From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Aug  8 10:56:23 1991
Received: from julian.uwo.ca (vax85.uwo.ca) by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA00237) Thu, 8 Aug 91 10:56:20 EDT
Received: from relay.tek.com by julian.uwo.ca with SMTP;
	(id AA09390) Thu, 8 Aug 91 00:14:16 -0400
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA00285@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 91 21:04:13 -0700
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA04025; Wed, 7 Aug 91 21:02:47 PDT
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA01440; Wed, 7 Aug 91 21:00:23 PDT
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA26264; Wed, 7 Aug 91 21:00:17 PDT
Message-Id: <9108080400.AA26264@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        traveller@fantasci.uucp (Joseph "Jo" E Poplawski),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #223: Msgs 2719-2731
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 21:00:16 PDT
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Wed Aug  7 21:00:10 PDT 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #223: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
2719  04-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Re: Re: Re: Re: High Speed Projectiles << Boy
2720  04-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Re: Metaphysics << "How many ancients can dan
2721  05-Aug-91 grue@cs.uq.oz.au  Re: Mt Ranting << I'm sure I won't be alone i
2722  05-Aug-91 Rob Miracle       Re: (2717) Mt Ranting << In Message (2717) Ha
2723  01-Aug-91 kirsch@rhea.infor The LIBRARY Program to generate Systems << Gr
2724  05-Aug-91 William Henry Tim Re: High Speed Projectiles << Minor point: Re
2725  06-Aug-91 Adrian Hurt       Re: High Speed Projectiles << KELLOGG@ducvax.
2726  06-Aug-91 sage@caen.engin.u Sword Worlds, Darrians, etc... << I have a qu
2727  06-Aug-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Of Droynes and Coynes << > From: KELLOGG@ducv
2728  06-Aug-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re^inf: High Speed Projectiles << > From: KEL
2729  06-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Revised Agility Calculation Formula << Hello 
2730  06-Aug-91 gsw@whservd.att.C SAVING THE UNIVERSE << This is all regarding 
2731  07-Aug-91 Adrian Hurt       Re: Revised Agility Calculation Formula << KE

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2719
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1991 16:21 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: High Speed Projectiles

Boy, when I start something I really start something...

Ok, now I see where Bertil is coming from:  use a % of the ship's mass
in the equation E=Mc^2.

Right.  The ship has 1/200th the energy required to reach .1C.  I see your
point.  But your analysis of how an object accelerates is a bit off.
As the ship accelerates it burns off hydrogen:  This is negigible.
As the ship accelerates it encounters relativity:  This also is negligible
at .1C (@ .1C you only encounter a distortion of 0.5%)
	(@ .5C you only encounter a distortion of 13%)
So Basically we have an object under a constant acceleration 2G.
(Sorry guys but you can leave Einstein at home, this is strictly Newton's
turf.)
Now, Newton's second Law F=MA (no trouble here... mass stays approximately
constant, force stays constant, Acceleration should stay constant.)

after 18 days acceleration we hit .1C and see that KE=1/2*MV^2 and there you
are with the .1kton of TNT per gram kinetic energy figure I mentioned
that started this free for all.

Ooops!  Insufficent potential energy in the ship's fuel to reach that figure.
Well, If the ship has only 1/200 the energy then it can only reach 1/200
the kinetic energy of .1C.  Buy some quick envelope calculations, that
means that the ship can only accelerate at 2G's for 2.1213 days.  There is
no unknown deceleration force.  The ship doesn't run until it reaches
a certain speed and then have it's acceletation die off slowly,  It runs
until it's Kinetic energy equals it's potential energy and then
the engines thrust stops.  You are now going ballistic.

So, we come out with a new endurance for the scoutship:  2 days.
that is the point at which all it's potential energy will be used up.

If we accept that then scoutships will never get anywhere.

Ok, look.  We already know that traveller drives by definition (reactionless)
violate conservation of energy.  Any and all ships using what ever drive
you like (fusion flame, grav, thruster) that are designed in the trav
system will violate conservation of energy because they were written by
and designed by someone who never thought of this idea and never thought
anyone else ever would.  We have gone off the board.  Here there be Dragons.
But if we impose conservation of energy then all the trav engines will come
tumbling down like the house of cards they are.

You can't say "conservation of energy applies here, but not over there."
If conservation of energy holds at .1 C then it holds for lower speeds as
well.  so Dur=2.  In order for trav to work Dur should be more than that.

About flying blind... (ie insuffiecent time for collision avoidance @ .1C)
Well, as I said before... "Fred, you knew the job was dangerous when you
took it" - SuperChicken.  I think that while space is not exactly totally
clean, outside the eccliptic plane of the solar system you'd have a better
chance.  On the other hand.  Space is Big.  You can't believe just how
mindbogglingly big it really is.  You may think it's a long way down to...

Sorry.  (Too much Douglas Adams)

Well sure there's a chance you won't make it to the target.  But imagine the
thrill of hitting .1c and getting that tite "Fastest Being alive"
heck even postumously it sounds COOL!  Put that on your tombstone.
(oops nothing left to interr...)  I know a few Vargr who would try it...

And if you are really nervous, that's what auto pilots are for.  Dig?

