
-------- TML Message #1578 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1578
Date:     Fri, 14 Sep 90 10:16:40 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Large Vehicle/Small Vehicle Inconsistencies


I was pleased to see the set of vehicles uploaded by Scott Kellog a couple
of days ago, and I hope you will bear with me while I repeat a subtantial
amount of his opening message and one of his vehicle designs prior to making
my comments.

  ***********************************************************************

      Scott Kellogg is the name, Stephen Smith allowed me
to take a look at some of the MegaTrav discussion going on
and I was suitably impressed.  Neat designs you folks have
come up with.  So I decided to repay you all with a few of
my own.  I am afraid, I have no access to e-mail so you
will not be able to reach me very easily and there will be
long gaps between my having access to any comments to any
designs or ideas you might have but I would appreciate it
 
      Scott Kellogg
      1202 S. Washington St. #107
      Alexandria, VA, 22314
      (703)-836-8352
 
      Ok, are you ready for the question of the day?  What
is the rate of fire of missiles in COACC?  GDW's Air
Superiority allows ripple fire of 2 missiles per round of
the same type of missile.
      Well, that's against aircraft.  More than likely, an
aircraft would be destroyed by two.  OK, what about larger
targets?  If an aircraft went up against a larger target it
seems conceivable to me that systems would be convertible
to fire a larger number of missiles.  What specifically am
I talking about?  Fighter vs. Spacecraft.  Now anti-
spacecraft missiles weigh in at 50 kg for a normal missile
and 70 kg for a nuclear missile.  These missiles are
therefore capable of fitting on any hardpoint, on multiple
missile/bomb racks as a matter of fact, if you use all
available hard points plus two wing tip launch rails and
four fuselage launch rails (allowed for in the errata and
vindicated by the RAF Lightning and the A-7 Corsair II) a
total of sixty missiles are easily mounted externally,
(ignoring the bomb bay for the moment.)  That's two battery
rounds of a factor 6 battery, (TL-7) (at TL-13 it's factor
7).
      That makes an aircraft unbelievably deadly.  That's
the firepower mounted on a 1000 ton ship.
      Real life example:  in less than a minute the 'Six on
six test of the Phoenix missile system, six phoenix's
locked onto and fired on six targets in less than one
minute, by an F-14 Tomcat.  Since a starship combat round
lasts twenty minutes, I can easily see an aircraft firing
off a huge salvo of missiles in the time allowed.
      Game balance, you say?  Well... maybe, but you could
easily build a huge number of squadrons of cheap fighters
with Fusion rocket engines.  Also, with the enormous thrust
of the fusion rocket its very easy to build say a 12G
capable interceptor or even higher.
      More mundane question:  What are the penetration
values of the different air to air missiles?  Suppose my
players want to fire a radar homing AIM-7 Sparrow at a G
Carrier?
      Mundane question 2:  If the minimum size ship
thruster plates can be mounted on is 20 tons (Fighting
Shi*s of the Shattered Imperium), what about Anti-Grav
plates?  You can put grav modules on a 4 ton air/raft, Why
not grav plates?  The rules state that fractions of Grav
plates and thrusters can be built Personally, I think the
20 ton min is stupid.  It's torn apart a lot of my best
light fighters.
      If you ask me, I use
Book 2-Starships:  to design merchant ships,
Book 5-High Guard:  to design warships,
and Megatraveller to design headaches.
 
I hope you enjoy the designs,
                             Scott Kellogg
 
Phobos (TL10) Mobile Artillery/Tank Destroyer
 
CraftID:   Mobile Artillery, TL 10, MCr 69.51593
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=20 Unloaded=334.4,
           Loaded=336.5, Config=6AF Armor=40D
Power:     (18/36) 289.4 Mw Fusion, Endurance=30/90
Loco:      (3/6), Maneuver=1G Antigrav Unit, NOE=140,
           Cruise=900kph, Top=1200kph, Agility=0
Commo:     Radio=System*2, Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   P-EMS=Interstellar, A-EMS=Far Orbit,
           Neutrino=Directional, Densitometer=Surface,
           Passive Audio, Active Audio, Synthetic Vision*3,
           Headlight*2 ActObjScn=Routine,
           ActObjPin=Routine, PasObjScn=Formidible,
           PasObjPin=Impossible,
           PasEngScn=Routine, PasEngPin=Impossible,
           PasAudScn=Formidible, PasAudPin=Formidible,
           ActAudScn=Formidible, ActAudPin=Formidible
Off:       Plasma Turret=x01,
           Batt=1
           Bear=1
                Pen/                     Auto Dng
                Attn  Dmg Range        Fire Spc  Sig Recoil
Plasma Turret   83/5  800 Planet(50000)   -  45    H      H
SandCaster      20/2   10 VLong(.5)       -  15*   L      L
0.05MW Beam
Laser            5/2    4 Dist(2.5)       2   -    H      L
 
