA, Sci-Fi Channel has Farscape. It's on hiatus for now,<BR>
but will pick up again early in January. Friday nights at 8:00 Eastern.<BR>
<BR>
==<BR>
Josh<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:56:54 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> AFAIK, the director of the movie was a well known RAH-hater and considered<BR>
> RAH to be a Nazi.  Why this guy was picked to make the movie, I have no<BR>
> idea....<BR>
><BR>
> >That film is evil.<BR>
><BR>
> True...<BR>
<BR>
Sort of true. There is the matter of an interview he did for a Dutch<BR>
magazine in which the interviewer was apparently a Heinlein fan and was<BR>
indignant because she heard that Heinlein's work might be ruined. Verhoeven<BR>
responded in typical Verhoeven fashion, and eventually chased her away by<BR>
calling her (if I remember correctly) a Nazi lesbian. I think a translated<BR>
version of the interview was put up on the list during the initial American<BR>
release of Starship Troopers. I may be wrong, though.<BR>
<BR>
One of the flashpoints in that interview was whether or not the book<BR>
presented a fascist ideology[1]. If I remember correctly, the interviewer<BR>
had become very indignant on this issue. Verhoeven trumped her by saying<BR>
that he grew up in Nazi occupied Holland and that he knew damn well what<BR>
fascism looks like. My memory may be poor, but that's how I remember it.<BR>
<BR>
On the other hand, I have spoken with the fellow who did a series of<BR>
interviews for Starlog with the crew of the film, specifically with the<BR>
producer and screenwriter. They maintained that Verhoeven actually liked the<BR>
book.<BR>
<BR>
This is purely anecdotal, your own mileage may vary.<BR>
<BR>
[1] This is a point which bugs Heinlein fans to no end. Some will argue the<BR>
point that a fascist ideology was no represented, and perhaps they're right.<BR>
I'm not going to tapdance on that alligator tonight. What is interesting<BR>
though is that some Heinlein fans will back away and say that "The Master"<BR>
is merely presenting an interesting society with no ideological claims. This<BR>
position is on rather shaky ground, as most people who have even a passing<BR>
familiarity with Heinlein's works can attest to.<BR>
<BR>
There is a third option, though. This option is that the book is an<BR>
extremely complicated exercise in irony where the nature of the society is<BR>
one that is *supposed* to be unpalatable to a large degree to hammer home<BR>
the issue of classical civic duty. This could very well be the case, as<BR>
Heinlein, in other works, seems to be extremely interested in the concept of<BR>
civic duty.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:59:18 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
From: David L. Pulver <dlpulver@kos.net><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Not-so-serious thought:  Grossman's work obviously explains the situation<BR>
> in STAR WARS.  Imperial Stormtroopers do not want to kill rebels, who are<BR>
> obviously human, wearing either civilian dress or ordinary military<BR>
> uniforms and open helmets.  On the other hand, rebels can easily kill<BR>
> stormtroopers, who they can perceive as "faceless".  Stormtrooper accuracy<BR>
> improves markedly when they are facing obviously non-human jawas or big<BR>
> sandcrawlers...  Most Imperial Stormtroopers are simply firing into the<BR>
air.<BR>
<BR>
Fortunately for me, I had just put down my soda before reading this.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 21:06:33 -0600<BR>
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
Subject: Are Imperial Marines "Jarheads"? (was: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship  Troopers revisited)<BR>
<BR>
Cynthia Higginbotham wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<<snip>><BR>
> <BR>
> We're all ex-Navy in this house.  We just kept saying, "Yeah,<BR>
> the M.I. are definitely jarheads. See the screwthreads on their<BR>
> foreheads?"<BR>
<BR>
So, Doug (the SME on this by reason of contract to write GT:GF):<BR>
<BR>
Do people in M:1120 refer to Imperial Marines as "jarheads"?<BR>
<BR>
If so, do Imperial Army NCOs admonish their subordinates that "Marines<BR>
aren't 'jarheads'; you can _put_ things in jars"?<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
AuricTech Shipyards Journeyman Gearhead<BR>
"Gold-Plated [tm] solutions for copper-plated problems!" (r)<BR>
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776<BR>
US Army Paratrooper since February 1989<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 15:59:16 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
