From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Aug 26 09:35:31 1991
Received: from julian.uwo.ca by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA01229) Mon, 26 Aug 91 09:35:27 EDT
Received: from relay.tek.com by julian.uwo.ca with SMTP;
	(id AA13761) Mon, 26 Aug 91 00:48:42 -0400
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA09953@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 91 21:05:01 -0700
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA02646; Sun, 25 Aug 91 21:03:22 PDT
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA22955; Sun, 25 Aug 91 21:00:24 PDT
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA11465; Sun, 25 Aug 91 21:00:16 PDT
Message-Id: <9108260400.AA11465@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        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 #229: Msgs 2794-2809
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 21:00:15 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: Sun Aug 25 21:00:11 PDT 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #229: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
2794  20-Aug-91 cch2@ra.msstate.e KE weapons: late addition << In response to t
2795  21-Aug-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Machinetools 2 << Machinetools 2: Automatic P
2796  21-Aug-91 Adrian Hurt       Re: KE weapons: late addition << cch2@ra.msst
2797  21-Aug-91 "Robert S. Dean"  Agility, One Last Time << I wish I could repo
2798  21-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au High Speed Projectiles, One Last Time << Hi, 
2799  21-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Planetary Bombardment << I just remembered a 
2800  21-Aug-91 "Robert S. Dean"  World Descriptions << I just uploaded my late
2801  21-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Re: Agility, One Last Time << Hi, Want to hea
2802  21-Aug-91 Mike.Metlay@ORGAN On ignoring Conservation of Energy << I'll ke
2803  22-Aug-91 grue@cs.uq.oz.au  Some thoughts about disintegrators << hi, Thi
2804  22-Aug-91 Adrian Hurt       Hordes of agility << "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean
2805  22-Aug-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: Agility, One Last Time << > I wish I coul
2806  21-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Jump Trainer Cessna 15-0 II << Hi, I sent thi
2807  21-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Starship Minimum Size << A question: In class
2808  22-Aug-91 chk@alias.COM     2300AD is hard science fiction? Hah! << > Rem
2809  23-Aug-91 John Lusk         2300AD as hard science << > Actually, there's

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2794
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 15:49:16 CDT
From: cch2@ra.msstate.edu (John Steven Higginbotham)
Subject: KE weapons: late addition

In response to the long, painful discussion of KE, PE, and Kinetic Kill
weapons (read guns);

1)  Why do so many reasonably educated people always assume that our present
level of knowledge in physics is true and correct in every way?  Did we
develop a unified field theory while I was asleep last semester?  Has 'God'
told us that we have achieved perfection?  Hmmm?

Point being, you are all treating Conservation of Energy as Gospel.  It may be
true under all conditions (actually, we suspect that it is not.  According to
Hawking's speculations about naked singularities, conservation of energy 
does not apply in their vicinity), but that is not really any more likely 
than that Einstein's Theories will stand the test of time (note that it's 
predecessor failed the test of time - it turned out to be a special case). 
Why couldn't CofE be a special case?
And why can't the excess energy needed to make your numbers come out right
come from Superspace, or be extracted from the Universal gravitational field,
or something equally unlikely.  We (or at least I) don't know the limit of the
possible, so why not assume that MT maneuver drives work as described?

As to the problems in maintaining MT's pretty picture, we (my wife and I) have
been fiddling with that problem for years (since Traveller came out).  Almost
NONE of the MT picture makes sense without being massaged with a club.  The
"conquest" of Glisten is ludicrous.  The assumption that there is any
limitation on fuel availability is almost equally so.  
Remember that MT is supposed to be 'space opera', not hard scifi.  If you want
hard scifi, use 2300AD, or create your own universe.  Stop trying to bludgeon
MT to make it fit.

