
-------- TML Message #1841 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1841
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 90 00:18:28 PST
From: John Wilber <wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.edu>
Subject: TDR Ideas

I've been reading quit a bit about TDR on the TML here.  I'm all in
favor of it, and I'd like to submit a few ideas of my own.
 
 
TDR FORMAT:
 
First, I like the idea that it will be distributed in ASCII.  This will
allow anybody with a computer to be able to format the text as they
desire.  This will also make it easy for someone to modify the rules,
and still have them neatly printed and bound, if desired.
 
 
WEAPON MAINTENANCE:
 
Several people have also been discussing the extent of the maintenance
a player can perform on a weapon with only skill in that weapon.  With
today's weapons, a soldier can fix a problem with his weapon 90-95% of
the time.  This would include replacement of most parts.  The rest of
the time he turns it over to the unit armorer, who should be able to
fix the problem in less than an hour, given the right tools and parts.
I would imagine that a few special wrenches might be needed once in
awhile, but other than that, most of the tools needed would be
available in any hardware store.  I realize that I'm talking about
weapons that rely on exploding gasses here, but I think a lot of this
would apply to energy weapons, too, or else armorers in units with
man-portable energy weapons would be overloaded with things to do.  A
good guideline for weapon-skill-only maintenance might be this: If it
needs something more complicated than a screwdriver, see the armorer.
For energy weapons, a simple multimeter might also be allowed for WSO
repairs.  Also keep in mind that as the TL of the weapons increases,
the average education of the man using them will tend to increase too.
 
Here might be a sample from FM 328-9401, "Maintenance for the M89
Fusion Gun, Man-Portable"  [The FGMP-15 to us].
 
Symptom: Excessive Recoil       [Remember that the FGMP-15 has a
                                 grav-compensated recoil absorbtion
                                 system]
 
Problem: Bad recoil compensation grav units.  Check resistance across
each recoil compensating grav unit.  If resistance across any of them
is less than 1000 ohms or greater than 5000 ohms, the unit is probably
shorted or burned out.  Replace the unit, and turn the defective one
into your armorer. [Only an ohmmeter and possibly a screwdriver is needed.]
 
Problem: Excessive power is sent to fusion chamber magnets.  Check
magnet power distribution module...... [you get the idea]
 
Anyone who knows the principles of operation behind a weapon should be
able to fix most problems.
 
 
MANEUVER DRIVES
 
I like the idea of reactionless drives, which probably implies
anti-gravity technology in one form or another.  With reaction drives,
the fuel requirements are so immense, and the endurance of the vessels
using them so short, in-system travel becomes difficult without using
jump drives.  I don't think this is any fun.  I think space travel in
traveller should be about as difficult as air travel today.  Besides, I
like the idea of a solid state drive.  I think there's a certain
elegance about a large ship slowly and silently lifting away from its
landing pad.
 
The system that _Striker_ used for grav vehicles seems quite workable,
and this could be easily extended to spacecraft.  Each grav module can
provide a maximum of n kilograms of thrust, and the designer adds
modules until the desired performance is reached.
 
When I used to referee, I told my players that each module generates a
virtual gravitional field, or VGF, and that on-board avionics can
control the module to put the VGF anywhere in relation to the module.
This would translate the pilot's commands to actual ship movements.
The VGFs would only act upon the modules themselves.  This would allow
different modules to have forces acting on them in different
directions, possibly producing a net torque on the spacecraft.  This
would eliminate the klugey solution of having a large gyroscope in the
middle of the craft.  See the diagram below.
 
 
      * - VGF            *
                        +------------+
                       <     Ship    |
                        +------------+
                                   *
 
In this diagram, the ship would rotate clockwise.  The 6G limitation
could be imposed by saying that grav modules can only be made so thin,
and power-supply frequencies have to be increased as the amount of
"thrust" is increased.  To eliminate large phase differences between
different parts of a grav array (array = bunch of modules) the modules
have to be made thinner and thinner as wavelengths decrease.  At 6G's,
they can't be made any thinner.  Agility can be described as using
extra energy to produce additional VGFs which would move the craft up,
down, or sideways while the biggest VGF would be moving the craft
sideways.
 
 
VEHICLE DESIGN
 
I think that TDR should have a vehicle design system that would apply
across the whole range of vehicle sizes- kind of like a "unified field
theory" of vehicle design.  Again, I think _Striker_ has the right
idea.  I like Striker's system because you know that the resultant
vehicle is x meters wide, y meters tall, and z meters long, unlike
MegaTraveller.  The designer would use the same rules for designing any
kind of vehicle, whether it was a motorcycle, grav tank, submarine, 100
ton merchant ship, or 100k ton dreadnaught.  In some circumstances, one
might pick the dimensions of the vehicle, and be given a formula for
picking armor, and determining the usable volume, like for aircraft.
 