On 7 Dec 99, at 21:32, David L. Pulver wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Grossman and others point out the "non-firers" situation does not apply to<BR>
> aircraft or vehicle crews, as they are bombing/shooting at very long range<BR>
> and/or destroying "hardware" or "structures" rather than people they can<BR>
> see. Grossman also points out that most serious "non-firing" occurs when<BR>
> you can see the face of your enemy. This is one reason why, especially in<BR>
> pre-gunpowder battles, fleeing troops are massacred: it is easier to run<BR>
> through or shoot an opponent in the back. (Of course, he's not defending,<BR>
> which is another reason...)<BR>
<BR>
IIRC he (and certainly others) also point to the fact that crew served <BR>
weapons, like vehicles don't have the non-firer problem, as their is <BR>
more of a collective responisbilty.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 19:27:10 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: GT Nobles (Re: Question)<BR>
<BR>
I'd have to agree, at least in my blotchy experience.  I never lived (until<BR>
VERY recently) in an area that had any good (used loosely :) game stores, so<BR>
my collection is spotty at best.  Back in the CT days, I really had no clue<BR>
what to do with that odd PC who'd roll a 12, or Deity forbid, a modified 15<BR>
(that possible?  don't remember...) on Social Standing.  Luckily, along came<BR>
a little article in Dragon, I think, that had actual benefits for Nobility,<BR>
and my now widely dispersed game group still uses it to this day in the form<BR>
of very ratty photocopies that are now in vinyl slipcovered pages.<BR>
<BR>
YMMV,<BR>
Jesse<BR>
jdegraff@pacbell.net<BR>
http://www.vision-forge-graphics.com/jesse/traveller/trav_welcome.htm<BR>
"Striving to Produce a Better (Illustrated) Traveller Universe"  (tm)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Trevor,<BR>
Peter<BR>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 12:00 PM<BR>
To: 'traveller@lists.imagiconline.com'<BR>
Subject: RE: GT Nobles (Re: Question)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:<BR>
> > Maybe it's just me, but Traveller nobility seems to be a rather<BR>
> > narrow topic for a 128 page book. And not a very interesting<BR>
> > topic at that, either.<BR>
> > Brandon Cope<BR>
><BR>
> It's not just you. I don't foresee buying it.<BR>
> Carlos Alos-Ferrer<BR>
<BR>
Are you guys kidding?  I've been waiting for something like  this<BR>
since before the T4 version that never was ... back since  CT  in<BR>
fact.  And 128 pages  seems  short  to  do  justice  to  such  an<BR>
important aspect of the TU.<BR>
<BR>
IMHO Traveller is 1 part Military, 1 part Merchant,  and  1  part<BR>
Noble.  We've had plenty of military stuff  and  merchant  stuff,<BR>
but for Nobles its been mainly ad hoc articles.<BR>
<BR>
Regards PLST<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 19:35:11 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: GT Nobles<BR>
<BR>
>>Maybe it's just me, but Traveller nobility seems to<BR>
be a rather narrowtopic <BR>
for a 128 page book. And not a very interesting topic<BR>
at that, either.<BR>
A generous and sadistic GM,Brandon Cope>><BR>
<BR>
Hear! Hear! Brandon! Yayay!<BR>
Nobles of the Imperium, yuk! Scum of the Imperium,<BR>
much better!<BR>
Who wants to be Princess Leia when you can be Han<BR>
Solo?<BR>
<BR>
Hey, Loren, will ther be a "G:T Scumbags" supplement?<BR>
I can guarantee this list will help you out lots with<BR>
that! Thye can just pull out all their old PCs...<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:35:40 -0700<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OT/Flamebait: Starship Troopers revisited<BR>
<BR>
>>cares about to the planet, or watch the command staff on the bridge during<BR>
>>an away mission... At least TNG came up with the concept of the "away team".<BR>
><BR>
>The why not incorperate a few real military officers as main characters?<BR>
>Have Worf and an leuitenant take a troop of soldiers on the 'away teams'.<BR>
<BR>
In the original series, these were the "expendable crew members" wearing<BR>
the red shirts.<BR>
<BR>
>I don't disagree with the hand phaser being a capable weapon, but for <BR>
>jeavens sake, give the away team some armor, extra equipment, first aid<BR>
>kits.<BR>
<BR>
Why do you think Dr. McCoy / Dr. Crusher was part of every away team?<BR>
<BR>
>Almost every episode they go down to a planet they get in deep<BR>
>trouble, with only a hand phaser and hand held computer as their <BR>
>equipment, come on! Someday you would think that they would learned (if they<BR>
>lived long enough :-) and were a little bit more carefule.<BR>
><BR>