By the way, this really is metaphysics aien't it?  After all here we are
arguing about when we can and can't violate conservation of energy.

I am reminded of a line I once read and hated...
Changing the laws of physics is one of my hobbies.

I still hate it.

Scott S. Kellogg

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2720
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1991 23:26 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Re:  Metaphysics

"How many ancients can dance on the head of a pin?"

Bertil writes:  "That depends on if the pin is made of monadium, and on how
many ancients there are left that are able to dance, and on if the coyns
say that dancing is a good idea."

WRONG!  The Droyne use coyns.  The ancients didn't use them.  They are a
recent development, handed out to the Droyne by Grandfather long after
the ancients died out.

And what makes you so sure the Droyne are the ancients?  Who says so?
GDW?  Yeah, they also printed Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium!

Scott

Actually, I think it was a BIG mistake to say that the Droyne are the
ancients.  The explanation took all the mystery out of it.  Now when
players come accross an ancient artifact, they just say "Oh it's some
old Droyne stuff."

The introduction of the Primordials is an interesting idea to try to regain
the mystery.  But they gave an expalanation already, so there's no
mystery.  Besides, who cares about a bunch of dead heads who died of
boredom anyway!!!!

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2721
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 15:43:56 EST
From: grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Subject: Re: Mt Ranting

I'm sure I won't be alone in responding to this message :-)

>In (at least my version of the MT players's book) the cascade skill list,
>rifleman includes auto rifle, but Combat Rifleman doesn't. It is in fact
>very difficult to ever get Combat Rifleman, mysteriously mirroring the 
>situation in the original rules (where PCs didn't get assault rifle, guass
>rifle, or ACR -- even in the Army/Marines). This is, in my opinion, asinine.

A while ago, I wrote a program to read the skill tables (in the format given
in the player's handbook) and produce some code that allowed skill lookups
including all of the "serves as" and "includes" stuff (while keeping the
skills separate of course).  I doing this I had to enter the skill table
and while doing so I made a few corrections --- the biggest of which was
to make combat rifleman include the rifleman skill.  There were some other
typing errors present and some skills that were referenced but not defined,
the usual stuff that escaped proof-reading.  I've included my table at the
end of this message, I hope it is of some use.  [ For the purist, the original
list was printed using Helvetica (italic?) at some unremember point size. ]
The programs are available if anybody really wants them, but the main parser
is written in Simula (which I doubt most people have).  The skill lookup
program is in C and should be portable.


>OK, OK, sorry if I offended, but I always liked Traveller (2-D Universe and
>all), and I was enthusiastic when MT was being first advertised, but I think
>when I really get down to it, my opinion of it is roughly that of most people's
>opinion of Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium. I have always considered
>writing my own Traveller rules (with varying levels of success), but I think
>that if I was going to play, I'd rather use the Basic/Striker rules. If only
>someone would simply extrapolate those for starships, I think it'd be a far
>superior system. Even Twilight2000-II is better (though the initiative rules
>sucked big time). I guess I just wanted to vent my frustration somewhere.
>Or more importantly, an I alone in this? I doubt I am, but I dunno...

You are not the only person dissatisfied with the current rules back last
December (November?  October?) several different groups were formed in
an attempt to reform the traveller rules without damaging the 'universe'
too much.  It sort of died a silent death, I know that some work is being
done (very intermitantly).  Maybe it is time for a re-creation of the TDR
working groups.  Given the way things seem to work they won't stay around
very long, but some more progress might be made.