Some examples of vehicles that I would hope to be able to apply such a
design system to:
 
Motorcycles
Passenger Cars
Civilian/Military Trucks
Aircraft (All types)
Water-borne vessels
Hovercraft
Grav Vehicles
Spaceplances
Spacecraft
Starships
 
COMBAT SYSTEM
 
I like the Azhanti High Lightning/Striker system of combat where
separate rolls to hit and penetrate are needed.  If a hit location
chart (arms/legs/torso/head) is added, the problem of taking cover is
resolved- if the part of the body hit is under cover, then figure in
the armor value of the cover when rolling the penetration.  This also
makes it easy to adjust for different ammo types in certain weapons
(like the ACR).
 
 
CHARACTER GENERATION
 
I like the character generation system as it now stands, but how about
adding a few new occupations in additions to Scouts, Marines, etc?
Suggestions: Police, Lawyer (useless in some campaigns, great for
others), Techie (a catch-all for electrical engineer/auto
mechanic/telephone repairman/computer programmer types).
 
 
I'm interested in seeing what other have thought up for TDR, but
haven't seen any submissions yet.

John J. Wilber
wilber@nunki.usc.edu

"You're never too close to a vacc suit"


-------- TML Message #1842 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1842
Subject: Re:(1836) Open question for TML 
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 90 14:50:25 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.WR>


> My question to the TML, (considering the problems from my last
> massive posting of Scott's stuff), is does anyone mind/object?

The "Official" policy is that if 10% of the TML verbally/electronically
expresses a desire to see it, you can post it.  If there is significant
protest (equal or greater numbers), an alternate form of delivery needs
to be set up.  I think you are wise to test the waters before sending a
slew of designs out.

I will remind the TML that Vehicle designs are now automagically moved
to the end of every TML digest, so that people no longer need to wade
through them to find "conversational" messages.

James
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Traveller Mailing List Administrator	     James T Perkins @ Tektronix, Inc
traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com	     Beaverton, Oregon, USA
uunet!metolius.wr.tek.com!traveller-request  "Load Auto/Evade, Beowulf!"

-------- TML Message #1843 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1843
From: jpb <jpb@umbio.med.miami.edu>
Subject: Trillion Credit Squadron
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 90 18:20:53 EDT


I am getting ready to run a Trillion Credit Squadron campaign (I want to
generate my campaign political history) and have a few questions.

First, how are you doing tech level increases?  How much should I charge to
increase a planet's TL?  This is never covered in the rules,  (At my players
and I haven't seen it) but is necessary.

Second, how about Colonization?  How do you keep a planet docile after you've
invaded it?  How badly does bombardment mess up GNP?

If noone has worked this out already, I'll post what my group works out.
If someone has this kind of thing typed in, I'd appreciate a copy.

Thanks,

Joe Block (jpb@umbio.med.miami.edu)

-------- TML Message #1844 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1844
Subject: Re: John Wilber's post
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 00:13:34 EST
From: Robert P Poole <tarquin@athena.mit.edu>

[I munged the Subject line to be more meaningful -- James]

>I like the character generation system as it now stands, but how about
>adding a few new occupations in additions to Scouts, Marines, etc?
>Suggestions: Police,
	   What do you think a "Law Enforcer" is?
>Lawyer (useless in some campaigns, great for
	   I think this falls under "Bureaucrat"
>others), Techie (a catch-all for electrical engineer/auto
>mechanic/telephone repairman/computer programmer types).
	   Anyone with Jack-O-T or sufficient mechanical acumen would fall in this
area.  Class Scientist, any military tech, etc.  It might be useful to have a
character class called Engineer which specializes in technical skills, but I am
not convinced this will add much to the game.

Robert P. Poole                       tarquin@athena.mit.edu
46 Massachusetts Avenue               MIT Course VIII
311B Bexley Hall                      "We make Idols of our concepts, but
Cambridge, MA  02139                   wisdom is born of wonder."
                                         -- St. Gregory the Illuminator

-------- TML Message #1845 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1845
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 10:26 EDT
From: METLAY@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: Fusion Power in TDR-- essentially a final decision


At this stage of the game, I'm looking at the proton-proton chain for
Traveller fusion designs and have almost (but not quite) decided that TDR will
officially adopt proton-proton reactions and leave it at that. The reasons are
entirely founded on game mechanics: neutrino sensors wouldn't be as useful as
slow neutron sensors if the plants used D+D or D+T; refueling from gas giants
becomes ridiculous or impossible unless we assume the plant can burn straight
protium; the TL sliding scale for plant efficiency makes no sense if D+D or
other reactions are considered -- only p-p reactions could be blamed for a
reactor that's so criminally inefficient even at TL 15; military contractors
would gladly sacrifice efficiency for refueling ability (remember the cardinal
rule of ground combat in the 20th BEK-- cut the fuel lines and the tanks can't
go vroom any more. Imagine how interesting a desert war would be if the armor
could burn sandstone or other easily-found-in-the-wilderness junk? 

