
-------- TML Message #342 --------

From: (Adrian Hurt) uunet.UU.NET!mcvax!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian@tektronix
Subject: Ship's computers
Date: Thu, 4 May 89 10:30:54 BST
Archive-Message-Number: 342



Scott (SELLSWORTH@HMCVAX) writes:
> 
> >Computer questions!  First off, what does 'bis' mean?  I remember that 'fib'
> >meant something like 'fiber backup', but 'bis' escapes me.  "Big Information
> >System"?
> 
>   As best as I can tell, it means "better."  In Old Traveller, the bis models
> were identical to the normal ones, except that they had a mauch larger cpu and
> no storage. Thus, one could run better programs, but one had fewer options (in
> general)  This was an artifact of the old traveller system where one had
> specific programs that did things and took up generic space units.

Most importantly, there were a whole range of "Jump" programs, one for each
length of jump. The longer the jump, the larger the program. In addition to
the "Jump" program, you also had to run a "Navigate" program. A model 1
computer could run "Navigate" and "Jump-1" together, but not "Navigate" and
"Jump-2", which a scout/courier or far trader would need to do. A model 2
could do that, but cost MCr9, to the Model 1's MCr1, and in addition was
larger (2 tons vs. 1 ton). The model 1 bis could run "Navigate" and "Jump-2"
together, but only cost MCr4 and only took up 1 ton.

> Also, what actual effect does differing computer models have on ship's
> functions, aside from the DM's to the various tasks?  For example, the 200-ton
> trader detailed in the Starship Operator's Guide: Is it doing all of this crew
> recognition, entertainment holograms, etc. on a model 1 computer?

The model 1 has 2 units CPU, and 4 units store. It could run anti-hijack (1
unit) permanently, and alternate between, say, Manoeuvre, Library, Target,
and a couple of others, each requiring 1 unit.

>								    If it is
> powerful enough to do all this, is there any reason to have a better (more $)
> model?

Yes. A model 1 can't do a jump-2. It also can't run many programs at once, and
can't run some of the nicer ones at all, e.g. "Double Fire" (4 units).

> ...					  Thus, a combat is the ideal time to
> try and take a ship over as its internal scanners may well be inoperative.

Under the old rules, just before jumping it the ideal time for this, for the
same reason. The computer is running "Navigate" and "Jump-1", each 1 unit.
If it's a model 1, that's all it's doing.

>  By the way, to the person who mentioned you "pocket computer," I believe that
> the model 1 is at or near mainframe levels of capability, pushing into the
> supercomputer regions.

That was me, and I know that. That's why I didn't ask for pocket computers to be
available at TL 7 or 8.

Now for my next gripe. "Fib" means "fibre-optic back-up", and is supposed to
protect the computer against radiation damage. Firstly, a half-decent EMP would
fry the chips, regardless of whether or not fibre-optics were being used.
Secondly, nowadays fibre-optics are starting to be used in the main circuits,
never mind back-ups, and for speed reasons as well as protection. So here's
what I do. A computer designated "fib" has a backup alright, consisting of
redundant components. If the computer gets damaged, by radiation or anything
else, the damage may be either to the main computer or to its back-up. So there
are effectively two computers, which I refer to as A and B. When computer
damage occurs, I roll 1D; on a roll of 1-3, A gets it; on a roll of 4-6, B gets
it. Whichever is the least damaged is the one which is used. In fact, there are
not two distinct machines; the least damaged set of components is being used.
But it's a quick'n'dirty system which allows simulation of back-up.

 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #343 --------

From: (Adrian Hurt) uunet.UU.NET!mcvax!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian@tektronix
Subject: Megacriminal ships
Date: Thu, 4 May 89 10:38:22 BST
Archive-Message-Number: 343



> Thanks again for the advice, BTW, what do all of you use for punishment of
> pirates? In my old justice system, it is DEATH BY CYCLING, and I don't mean 
> riding a bike!

Probably death by whoever finds them first. As well as the Navy, there may also
be bounty-hunters. If they do surrender and get handed over to the authorities,
as opposed to getting "shot trying to escape", their sentence will probably
depend on how much damage they've done, and what they did to their prisoners.
Possibly death, possibly long-term imprisonment. Do you have the published
adventures "Kinunir" or "Prison Planet"?