Def:       DefDM+6, Scaster=x03, Smoke*6, Prismatic
           Aerosol*6
           Batt=1
           Bear=1
           All weapons=Point Defense Targeting
Control:   Computer=4/Fib*3, HUD*3, DynLink=3
           Env=Basic env, Basic Is, Extend Is, Grav Plates,
           Intert comp
Accom:     Crew=(Commander, Driver, Gunner),
Other:     Fuel=104.2 Kliters, Cargo=24.5 ObjSize=Average
           EMlevel=None
Remarks:  The Phobos Mobile Artillery unit operates
primarily just under the surface of the water.  The plasma
turret, sand caster and beam laser are all mounted on a
mast outside the main body of the tank.  The mast is
projected above the water surface to fire.  At TL 10, no
sensors have the capability to locate it effectively
underwater, at higher tech levels densitometers can
penetrate water, but even then the air foil combined with
the high thrust engines give it good speed underwater to
relocate before opening fire again.
      (Believe it or not, you've probably seen this one in
action:  The war machine in George Pal's `War of the
Worlds'.)
 
  *********************************************************************

There are a couple of systematic disconnects in the MT rules as they now
stand (Only a couple (-: ).  I like Scott's idea of tallying up all the missiles
and firing them off in one or two volleys, as described above.  Personally,
I would be too worried about it, even using the starship rules, but that's
just me.  (I like armored hulls, so you wouldn't get any critical hits on me,
just knock out my weapons at worst.)  However...this brings up the question
of using the design sequences to give advantages to certain classes of vessels
which may or may not have been intended.  

     I know that COACC gives designs for space-capable aircraft...but they are
incredibly light compared to the Armor-40 minimum spacecraft hull allowed by
the main rules.  I was working over the "One SMall Step" rules for low-TL
spacecraft in Challenge 45 yesterday (best article I've seen for MT in Challenge
in the last six or seven issues), and designed a "40 ton" lander.  That's 
displacement tons.  This thing has an Armor 40C hull necessary to make it sp
spaceworthy, and therefore weighs close to 350 tons, empty.  Now, 40 displace-
ment tons corresponds to about a 9 weight ton COACC aircraft.  Clearly a 
COACC craft is virtually unarmored.  (I could probably work out at various
TLs what the "equivalent armor" ratings would be for the various airframe
types based on their weights, apparent displacements, and so forth, but I'll
leave that for later.)  Should we allow it in space?  It obviously has a cost
advantage over a craft designed strictly to the MT rules.  The same goes for
the computer...MT spacecraft must have them in triplicate, so aircraft are 
again unduly advantaged.  My compromise position would be to allow the aircraft
out of the atmosphere only with the backup computer systems, and only for
"short" periods of time, to represent the lack of radiation protection etc.
due to the thin hull.  I really don't know...

     The other problem that I want to mention comes in when you start mixing
starship components and vehicle components in the main MT rules.  Starship
maneuver drives are the worst offender, since to save on calculational
headaches (apparently) their performance does not depend on the mass of the
vessel.  (Which is silly, given the way the rest of the rules work.)  As long
as everything is consistent (all spaceships or all vehicles) it isn't a problem,
but if you are dealing with 10ton fighters designed under the vehicle rules in
a fight with 40 ton pinnaces designed under the small craft rules, you have
a problem.  Let's assume for a moment that the Phobos, repeated above, has
a 1-G Maneuver drive (which is how I read it, but I could be wrong).  At
20 tons, I think that corresponds to about half a unit (I figured this out last
night at home, and I don't have my worksheet with me).  Since the power 
consumption of a grav maneuver drive unit works out to be consistent with the
weight and volume of an equivalent amount of regular grav drives from the
vehicle tables (except for a lower cost--bulk discount I suppose).  I figure 
that a maneuver drive unit has a thrust of about 650 tons.  The Phobos, with
a 1-G maneuver drive on a 20 ton small craft hull, would not have enough thrust
to lift itself, let alone have any left for drive.  As another example, the 
Scout ship (Type S, beloved of us all) as listed in the Imp. Encyclopedia
has a 2-G maneuver drive, which has a power input equivalent to about 2.5Gs
gross in regular grav units.  This should give it an atmospheric performance
of about 1.5Gs, 2.5 in space.  These sorts of round offs are acceptable to me,
as long as I don't have to compete outside my class, so to speak.

     When it comes to weapons, things get more out of hand.  Scott has included
a starships turret plasma gun in this design.  No problem there, except that
I think the weapons factors given in the player's book for starship weapons are
exaggerated.  Example:  A vehicle laser does damage points equal to twice its
power rating for beams, equal to its power rating for pulse.  But a starship
pulse laser (250MW) does 750pts of damage.  (Beam laser does 500, as expected).
A vehicle plasma gun does 20pts of damge regardless of power input, while
a 250MW turret plasma gun does 900.  Seems to be a scale problem to me.  A
turret plasma gun is also listed as having a range of "planetary", which it
probably should...in space.  I went back to my copy of Striker (I think they
did a pretty poor job over all, if I can't play this game without referring to
my collection of out-of-print supplements etc., but that's another gripe),
and worked out a few numbers for a 250MW plasma gun using the equipment design
sequence.  A TL10 250MW plasma gun would have a Pen 83 at ranges up to 7km
(so far it matches), and an extreme range (with a pen of 44) of 28km.  This
fits in with the rest of the vehicle plasma guns, which is no surprise, since
the Plasma-A etc., were all taken from Striker.  In any case, 28km is a lot
less than "Planetary".  I'm not quite sure how to go about reducing the damage
values to something more reasonable.