So unless there are further arguments, TDR will go to Protium-based
proton-proton chains for fusion tech, and assume that "refined fuel" is pure
liquid hydrogen and "unrefined fuel" is liquefied gas giant atmosphere or
water (and since I live two blocks from Dow, I'll beat him to a pulp in person
when he raises the question of water being more efficient storage of hydrogen
than LH2, so the TML won't have to. |-> ) 

metlay


-------- TML Message #1846 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1846
Date:         Mon, 26 Nov 90 09:51:48 EST
From: Nicholas Sylvain <NPSYLV%WMVM1@vtvm2.cc.vt.edu>
Subject:      Lawyer Characters

On Sun, 25 Nov 90 20:32:03 PST you said:
>
>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 90 00:18:28 PST
>From: John Wilber <wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.edu>
>Subject: (1841) TDR Ideas
>
>I've been reading quit a bit about TDR on the TML here.  I'm all in
>favor of it, and I'd like to submit a few ideas of my own.
>....
>CHARACTER GENERATION
>
>Suggestions: Police, Lawyer (useless in some campaigns, great for
>others), Techie (a catch-all for electrical engineer/auto
>mechanic/telephone repairman/computer programmer types).

Being a proto-lawyer myself, I thought I'd throw in my two cents here. In my
opinion, a lawyer can be just as useful in a variety of campaign settings as
any other character class.

There is a lot more to being a lawyer than a wealth of legal knowledge (Legal),
although it is important. A lawyer has to deal with a wide variety of people
(Liaison), from professionals (Admin) to the lower strata (Streetwise and
Carousing). Plus, a lawyer has to be able to get information out of people and
piece things together (Interview/Interrogation). Being able to sift through
huge amounts of information and do effective research may require a certain
facility with computers. Further, various areas of the law may indicate
specialized knowledge: corporate/commercial lawyers would tend to have economic
skills, while lawyers in technical fields (ex. patent law) would have some
expertise in engineering or something similar. You get the idea.

So, even if the campaign won't directly involve legal matters, a good lawyer
should be able to serve effectively in other roles. I'm more or less testing
that proposition in the PBEM game...

FYI, a past issue of Challenge had an extended version of the Law Enforcement
character (like the Police you mentioned.) Sorry, can't remember which one, but
it wasn't a recent issue. I may be roused to do an extended lawyer generation
system for TDR, or is there any other law-type out in TML-land?

On an unrelated subject, let me say that I like vehicle designs on the TML. I
have archived them and squirreled them away on floppy for a future reference.ay
After all, why reinvent the wheel? I don't mind occasional large groups of
designs (like from Robert Dean) but I DO mind a daily flow of HUGE chunks of
designs that goes on and on for many days, like from Scott Kellogg. I would
MUCH prefer smaller, more spread out chunks. Thems my $.02 worth.

Nicholas Sylvain

"If you want to play the game, you better know the rules, love."
                            -- Inspector Harry Callahan (_The Dead Pool_)

-------- TML Message #1847 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1847
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 11:03 EDT
From: METLAY@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: TDR and publishing: copy of a letter to George Herbert


I just mailed this to George W. Herbert. I thought the rest of the TML
Should see it too.

metlay

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

George:

I've been out of town. A public reply is forthcoming, but in private,
I may as well let you know the following: I will not allow this stuff
to be sold. Period. Copyright will be covered by a generic Berne-convention
disclaimer stating that rules are copyright 1990 the listed authors and
are used by permission, so you'll retain copyright on what you write.
I'm sorry if you regard the public-domain aspect of this as being a waste
of your time and effort, but that's the way it stands: I won't drag money
into this equation-- it creates far too many problems for the projected
return. I've run successful and unsuccessful businesses before, and I cn
smell a money-loser a mile away at this point; and TDR is a money-loser.
It'll be done and distributed for free, or it won't be done.