2) Kinetic kill weapons are wonderfully lethal things, aren't they?  Their use
against planets is restricted by the following: 

  a)  planets have bigger and better sensor nets than ships can have (unless
the ships are the size of the Skylark of Valeron or DQ).  They almost
certainly maintain a sky-watch to locate and neutralize such things.  After
all, a dinosaur killer can be an accident, much less an attack.

  b)  ALL major bodies ( > 10meters diameter) should be located and monitored
for orbital changes.  It helps with traffic control in those busy systems
anyway, and keeps loons from bombing you into the stone age, eh?

  c)  planetary defenses can deal with these things to a certain extent.  If a
rock moving 0.1c is located at the edge of the system (it probably is not TOO
much closer than that - it takes 5,625,000,000Km to go from 0.05c to 0.1 c at
6Gs), the defense force has over 5 hours to react.  Plenty of time to
intercept (your ships can move 9,000,000+Km in that time), or just eliminate
with a meson gun or nuke.

Yes, yes.  The energy will still be there, and it will still hit the
atmosphere as hot plasma.  life is tough all over.  That's why the defense
force gets paid the big bucks.  To stop this before it gets out of hand.

Yes, kinetic kill weapons can be used against planets.  If you assume good
planetary sensors, then the ship launching them will be spotted looong before
it gets up to speed.  It should be destroyed soon after (still long before it
gets to speed).  And if the launcher starts from out in the deep dark, it
better aim real well now, hadn't it?  not much mid-course correction available
on a rock.and a miss by 3 meters is just as good as no launch at all.




Let's try a new thread.  We have been trying to determine the effect that
densitometers have on a high TL battlefield.  According to MT, artificial grav
stands out like a sore thumb on a densitometer.  So what allows anyone to use
grav vehicles, when they can be detected and eliminated by a
densitometer/meson gun combo on the other side of the planet?  Why doesn't
everyone use tracks/wheels/air-cushions?  Any ideas?  Any design philosophies
for vehicles and military forces that take neutrino detectors/densitometers
into account?

                                    JSH.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2795
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Machinetools 2
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 11:41:34 MET DST

  Machinetools 2: Automatic Pistols TL 5-15

  As before, the weight and cost for the clip don't include ammunition, and the
gun does include the weight or cost for the clip either. I am assuming that 
AP ammo for small arms appear at TL6, DS and APDS at TL9.

  On the funny numbers: Fail is the percentage chance that something other than
what the user thinks will happen happens when the trigger is pulled. 'In' is the
modifyer applied to the tactics points pool for that person only when 
determining who shoots first (aka 'Initiative'). 'A' is the armor value of the
gun and 'I/D' is the incapacitated/destroyed hits levels for the gun.
  They are ofcourse highly optional.
  
Body Pistol 5mm 

  I assume that silencers for bodypistols weigh and cost as much as the gun 
itself. The price of the bodypistols has got an extra 2x multiplier to reflect
that they are constructed to be hard to detect.

TL Item Rds P/A Dmg Rng Aut Dng Sig Recl  Diff Len  Wt   Prc  Fail In  A I/D
8  Gun   6  0/-  3  Med  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.10 0.20 1003 0.50 +4  1 1/1
   Clip  6                                          0.01 25
   Lead  6  0/-  3                                  0.01 0.7
   AP    6  1/1  2                                  0.01 1.4

9  Gun   6  0/-  3  Med  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.10 0.13 1029 0.50 +4  1 1/1
   Clip  6                                          0.00 25
   Lead  6  0/-  3                                  0.01 0.7
   AP    6  1/1  2                                  0.01 1.4
   APDS  6  2/1  2                                  0.01 4.2


Automatic Pistol 7mm

TL Item Rds P/A Dmg Rng Aut Dng Sig Recl  Diff Len  Wt   Prc  Fail In  A I/D
6  Gun  15  1/2  3  Med  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.53 279  0.50 +3  2 1/1
   Clip 15                                          0.02 11
   Lead 15                                          0.08 1.8

7  Gun  15  1/2  3  Med  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.45 277  0.50 +3  1 1/1
   Clip 15                                          0.02 11
   Lead 15                                          0.08 1.8

9  Gun  15  1/2  3  Med  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.43 288  0.50 +3  1 1/1
   Clip 15                                          0.02 11
   Lead 15                                          0.08 1.8
   DS   15  2/2  3                                  0.03 5.4
   APDS 15  3/2  3                                  0.03 11