						Pauli



Big list of skills follows.
- - --------------------------8<-----------------------------
Academic (Cascade)
 Admin
 History
 Linguistics
 Persuasion
 Science
 +1 Education
Admin
Advanced Combat Rifle (Weapon)
Aircraft (Cascade)
 Helicopter
 Jet-propelled Aircraft
 Lighter-than-air Craft
 Propeller-driven Aircraft
Animal Handling (Cascade)
 Guard/Hunting Beasts
 Equestrian
 Herding
Archaic Weapons (Cascade)
 Blowgun
 Bola
 Boomerang
 Bow
 Crossbow
 Early Firearms
 Sling
Artisan
Assault Rifle (Weapon)
ATV (Includes)
 Wheeled Vehicle
 Tracked Vehicle
Autocannon (Weapon)
Auto Rifle (Weapon)
Axe (Includes)
 Battle Axe
 Hand Axe
Battle Axe (Weapon)
Battle Dress (Includes)
 Vacc Suit
Bayonet (Weapon)
Biology (Serves as)
 Genetics-1
Blade (Weapon)
Blade Combat (Cascade)
 Axe
 Cudgel
 Foil
 Large Blade
 Polearm
 Small Blade
Blowgun (Weapon)
Body Pistol (Weapon)
Bola (Weapon)
Boomerang (Weapon)
Bow (Weapon)
Brawling
Bribery
Broadsword (Weapon)
Broker
Carbine (Weapon)
Carousing (Serves as)
 Steward-1
Chemistry
Combat Engineering
Combat Rifleman (Includes)
 Advanced Combat Rifle
 Assault Rifle
 Auto Rifle
 Carbine
 Gauss Rifle
 rifle
 Rifleman
 Shotgun
Communications
Computer (Serves as)
 Robot Ops-1
Crossbow (Weapon)
Cudgel (Weapon)
Cutlass (Weapon)
Dagger (Weapon)
Demolitions
Disguise
Early Firearms (Weapon)
Economic (Includes)
 Admin
 Broker
 Legal
 Trader
Electronics
Energy Weapons (Includes)
 Fusion Gun
 Plasma Gun
Engineering
Environ (Cascade)
 Animal Handling
 Archaic Weapons
 Hunting
 Recon
 Stealth
 Survival
Equestrian
Exploratory (Cascade)
 Pilot
 Sensor Ops
 Survey
 Survival
 Vacc Suit
 Vehicle
FA Gunnery (Cascade)
 High-energy Weapons
 Mass Drivers
 Meson Guns
 Mortars and Howitzers
Fleet Tactics
Foil (Weapon)
Forensic
Forgery
Forward Observer
Fusion Gun (Weapon)
Gambling
Gauss Rifle (Weapon)
Genetics
Grav Belt
Grav Vehicle (Serves as)
 Grav Belt-1
Gravitics
Grenade Launcher (Weapon)
Guard/Hunting Beasts
Gun Combat (Cascade)
 Energy Weapons
 Handgun
 Laser Weapons
 Neural Weapons
 Rifleman
 Submachinegun
Gunnery (Cascade)
 Screens
 Spinal Weapons
 Turret Weapons
Halberd (Weapon)
Hand Axe (Weapon)
Hand Combat (Cascade)
 Blade Combat
 Brawling
 +1 Endurance
 +1 Strength
Handgun (Includes)
 Body Pistol
 Pistol
 Revolver
 Snub Pistol
Heavy Weapons (Includes)
 Autocannon
 Grenade Launcher
 Light Assault Gun
 Machine Gun
 VRF Gauss Gun
Helicopter (Serves as)
 Lighter-than-air Craft-1
 Jet-propelled Aircraft-1
 Propeller-driven Aircraft-1
Herding
High-energy Weapons (Serves as)
 Mass Drivers-1
 Meson Guns-1
 Mortars and Howitzers-1
High-G Environ (Serves as)
 Laser Weapons0
 Laser Pistol0
 Laser Rifle0
 Energy Weapons0
 Fusion Gun0
 Plasma Gun0
History
Hovercraft (Serves as)
 Large Watercraft-1
 Small Watercraft-1
Hunting
Inborn (Cascade)
 Artisan
 Carousing
 Instruction
 Jack-of-alI-Trades
 Leader
Instruction
Interpersonal (Cascade)
 Admin
 Interview
 Liaison
 Linguistics
 Steward
Interrogation
Interview (Serves as)
 Interrogation-1
Intrusion
Jack-of-aII-trades
Jet-propelled Aircraft (Serves as)
 Helicopter-1
 Lighter-than-air Craft-1
 Propeller-driven Aircraft-1
Large Blade (Includes)
 Broadsword
 Cutlass
 Sword
Large Watercraft (Serves as)
 Hovercraft-1
 Small Watercraft-1
Laser Pistol (Weapon)
Laser Rifle (Weapon)
Laser Weapons (Includes)
 Laser Pistol
 Laser Rifle
Leader
Legal (Serves as)
 Admin-1
Liaison (Serves as)
 Admin-1
 Streetwise-1
Light Assault Gun (Weapon)
Lighter-than-air Craft (Serves as)
 Helicopter-1
 Jet-propelled Aircraft-1
 Propeller-driven Aircraft-1
Linguistics
Machine Gun (Weapon)
Mass Drivers (Serves as)
 High-energy Weapons-1
 Meson Guns-1
 Mortars and Howitzers-1
Mechanical
Medical
Mental (Cascade)
 +1 Intelligence
 +1 Education
Meson Guns (Serves as)
 High-energy Weapons-1
 Mass Drivers-1
 Mortars and Howitzers-1
Mortars and Howitzers (Serves as)
 High-energy Weapons-1
 Mass Drivers-1
 Meson Guns-1
Naval Architect
Navigation (Serves as)
 Sensor Ops-1
Neural Pistol (Weapon)
Neural Rifle (Weapon)
Neural Weapons (Includes)
 Neural Pistol
 Neural Rifle
Persuasion
Physical (Cascade)
 +1 Dexterity
 +1 Endurance
 +1 Strength
Physics
Pike (Weapon)
Pilot (Serves as)
 Ship's Boat-1
Pistol (Weapon)
Plasma Gun (Weapon)
Polearm (Includes)
 Bayonet
 Halberd
 Pike
 Spear
Propeller-driven Aircraft (Serves as)
 Helicopter-1
 Jet-propelled Aircraft-1
 Lighter-than-air Craft-1
Prospecting
Recon (Serves as)
 Sensor Ops1
Recruiting
Revolver (Weapon)
rifle (Weapon)
Rifleman (Includes)
 Auto Rifle
 Carbine
 Shotgun
 rifle
Robot Ops
Robotics (Serves as)
 Robot Ops
 Computer-1
Science (Cascade)
 Biology
 Chemistry
 Genetics
 Forensic
 Medical
 Physics
 Robotics
Sensor Ops
Screens
Ship Tactics
Ship's Boat
Shotgun (Weapon)
Sling (Weapon)
Small Blade (Includes)
 Blade
 Dagger
Small Watercraft (Serves as)
 Hovercraft-1
 Large Watercraft-1
Snub Pistol (Weapon)
Space (Cascade)
 Engineering
 Navigation
 Pilot
 Sensor Ops
 Ship's Boat
 Vacc Suit
Space Combat (Cascade)
 Gunnery
 Sensor Ops
 Ship Tactics
 Tactics
Space Tech (Cascade)
 Communications (Commo)
 Computer
 Engineering
 Gravitics
 Vacc Suit
Spear (Weapon)
Special Combat (Cascade)
 Battle Dress
 Combat Engineering
 Combat Rifleman
 Demolition
 FA Gunnery
 Forward Observer
 Grav Belt
 Heavy Weapons
 High-energy Weapons
 High-G Environ
 Stealth
 Zero-G Environ
Spinal Weapons
Stealth
Steward
Streetwise
Submachinegun (Weapon)
Survey (Serves as)
 Sensor Ops-1
Survival
Sword (Weapon)
Tactics (Serves as)
 Ship Tactics-1
Technical (Cascade)
 Communications (Commo)
 Computer
 Electronics
 Gravitics
 Robot Ops
 Sensor Ops
Trader
Tracked Vehicle (Serves as)
 Wheeled Vehicle-1
Turret Weapons
Vacc Suit
Vehicle (Cascade)
 Grav Vehicle
 Helicopter
 Hovercraft
 Jet-propelled Aircraft
 Large Water Craft
 Lighter-than-air Craft
 Propeller-driven Aircraft
 Ship's Boat
 Small Water Craft
 Tracked Vehicle
 Wheeled Vehicle
Vice (Cascade)
 Bribery
 Disguise
 Forgery
 Gambling
 Intrusion
 Streetwise
VRF Gauss Gun (Weapon)
Wheeled Vehicle (Serves as)
 Tracked Vehicle-1
Zero-G Environ
- - --------------------------8<-----------------------------