 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #344 --------

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 09:05:13 cdt
From: (Brett Slocum) uunet.UU.NET!hi-csc!slocum@tektronix
Subject: Re: Ship's Computers
Archive-Message-Number: 344


I believe 'bis' stands for 'binary inline store' or something along
those lines.  As Adrian Hurt mentioned, it has 2 CPUs and extra memory 
storage.  Personally, I have always found the Traveller computer rules
to have very little to do with modern computer science.  They seemed
more like computers of 15-20 years ago, when you had to exchange
disk packs to run a different program.  With current trends in optical
storage, fiber optics, multi-processing, micro-miniaturization (yes,
even Crays are getting tiny), etc., computers used to operate starships
would be much different than those portrayed in Traveller.

Do others have these same feelings? 

Brett Slocum   UUCP: ...uunet!hi-csc!slocum
               Arpa: hi-csc!slocum@uunet.uu.net
"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #345 --------

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 09:45:15 -0700
From: evil@blake.acs.washington.edu (Scott Holter v5.1)
Subject: ship's computers
Archive-Message-Number: 345


Brett Slocum commented that Traveller's ship's computers seem highly
anachronoistic.  I agree.  Advanced technology levels should result in
computers that are *less* bulky, power-hungry, and costly.  The Traveller
rules are hopelessly silly.

When I design ships for the universe I GM, I substitute the following
quick rule fix:  shipboard computers have an effective weight of zero
(justified by assuming the tonnage allocated to the bridge is more than
sufficient to accomodate a CPU).  Cost of computers drops 20% for each 
TL above the minimum needed to construct a particular model, down to
20% of original cost (i.e., 4 TL's above minimum), and 5% per TL
thereafter.  Computers do not explicitly require EP.

How does this rule fix change the game?  Not much.  It does allow a
small ship to have a whopping CPU --- but the high cost should be
adequate discouragement.

(Good question:  why do it, if it has little impact on the game?
 Answer:  it makes me feel better.)

Scott Holter.
evil@blake.acs.washington.edu

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #346 --------

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 13:21:40 EDT
From: (Charles Martin) martin-charles@yale.arpa
Subject: Ship's Computers
Archive-Message-Number: 346


Brett Slocum writes:

    ...computers used to operate starships would be much different than
    those portrayed in Traveller.

The Traveller treatment of computers is useless, in my opinion.
I see three options:

    1. Treat computers as so effective, pervasive, and necessary that they
    are ignored for game purposes.  Computer skill is a la Neuromancer,
    requiring equipment, time, and colossally expensive and restricted
    software that comes in a tiny memory pack.  If a ship's computer goes
    out, the ship is totally helpless in combat (since the other ship will
    evade all attacks and bypass all defenses).

    2. Treat computers as the beasts of space opera.  Huge vacuum-tube
    affairs that take up lots of space and are incredibly ineffective.
    Traveller rules as written will do fine for this option.

    3. Work within a Dune-like campaign background, where devices to
    perform computations are strictly forbidden upon pain of atomic death,
    and all calculation is done by highly trained individuals.  Computer
    skill vanishes entirely, but characters may choose to be Mentats:
    No promotion, survive 6+, skills as Other plus Mentat-1 each term.

Charles Martin // INTERNET: martin@cs.yale.edu // BITNET: martin@yalecs.bitnet
UUCP: {cmcl2,harvard,decvax}!yale!martin


The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #347 --------

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 12:29:12 -0500
From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!gslisa!gsliss!jcunning@tektronix
Subject: BIS & computers
Archive-Message-Number: 347




BIS, I think, stands for something like "improved" or some
such thing. For example, there is a version of the old Mig-15
known as the BIS. Since this is an early 50's aircraft, I doubt
that Binary In Store is what the designation stands for.

Also, you are right about the computers having little
to do with current technology. Digest Group, who for all practical
purposes is writing the Traveller rulebook these days, has found
away around this by saying that all systems are triplicated, and that
is why they are so large. Seen the Starship Operator's Manual
for more information.