Thanks for your patience, and I hope you'll see fit to contribute in your
spare time anyway.

metlay

-------- TML Message #1848 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1848
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: TML Survey: Final Reminder
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 8:38:38 PST

For those of you who have yet to turn in a TML Survey but plan to, the
deadline is Midnight (Pacific Time) Friday, November 30th.  All surveys
not already in the E-mail in-basket at markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com (see .sig
for alternate address) by 12:00 AM will not be accepted.  Remember, there's
a free RPG drawing riding on this, so get those surveys in!  If you don't
remember whether you sent in a survey, or you sent one but don't know
whether we got in, here's a list of the all the survey respondees we've
heard from so far (in the order they were received):

   1. Andrew M. Salamon   17. Burton Choinski     33. Karl-Koenig Koenigsson
   2. Brent L. Woods      18. Ted Kim             34. Brad Post
   3. Jan L. Peterson     19. Arturo Perez        35. Simon Anderson
   4. Tony L. Hayes       20. Joshua Levy         36. Derek MacColl
   5. J. David Nilles     21. Paul Baughman       37. James Glanville
   6. Paul Timothy Dale   22. Carl Rigney         38. Martin V Howard
   7. Iain Fogg           23. Adrian Hurt         39. Arthur Green
   8. Eric Halil          24. James Nelson        40. Mark F. Cook
   9. Peter L. Berghold   25. Robert S. Dean      41. Rob Miracle
  10. J. Robert Suckling  26. Michael P. Metlay   42. Steven B. Fellows
  11. Jim Baranski        27. Andy Coombes        43. Mark Leymaster
  12. Dan Corrin          28. Matthew Harelick    44. Nicholas P. Sylvain
  13. Bertil Jonell       29. Eric M. Sergienko   45. Wilson Mac Liaw
  14. Jim Cheetham        30. Robert Poole        46. John J. Wilber
  15. Bob Mahoney         31. Richard Johnson     47. Bayliss McLeod
  16. James T. Perkins    32. Ron Abramson        48. Gary Schreiber

If your name isn't on the list, we don't have a survey from you.  Our
thanks again to all those who have responded.

Later,

        Mark F. Cook

USMail: User Interface Technical Support
        Hewlett-Packard - Interface Technology Operation
        1000 NE Circle Blvd.  Corvallis, OR 97330

INTERNET: markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com
          markc%hpcvss.cv.hp.com@relay.hp.com

[You can't win if you don't enter! If you are new to the list or have
lost your copy of the survey, and want to send one in before the
deadline, I'd be happy to forward one to you -- James]

-------- TML Message #1849 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1849
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 11:38:39 EST
From: Dan Corrin <dan@engrg.uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: Trillion Credit Squadron (Tech Level Advancement)

> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 90 18:20:53 EDT
> From: jpb <jpb@umbio.med.miami.edu> (Joe Block)
> Subject: (1843) Trillion Credit Squadron
> 
> 
> I am getting ready to run a Trillion Credit Squadron campaign (I want to
> generate my campaign political history) and have a few questions.
> 
> First, how are you doing tech level increases?  How much should I charge to
> increase a planet's TL?  This is never covered in the rules,  (At my players
> and I haven't seen it) but is necessary.

We never generated any rules (because we never got the TCS game going),
however the tech levels were to be broken down into sub-categories as
mentioned in the World builders handbook. This also implies which
categories depend on others, eg: most depend on the power Tech Level.
We had decided to make the improvment of a category a multi-part
research project (reserch projects as described in the referee's companion).
The players would buy research groups (actually fund them), who would then
try to complete the stages to improve the tech levels of each category.

This is fine in isolation but there are two other complications to consider
1) Influence of higher tech worlds. (Research should be a lot easier if
you can just take a trip to your higher tech ally, and get copies of their
research papers, working examples, etc).

2) Population inertia. Just because the world develops a new tech level
doesn't mean that the population will use it and move the world to the
new tech level. Take a look at the Vilani culture as described in the
Vargr and Vilani supplement from DGP. We come from a culture that seems
to embrace technological advances, not all will, especially if technology
caused the culture some pain. (eg: many post-nuclear war stories have
people rejecting technology in case history repeats itself).


					-Dan Corrin.

-------- TML Message #1850 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1850
From: CHOINSKI@s35.prime.COM
Subject: Re: (1841) TDR Ideas
Date: 26 Nov 90 12:20:16 EST

>From: John Wilber <wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.edu>
>MANEUVER DRIVES
>
>In this diagram, the ship would rotate clockwise.  The 6G limitation
>could be imposed by saying that grav modules can only be made so thin,
>and power-supply frequencies have to be increased as the amount of
>"thrust" is increased.  To eliminate large phase differences between
>different parts of a grav array (array = bunch of modules) the modules
>have to be made thinner and thinner as wavelengths decrease.  At 6G's,
>they can't be made any thinner.  Agility can be described as using
>extra energy to produce additional VGFs which would move the craft up,
>down, or sideways while the biggest VGF would be moving the craft
>sideways.

While the Jump-6 limitation is reasonable, why stay with the 6G limit?
Just make it MUCH more costly (in power terms) to hit those high gees.

Does the use of some sort of power function for grav power sound more
correct?  Thus

       Power = (constant) * ((grav * mass)^(scale))

Scale of efficiency and the power constant decrease with increasing TL,
making high G's feasable at higher TL's.  The actual volume/mass of the grav
array might decrease a bit with higher TL's, but the biggest gain from the
higher tech is decreased power requirements.