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2722
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 08:18 EDT
From: Rob Miracle <RWMIRA01%ULKYVX.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: Re: (2717) Mt Ranting

In Message (2717) Hans Visser (<fusil@ms.washington.edu>) writes:

>In (at least my version of the MT players's book) the cascade skill list,
>rifleman includes auto rifle, but Combat Rifleman doesn't. It is in fact
>very difficult to ever get Combat Rifleman, mysteriously mirroring the
>situation in the original rules (where PCs didn't get assault rifle, guass
>rifle, or ACR -- even in the Army/Marines). This is, in my opinion, asinine.

Hans, you are intitled to your opinions (ain't America Great?)  And in the
context of your entire message, I am in agreement to an extent.  It is a
problem with all game systems that I have seen.  Things always contadict each
other.  I however would like to argue this one point (which I don't agree).

The Gun Combat skill cascades into Hand Gun, SMG, Rifle, Auto Rifle (I think).
These are weapon firing skills that anyone can pick up (even today).  Combat
Rifleman on the other hand is strictly a military taught skill.  It includes
how to shoot a weapon, but also a lot more -- such as Sniper, Marksmanship,
how and when to Rock & roll.  Picking out enemy targets amongst friendlies,
etc.  Combat Rifleman should not be included in the Marksmenship only Gun
Combat cascade.

As far as availalbilty goes, It is the default skill for Army and Marines in
the Basic CharGen and comes up frequently in the Mercenary Advanced CharGen.
Other than that it is another example of inconsistancy :-)

Also Assault Rifle, ACR, and Gauss Rifle are all "Rifle" skills.

Just MY opinion!   ;-)

Rob aka Anton Devious

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2723
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1991 14:08:34 EDT
From: kirsch@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Subject: The LIBRARY Program to generate Systems

Greetings to all list members,

At first a big thanks to Jo Jaquinta and (or ?) the Devnaree Collective.
I have downloaded your Liblist.zip from 128.95.136.1 today. At the first
view, I like it. But I have some questions on it (I do not owe the World
Builders Guide, so please no flames on this ;-) ).

1. Are the World Temperatures in Centigrade or Fahrenheit. I believe in
   Centigrade, but I would like to be sure.

2. I have created worldmaps for different planets, and I wonder, why most
   of the planets, I have choosen, turn out to be Ice-Cappped. Especially
   I have created the Solar-System with the Program (no flame please, I
   know the names and Datas are generated Randomly) and Terra is placed
   at the orbit of a Gasgiant. So its Ice-capped to. I haven't got any
   planet, which surface is not Ice-capped with at least 25% Ice. A little
   bit strange for me! Can someone please tell me, if this is a result of
   random, or a well known phenomenon.

3. I wonder, if your program reads the complete data of a avialable Sector
   list. As I mentioned before, I have tried Terra in Solomani-Rim. I used
   the Solomani-Sektor, downloaded from 129.100.100.12 (Sunbane). The 
   description of Terra in this file, includes the extended Data "414"
   for Population Factor, #belts and #gasgiants. The sun is correctly
   identified as G2 V by your program (by the way, G2 5 is not the correct
   style of writing, the Astronomy uses the roman numbers to distinguish
   the sequences in the Hertzsprung-Russel-Diagram). But the program 
   generates only 3 Gasgiants and no Belt.                        