     In answer to a few questions that have been raised regarding penetration
values for COACC air to air missiles, I'd crib from the Striker rules, and make
the pen values equivalent to the penetration of a high-explosive round from a
mortar of the same damage value (basically how do it yourself missiles worked
in Striker.)

Well, that's my two cents worth.  Personally, I'd prefer to do the caluclations
on a ton-thrust based maneuver drive, and know that the results would be
consistent across the board.

Rob Dean

(Slow week at work, as you can tell from the mass of vehicle designs.)

-------- TML Message #1579 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1579
Date:     Fri, 14 Sep 90 15:22:23 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re (1573) Vehicle Designs, Part 11

One other thing I should have noted in the design notes for the aircraft carrier
is that I have arbitrairly reduced the fuel consumption of fission plants to
the listed value *per year*, rather than *per hour*.  If I hadn't, the aircraft
carrier would be burning up 4.8 cubic meters of uranium per day, which would
weigh something like 50 or 60 metric tons.  Clearly, this doesn't reflect
reality (if it did, all those people who complain about nuclear waste, would
really be up in arms.).

This hasn't shown up in official errata yet, has it?

Rob Dean

(We need an errata identification and suggested fix database. We can submit the
results as a Challenge and/or TD article.)


-------- TML Message #1580 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1580
Date:     Fri, 14 Sep 90 13:56:59 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Penetration of Missiles/Armor of Aircraft

I did some cross-checking between COACC and the Referee's Manual, and came
up with the following:

Regarding Penetration of Missiles: If you assume the values are equivalent
   to the values for a mortar round of the same damage, you get:

Missile      Penetration     Damage        Equivalent Mortar

IRHM ATA        18            16               12cm
SARH ATA        26            28               20cm
ARHM ATA        26            28               20cm

Portable SAM    15            13                9cm (interpolated)
Light SAM       18            16               12cm
Medium SAM      28            30               22cm
Heavy SAM       29            32               23cm (interpolated)


Regarding the amror values for aircraft I get:

Assuming the aircraft to have the equivalent displacement of a hull in their
wings folded position, and using a 9ton roughly equal to a 13disp ton hull,
and assuming that the airframe weight is the skin (not a particularly good
assumption, but what the heck):

A Simple airframe would have an armor modifier of .024 (Armor 0)
A Fast Subsonic airframe would have an armor modifier of .121 (also 0)
A Transonic airframe would have an armor modifer of .243 (close to 1)
A Supersonic airframe would have an armor modifier of .49 (close to 2)
A Hypersonic ariframe would have an armor modifier of .73 (close to 3)

This was checked at TL7, armor type C.

In any case, alomost any hit would be considered "High Penetration" on an
aircraft.

However, there is still a problem when it comes to aircraft damage.  If you
look at something like the Phantom (oops..I mean the laramie (-:) you will
see that it has a base damage value of 108/270.  Am I supposed to multiply 
this by 10 for use in "personal" combat?  It's derived from the vehicle rules,
so tenetatively, I'd say yes.  But, for sake of argument, let's say no for a
moment.  I fire at an oncoming Laramie with a handy Heavy SAM.  (Never know
what you might need on an adventure <snicker>).  Achieving exceptional success,
I see that I do 4x damage.  128 pts.  Whoof! <Cut to big cloud of smoke,
applause of audience, etc.>.  So far so good, although with Normal success
it would take four missiles to knock this thing down.

But, if we *are* supposed to multiply by 10, we have a damage value of 1080,
meaning that I need 9+ exceptional hits to knock down one plane.  If I have the
misfortune of needing to use an air to air missile instead, I could use up
67 1x damage IRHM (Sidewinders, red Tops, Aphids, whatever) to knock down
one jet.  At "damage as written", that is still 6+ missiles.

All of this is a contributing factor to the reason why my Traveller games very
seldom actually use much more of the rules than the task system and the back-
ground.

Any comments?

Rob Dean

(I'm not really such a dreadful rules lawyer in actual play.)


-------- TML Message #1581 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1581
Date:     Fri, 14 Sep 90 16:20:58 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Vehicle Designs, Part 12: TL8 Spacecraft

The following components were designed using the rules found in Charles 
Gannon's article "One Small Step" in Issue #45 of Challenge.  I hope that
somebody else finds this amusing.  I'm itching for a nice primitive asteroid
mining scenario about now...

Rob Dean


200 ton Modular Spacecraft Frame TL8

     The modular spacecraft frame can accept any combination of 10, 20, 30
and 40 ton modules.  <Designed from Challenge#45>

  CraftID: 200 ton Modular Spacecraft Frame, TL8, Cr516,780
     Hull: 18/45, Disp=10, Config=0M, Armor=40C, Unloaded=49.64t
    Power: none
     Loco: none
     Comm: none
  Sensors: none 
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: none
    Accom: Mounting for 10-40ton modules totalling 190t 
    Other: ObjSize=Small, EmLevel=None

40 ton Habitat Module TL8

     The habitat module provides accomodation for up to 18 people, and 
has sufficient excess controls to be the command module for the 200 ton
framework above.