Worlds that have better High-Common TL then air-travel TL might have a
decreased scale value, while the reverse would apply to the constant value.
In addition, the use of wings in an atmosphere would reduce the constant value
to a small degree.

>VEHICLE DESIGN
>
>I think that TDR should have a vehicle design system that would apply
>across the whole range of vehicle sizes- kind of like a "unified field
>theory" of vehicle design.  Again, I think _Striker_ has the right
>idea.  I like Striker's system because you know that the resultant
>vehicle is x meters wide, y meters tall, and z meters long, unlike
>MegaTraveller.  The designer would use the same rules for designing any

I feel that unifying this much is too much of a good thing.  A car is not
a boat, nor is a sub a spaceship.  There should probably be three sets of
design rules, based on a common core:

   Ground vehicles: Cars, trucks, etc.  No grav stuff, but includes hovercraft.
   Watercraft:      Boats, subs, etc.
   Aircraft:        Grav craft, spacecraft, etc.

I think it should be broken up a bit just because of the differences in design
philosophy.  If you wish to make an aero-car, you would use the basic aircraft
rules and add vehicle stuff.  A sub-plane would use either the aircraft or
watercraft rules, depending on primary emphasis.

>COMBAT SYSTEM
>
>I like the Azhanti High Lightning/Striker system of combat where
>separate rolls to hit and penetrate are needed.  If a hit location
>chart (arms/legs/torso/head) is added, the problem of taking cover is
>resolved- if the part of the body hit is under cover, then figure in
>the armor value of the cover when rolling the penetration.  This also
>makes it easy to adjust for different ammo types in certain weapons
>(like the ACR).

IMHO, the "overall body damage" system is outdated and should be
eliminated.  Also, the direct use of characteristics for "hitpoints"
should be dropped in favor of a more abstract system (perhaps similar to
"STAR WARS").  Each character is given a "toughness" rating (based on Strength,
Endurance, and some racial modifiers -- kkee should be tougher then humans).
When a character's armor is breached, the "degree of damage (DOD)" is determined.
If an optional hit location table is used, head hits might be DODx10, arms
DODx1/2, etc.  By cross referencing the DOD with teh toughness, you can
determine wounding (superficial, light, moderate, serious, critical, lethal).

This system would retain enough of the old system, but add some "space
opera-ish" taste.

- - -============================================================================-
 Burton Choinski                                       choinski@s35.prime.com
   Prime Computer, Inc.                                  (508) 620-2800 x3233
   Framingham, Ma.  01701
 Disclaimer:  Down! Down! Down! Out! Out! Out! Mine! Mine! Mine!
- - -============================================================================-

[I added a subject line and edited the attribution -- James]

-------- TML Message #1851 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1851
From: CHOINSKI@s35.prime.COM
Subject: Re: (1841) TDR Ideas, Addendum
Date: 26 Nov 90 13:23:36 EST

>From: John Wilber <wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.edu>
>MANEUVER DRIVES

A though just hit me (*clonk* :).  If TDR deems that grav drives are
reasonable (probably at high TL's if my power function idea is used),
actual thrust sould be primarily along the axis of the ship, with limited
thrust on the sides.

Generally: sides =1-6,    1  ^
                         6 2 |
                         5 3 forward
                          4

Assume: rear = full power, front = 2/3 power, rear flank = 1/2 power,
        front flank = 1/3 power.  Round down (space combat)

(gravatic drive is at center of gravity, aligned along the axis).

Rear Thrust  Front  Front Flank  Rear Flank
    1g         0g       0g          0g
    2g         1g       0g          1g
    3g         2g       1g          1g
    4g         2g       1g          2g
    5g         3g       1g          2g
    6g         4g       2g          3g

A ship designed with a 4g max rear thrust may apply up to 2g forward as
breaking thrust.  If the captain wants more, he will have to turn around.
In addition, the ship may face the enemy and still retreat, if the
armor in the fron is heavier.

VECTOR MOVEMENT

The last bout of vector combat I played with was MAYDAY, many years ago.
I don't know how MT does it, but how about this.

Forward vector: Current vector with respect to the ship's axis.  positive
indicates forward, negative indicates backward.

Slip vector: Thrust added by rear flank thrusters produces a slip vector,
either Left or Right.  These vectors are added to the forward vector.

Drag vector: used to counteract slip vectors.  Right drag will cancel
right slip on a 1-1 basis.

Reverse vector:  Using forward thrust to counteract forward vectors.