4. I have entered Subsector names in the table. Then I got problems, to
   find the Subsectors on the correct place. The choose Subsector map turns
   from 4*4 to 3*6. What's that ? (I think I should ask, because your
   Subsektor Grid cuts names, why not your choose Subsektor menu ?)

Don't bother about my comments. Your program is very usefull and easy to
use. I will try to find out, how I can send you the $15. It's not easy to
send money from Germany to the USA (I have no credit card yet).

That's for today,
Juergen

- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Juergen Kirsch
Institut fuer Informatik, Universitaet Bonn
Germany
kirsch@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2724
Date: Mon,  5 Aug 91 16:53:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: High Speed Projectiles

Minor point: Reactionless drives don't HAVE to violate physics.

In my games, there is 'accelerationless drive', which really isn't. It
accelerates all atoms at the same rate, however, so only the atoms
suffer any stress. (which limits the acceleration, but not by much)

For reactionless drive, something like setting up a standing gravity
wave... whatever. There's a difference between adding fantasy to
physics, and replacing physics with fantasy...

- - -Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2725
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: High Speed Projectiles
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 10:08:35 BST

KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> 
> About flying blind... (ie insuffiecent time for collision avoidance @ .1C)
> Well, as I said before... "Fred, you knew the job was dangerous when you
> took it" - SuperChicken.

Which is why I said I wouldn't take it.  :-)

> Well sure there's a chance you won't make it to the target.  But imagine the
> thrill of hitting .1c and getting that tite "Fastest Being alive"

There's little, if any, chance that you will make it to the target.  There
might be a chance of hitting .1c before you hit a dust particle.

> And if you are really nervous, that's what auto pilots are for.  Dig?

So now you intend to sacrifice (or at least, risk a very high probability of
sacrificing) a whole ship.  Even without worrying about a crew, that's a lot
more expensive than, say, a couple of nuclear missiles.

- - -- 
 "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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2726
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 11:21:06 -0400
From: sage@caen.engin.umich.edu (Gregory Scott Horlacher)
Subject: Sword Worlds, Darrians, etc...

I have a question for anyone who is familiar with the recent events in the
Spindward Marches:  

Can anyone fill me in or help me speculate on what has occurred in the 
Sword World Conferation, the Border Worlds, and/or the Darrian Confeferation
since the rebellion broke out in the Imperium? 

Thanks,
Greg Horlacher
[sage@caen.engin.umich.edu]

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2727
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Of Droynes and Coynes
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 17:46:52 MET DST

> From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
> Subject: (2720) Re: Metaphysics

  (There should probably be a ^L to protect the young and innocent from reading
   stuff about Ancients here.)
^L

> "How many ancients can dance on the head of a pin?"
> 
> Bertil writes:  "That depends on if the pin is made of monadium, and on how
> many ancients there are left that are able to dance, and on if the coyns
> say that dancing is a good idea."
> 
> WRONG!  The Droyne use coyns.  The ancients didn't use them.  They are a
> recent development, handed out to the Droyne by Grandfather long after
> the ancients died out.
 
  If I'm not totally mistaken, the Imperial Encyclopedia lists coyns as one type
of common artifacts in the entry on artifacts. I agree that it might seem hard 
to reconcile this with the "Coyns was introduced by Grandfather", and the fact
that some major races that hadn't appeared on the stellar stage appear on coyns.

  My suggestion for a solution of this is to assume that since Droyne lived on
worlds with ruins from the Ancients last war, some coyns might have happend to
end up in those ruins not long after the war, when Grandfather introduced them.

  Then we have the two-line comment in 'Secret of the Ancients' that Grandfather
had ventured forth several times after the end of the war and destroyed 
ancient worlds where the destruction was not yet complete. I used this for an
adventure where the engima was that the Final War still goes on...

> And what makes you so sure the Droyne are the ancients?  Who says so?
> GDW?  Yeah, they also printed Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium!

  I usually rate GDW products as being Pre- or Post-MegaTraveller:)
 
> Scott
> 
> Actually, I think it was a BIG mistake to say that the Droyne are the
> ancients.  The explanation took all the mystery out of it.  Now when
> players come accross an ancient artifact, they just say "Oh it's some
> old Droyne stuff."

  In my current campaign(s) I keep the question open. When one of the players
said something like "Well, I *know* that they were Droyne because 'Secret of
the Ancients' says so." I answered "If I could get away with the 6th Frontier
War (1114-1116) I'm sure I can get away with making the Ancients human or vargr
or whatever:)"

  As for Artifacts, They are still hideously expensive and hideously 
unpredictable. And what PC would say 'well, just some old Droyne stuff' when 
facing a Roth Thokken Vargr that's wearing two nano-tech level psionic
amplifyers that looks like two large diamonds in his empty eye-balls?