  CraftID: 40 ton habitat module, TL8, MCr14.86
     Hull: 36/90, Disp=40, Config=3USL, Armor=40C, Unloaded=401.3t,
           Loaded=427.3t
    Power: 1/2, Fission=5MW, Dur=2yrs, 1/2, SolarCells=.092MW
     Loco: none
     Comm: Radio=System
  Sensors: Radar=Planetary, ActObjScan=Diff, ActObjPin=Diff 
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Computer Mod2*3, ElecLink*100
    Accom: Crew=2 (1 bridge, 1 engineer), Staterooms=9, Env=Basic env,
           basic ls, extended ls 
    Other: Fuel=0.02kl, Cargo=26kl, ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Moderate

20 ton Cargo Module TL8

     The cargo module is completely self contained, its solar cells
providing all power necessary to operate the controls. 

  CraftID: 20 ton habitat module, TL8, MCr1.752
     Hull: 18/45, Disp=20, Config=4USL, Armor=40C, Unloaded=171.9t,
           Loaded=439.9t
    Power: 1/2, SolarCells=.064MW, Dur=Indefinite
     Loco: none
     Comm: none
  Sensors: none 
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Computer Mod0, ElecLink*40
    Accom: none 
    Other: Fuel=0, Cargo=268kl, ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Faint

40 ton Ion Drive Module TL8

     The ion drive module provides minimal thrust with long endurance.

  CraftID: 40 ton ion drive module, TL8, MCr10.54
     Hull: 36/90, Disp=40, Config=3USL, Armor=40C, Unloaded=1331.2t,
           Loaded=1389.7t
    Power: 2/4, Fission=17MW, Dur=2yrs
     Loco: 32/64, IonDrive=1.6tons, Duration=508/1524
     Comm: Radio=Dist*3
  Sensors: none 
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Computer Mod0*3, ElecLink*240
    Accom: none
    Other: NuclearFuel=0.068kl, IonReactionMass=39.03kl (58.5t),
           ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Moderate


40 ton Plasma Drive Module TL8

     The plasma drive module provides more thrust than the ion drive,
but has shorter endurance.

  CraftID: 40 ton plasma drive module, TL8, MCr34.9
     Hull: 36/90, Disp=40, Config=3USL, Armor=40C, Unloaded=852.9t,
           Loaded=862.5t
    Power: 2/4, Fission=19.5MW, Dur=2yrs
     Loco: 26/52, PlasmaDrive=7.6tons, Duration=30/90
     Comm: Radio=Dist*3
  Sensors: none 
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Computer Mod0bis*3, ElecLink*400
    Accom: none
    Other: NuclearFuel=0.078kl, Hydrogen=136.8kl,
           ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Moderate

10 ton Fusion Rocket Module TL8

     The fusion rocket module is still experimental at TL8, but the 
large thrust available makes its use very attractive.

  CraftID: 10 ton fusion rocket module, TL8, MCr43.8
     Hull: 9/23, Disp=10, Config=3USL, Armor=40C, Unloaded=381.9t,
           Loaded=385.8t
    Power: none
     Loco: 5/10, ExperimentalFusionRocket=2100tons, Duration=33/99
     Comm: Radio=Dist*3
  Sensors: none 
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Computer Mod1bis*3, ElecLink*320
    Accom: none
    Other: Fuel=55.8kl, ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Moderate

40 ton Spaceplane TL8

     This vehicle is capable of taking off from a size A planet with a 
standard atmosphere.  For more advantageous conditions, fuel weight can
be traded for cargo weight.  Optimum takeoff weight of the vehicle is
500 tons. Modular attachment fittings are provided.

  CraftID: 40 ton Spaceplane, TL8, MCr10.54
     Hull: 36/90, Disp=40, Config=1AF, Armor=40C, Unloaded=341.7t,
           Loaded=500t
    Power: 10MW from turbofan engines
     Loco: 1/2, High Bypass turbofan=500ton, Duration=3hrs,
           1/2, High Performance Rocket=585t, Duration=5minutes
     Comm: Radio=Dist*3
  Sensors: none 
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Computer Mod1*3, ElecLink*170
    Accom: Crew=2 (Pilot, Copilot), Passengers=6, Seats=8*Roomy, 
           Env=basic env, basic ls
    Other: AviationFuel=115.2kl, RocketFuel=30kl, CargoBay=290kl (32.4ton
           load limit at full fuel load), ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Moderate

-------- TML Message #1582 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1582
Subject: Oops. Public apology!
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 20:02:55 PDT
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.WR>


I misnamed phb100@psuvm.psu.edu ("Unka" Paul Baughman) as Peter.  Sorry,
sorry, sorry! I felt a public apology was in order.