				Jim Cunningham
				High Passage Founder
				Traveller Relic





The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #348 --------

Date: Fri,  5 May 89 14:35:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: (Eric Edward Moore) em21+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: computers
Archive-Message-Number: 348


>Brett Slocum commented that Traveller's ship's computers seem highly
>anachronoistic.  I agree.  Advanced technology levels should result in
>computers that are *less* bulky, power-hungry, and costly.  The
Traveller
>rules are hopelessly silly.
>When I design ships for the universe I GM, I substitute the following
>quick rule fix:  shipboard computers have an effective weight of zero
>(justified by assuming the tonnage allocated to the bridge is more than
>sufficient to accomodate a CPU).  Cost of computers drops 20% for each
>TL above the minimum needed to construct a particular model, down to
>20% of original cost (i.e., 4 TL's above minimum), and 5% per TL
>thereafter.  Computers do not explicitly require EP.

The above suggestion sounds rather good, however the rules are
still a little poor in that the traveller computers still cannot do much.
For example the CPU times of human use programs (like library data
and anti-hijack ) shold me zero. The relative amount of time for the
computer to bring up a file for a person to read is minimal, and 
Anti Hijack only has to be called when someone want's to open 
a door. The door probably has all the hardware required to scan
all the computer has to do is fetch a file from "hard" storage
and compare it to the input. These computers are certainantly
large multi processor jobs so all the computer does is hold the 
door untill a processor is free and then speeds the verification
through.

	-Love Kisses and a Neutron Bomb
		-Eric the Finn
Internet: em21+@andrew.cmu.edu
BITNet: Y612EM21@CMCCVB

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #349 --------

Date: Fri, 5 May 89 12:07:14 PDT
From: (Brad Post) cad.berkeley.edu!zephyr!weldon!brad@tektronix
Subject: Ooops :-(
Archive-Message-Number: 349



Well guys, I made a big boo-boo.  In posting my PBM turns I forgot to post
turn #10, well it turns out that there is no turn 10, and actually that turn
#11 is turn 10.  Sorry for all the confusion, but I guess I just wasn't 
paying attention, because things were happening so fast.

Again, sorry for the mistake.

Brad


The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #350 --------

From: (Matt Burdick) burdick%hpindzb@hp-sde.sde.hp.com
Subject: Re: Ship's computers
Date: Thu, 4 May 89 13:47:46 PDT
Archive-Message-Number: 350


> >  By the way, to the person who mentioned you "pocket computer," I believe that
> > the model 1 is at or near mainframe levels of capability, pushing into the
> > supercomputer regions.

Why do you need a supercomputer in your pocket?  Why isn't the pocket
computer just another "cell" of a larger computer that uses many cells
working in parallel in a cooperative network?  Why do Traveller computers
resemble 1970's mainframes running MVS?  By the way, I beleive that 'bis'
is a signifier from IBM mainframes (from the '70s) that means "enhanced".

> Now for my next gripe. "Fib" means "fibre-optic back-up", and is supposed to
> protect the computer against radiation damage. Firstly, a half-decent EMP would
> fry the chips, regardless of whether or not fibre-optics were being used.

If the chips were completely enclosed in a conductive, grounded shield, the
EMP could not reach them.  With fibre-optic cables entering the shield, the
chips inside would be relatively safe.


> Secondly, nowadays fibre-optics are starting to be used in the main circuits,
> never mind back-ups, and for speed reasons as well as protection.

Exactly.  Any computer system found in the higher tech levels of Traveller
would probably not be made of silicon.  Making the entire computer out of
fibre-optic technology or something unknown right now is not that
far-fetched.  This is why computers in Traveller irk me so much.  Not much
imagination went into extrapolating current computer technology into the
future.