When ships rotate, the vectors change names:

           Forward   Left-Slip    Right-Slip
Left Turn   R-Slip   Forward       Left Drag
Right Turn  L-Slip   Right Drag     forward
 _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _ 
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\_/F\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/F\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
/ \_/*\_/"A"/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\_/ \_/*\_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/F\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/*\_/"B"/ \_/ \_/*\_/"C"/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/*\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/S\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\_/ \_/S\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/S\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \

Course "A" has these vectors: F4, L2
Course "B" has these vectors: F2, L3, R2
Course "C" has these vectors: F6, L-4    (drag left 4)

the *'s indicate the plotting path.  S is starting point, F is ending point.
As you can see, large drag and slip vectors can be simplified to
forward vectors with small slips or drags.

Thus, drag converts to slip at the cost of forward vector and reversal
of dirction.  (as shown on path "C")
Equal left and right slips cancel, to produce one forward vector, per
canceling, with the excess becoming the actual slip.

- - -============================================================================-
 Burton Choinski                                       choinski@s35.prime.com
   Prime Computer, Inc.                                  (508) 620-2800 x3233
   Framingham, Ma.  01701
 Disclaimer:  Down! Down! Down! Out! Out! Out! Mine! Mine! Mine!
- - -============================================================================-

[I deleted some rows of empty hexes for brevity, and edited the subject
line and attribution text.  Someone let me know if my editing gets out
of hand -- James]

-------- TML Message #1852 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1852
Subject: PBEM Admin
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 8:26:43 PST
From: Richard Johnson <richard@agora.UUCP>

Here it is monday and the turn is STILL not done...

It was a stormy week.  Mike's wife went to Antarctica, I had to
lay off my whole dpartment, Thursday was Thanksgiving here in the
States, and today is Kerry's birthday.   Whew!

I have all that (public) mail pared down to about 200K or so...

Many folks are on, or will soon be on, vacation or business trips.

So this week is ADMIN-ONLY week!  NO PBEM turns!  NO PBEM privates!
I might actually have to back you guys up just a little anyway, 'cause
you got ahead of me with charging the grid and loading the program.

Without further ado...

For the time being, if you have Eric Sergienko on any distribution
lists -- TAKE HIM OFF *NOW*.  We don't want to get him in trouble with
his command (he's in the U.S. Navy) and have him involuntarily subjected
to warmer climates.

Make sure you have the right address for Simon Anderson --
cse426@cck.coventry.ac.uk one or more of you still has his old address.

[or shorten it slightly to cse426@cck.cov.ac.uk; works for the TML --
James]

For some reason, I still bounce mail I send to Ireland, and to UC Davis
(forgive for forgetting your names early on Monday morning).  I can
hear you just fine - keep playing.

The R-alpha team seems just about ready for you guys, so it's time
to wake up your Aslan characters.  I still don't know who's going to arrive
first, or why - film at eleven.

Richard

-------- TML Message #1853 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1853
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: TDR: Jump on the Bandwagon!!
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 13:45:32 PST

Metlay and I are still scrambling to get development of TDR moving
and we need the help of all those people interested in contributing.

If you want to work on a section (or several sections) of TDR, or
you are already in the process of developing some material, would
you please send a letter to me at:

                    markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com
                            -or-
                    markc%hpcvss.cv.hp.com@relay.hp.com

Please let me know what you're working on (or what you'd LIKE to
work on), who you're already working with (if anyone), and if you'd
be willing to act as a 'coordinator' for one of the groups you have
interest in.  Currently, proposed TDR working catagories are:
        1) Character Generation  7) Task Rules
        2) Character Classes     8) Trade & Commerce
        3) Character Skills      9) Vehicle Design
        4) Combat               10) Vehicle Lists (based on #9)
        5) Medical              11) Weapons (based on #3 and #4)
        6) Physics
We are also open to proposals for other working catagories.  Submission
guidelines were posted to the TML Digest Vol.12, Issue 5 (Nov. 19), in
Subject 1821.  If you'd like a copy of these guidelines, send an E-mail
request to the above address(es).

[errr... that digest number is for the NIGHTLY digest, which has its own
volume and issue number, and does not match the BIWEEKLY digest's volume
and issue numbers, except by conicidence.  The BIWEEKLY with message
1821 was Vol.  12 issue 6, and was sent on Nov 20 -- James]

There are a lot of GOOD ideas flying back and forth on the TML about
different components of TDR, but unfortunately, they are not being
coalesced into a solid set of rules that way.  We want people who
have ideas to contribute for TDR components to have a responsible
individual for each section, so that they can capture inovations
which might otherwise get lost in the 'background noise'.

Once you've all notified us of your interest, we'll announce the
catagory coordinators to the TML.  From then on, individual con-
tributors can, well, 'coordinate' their work through the appropriate
coordinator.

I know that some of you have already talked to me about TDR.  A lot
more of you have talke to Metlay about the same thing.  Please don't
assume that we will put your names on one list or another based on
those previous conversations.  We may have forgotten, or lost you
in the shuffle, and we don't want to lose any potential contributors.