James

-------- TML Message #1583 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1583
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Comming soon to a Shipyard near you.
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 14:59:59 MET DST

  The long promised, and long delayed deckplans for the Chrysantemum Destroyer
Escort (I reclassifyed it Light Escort, since the size of 'proper' Destroyers
got inflated to 10kt in Shattered Ships...) has been ftp'ed to sunbane
mere minutes ago.
  They will probably appear there some time soon.

  Mixed notes:
  The decksplans are in 4 files. Each file is equivalent to one page and is to
be printed out separately. This was done for two reasons: 
  1. When all four pages were in one file, the screen update took *minutes* 
each time the view was changed or something added. I got fed up with this
rather quickly and changed it to 2 files of 2 pages each.
  2. The drawing-to-postscript routine seems to be buggy. It causes a system
crash if the drawing is more than one page large.

  The deckplans use the New Helvetica Narrow and Helvetica fonts. It might look
strange to print them out on a laser that don't have those fonts.

  I'll try to post the MT data and a description of the ships systems when I get
the time. (I won't do the same mistake twice so I refuse to mention a specific
date :-)

- -bertil-
- -- 

-------- TML Message #1584 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1584
From: ran el-Yaniv <yaniv%shum.huji.ac.il@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 15:35:12 +0200
Subject: 2300AD: USMC drop ship.



        Name: General AeroSpace AL-22C/D Skybolt/Skyfire
        Type: Assault Lander
      Nation: America

        Warp: NA
 Power Plant: 0.5 MW MHD Turbine
        Fuel: 33.6 tonnes, sufficient for 12 hours and one planetary transit
              AL-22C: 5 tonnes auxilary tank, sufficient for 16.66 hours
              AL-22D: 12 tonnes auxilary tank, sufficient for 40 hours
       Range: none
        Mass: AL-22C: 196.832 tonnes
              AL-22D: 197.252 tonnes
      Volume: AL-22C: 308 cubic meters
              AL-22D: 320 cubic meters

       Cargo: AL-22C: 36.33 m^3
              AL-22D: 78.36 m^3

     Comfort: 0
Life Support: AL-22C: 54
              AL-22D: 10

     Sensors: Radar, FLIR, laser designator, laser ranger

         ECM: (ONLY AL-22D): AAQ-345 IR Jammer
                             ALR-399 Radar Warning Receiver
                             APQ-401 Jammer
                             ALQ-200 Jammer

       Price: AL-22C: Lv 3,063,500
              AL-22D: Lv 5,511,000

        Crew: AL-22C: Pilot, 3 gunners, 50 drop troops
              AL-22D: Pilot, 8 gunners, 1 ECM operator

     Weapons: AL-22C: 3 CLP-1A  ROF: 5  Range: 1600  DP: Tamped, EP=15
                      5 general missile tubes, up 350mm in diameter
                      Ammunition: 500 rounds for each CLP-1A
              AL-22D: 8 CLP-1A  ROF: 5  Range: 1600  DP: Tamped, EP=15
                      5 general missile tubes, up 350mm in diameter
                      Ammunition: 1000 rounds for each CLP-1A

Combat Data:
           Movement: NA      Radial Reflection: 1       Radial Profile: -2
 Radiated Signature: 1      Lateral Reflection: 2      Lateral Profile: -3
Targetting Computer: 0                 Screens: 0
     Active Sensors: NA        Passive Sensors: NA

             Armour: AL-22C: 6
                     AL-22D: 9
          Hull hits: AL-22C: Minor: 7, Major: 14, Total: 28
                     AL-22D: Minor: 10, Major: 20, Total: 40
   Power Plant hits: Disabled: 1, Destroyed: 3


Original Date of Design: February 11, 2292
Date of 1st Redesign: March 29, 2293
Date of 2nd Redesign: October 1, 2293
Date of Final Design: December 29, 2293
First Example Laid Down: December 31, 2293
First Example Delivered: April 6, 2294
Fleets of Service: America (USSN, Marines), Australia

  Designed for the demanding XM-2291/AL-req.12.3 requirement, the
assault lander had a very bad start. The technology demonstator crashed
killing the pilot, after the advanced power plant caught fire. Two
redesigns followed, with 3 differing power plants. Two of the unmanned
test vehicles crashed in power plant fires, and the project manager
resigned.

  The American government intended to transfer the project to
Ramco-Grumman concern and, in an act of desperation, GAS decided to
install the well known, if not overly advanced General Electric MHD-3
into the remaining test vehicle.

  Surprisingly, the vehicle proved very reliable and quite versatile.
Within 2 months, the American government requested a pre-production run
of 5 vehicles.

  Heavily armoured and armed for ground support, the AL-22 proved to be
a very useful addition to the US Marine Drop Forces. However, it had
short range of operation. Anxcillary fuel tanks were installed to
rectify this problem.

  At the request of the USMC, a specialized gunship version was built,
to provide heavy support fire and defence suppression. The AL-22D has
50% more armour and more than twice the firepower, as well as an
extensive ECM suite.

  Elated with their success, GAS tried to produce a special, heavy
weapon, version. One AL-22D model was converted into a test vehicle in
which a 7cm mass driver was installed. This vehicle is now undergoing
trials, but the feeling is that such a vehicle shall not be needed.