Automatic Pistol 9mm

TL Item Rds P/A Dmg Rng Aut Dng Sig Recl  Diff Len  Wt   Prc  Fail In  A I/D
5  Gun  15  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.20 1.83 506  0.50 +1  2 1/2
   Clip 15                                          0.05 20
   Lead 15  2/2  3                                  0.24 3.3

6  Gun  15  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.20 1.53 501  0.50 +1  2 1/2
   Clip 15                                          0.04 19
   Lead 15  2/2  3                                  0.21 3.0
   AP   15  3/2  3                                  0.16 6.0

7  Gun  15  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.20 1.35 502  0.50 +2  2 1/2
   Clip 15                                          0.04 19
   Lead 15  2/2  3                                  0.20 2.9
   AP   15  3/2  3                                  0.15 5.7

9  Gun  15  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.20 1.16 502  0.50 +2  2 1/2
   Clip 15                                          0.04 19
   Lead 15  2/2  3                                  0.19 2.8
   AP   15  3/2  3                                  0.14 5.6
   DS   15  4/2  3                                  0.08 8.4
   APDS 15  5/2  3                                  0.08 17


Automatic Pistol 9mm Caseless

  I have assumed that, due to recoil purposes, a loaded weight of 1kg is minimum
for a 9mm automatic pistol. Therefore the TL14 and 15 pistols have extra weights
in them, 105g at TL14 and 230g at TL15 which can be replaced by laser point 
sights, smartgun options, gyros and so on.

TL Item Rds P/A Dmg Rng Aut Dng Sig Recl  Diff Len  Wt   Prc  Fail In  A I/D
8  Gun  30  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 1.26 506  0.50 +2  2 1/1
   Clip 30                                          0.07 27
   Lead 30  2/2  3                                  0.34 12
   AP   30  3/2  3                                  0.23 25

9  Gun  30  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 1.10 501  0.50 +2  2 1/1
   Clip 30                                          0.07 27
   Lead 30  2/2  3                                  0.34 12
   AP   30  3/2  3                                  0.23 24
   DS   30  4/2  3                                  0.11 36
   APDS 30  5/2  3                                  0.11 72

10 Gun  30  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.94 502  0.50 +2  1 1/1
   Clip 30                                          0.07 28
   Lead 30  2/2  3                                  0.34 12
   AP   30  3/2  3                                  0.23 24
   DS   30  4/2  3                                  0.11 35
   APDS 30  5/2  3                                  0.11 71

12 Gun  30  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.79 502  0.50 +2  1 1/1
   Clip 30                                          0.07 28
   Lead 30  2/2  3                                  0.33 11
   AP   30  3/2  3                                  0.22 23
   DS   30  4/2  3                                  0.10 34
   APDS 30  6/2  3                                  0.10 69

13 Gun  30  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.64 502  0.50 +2  1 1/1
   Clip 30                                          0.07 27
   Lead 30  2/2  3                                  0.33 11
   AP   30  3/2  3                                  0.22 23
   DS   30  4/2  3                                  0.10 34
   APDS 30  6/2  3                                  0.10 69

14 Gun  30  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.60 501  0.50 +3  1 1/1
   Clip 30                                          0.07 27
   Lead 30  2/2  3                                  0.33 11
   AP   30  3/2  3                                  0.22 23
   DS   30  4/2  3                                  0.10 34
   APDS 30  6/2  3                                  0.10 69

15 Gun  30  2/2  3  Lng  -   -  Med Med/R Hand 0.15 0.60 504  0.50 +3  1 1/1
   Clip 30                                          0.07 28
   Lead 30  2/2  3                                  0.33 10
   AP   30  3/2  3                                  0.22 21
   DS   30  4/2  3                                  0.10 31
   APDS 30  6/2  3                                  0.10 63

- -bertil-
- -- 
"Med en sjyst magnum sla^r man strephon med ha"pnad!"

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2796
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: KE weapons: late addition
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 10:03:06 BST

cch2@ra.msstate.edu (John Steven Higginbotham) writes:
> 
> 1)  Why do so many reasonably educated people always assume that our present
> level of knowledge in physics is true and correct in every way?