								-matt

- -- 
Matt Burdick			| Hewlett-Packard
burdick%hpda@hplabs.hp.com	| Technical Communications Lab




The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #351 --------

From: uunet!netxcom!ewiles@tektronix.UUCP (Edwin Wiles)
Subject: Re: computers
Date: Sat, 6 May 89 11:37:27 EDT
Archive-Message-Number: 351


Eric the Finn writes:
> For example the CPU times of human use programs (like library data
> and anti-hijack ) shold me zero. The relative amount of time for the
> computer to bring up a file for a person to read is minimal, and 
> Anti Hijack only has to be called when someone want's to open 
> a door. The door probably has all the hardware required to scan
> all the computer has to do is fetch a file from "hard" storage
> and compare it to the input. These computers are certainantly
> large multi processor jobs so all the computer does is hold the 
> door untill a processor is free and then speeds the verification
> through.

Awwww, you can't do that!  It would make it nearly impossible to hijack
a ship!  Consider this, as the hardware gets better, programmers constantly
push the machine to the edges of it's ability.  It is quite likely that
as happens now, the machine is operating on the verge of overload.  When
one is about to jump, one turns off programs extraneous to performing the
jump so that one has spare capacity.  Of course, you could defeat this
problem by buying a large computer, and 'smaller' more efficient programs
to run on it.

How's that?

- -- 
...!hadron\   "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles
  ...!sundc\   Schedule: (n.) An ever changing	| NetExpress Comm., Inc.
   ...!pyrdc\			  nightmare.	| 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
    ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles			| Vienna, VA 22182

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #352 --------

From: (Adrian Hurt) uunet.uu.net!zephyr!mcvax!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian@tektronix
Subject: Ship's computers
Date: Mon, 8 May 89 9:55:38 BST
Archive-Message-Number: 352



> Why do you need a supercomputer in your pocket?  Why isn't the pocket
> computer just another "cell" of a larger computer that uses many cells
> working in parallel in a cooperative network?  Why do Traveller computers
> resemble 1970's mainframes running MVS?  By the way, I beleive that 'bis'
> is a signifier from IBM mainframes (from the '70s) that means "enhanced".

There was a WWII Italian fighter, the Fiat G50, which had a "bis" variant.
"Bis" was around long before computers.

As for pocket supercomputers, wait till someone puts a small LCD display and
keyboard onto a transputer board! 1MB in your pocket - you can keep your 1 ton
Model 1 bis!

Seriously though, if that sort of computing power becomes available and cheap,
big machines may become obsolete. Who needs a room full of computer when you
can do all your work on your lap-top, then send it via a modem by telephone,
radio, laser or meson communicator to whoever you want. To reverse the emphasis
above, "larger" computers may become nothing more than a lot of portable
machines networked together. Or, as I said in an earlier article, suppose
someone on the ship has a pocket model 1. The ship's main computer gets blown
away by a critical hit. So the pocket model gets linked to the ship's systems,
and the ship can at least jump again.

> If the chips were completely enclosed in a conductive, grounded shield, the
> EMP could not reach them.  With fibre-optic cables entering the shield, the
> chips inside would be relatively safe.

Are you sure? If so, why is EMP a problem? Most machines have earthed, metal
shells, mainly to prevent them from causing radio interference.

Back to the real world. My statement about pocket computers having 32K has
just gone out of date. There's a new one out with 64K. We're getting there!

 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #353 --------

From: bart@videovax.tv.TEK.com (Bart Massey)
Subject: Re: Ship's computers 
Date: Mon, 08 May 89 12:30:22 PDT
Archive-Message-Number: 353


>> If the chips were completely enclosed in a conductive, grounded shield, the
>> EMP could not reach them.  With fibre-optic cables entering the shield, the
>> chips inside would be relatively safe.
>
> Are you sure? If so, why is EMP a problem? Most machines have earthed, metal
> shells, mainly to prevent them from causing radio interference.

That's what the fiber-optic cables are for -- most EMP is carried into
equipment by the wires, which act like antennas.  (BTW, a friend just asked
me about "fiber optic power cables".  A good question...)  For best
protective effect, the metal enclosure should also be spherical -- such a
structure is known as a "Faraday Cage", after EMP pioneer and discoverer of
the solenoid Michael Faraday.  Note that a Faraday Cage doesn't depend on
being "grounded" -- just on the fact that the electrostatic force is an
inverse-square law (in normal space-time, my friend comments.  Relativistic
speeds and jumpspace are an interesting question...)  (Another good question
- -- what does "ground" or "earth" mean in this context, anyway? -- It seems
to me that with the EMP-generating device and its target insulated nearly
perfectly from each other and the rest of the universe, the electromagnetics
get pretty complicated -- particularly since there are probably also a bunch
of charged particles flying around...)