  Recently, Senator Brian M. Cuff (D, Ellis) called for the installation
of a Jerome drive in the AL-22 line of landers instead of developing a
dedicated insystem troop transport.

  Each Marine Drop Battalion has 20 AL-22 landers, plus 5 AL-22D
gunships.


-------- TML Message #1585 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1585
Subject: Some TML trivia
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 20:37:34 PDT
From: Richard Johnson <richard@agora.UUCP>

Someone asked about the compostion (or is it decomposition) of the 
TML readership by country/continent..

Well, I don't have the PBEM mailing list ready yet (already behind...)
but James was kind enough to send me a copy of his list, so in the
process of confirming my addresses and so forth extracted some data 
for us to gaze upon:

****** Traveller Mailing List Status  -- Unofficial Version ******
September 1990

Total readership:     around 200 (my line count was 209, but it 
				  probably changes daily)

Australia:            5
Canada:               9
Denmark:              2
Finland:              4  (where is Turkill, anyway?)
Iceland:              1
Ireland:              3
Israel:               1
Sweden:               7
Taiwan:               1
United Kingdom:      12
United States:      122

Unknown:	     43  (This includes readers whose residence might
			  be guessed, but declined to tell James where 
			  they lived.)
****************************

I know there was at least one posting from somewhere in South America,
but the participant must have been added after the list I got, or he/she
is one of the "unknowns".

The PBEM has players in all of those listed countries except Iceland and
Finland. (and unknown - all the players told me where they live :-)

I am saddened to learn the William Morrison, Leader of the Commerce List,
and co-leader of the mapping list has lost net access.  A Toast to Bill:
"until we e-mail again!"

Richard Johnson

-------- TML Message #1586 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1586
Date: Thu Sep 20 15:26:40 GMT 1990
From: Derek MacColl <derek@tardis.computer-science.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Subject: Research Stations Question

X-Mailer: Ream v4.12c (The One True Mailer)
X-Thought: Is it paranoia if they really *are* out to get you?

Hello again all. I am currently in the process of restarting my
campaign, and a couple of my players have asked about the Imperial
Research Stations in the Spinward Marches. I know that one of them was
covered in a GDW adventure for Traveller Classic, but I can't find
much information on the others. What I would like to ask the list is
this: does anyone know if the purpose of such stations is listed
anywhere? By this I mean the actual research taking place at each of
the stations, rather than a list of things that such stations might be
conducting research into.

Thanks in advance for any info,
			     Derek.


-------- TML Message #1587 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1587
From: ran el-Yaniv <yaniv%shum.huji.ac.il@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 20:30:10 +0200
Subject: 2300AD space fighters.


  The new batch of space fighters of the American navy, designed for the
XSCVN-1 Ellis (since cancelled and scrapped) were designed to complement
each other. The SF-20 was to be escorted and protected by the SF-19,
while employing their missiles to attack larger targets, while the SF-21
was to maintain local space superiority.

  Surpisingly trouble-free development programme was followed by one of
the greatest disasters and jokes of the American space industry. The
carrier for which these craft were built suffered failure after failure.
For some reason, not a signle system built for the carrier operated as
required. The weapon systems could not lock on to a target, bay doors
refused to open and once open, refused to close, the engine used to
switch off during orbital injections and the escape pods would fire from
time to time. The closest any US crew came to a mutiny was after the
latrines aboard Ellis refused to operate, some 20 of them actually
reversing operation. After 7 years of testing and rebuilding, the
XSCVN-1 Ellis was declared non-space worthy and slated for scrapping.
At the request of the Navy, it was decided to allow the new SA/F-20
fighters to destroy the carrier, using live ammunition, as a training
excersize.

  The honour went to the 12th Space Attack Fighter Wing. On the 21st of
October, 2299, 10 fighter craft fired two missiles each. Only two
missiles detonated on reaching their target. A second salvo of missiles
produced five detonations. The carrier suffered heavy damage, but
refused to explode. SPACOM decided not to waste any more missiles on the
intransigent carrier. Four space tugs took it in tow, and pulled it into
an orbit which will impact the sun sometime during 2302.

  One result of the carrier project was the "Murphy Field Generator"
rumour, spread by the flight crew of the hapless ship.

  The second result is the unsolved problem haunting the fighter craft -
where and how to deploy them. Since they were designed for a carrier, no
thought was given to streamlining them.