We don't, otherwise we'd have to forget anti-gravity and jump drives.  (Note
the implied arrogance in the "we" there! :-)

> Point being, you are all treating Conservation of Energy as Gospel.

Because if someone once finds a way of violating it, they'll start producing
energy for free and upset the whole game universe.  Besides, it makes sense.

>								According to
> Hawking's speculations about naked singularities, conservation of energy 
> does not apply in their vicinity ...

Very well, try putting a naked singularity into your ship and see how far you
get!  :-)

> And why can't the excess energy needed to make your numbers come out right
> come from Superspace, or be extracted from the Universal gravitational field,
> or something equally unlikely.

Because it's _too_ unlikely!

> Remember that MT is supposed to be 'space opera', not hard scifi.  If you want
> hard scifi, use 2300AD, or create your own universe.  Stop trying to bludgeon
> MT to make it fit.

Some of us were raised on Classic Traveller, which was supposed to be hard s.f.
(Not "scifi", or you'll get flamed by some people who find that term a bit
objectionable!  :-)  We'd rather like to play MT the same way.  Of course, if
you don't want to, you can use the rules as they are, and I for one won't
object.  Me, if I want space opera, I play Star Wars.

> Let's try a new thread.  We have been trying to determine the effect that
> densitometers have on a high TL battlefield.  According to MT, artificial grav
> stands out like a sore thumb on a densitometer.  So what allows anyone to use
> grav vehicles, when they can be detected and eliminated by a
> densitometer/meson gun combo on the other side of the planet?

Well, not quite.  To detect the vehicle from the other side of a planet, you
need a high penetration densitometer to be able to see through the planet;
and that only becomes practical at around TL18, when your densitometer can
penetrate 2500km.  Even using one from the other side of a hill might not work
at TL15 (penetration = 1km).  On the other hand, giving your TL15 trooper a
handheld densitometer, sending him to the top of the hill, and using him as a
forward observer for artillery might work, as might using a densitometer from
a great height.

>							Any design philosophies
> for vehicles and military forces that take neutrino detectors/densitometers
> into account?

Use WW1 cloth-covered biplanes?  :-)

- -- 
 "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: 2797
Date:     Wed, 21 Aug 91 9:32:07 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Agility, One Last Time

I wish I could repost the remarks I got on this subject on GEnie, but I was
surprised to discover that everyone who answered over there is in agreement:

We are calculating agility wrong...they really do mean the power left over
after all components, including the maneuver drive, are powered.  So, if you
want to have a ship that uses 30MW life support, 250MW of weapons, 120MW
of maneuver and has a high agility...go ahead and put in a 7000MW power plant.

(Makes no sense to me.  Sorry.)

Since this apparently has nothing to do with the maneuver drive (then why
does the maneuver drive limit 'emergency' agility?) there is no limit on
how much power can be used for agility.


On the same subject:  Some months ago I posted a note to someone who asked
if we should speed space combat up.  At the time I went into a long description
with a lot of math about how small a target was, and what the odds of hitting
it at 50,000km were, given the likely uncertainty in the _exact_ angle of
your fire.  Last week I sat down to see how much of an effect ship movement
would actually have, and was surprised to run through the numbers and discover
this:  If you have a 50m long ship (let's assume a sphere for convenience,
other shapes will produce other results, but the principle is the same), and
you shoot at it with _perfect_ aim, agility will help it if it can change its
predicted postion (movement vector) by more than one ship length in the time
it takes for the sensor position to travel back to you and the beam to go out.
At 50m and 6-G acceleration, this critical distance is about 200,000km.  For a
50m, 1G ship it is about 480,000km.  _At this range, you could track the ship
continuously and stay on target if you had perfect fire control_.  What would
this mean in game terms?  Well, it's really too late to do anything about it
now, BUT since the uncertainty in firing angle is much more important than
actual ship movement, the use of the attacking computer factor as an add-on
to the attack makes sense.  The use of any sort of defender agility as a
minus to the attack does not, and the use of the defender computer factor to
give a minus on the attack only makes sense if you assume that it represents
some sort of electronic countermeasures aimed at throwing off the attacker's
targetting data.  This isn't a bad assumption, but it seems to me like it might
only be possible with an active EMS jammer and/or EMM system.