[ Confidental to Iain Fogg: Iain, disregard this request.  We already
  know about you. :-) -mfc ]

Hopefully, most of the TML readers that are interested will have signed
in by the middle of December.  This means that coordinators for each
of the sections should be announced via the TML before Christmas.

We want to focus all of this energy being expended over the TML into
descreet subject groups so we won't lose any of the good material that's
already been generated.  Let us hear from you if you want a stake in
TDR's future!

        - Mark F. Cook (TDR Archivist)

INTERNET: markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com
          markc%hpcvss.cv.hp.com@relay.hp.com

-------- TML Message #1854 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1854
From: Edwin Wiles <elw@netx.COM>
Subject: Re: (1782) Re: Black Globes
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 18:51:06 EST

Adrian Hurt said:
> I don't see the danger.  If the ship has absorbed enough energy to make the
> jump, it absorbed the energy into the jump capacitors.  If it still exists,
> it hasn't overloaded the capacitors.

The implication was not that you would overload due to the jump, but that
the incomming energy might overload the capacitors regardless of your desires.
Depends on how the globe is wired into the capacitors.

[If this has already been beaten to death, forgive me.
    I'm trying to get caught up. - elw]

- - -- 
					    Edwin Wiles, x2317, Office 4081

-------- TML Message #1855 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1855
From: Edwin Wiles <elw@netx.COM>
Subject: Re: (1785) The Drives Revision: my position summary...
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 18:58:31 EST

George William Herbert said [edited]:
> .... Subpoint of this would be a 'flavor-of-game' alteration,
> because heavily armoured naval ships would end up with 1-G or less and most
> player ships will be able to RUN AWAY 8-) ...

This is the normal case now.  Major heavy military ships simply cannot
outrun most civilian ships.  This is why you have smaller, lighter armored,
military ships for chasing down civilian ships!  Note that this is not true
of bulk cargo ships that are fully loaded.  It is only true of "speedsters",
smuggler's craft (which are far more powerful than they *appear* to be), and
*empty* bulk cargo ships.  Or so has been my (limited) experience....

- - -- 
Preferred: elw@netx.com			Edwin Wiles, NetExpress Inc., Vienna, VA
Alternate: ...!grebyn!netex!elw

-------- TML Message #1856 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1856
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Gauss weapon (and other) recoil
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 13:33:14 GMT

I apologise for the delay.  I have finally located my source of Traveller
military knowledge: Book 4, Mercenary.

Mark F. Cook <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM> writes:
> In TML Subject 1761, Bertil Jonell (d9bertil@tek.chalmers.se> writes:
> >   The gaussrifle fires a small 4mm calibre bullet. This bullet travels at
> > 1000m/s which is about as fast as an normal 5.56 NATO round. And yet, the
> > gaussrifle inflict 4D with a penetration of 7, while a 5.56 NATO in Traveller
> > would inflict 3D at around 3 or 4 in penetration.
> >   This would indicate that the bullet from a gaussrifle travels much faster
> > than a normal rifle bullet, maybe somewhere in the range of 1500 to 2000 m/s.
> 
> In fact, the Imperial Encyclopedia does list the velocity as 1500 m/s.

And so does Mercenary.  Incredible as it may seem, GDW have actually kept
something consistent! :-)

> >   How this weapon can be thought as being particularly recoilless is beyond
> > me:)
> 
> MT does NOT list gauss weapons as being "recoilless".  They list them as
> being "low recoil", which is appropriate.  If you consider both F=ma and
> Newton's 3rd Law ("Equal and opposite reaction") then the amount of enery
> delivered to each gauss needle (and thus acceleration, since the needle's
> mass is constant) is equal to the amount of recoil energy delivered to
> the gauss weapon firing the needle.

Time for some number crunching.  First, a correction to the above.  It's
momentum, not energy, that Newton's 3rd law deals with.  Figures for Traveller
assault rifle and gauss rifle come from Book 4; figures for M-16 assault rifle
come from "The Armory" by Kevin Dockery, in brackets in the assault rifle part
for comparison.

	Mass of a fully loaded assault rifle = 3.33 kg	   (3.635 kg)
	Mass of a 6mm slug from assault rifle = 0.005 kg   (0.00365 kg)
	Velocity of slug = 900 m/s			   (999.7 m/s)
=>	Momentum of slug = 4.5 kg m/s			   (3.65 m/s)
By Newton's 3rd law, momentum of rifle = 4.5 kg m/s in the other direction.
=>	Velocity of rifle = 1.35 m/s			   (1.0 m/s)

	Mass of a fully loaded gauss rifle = 3.90 kg
	Mass of a 4mm needle from gauss rifle = 0.004 kg
	Velocity of needle = 1500 m/s
=>	Momentum of slug = 6 kg m/s
=>	Momentum of gauss rifle = 6 kg m/s the other way
=>	Velocity of rifle = 1.54 m/s
=>	A gauss rifle is no more a low recoil weapon than an assault rifle.