  (I refer to 'Vilani and Vargr' for all talk about Roth Thokken and empty
eye-balls:)

- - -bertil-
- - -- 
"Med en sjyst artefakt sla^r man imperiet med ha"pnad!":)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2728
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re^inf: High Speed Projectiles
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 18:01:23 MET DST

> From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
> Subject: (2719) Re: Re: Re: Re: High Speed Projectiles
> 
> Boy, when I start something I really start something...
 
> Ok, look.  We already know that traveller drives by definition (reactionless)
> violate conservation of energy.  Any and all ships using what ever drive
> you like (fusion flame, grav, thruster) that are designed in the trav
> system will violate conservation of energy because they were written by
> and designed by someone who never thought of this idea and never thought
> anyone else ever would.  We have gone off the board.  Here there be Dragons.
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
  Not merely Crested Jabberwocks? (Sorry, I couldn't resist it:)

> But if we impose conservation of energy then all the trav engines will come
> tumbling down like the house of cards they are.

> You can't say "conservation of energy applies here, but not over there."
> If conservation of energy holds at .1 C then it holds for lower speeds as
> well.  so Dur=2.  In order for trav to work Dur should be more than that.

  Well, I admit that half the reasoning behind my ardent push for fusion 
rockets only existed in my mind, but here it is:

  If we give the ships engines that require much larger amounts of energy, and
also give them plants that give much larger amounts of energy, we will start
getting scoutships all over relativity with the problems that cause. So the
solution would be something that would limit the maximum speed to manageable
levels and yet not inhibit acceleration.
  My proposed something is (non-reaction-less, isn't that a double negation?:)
reactive thrusters with a exhaust velocity of some nice figure, because that
velocity will (I think, what do any *real* physicists out there say) limit
the speed of the ships.

> Scott S. Kellogg

- - -bertil-

PS: "For any task, there exists a Vargr insane enough to try it, if it will mean
  increased charisma.", Proof of this is that there is a Vargr sociologist in
  on of my campaigns that is trying to write a thesis about the Roth Thokken:)
- - -- 
"Med ett sjyst ja"rnro"r sla^r man va"rlden med ha"pnad!"

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2729
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 14:22 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Revised Agility Calculation Formula

Hello Folks,

Rob Dean and I have been discussing the rules concerning the
calculation of agility in MegaTraveller.  We thought after
coming to some conclusions we should open this up to the
TML list.  Thanks go to George William Herbert for his thoughts
on the subject of aircraft agility.  (Maybe this should have
3 authors on it)  Please note that the following will be the
basis of all My agility calculations in future designs posted
to the TML.

Opinions will be warmly welcome.
Thank you,

Scott Kellogg
- - -------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a summary of a discussion between Scott S. Kellogg
and Robert S. Dean.

We have noticed that the agility calculations as presented in the
MegaTraveller Referee's Manual make little sense when compared
with the Starship Operator's Manual, High Guard, and for that matter,
the Referee's Manual.

Problem:  A ship has 2 G acceleration.  It has no additional power
for weapons, just power for engines, sensors, environment, computer
etc.  Excess power is zero.  Result:  Agility=0.  This is assuming,
of course, that the undefined term 'excess power' refers to power
which is not allocated to any other operation aboard the ship apart
from increasing agility.  Ok, now when the ship is in emergency status,
the ship suddenly goes to agility=2.
Question:  Where did this "extra" power come from?

You see the problem? Is this what excess power really means? Is this the
result intended by the rules?

Ok, High Guard functioned like this:  A ship with power plant-2 and
maneuver drive-2 automatically becomes agility=2.  In order to have
a functioning maneuver drive, you had to have a power plant factor
equal to the maneuver drive thus a ship with the above plants will
always be agility=2 when not powering lasers (energy wpns etc). A
hit to the power plant reduces the agility of the ship by that amount.

Now, when a High Guard ship attempts to escape, the ship relies on
agility to do so, not maneuver drive.  So a 3-G ship with agility=3
can escape from a 6-G ship with agility=1.

Rationalization:  The 6G ship's power plant is being drained away
from the maneuver drive and it is not putting out 6-G's, it is putting
out only 1G.

In view of the MegaTrav design rules this does not translate unless
we do the following:

	(Power required for maneuver drive + "excess" power)
Agility=--------------------------------------------------- * 5.4
			Unloaded Weight

Agility may not exceed maneuver drive rating.
(No more agility=6 1-G drive ships...)
If you read the section of the Ref's Handbook, the rule there is a
little unclear.  I therefore think that the above clarification
(adding the power required by the drive to the equation as stated)
does make sense.

Note that if a ship is powering weapons the "excess" power can be negative
thus subtracting from the ship's ability to maneuver.  This is what Rob
refers to as "Double Dipping".

Please note that the above equation closely resembles Rob Dean's Thrust
based maneuver drive equations.

His opinion is that we should use the loaded weight for the above
calculations and I concur.  How often are ships flying around with
no fuel and no cargo?  He also suggests that the 5.4 in the above
be 10 as would occur in his thrust based maneuver drive calculations
(for grav based not thruster based vehicles).  That is, in a small
vehicle using standard grav propulsion, such as a 10 ton fighter, the
acceleration is the thrust divided by the loaded weight, and the
thrust is conveniently equivalent to the power input to the grav
units in MW multiplied by 10.