For those wishing to figure other conditions the formula is:

Critical Distance=t*2*300,000km/sec

           --------------
          /ship length*2
t= \    / ---------------
    \ /   acceleration

Rob Dean

I've been overwhelmed by the Horde!


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2798
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 10:14 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: High Speed Projectiles, One Last Time

Hi,

John Higginbotham writes that it would be easy to detect a ship
accelerating to .1c.  Well, It aien't that easy.  Consider that
the attacking vessel has to make a long run toward  it's target
in order to get up to speed.  Well, You are going to have
to start waaaay out of the system anyway, why not move back into
interstellar space to start your run?

For one there is less junk out there.  Less chance you'll hit
a stray micrometeroroid at.1c with disasterous results.  Less
chance of detection.  (at the distances I'm thinking of your
neutrino smoke will be totally lost in the bacground noise)

Targetting?  Well, with good old TL7 equipment, we managed to
score a close encounter with Neptune... Admittedly, we had
a few mid course corrections, but there weren't that many
burns and those were for getting to the next target, not
correcting aim.

As for Conservation of energy.  Steven Hawkings is pretty
much talking about what most of us would consider special
circumstances in the realm of the universe (Inside the
center of a black hole...)
Not having been inside one myself I am afraid I am
prejudiced to think that that is a special case...
	Anyway, Conservation of energy holds up quite nicely
in Newtonian physics.  Newton does hold up for everday
low velocities.   And, (Surprise!) .1C is within the realm of
Newton.  (Relativity doesn't kick in substantially till .5C)
	As for mysterious stuff which somehow nullifies
the laws of physics...  I don't like 'em, I won't use 'em
unless I have to.  (Jump Drives, Grav Drives, Nuc Dampers,
Meson Screens, Psi{I really don't like psi})

	The last I heard was that Traveller IS a Hard
Science Fiction game.  (with the above exceptions)  Most of
the game is based on Poul Anderson's writings which are
definitely hard science fiction.

Scott S. Kellogg

PS.  I don't like the term 'hard science fiction'  I preferr
'good science fiction' as opposed to 'bad science fiction'

Eight foot two,
Solid blue,
Five transistors in each shoe,
Has anybody seen my Horde?...

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2799
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 11:27 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Planetary Bombardment

I just remembered a group powerful enough and nuts enough to
flatten a planet with .1c projectiles (or asterioids for those of
you skeptics who say it won't work.)

The K'kree.  They have the motive, the opportunity and the means.
After all, most of the time they go around blasting inhabited
planets to smithereens.  (if they are carnivorous)

In most cases these are low tech planets that can not defend themselves.

There is one note that the first K'kree war of extermination lasted
ten years.  I don't see why.  The K'kree had TL9 Spacecraft.
All they had to do is push a few asteroids around.  (or drop a 1Kl
lead brick on them @ .1C)

One nice dust cloud in the atmosphere will kill off most of the plants,
no plant's no herbivores, no herbivores, no carnivores... problem
solved.

Scott Kellogg
The Horde is assembling at the barder...

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2800
Date:     Wed, 21 Aug 91 15:37:22 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  World Descriptions

I just uploaded my latest modifications of my thumbnail sketches of the worlds
of the Glisten and District 268 subsectors of the Spinward Marches.  Since the
file now runs to 55000 bytes, I decided not to send it to the list.  Anyone
interested can request a copy by email.  Some of the planets with their
descriptions expanded recently include Overnale (Planet of Coups and Civil
Wars), Pagaton (TL4 ice age), Sorel (TL2), and Horosho (Planet of Perpetual
Rain).

Rob Dean

A Horde, a Horde, my kingdom for a Horde!


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2801
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 15:33 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: Agility, One Last Time

Hi,

Want to hear a stupid idea?  If what I have been calling "excess" power
is the important thing in agility calculations.