  In the years to come, the USSN is going to search for ways to base
these fighters. There is already talk of "baby carriers," each fielding
two to three squadrons of fighter craft.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Name: Ramco-Grumman FS-19 Ocelot
        Type: Fighter
      Nation: America

        Warp: 4.79 (3.32 with laser, 4.18 with active sensor operating)
 Power Plant: General Atomics MHD-12/3 3 MW MHD Turbine
        Fuel: 21.6 tonnes, sufficient for 12 hours of operations
       Range: NA
        Mass: 146.6 tonnes
      Volume: 156.6 cubic meters
       Cargo: none
     Comfort: 0
Life Support: 2
     Sensors: Westinghouse NPG-46 Navigational radar
              GE APG-89 Active suite
              Westinghouse PPG-12 Passive suite

       Price: Lv 29,664,000

        Crew: Pilot and weapons officer

     Weapons: One jack turret with Hyde Dynamics EAA-1000 laser and UTES


Combat Data:

           Movement: 9/8     Radial Reflection: 2/3     Radial Profile: -3
 Radiated Signature: 0/3    Lateral Reflection: 2/4    Lateral Profile: -3
Targetting Computer: +2                Screens: 0               Armour: 7
     Active Sensors: 7         Passive Sensors: 12
          Hull hits: 16/4/8
   Power Plant hits: 6/2

Original Date of Design: December 1st, 2290
First Example Laid Down: May 19th, 2291
First Example Delivered: September 5th, 2291
Fleets of Service: America (USSN)

  The SF-19 was to be the escort for SA/F-20. It was the first of the
batch to be completed, and some of late pre-production developments were
incorporated into the other two craft.

  For a craft of this size, the sensors are very extensive, and pose a
considerable drain on the small power plant.

  An advanced power distribution system manages the power usage,
allowing the pilot and the WO to concentrate on other tasks. Since
operating both the laser and the sensors would leave the fighter dead in
space, normal procedure is to use the active sensors only for the most
necessary scans.

  The development of the SF-19 was surprisingly trouble free, and being
the cheapest of the three fighter craft, it has been procured in the
greatest numbers, for use as a fighter, short range interceptor and deep
space fighter for larger ships.

  The most pressing upgrade programme, as far as the Navy is concerned,
is to increase the range of the SF-19. There are two view points - to
decrease armour or to increase weight. SF-19XA and SF-19XB are test
craft, conducting such tests even now.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Name: Bell-Boeing SA/F-20 Bobcat II
        Type: Attack fighter
      Nation: America

        Warp: 4.79 (3.32 with both lasers operating)
 Power Plant: 6 MW MHD Turbine
        Fuel: 64.8 tonnes, sufficient for 18 hours of operation
       Range: NA
        Mass: 292.52 tonnes, inclusive
      Volume: 336.2 cubic meters, inclusive
       Cargo: none
     Comfort: 0
Life Support: 3
     Sensors: Westinghouse NPG-46 Navigational radar
              Texas Instruments APG-92 Active suite
              Raython-Marconi PPG-37 Passive suite

       Price: Lv 40,688,000, inclusive

        Crew: Pilot and two weapons officers

     Weapons: Two jack turrets EAA-1000 lasers with UTES
              Two tripple SIM-14 missile packs
              Two comminicators

Combat Data:

           Movement: 9/7     Radial Reflection: 3       Radial Profile: -3
 Radiated Signature: 1/4    Lateral Reflection: 4      Lateral Profile: -2
Targetting Computer: +2                Screens: 0               Armour: 0
     Active Sensors: 10        Passive Sensors: 10
          Hull hits: 4/1/2
   Power Plant hits: 12/3

   Notes: The Bobcat cannot operate its sensors and lasers simultaneously.


History:

Original Date of Design: December 1st, 2290
First Example Laid Down: July 13th, 2291
First Example Delivered: November 27th, 2291
Fleets of Service: America

  The only unarmoured fighter among the three new designs, this
Bell-Boeing fighter poses considerable threat to larger ships, being
able to outrun almost every ship known to exist, while guiding two SIM-14
missiles simultaneously.

  Four of these ships with their escorts participated in the Battle of
Beowulf, scoring two kills (one Hotel and one Epsilon) and one damaged
(Beta).

  The Bobcats are supposed to operate with an escort of SF-19 fighters,
but are able to defend themselves with their two laser turrets.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Name: Ramco-Gruman SF-21 Hellcat IV
        Type: Heavy Fighter
      Nation: America

        Warp: 4.68 (3.45 with both laser and sensor operating)
 Power Plant: 5 MW MHD Turbine
        Fuel: 54 tonnes, sufficient for 18 hours of operation
       Range: NA
        Mass: 260 tonnes
      Volume: 265 cubic meters
       Cargo: none
     Comfort: 0
Life Support: 2
     Sensors: Westinghouse NPG-46 Navigational radar
              Texas Instruments APG-92 Active suite
              Raytheon-Marconi PPG-37 Passive suite

       Price: Lv 36,884,000

        Crew: Pilot and weapons officer

     Weapons: One jack turret with Hyde EAA-1000 and UTES


Combat Data:

           Movement: 9/7     Radial Reflection: 2       Radial Profile: -3
 Radiated Signature: 1/4    Lateral Reflection: 2      Lateral Profile: -2
Targetting Computer: +2                Screens: 0               Armour: 12
     Active Sensors: 10        Passive Sensors: 10
          Hull hits: 39/9/18
   Power Plant hits: 10/2


Original Date of Design: December 1st, 2290
First Example Laid Down: June 10th, 2291
First Example Delivered: November 28th, 2291
Fleets of Service: America

  One of the three fighters designed for the projected (and cancelled)
deep space carrier, the Hellcat has more armour than any known combat craft.
>From the first day of its design envisaged as the primary interceptor
and space superiority fighter, the SF-21 had the most care lavished on
it. The design vindicated all expectations, being almost as fast as the
SF-19, and having 50% longer range.