>I also think that introducing some military characters would give interesting<BR>
>topics to write about. Imagine a military educated infantry officer in <BR>
>heated discussion with Capt. Picard on the bridge over some officers being<BR>
>held prisoner on the planet below.<BR>
<BR>
Given that the Enterprise (any version) is/was primarily an exploratory<BR>
vessel, not a warship, ther compliment of combat-trained soldiers would<BR>
be negligible. I'm thinking a closer analogy would be the Horatio<BR>
Hornblower stories. In which the captain (unlike, say, Picard...) wasn't<BR>
afraid to get his hands dirty.<BR>
<BR>
> It would make the show more realistic<BR>
>and add some spunk to it IMHO.  <BR>
<BR>
Then you'd have to deal with all those who insist that Star Fleet was<BR>
not a military organization. (Yeah, right. If that's the case, why<BR>
do they run the place like it *was* a military, complete with an <BR>
academy, courts-martial, admirals in charge, ship weapons up the wazoo,<BR>
etc...?)<BR>
<BR>
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here. But sometimes what is the<BR>
most "realistic" is not what works best on film / tv.<BR>
<BR>
For the record: I *loved* Starship Troopers -- both the book (which I<BR>
first read in high school, over 20 years ago) and the movie.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
     Glenn St-Germain  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada <BR>
cos90@powersurfr.com  http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn<BR>
        "There is no longer any normal to be"<BR>
                                 -- Gary Numan<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 03:39:50 GMT<BR>
From: j_pete@bellsouth.net (Pete)<BR>
Subject: Re: South Park's Cartman as a Imperial Noble<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:46:23 -0800, Keith Johnson<BR>
<keithalanjohnson@home.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>At 04:04 PM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote:<BR>
>>At 10:21 AM 12/7/1999 -0500, you wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>> >So which of the Archdukes is Cartman?<BR>
>><BR>
>>Based on girth, Norris.<BR>
><BR>
>Cartman is clearly Lucan.<BR>
><BR>
><Cartman voice> I'm the emperor! Respect my authori-ty! </Cartman voice><BR>
><BR>
<Cartman voice> Oh, I really hate you guys, so much. I really hate you<BR>
guys. </Cartman voice><BR>
================================================================================<BR>
- - Jeff Peterson                                             j_pete@bellsouth.net<BR>
<BR>
"Everything has an end, except sausages, which have two."     -Viking Proverb<BR>
<BR>
Pete 0609 D258A85-3 S kk- hi++ as+ va++ dr++ so zh- vi+ da++ A833<BR>
GCS V 3.12 d- s:+: a- C+++ UH++$ P-- L+ E-- W++ N++ o-- K- w++++(---)$ !O M-- V-<BR>
PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP t+ 5++ X+ R+ tv+ b+++ DI++ D++ G e+ h--- r+++ y+++<BR>
NOG #74  AirStar Nova 700<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:38:34 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: OT Flamebait: realism of war movies<BR>
<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Not quite! But a veteran of fighting... and I know<BR>
> that the one thing not shown in that movie, the one<BR>
> thing that no movie will _ever_ show because it drives<BR>
> a rusty salt-encrusted blad into the heart of all our<BR>
> myths of our warrior past, is that most soldiers never<BR>
> fire directly at the enemy. They do their damned best<BR>
> to avoid it.<BR>
><BR>
> Instead of eight guys fighting, you would have had<BR>
> maybe two of them firing, another couple "Oh, I'm just<BR>
> loading magazines for him," another couple pointing<BR>
> out targets, "quick, shoot him, Joe!", one patching up<BR>
> wounds, and another one running messages. But in this<BR>
> movie, they were all killers, except for the wimpy<BR>
> translator, who only shot an unarmed man, and his not<BR>
> killing was depicted as cowardice.<BR>
<BR>
<snipped further information concerning the same point><BR>
<BR>
Okay, fair enough, and point taken. First a question, how accurately is this<BR>
model when applied to troops with special forces training, such as the ones<BR>
portrayed in Saving Private Ryan? Second a point, unless I saw a different<BR>
movie, there were very few sequences (the ending sequence specifically) when<BR>
the "resolution" of the film was sharp enough that the audience could really<BR>
see the members of the group fighting close up. The opening D-Day scene<BR>
didn't attain such a resolution until the end, when the Americans were<BR>
exterminating the Germans in trenches. From my own reading on the subject, I<BR>