(ie:  The power left over after ALL systems have been powered)

Ok, then shut down part of your maneuver drive.  You'll get a lot of power
back and it is now in the "excess" power.

So, Shut down the maneuver drive to increase agility?  Sound Stupid?
It works!  (try it!)  Therefore the "excess" power idea is stupid!

Scott Kellogg

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2802
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 17:53:38 EDT
From: Mike.Metlay@ORGAN.MUSIC.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: On ignoring Conservation of Energy

I'll keep this short (unlike some other replies I can predict). It's
pointless to assume that conservation of energy is a special case of
ANYTHING where the motions of normal bodies in space are concerned,
because the effects on common phenomena we can see and interact with 
every day would be measurable. If broken rules are the only reason
to rewrite the laws of physics, even for the sake of a great universe
like the Imperium, then I say to hell with that. Get rid of thruster
plates, redo antigrav properly, put fusion rockets back into the game,
and may the TDR be with you. Harrumph.

metlay
The Horde is breathing down the TML's collective NECK....!

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2803
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 15:24:16 EST
From: grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Subject: Some thoughts about disintegrators

hi,

This is a suggestion as to a possible way to handle disintegrators under
the 'new' TDR ship combat system.


Currently disintegrators are basically worthless weapons, they get less
'free' hits than meson guns, they are affected by armour, they don't get
internal damage hits.  Altogether a pretty poor showing --- little better
than PAs.  When you also consider that they are expensive, large, heavy and
suck power like nothing else they become totally useless (I won't mention the
Jump spinal mounts, they are VERY different to everything else and basically
not worth mentioning in a traditional TL game).

There are several different ways to fix this problem.  Weaken the other spinal
weapons; strengthen the disintegrator weapons; use them to replace PAs at high
TLs rather than replace meson weapons.

Weakening the other weapons seems a bit excessive to me.  Besides, combat
should be really really fatal and quick :-)

Using disintegrators as a PA replacement would be possible if you greatly
lighten the power/volume/weight/price requirements for them to something
comparable to PAs.  Division of all these attributes by 5 or 10 would
bring them back into line but PAs would still be preferable in most
circumstances.

Strengthening a disintegrator is the other way to go.  After some thought and
lots of heat arguments between Eric Halil and myself, we thought of some 'nice'
ways to improve them.  They have to be pretty much single hits destroy style
weapons to match the large meson guns --- let a given disintegrator be capable
of totally destroying a given mass of matter on a hit.  That causes ships to
be disintegrated properly and maybe absolutely.  They should also cause major
damage to the ship's armour factor because they are physically removing it.
Also, the disintegration of matter is likely to produce quite major radation
effects so increase the number of radation damage rolls (unmodified?) and also
apply some damage rolls to ships that are using the taget as a screen or that
are screening the target (or apply some radation damage hits to all ships in
the same hex as the target).  Finally, disintegration is likely to produce some
impressive quantities of EM radation over the entire spectrum so cause all
EM sensors (passive especially) to be either considered jammed or to suffer a
negative DM on sensor tasks [ this shouldn't be too much of a problem on
military ships since EM sensors aren't really necessary if you've got
densos and neutrio sensors ].  These sensors would be able to get a very nice
pinpoint upon the ship being hit since it would be a very impressive EM source.
I don't think that neutrio sensors or densotometers are going to be gravely
affects by the large scale disintegration of matter around the place.  Could a
more physics orientated person verify these ideas?

The handling of the destruction of portions of the ship could be done:
1) percentage destroyed is the save for each of the major systems.
2) as 1 but also certain systems are destroyed after so many percent damage
	reguardless of saves.
3) percentage degradation of some/all ships systems.

Also, things like the jump grid should always suffer a percentage degratation
as damage is taken (this kind of damage is mentioned in the 'official' rules
somewhere).

The powers at large in the imperium (GDW) seem to consider disintegrators to
be powerful weapons, so the modified ship combat/design systems should help
out a little.

Future work to be done:
    Formalise these ideas a little bit more, giving damage rolls etc.
    Convert them into something RebelGuard can use.
    Rework the necessary sections of the ship design procedure for the TDR
    vehicle/ship design group.