Sigh.  Looks to me like it's time to pitch the "fiber-optic" explanation, and
just describe these computers as "hardened" (in the military sense).
Otherwise, the physics gets too hairy to be fun anymore.  Note as well that
one would expect that there are better ways than EMP to selectively attack
complicated computing machines this far in the future anyway...

					Bart Massey
					..tektronix!videovax.tek.com!bart
					..tektronix!reed.bitnet!bart

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #354 --------

Date: Mon, 8 May 89 17:21:13 edt
From: (Greg Givler SUPPORT) givler@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com
Subject: Re: Ship's computers
Archive-Message-Number: 354


>From: Bart Massey <bart@videovax.tv.tek.com>
>> If the chips were completely enclosed in a conductive, grounded shield, the
>> EMP could not reach them.  With fibre-optic cables entering the shield, the
>> chips inside would be relatively safe.
>
> Are you sure? If so, why is EMP a problem? Most machines have earthed, metal
> shells, mainly to prevent them from causing radio interference.
	
>That's what the fiber-optic cables are for -- most EMP is carried into
>equipment by the wires, which act like antennas.  (BTW, a friend just asked

[stuff deleted]

>Bart Massey
>..tektronix!videovax.tek.com!bart
>..tektronix!reed.bitnet!bart

Please don't flame me B-) (I was a music major in college, the closest thing
that I got to physics, was Acoustics of Music (Acoustical Physics only)) but
do we have to have a rationale for everything, or could you just say it is 
that way because the "rules" say so? I know I am naive, so flame away. 

Greg

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Givler                        Q-Link: Commodore
Telecommunications Coordinator     CompuServe: CBM/Support 76703,2047
Commodore Customer Support         INTERNET: givler@cbmvax.uucp
215-436-4200 (Support Line)        OR :::::: givler@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I usually have something clever to say.... but.... oh well.....
==============================================================================

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #355 --------

From: uunet!att!ihlpf!zonker@tektronix.UUCP
Date: Mon, 8 May 89 17:50:44 -0400
Subject: Bis and Computers 
Archive-Message-Number: 355


Bis is latin for doubled.  The use as improved came from places like
the MiG-15 as noted. (P.S. It shold be in the dictionary).

Computers:  Actually if you know nothing at all about computers the computer
rules work rather well.  (Since when Traveller was first published I knew
nothing about  computers, except that you could play games on them, I had no
troubles with the rules).  Still the rules aren't too bad considering that
they were written by someone who at the time knew virtually nothing about
computers. (At the time Traveller was first published the only computer
anyone at GDW had any experiance with was an old Tandy which was mainly used
to play an unwinable Dungeon game).  They do effectively limit what a ship
can do versus other ships, which is primarily their purpose.  At any rate,
for my house rules I modified the rules as follows:

	Assume the chart on p.13 book 2 is for TL 5.
	Combine the CPU/Storage columns into one for capacity
		Note: this eliminates Bis models.
	On even TL cut the cost by 1/3
	On odd TL shift the capacity down by one row i.e. the model two
		becomes model 1, etc.
		I projected the top of the chart at a capacity of 20.
	I never modified Software, but I had considered subtracting a
	constant from the capacity for the routine Data Bases and stuff.
	This would make ground based computers more effective.

					Tom H.

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #356 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 356
Subject: TML Software Test Message...
Date: 09 May 89 13:14:34 PDT (Tue)
From: (System Integrator) integ@amadeus.LA



Hello Travellers!

This is your list administrator, James Perkins (using a guest account).
With this message I am testing all-new list software.

I've been working on a method to allow each of you to decide whether
you'd like to receive this list in "instant" form (like it's done now),
or twice-a-week "digest" form.  After spending about 15 hours of time
working on it, I think it's ready for the first real test.

You are all currently registered for "instant" delivery, so you should
see little change in delivery.  When I am convinced the software is
operating correctly, I'll ask you all to tell me if you want to change
your delivery method to "digest", but for now, please keep quiet.  I
plan to test for a week or two.