came away with the impression that this is pretty much what did happen after<BR>
Americans began to break through. Until the last sequence, the combats we<BR>
see don't have the kind of resolution that detailing such a thing would be<BR>
required.<BR>
<BR>
On the other hand, my take on Upham (the translator) was a little bit<BR>
different. Upham's character is way too complex to be summed up in the word<BR>
"coward".<BR>
<BR>
> But non-firing will never be depicted in the movies<BR>
> except as cowardice. Such men are not cowards, they're<BR>
> simply human. They risk their lives to save comrades,<BR>
> they just don't want to take other lives. That's<BR>
> humanity, not cowardice. But this is rather too fine a<BR>
> distinction to make for most film-makers (note I don't<BR>
> say, "film-goers", I think makers underestimate the<BR>
> intelligence of film-goers.)<BR>
<BR>
I so totally disagree that film-makers underestimate the intelligence of<BR>
film-goers. On one hand, the medium itself doesn't *lend* itself to<BR>
intelligence, but I've already stated that once tonight. On the other hand,<BR>
I have had too many personal experiences with the American movie-going<BR>
public.<BR>
<BR>
When I went to see Starship Troopers, one man stood up and commented, about<BR>
ten minutes into the movie and with *great* surprise, that the film was a<BR>
"...futuristic jaun" (Jaun: "joint", loose translation: thing, undertaking<BR>
or movie).<BR>
<BR>
When I took my father to see Saving Private Ryan, there was a group of young<BR>
men seated in front of us. During the D-Day scene, they kept screaming, "Get<BR>
those f***in' Japs! Get the Japs!" (my apologies for my uncouth language, no<BR>
offense is meant to anyone). At the end, one commented to his friends,<BR>
"Didn't I tell you it was a realistic movie about Vietnam?"<BR>
<BR>
I kid you not.<BR>
<BR>
When the Star Wars Special Edition came around, a friend of mine witnessed<BR>
one man stand, scream that it was "...the same *damn* movie," and storm out<BR>
of the theater.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:39:32 -0700<BR>
From: cos 90 <cos90@powersurfr.com><BR>
Subject: Re: GT Nobles (Re: Question)<BR>
<BR>
>> Maybe it's just me, but Traveller nobility seems to be a rather narrow<BR>
topic <BR>
>> for a 128 page book. And not a very interesting topic at that, either.<BR>
>> Brandon Cope<BR>
><BR>
>It's not just you. I don't foresee buying it.<BR>
<BR>
Neither do I. Too much detail on a topic that I hardly ever need to<BR>
use in a game setting -- and there's enough detail in the existing<BR>
books for me to use as a framework and make up the rest as I need.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
     Glenn St-Germain  Edmonton, Alberta, Canada <BR>
cos90@powersurfr.com  http://plaza.powersurfr.com/glenn<BR>
        "There is no longer any normal to be"<BR>
                                 -- Gary Numan<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1458<BR>
***********************************<BR>
<BR>
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:<BR>
<BR>
unsubscribe traveller-digest<BR>
<BR>
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".<BR>
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is<BR>
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that<BR>
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe<BR>
"local-traveller":<BR>
<BR>
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net<BR>
<BR>
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to<BR>
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"<BR>
in the commands above with "traveller".<BR>
<BR>
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com<BR>
</XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" BACK="#fffffe" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Received: from  rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (rly-yd02.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.2]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 22:43:08 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v66.4) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 22:42:55 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA17898;<BR>
	Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:41:50 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:41:36 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id WAA17862<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:41:36 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 22:41:36 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912080341.WAA17862@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1458<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