I'll get this done eventually, but it is going to have to wait for a little
while since I've got to devote some time to my work.



Any comments are appreciated.


        						Pauli

Paul Dale               | Internet/CSnet:            grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet:       grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Uni of Queensland       | JANET:           grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uk.ac.ukc
Australia, 4072         | EAN:                          grue@cs.uq.oz
                        | UUCP:           uunet!munnari!cs.uq.oz!grue
f4e6g4Qh4++             | JUNET:                     grue@cs.uq.oz.au

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2804
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Hordes of agility
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 10:05:49 BST

"Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil> writes:
> 
> We are calculating agility wrong...they really do mean the power left over
> after all components, including the maneuver drive, are powered.
> ...
> Since this apparently has nothing to do with the maneuver drive (then why
> does the maneuver drive limit 'emergency' agility?) there is no limit on
> how much power can be used for agility.

Perhaps you could ask them what is being used to convert raw power into
agility?  It isn't the manoeuvre drive, because that device's power is
calculated separately.  In fact, having a large manoeuvre drive will
_decrease_ your agility for a given power plant size!

KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> 
> So, Shut down the maneuver drive to increase agility?  Sound Stupid?
> It works!  (try it!)  Therefore the "excess" power idea is stupid!

Well, the MT system tries to avoid doing such calculations in the middle
of a game, probably because it would slow the game down a lot if each
ship kept recalculating its agility every time a weapon fired or someone
did something like the above to the manoeuvre drive.  So they ship specs
just list one agility value.

But, as I said, if you put in a smaller manoeuvre drive in the first place,
you get a higher agility.  This is just from power calculations; the mass
saved by using a smaller drive can be filled with cargo, non-energy weapons
or some other object which doesn't consume power, and the ship will still
be more agile than if it had the larger drive.

Either way, the MT method of calculating agility is stupid.

Mike.Metlay@ORGAN.MUSIC.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>						Get rid of thruster
> plates, redo antigrav properly, put fusion rockets back into the game,
> and may the TDR be with you. Harrumph.

Agreed.  What's the point of having a large drive if you can't fry someone
with the exhaust, anyway?  :-)

- -- 
 "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: 2805
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: Agility, One Last Time
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 12:55:47 MET DST

> I wish I could repost the remarks I got on this subject on GEnie, but I was
> surprised to discover that everyone who answered over there is in agreement:
> 
> We are calculating agility wrong...they really do mean the power left over
> after all components, including the maneuver drive, are powered.  So, if you
> want to have a ship that uses 30MW life support, 250MW of weapons, 120MW
> of maneuver and has a high agility...go ahead and put in a 7000MW power plant.
> 
> (Makes no sense to me.  Sorry.)

  That only means that this is the way it should be done in MegaTraveller, 
it is not the way it is done in Striker, and it don't say anything about TDR:)

>The use of any sort of defender agility as a
>minus to the attack does not, and the use of the defender computer factor to
>give a minus on the attack only makes sense if you assume that it represents
>some sort of electronic countermeasures aimed at throwing off the attacker's
>targetting data.  This isn't a bad assumption, but it seems to me like it might
>only be possible with an active EMS jammer and/or EMM system.

  In the old traveller space combat system, you only needed a ECM program to 
start spoofing missiles.

  I suspect that the Passive/Active EMS arrays could be used as the 
sensing/transmitting part of a ECM system if the signal-processing ciruits and
the computer are flexible and fast enough.
  Some years ago I read a introductiory text on electronic warfare and one of
the impressions I got is that most active systems could be done with a wide-
frequency band capable reciever (like the PassiveEMS) and a similarly wide-
frequency band capable strong transmitter.
 
  Fooling Neutrino detectors and Densitometers should be possible by playing
with the powerplant ('Neutrino-signature of second boogie rapidly increasing,
sir, looks like they are closing fast!') and the grav-plates.

- -bertil-
- -- 
"Med ett sjyst ja"rnro"r sla^r man va"rlden med ha"pnad!"