Thus Rob's equation:

	(Power req for maneuver drive + "excess" power)
Agility=----------------------------------------------- * 10
			Loaded Weight

The above should be multiplied by 13/14 if using thruster plates as
opposed to grav plates. This will not only give you the agility, but
the true acceleration of the ship as given by the thrust based
maneuver arguments.

Note that when a ship is dipping into it's maneuver power it's
maneuver drive performance will be affected in the following manner:

		(Power req for maneuver drive + "excess"pwr)
Combat Maneuver=--------------------------------------------* rated maneuver
			(Pwr req for manuever drive)

Note:  If "excess" power is positive, combat maneuver is not to exceed
rated manuever by more than 400% for more than 5 minutes without risk
of damage.  40% is acceptable for longer periods (days) if there is
suffient engineering skill among the engine crew.  These acceptable
overload factors are taken from the DGP Starship Operator's Manual.

Translation:  Algebra into English:
When a ship does not have power for all its weapons, it may divert
power from the maneuver drive.  Diverting power will reduce the
output of the drive.  It is possible to overload the engines, but
that may result in damaging them.  The time allowed for overloading
them for large increases in performance is considerably less one
starship combat round.

Robert S. Dean and Scott S. Kellogg
- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a different note:

Aircraft Agility
In my opinion, aircraft agilities are far too low.

Consider:	A disp=40 6-G grav fighter: Agility=6, vs.
		F-14 Tomcat: Agility=6

In a turn, A Tomcat uses its wings and lifting surfaces to pull
a high G turn at approximately 9 G's

The Grav fighter (assuming it has wings) has 1/3 the wing area of a
jet fighter and is many many many times it's weight.  (In 101 vehicles
there is a Zho grav sled that weighs close to 180 tons, a displacement
of 2, and wings? It weighs close to what a B-52 does and is smaller
than a Cessna and they expect to get lift?)  It can get little if any
lift and must rely on it's grav units to turn it.  These as we said
before are only 6G's.

Result:  In a fast turning Dogfight the Tomcat can run rings around
the Grav fighter.  Of course the Tomcat has no inertial comps and so
the pilot takes a beating on the inside, but he will always be able
to get the advantage of the grav fighter.

Personal experience:
A Cessna 152 light utility trainer has a 110 horsepower Lycoming
engine, but it is rated for 4.4G's  No air/raft will be able to keep
up with it in a turn.  If you look at many of the designs in 101
vehicles, the Cessna might not be able to out run them, but it can
Really out turn them.  There are 5 designs in there that can out turn
the Cessna.  Two are civilian with +5 G MaxAcceleration, and there
are 3 military.  All are TL 13 or higher.

Conclusion:  I believe that aircraft agility should not be limited to 6,
but 9 (the physical limit of a pilot).  At TL 10, when inertial
compensators are used the agility could go even higher.

(This is assuming there is a pilot on board, George Herbert informs me
there are pilotless drones now flying around capable of making 15 G
turns)

Scott Kellogg

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2730
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 16:29 EDT
Subject: SAVING THE UNIVERSE

This is all regarding the problem of using Traveller Maneuver Drives
as super mass drivers:

- - -----

By the way, I once did the calculations about how much energy it would
take to bring an object to 0.1 c and back.  I don't have the figures
handy, but I seem to remember that

o using completely efficient fusion drives, it would take 50% of the
  ship's mass to accelerate to 0.1 c, then another 50% to slow to a
  stop.  Thus, 75% of the ship's mass would have to be fuel in order to
  allow a ship to even travel at that speed, and that leaves no room
  for error.

o using completely efficient matter-to-energy conversion, the figure
  drops to something like 4% of the ships mass.

This is all irrelevant, however, since we have already agreed that
maneuver drives violate physics (disclaimer: as we currently understand
physics, that is).

- - -----

Let's get to the root of the problem, though:

o it takes a GREAT DEAL of energy to bring a ship up to those speeds.

o a heavy body traveling at these speeds would likely be able to
  seriously affect any planet it crashed into (perhaps even decimating
  the population).

o Traveller assumes that ships are routinely capable of accelerating to
  these speeds.

- - -----

Anyway, as long as we're redefining physics somewhat, why not keep
things simple?  In that light, here is my suggestion:

o Maneuver Drives do NOT generate enough energy to decimate a planet.

o Instead, they somehow reduce the ship's effective mass while
  propelling it through space.

o Now, if a ship moving quickly with its Maneuver Drive crashes into a
  planet, it will do so with a very small effective mass (possibly in
  the micrograms if the ship were moving REALLY fast).

o Now for the question, what happens if you accelerate to 0.1 c and
  then turn off the drives?  The choices I see:

    o The ship's mass immediately returns to normal, causing it to
      decelerate immediately down to a speed corresponding to its
      kinetic energy level.

  or:

    o The ship's mass slowly increases, causing the ship to drift back
      to a speed corresponding to its kinetic energy level.

  or:

    o The ship's mass stays at its current level until the ship is
      influenced by some other force (such as hitting another object).
      In this case, I would also suggest that gravity wells would tend
      to bring its mass back to normal.