The gauss rifle gets its extra penetration from the small calibre plus the
greater impact; it gets its extra damage from the higher kinetic energy.
How it gets a low recoil is beyond me.  Maybe it incorporates a reactionless
drive. :-)

- - -- 
 "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

-------- TML Message #1857 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1857
From: Edwin Wiles <elw@netx.COM>
Subject: Re: (1800) FTL impossibilities, TDR stuff
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 0:58:11 EST

Robert P Poole said basically that FTL travel is impossible.  I will agree,
IF we add the proviso:  "With Our Current Understanding Of Physics!"

So many times in history, someone has said "not possible, the universe
doesn't allow it", it has turned out later that it WAS possible, only
our knowledge was incomplete, or the evidence misunderstood, to give
the impression that the desired ability was impossible.

I'll even admit (reluctantly :-) ) that the percentage chance of FTL
working is MUCH less than 1%, but until we know everything, we cannot
eliminate that last little bit of uncertanty.

Still, Robert has a valid point:

	DON'T GET BOGGED DOWN TRYING TO MAKE EVERYTHING "REAL".

It is sufficient if it is "close", or even as long as it is internally
consistent and not too obviously externally bogus.

Example, FTL is necessary to reduce travel times to something that can be
used within the framework of an RPG game taking place on multiple planets
around different stars.  Yes, it mucks up with our current understanding
of physics, but it is needed, so give it a mild handwave and continue on.

However, a "reactionless" drive is probably NOT necessary.  Having
only "reaction" drives puts a whole series of other problems into
fairly well understood fields.  Allowing higher efficiencies than
are now possible, through some plausible means (such as controlled
fusion), can reduce interplanetary travel times to something more
tolerable.  On the other hand, long trips leave lots of time for
fun and games like "self-improvment" (Gee! I didn't know this ship
had a shooting range!), and "capture-the-bridge" (I don't understand
*why* the Captain is soooo upset!).

> ...been watching all this talk about Black Globes and reactionless
> thrusters, and I just have to laugh. ...

Robert?  You seem to fall into the same category of people who say
"It's Just A Show!  Get A Life!"  To which I say:

	So What!  WE LIKE TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT!

It doesn't matter if we KNOW that it isn't going to work in real life,
it's enough if we can come up with something that doesn't bend too many
rules and is internally consistent!  The question is, which rules are
we going to bend and by how much!  THAT's what we're arguing about! :-)

Which is *precisely* what the TDR development team is going to have to
do.  Decide which rules to bend and by how much.  Yes, the trade rules
and such are desparately in need of fixing, but how can you fix them when
you don't know how long it takes to get from here to there, or how much
it's going to cost you to transport that cargo over that distance?

Without having both maneuver and FTL drive pinned down, you can't figure
what is "reasonable" for cargo/costs/sizes/values/etc...  Sure, you can
come up with some pretty good formulas, but you need some constants to
plug into the formulas so that the number of useless cargos generated are
not so many that you roll dozens of times before you get one viable cargo
that doesn't even fill your cargo space!  Yet the cargos generated should
allow for the chance that bad choices will lead to financial problems.

I suppose that the first thing to do is to decide what features depend
on which others, praying that there aren't too many circular dependencies.

Here, I'll start the chart:

	Maneuver Drive ____
		^          \
		|           > Ship Design ---> Cargo Viability
	FTL Drive _________/

Before you can develop good formulas for generating cargo, you have to know
how much it costs to transport the goods and how long it takes to get there.
(Some cargos are perishable.)  Before you can know that, you have to have your
ship design methods layed out, because without that, you've no idea what your
average ship capacities are.  Before that, you have to have some idea how your
Maneuver and FTL Drives work, because they will affect what you can get away
with in Ship Design.  Before that, you have to decide just how your FTL drive
is going to work.  Like, are you required to move away from gravity wells for
it to work efficiently?  How far?  This will affect what your maneuver drive
must be capable of for your FTL drive to work.  If you're not required to move
away from a gravity well, then do you have to be outside atmosphere?  If not,
then why bother with a maneuver drive anyway?

Get the idea?  Yes, the design process is probably going to be somewhat
iterative, but if you get the basics nailed down carefully enough, the
rest shouldn't be too bad.

	    ABOVE ALL, MAINTAIN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY!

I don't think there's anything that ticks an RPGer off more, than a
game which isn't internally consistent.  Such inconsistency normally
shows up in the rules, making it hard to play.

				    Good Luck!
- - -- 
Preferred: elw@netx.com			Edwin Wiles, NetExpress Inc., Vienna, VA
Alternate: ...!grebyn!netex!elw

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