  The fighter is yet too new to have any variants, but there are plans to
upgrade the sensor suites. Bearing in mind the high original cost of the
ships, it is highly probable that in the years to come these ships shall
be upgraded again and again.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------- TML Message #1588 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1588
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 16:15 EDT
From: METLAY@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: Research Stations


I will consult the archives and list what I know... most of them have at
least a hint as to their purpose, in some place or another.

metlay

-------- TML Message #1589 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1589
Subject: Re: Research Stations
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 7:51:22 PDT
From: Richard Johnson <richard@agora.UUCP>

In my campaign (not the PBEM - the real one), Imperial Research
Stations are high-security installations.  Officially they investigate
things like crop yield improvements, new medical techniques, etc.
Invariably, these official things they do are actually done to
get more information on things like rendering crops inedible, new
personnel control drugs, etc.

I think the wits at GDW purposefully decided to leave that open-ended
so that GM's like most of us could have a "ready reserve" of high-
fatality adventures for when the party just *has* to go burn and
pillage.

Richard

-------- TML Message #1590 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1590
From: "Brent L. Woods" <woodsb@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: (1589) Re: Research Stations
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 7:53:13 EST


 In message 1589, richard@agora.hf.intel.com (Richard Johnson) writes:
 >
 >I think the wits at GDW purposefully decided to leave that open-ended
 >so that GM's like most of us could have a "ready reserve" of high-
 >fatality adventures for when the party just *has* to go burn and
 >pillage.

     Hm.  Philosophy time, I suppose.  High fatality?  What's wrong
with burning and pillaging (no, no, no...first you pillage, *then* you
burn--get it right)?  I had a group of players who did mostly that, and
little else.  I thought it was a lot of fun, personally.

     Of *course* most people in my game walked around armed all the
time, PC and NPC alike.  After all, there were people like my PCs
wandering around loose (you know what the Zhodani say about the
Imperium, heh, heh, heh).  They called themselves the "Rabid Thunder-
Weasels Mercenary Legion."  They'd do literally *anything*, if the
price was right.  And it suited them.  At the moment.  And something
more fun didn't come along in the meantime.  Situational ethics.  Lots
of fun...  ;-)

     Don't even ask me about the battle cry...  ;-)


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  woodsb@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
USNAIL:  2818 S. Sunrise Dr.  /  New Palestine, IN  46163
PHONE:  +1 (317) 861-4844 (voice)


-------- TML Message #1591 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1591
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 19:48:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Dow Rieder <wr0k+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Buggy Hulks of the Shattered Imperium

Greetings -
	I have recently been fiddling around with large warship design,
mainly to get ready for the redesign of _Fighting Ships_, and became aware
of a potentially serious problem: I don't have all the errata for ship design.
I think before getting serious we should pool our info to make sure we are
all using the same rules.
Example problems from a past post by Rob Dean:

[Fighting Ships problems]
>Between the fact that the designers did not incorporate the errata that
>was available into the designs (such as reduced gunnery crews, reduced
>power cost of meson screens)
 ^^^^^^^^^^ - I don't have this.

[later in same article]
>Armor 100 (-20 on damage) is the level required to prevent any
>     spinal mount or nuclear missile form doing any damage on the
>     the surface damage table.

Some of the errata I do have has subtle consequences.  For instance, the
+6 on the damage tables was changed from just spinal mounts to any
weapon with UCP A+.  At TL 15, a 100 ton missile bay has a UCP A,
giving a +6, and it can fire nuclear missiles for a total of +12 - which
means it can damage a ship with armor between 100 and 117, something
no other non-meson weapon can do, and giving at least a potential reason
for armor in that range.

	Anyway, I have the 2nd printing of the Ref's Manual (the line
below the ISBN on the copyright page starts with a 2), and I have some,
but obviously not all, of the errata noted down in pencil.  The errata I have
were taken from Metlay's set as of a year ago.  I'm going to check with
him again, and if you think you have any rare errata or subtle consequences
of existing errata, send me email, and I'll post a summary when I think
I have a reasonably complete set.
	Thanks,

					W. Dow Rieder

 	When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems
start to look like nails...

-------- TML Message #1592 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1592
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 12:49:38 EDT
From: Dan Corrin <dan@engrg.uwo.ca>
Subject: Speed of weapons in air.

Some vehciles have incredibly high speeds in the atmosphre (Mach 2+),
which inhibits some weapons from firing at them (from the rear).

For example most bullets and some missiles can be simply outrun
by a fast enough fighter.

The question: What would be the speed of a fusion or plasma bolt
in the atmosphere?

Presumably particle weapons and meson weapons travel at the same
speed as lasers.

				-Dan
				
Dan Corrin, System Manager, Mechanical Engineering, UWO, London, Ontario
TML/CZ FTP site coordinator: dan@engrg.uwo.ca ...!watmath!julian!engrg!dan


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