  The option you choose depends on how you want ship movement to work.

o This creates all kinds of interesting speculation:
  o Ships under Maneuver Drive would be less affected by gravity.
  o Maneuver Drives really would be different from grav units.
  o Accelleration might have a better effect on turning the ship.
  o Maneuver Drives could also have limits to their "top speeds."
  o Ships moving under Maneuver Drive might always use energy.
  o There may be a justification for the 6G limit.
  o There may also be a justification for a volume-based system.
  o Maneuver drives might also require a small additional drive, but
    this is not necessary.
  o There might also be hybrid systems and/or reasons to NOT use a
    normal Maneuver Drive for certain circumstances.

- - -----

I thought of this at lunch today.  It seemed so simple that I could
kick myself for not thinking of it earlier.

So, what do you think?

- - -----

Jerry Williams
gsw@gummo.att.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2731
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Revised Agility Calculation Formula
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 10:40:45 BST

KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> We have noticed that the agility calculations as presented in the
> MegaTraveller Referee's Manual make little sense when compared
> with the Starship Operator's Manual, High Guard, and for that matter,
> the Referee's Manual.

What a surprise.  Something else in the MT Manuals which doesn't make sense.
:-)

> Problem:  A ship has 2 G acceleration.  It has no additional power
> for weapons, just power for engines, sensors, environment, computer
> etc.  Excess power is zero.  Result:  Agility=0.  This is assuming,
> of course, that the undefined term 'excess power' refers to power
> which is not allocated to any other operation aboard the ship apart
> from increasing agility.  Ok, now when the ship is in emergency status,
> the ship suddenly goes to agility=2.
> Question:  Where did this "extra" power come from?

>From what I remember of High Guard, the calculation was made in a different
order.  Let's assume this is a 1000 ton ship, with USP power rating 2.  Its
power plant produces 0.01 * displacement * power plant rating = 20 Energy
Points.  From this, deduct the power used by ship's systems (weapons, computer
and screens).  The Energy Points left over go to the manoeuvre drives to supply
the ship's Agility as follows:
Agility = Remaining Energy Points / (Displacement * 0.01).

So, if the ship uses 20 EP on its systems, its agility is 0.  If it uses 10 EP
or less for ship's systems, its agility is 1.

For emergency agility, assume that ship's systems are turned off; the only
thing drawing power is the manoeuvre drive.  The "extra" power is the power
previously used by everything else.

Note that neither type of agility was allowed to exceed the ship's manoeuvre
drive rating; if it only had manoeuvre drive 1, its emergency agility would
be 1.

> Ok, High Guard functioned like this:  A ship with power plant-2 and
> maneuver drive-2 automatically becomes agility=2.

Only if it has no energy-consuming weapons, screens or computer (i.e.
only missile and sandcaster armament, computer Model 2 or less, no
screens except a black globe).

>						    In order to have
> a functioning maneuver drive, you had to have a power plant factor
> equal to the maneuver drive ...

At least equal to the manoeuvre drive.  The power plant rating could be
greater than the manouvre drive rating, so you could use weapons, screens,
computer and manoeuvre drive.

> Now, when a High Guard ship attempts to escape, the ship relies on
> agility to do so, not maneuver drive.  So a 3-G ship with agility=3
> can escape from a 6-G ship with agility=1.
> 
> Rationalization:  The 6G ship's power plant is being drained away
> from the maneuver drive and it is not putting out 6-G's, it is putting
> out only 1G.

Correct, unless the 6G ship uses its emergency agility of 6G (and has a large
enough power plant to supply its 6G manoeuvre drive).  (In which case, the
3G ship will probably turn round and fight, but that's not important to this
argument.)

> In view of the MegaTrav design rules this does not translate unless
> we do the following:
> 
> 	(Power required for maneuver drive + "excess" power)
> Agility=--------------------------------------------------- * 5.4
> 			Unloaded Weight

I'd substitute "Power available for manoeuvre drive" for the entire top line.
Power available for manoeuvre drive = output of power plant - power used by
other things.  This is presumably what the MT manual means by "excess power".
In fact, this is precisely what it means.  In my manual, it says "Excess power
output is the power left over from the power plant after all of the craft's
other components have been powered".  This is a big surprise - something in the
MT Referee's manual does make sense! :-)

> Agility may not exceed maneuver drive rating.
> (No more agility=6 1-G drive ships...)

Perhaps they should have stated that explicitly.  This was certainly the case
in High Guard.

> Note that if a ship is powering weapons the "excess" power can be negative
> thus subtracting from the ship's ability to maneuver.  This is what Rob
> refers to as "Double Dipping".

Not by the above definition.  Excess power = power output - power used by
systems other than manoeuvre drive.  If this is negative, you need a bigger
power plant or smaller systems.  If it is zero, the ship's agility is zero.

> His opinion is that we should use the loaded weight for the above
> calculations and I concur.  How often are ships flying around with
> no fuel and no cargo?

I agree with this.  In High Guard, the ship's displacement included fuel, cargo
and waste space.  Waste space was any of the ship's tonnage which wasn't used
for something else, and only showed up if the designer didn't use it as cargo
space for some reason.

- - -- 
 "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

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