[However, if you'd like to become a beta-tester for digest delivery (and
hence at risk for poor delivery, and asked to report problems), feel
free to contact me at once].

Oh, if you receive this message and are feeling "in a particularly
helpful mood", feel free to send an acknowledgement.  Only do this if it
is convenient for you.  I don't want to be flooded with
acknowledgements.  It would help make me feel a little more comfortable
that the new software is operating correctly.

If you have been planning a posting to the list, please don't wait until
everything is tested to post it! I need your messages to test this
software.

I really hope this will work; people are still continuing to drop out of
the list because of the high volume; digesting must be implemented to
keep the listees happy and permit list growth.

Cross my fingers...

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
James T. Perkins		    Traveller Mailing List Administrator
Tektronix Digital Systems Division	     "Load Auto/Evade, Beowulf!"
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com
CSNET:	  @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com
UUCP:	  {uunet,decvax}!tektronix!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller-request

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #357 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 357
Date: Tue, 9 May 89 10:48:11 EDT
From: (Arturo Perez x3239) perez@qm7503.genrad.com
Subject: Ships, again



Well, after designing a ship, I reevaluated it to make sure I hadn't made
any mistakes and to try to eke out more space for cargo.  It was, after
all, a freighter.

I fiddled with it and finally came out with something useable.  But in
order to check my numbers I compared my ship to a standard model built with
the same hull.  Boy! was I in for a shock!

The ship I built had nowhere near the accommodations, nowhere near the
cargo space, nowhere near the price!  My crew was sleeping in bunks vs
staterooms, 2700 vs 1900 kl of cargo space, and my ship cost 3x as much,
about MCr 65 vs MCr 195.  What the ...!

I see no way for this particular ship, the Subsidized Merchant, to be
built with its purported data given the MegaTraveller shipbuilding rules.
Are we being tricked here, or what?  Has anyone else tried to check the
building of the standard ships with the MegaTraveller ruleset?

Arturo Perez

The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- TML Message #358 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 358
Date: Tue, 9 May 89 11:25:28 -0400
From: elturner%phoenix@princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner)
Subject: Re:  Bis and Computers


A somewhat radical solution to the Traveller computer problem is to treat
all reasonably high tech level computers as AIs (artificial intelligences)
and use them as NPC's.

This has a number of advantages:
1) It is a (perhaps the only) reasonable extrapolation of current computer
   science.
2) It often makes for a smoother and more natural interaction between the
   Referee and players.  The Ref can simply speak as the AI when giving
   players info from data bases or ship's instruments rather than describing
   what the players are seeing on a display in the usual narrative style.
3) Interactions with AIs often provide an additional "futuristic" element
   or even challenge in the game.  AIs should, of course, have interesting
   and somewhat quirky (by human standards) "personalities" in some
   plausable way (Think of HAL in 2001 but try to be original.)

There are some problems also, naturally:
1) If you are not careful the AIs will be so powerful as to overwhelm the
   players or leave them with nothing to do except issue orders to the AI.
   The best solution seems to be to handicap the machines in some ways; I
   used (when I was a Ref) Asimov's famous 3 laws plus the stipulation that
   AIs had to be shut down while preparing for, during, and following jump
   due to an unfortunate interaction between the jump field and the 
   unspecified hardware technology of AIs.  They can also be made relatively
   fragile during combat.  I found that these conditions left plenty of
   need for the usual player skills.
2) The "computer" skill must be modified in some way.  I usually let the
   player choose between hardware skill (ability to fix AIs, can be very
   important) and software skill (not programming which is all done by the
   AIs themselves but gives favorable DMs in dealing with AIs, sort of a
   machine equivalent of carisma).

Ed Turner


The Traveller Mailing List is a courtesy of James Perkins and Tektronix, Inc.
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Send Submissions To: @RELAY.CS.NET:traveller@dadla.LA.TEK.COM,
	uunet!dadla.la.tek.com!traveller, or traveller@dadla.la.tek.com
List Administrator: traveller-request@dadla.la.tek.com

-------- End of TML Messages --------