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2806
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 20:41 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Jump Trainer Cessna 15-0 II

Hi,
I sent this in a few days ago. It turned out my computer
blew it.  I had been making adjustments on it and it neglected to
calculate that there was a jump drive installed.  (oops!)
So I am resending this.

Jump Trainer TL15 "Cessna 15-0" Class

CraftID:	Light Jump Trainer, Type AL, TL15, MCr 18.36232
Hull:		(90/225) Disp=100, Config=6SL, Armor=40G,
		Unload=453.06, Load=1374.16
Power:		(2/3) Fusion=252MW, Dur=30/90
Loco:		(2/4) Maneuver=1, (2/4) Jump=1, MaxAccel=1.02,
		NOE=190, Cruise=750, Max=1000, Agility=1
Comm:		Radio=System*2
Sensors:	A-EMS(Planet), P-EMS(InterPlanet)
		ActObjScn=Dif	ActObjPin=Dif	PasEnScn=Rout
Off:		HPt=1
Def:		DefDM+3
Control:	Computer Mod/1*3, HoloHUD*2, HoloLink*2
Accom:		Crew=1(Bridge/Engineer=1, Instructor=1) Stateroom=2,
		BasicEnv, BasicLS, ExtendLS, G-Plates
Other:		Fuel=225.72kl(1 jump-1+30dy), Cargo=947.93, Scoops,
		Fuel Pure=18hr, ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Faint
Remarks:	No Inertial Compensators.
	The Subsidiary of GSBag:  C&P Ltd has a longer history
than the that of the Imperium.  In 262, the Corporate
Headquarters was moved to Capitol, where they continued to build
their series of trainer ships and vehicles.  Cessna & Piper Ltd
has millenia of experience in the field of trainer design.
	Recently, the demand for new trainers has decreased due to
the fact that there are many many such craft still in service.
The market is full, and while the demand for such craft is
strong, the economic factors come in.  Who will buy a Cessna
Model 15-0, built in 1121 when one built in 1102 can be bought
for substantially less?
	The ship normally does not carry cargo, but it can carry a
substantial amount if so desired.  Many models have had their
cargo bays modified with staterooms in its place.
	The Cessna is a tail sitter, this combined with the 1G
engines make the inertial compensators unnecessary.
	Two pilot's stations are installed.  Either one can take
full control of the ship.  The ship could be said to have an
auxillury bridge, were the pilots not side by side.
	The power plant puts out an excess of 50MW for the possible
installation of more sensors, avionics, additional accomodations,
inertial compensators, or even weapons.
	Probably half the private pilots in the Imperium, and more
than a few military pilots first soloed in a C&P 15-0.
	Spins are prohibited below 900m AGL.  Recommended spin
entry:  150kph.  The Avco-Lycoming fusion plant was chosen for
it's reliability, having proved itself in many small craft
designs.  Note:  Because of extreme wing loading, stall speed
is somewhere around Mach 1.

Scott Kellogg
He who lives by the Horde, shall die by the Horde...

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2807
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:05 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Starship Minimum Size

A question:

In classic traveller, the minimum size of a ship was 100 displacement tons.
In High guard the minimum size of a jump capable ship was 100 tons.

Why?

Well, In Book 2 (the original starship design book) the minimum size drives
would have trouble fitting into a smaller hull.  High Guard modified this
making it possible for smaller ships with smaller drives, but they kept the
100 ton rule.

Now in MegaT, we have a system capable of designing things down to the size
of .0005 tons (smaller if you use Book 8 robots)
Anyway, why do we still have the 100 ton rule?  I can see that there is
going to be a minimum size to a jump drive, but why 100 tons?

Now in adventure 4, they mention jump torpedoes.  (no rules on how much they
cost or how far they can jump, but they are there.)  So Jump drives can be
made smaller.

Ah! I hear you say, there's no one aboard a jump torpedo!  Life can't be sustained in something smaller than 100 tons.  Well, what if you put the same
drive from a 100 ton ship in a smaller ship?  The jump field it projects
should be of the same size, allowing for a bubble in which the occupants
can live while travelling in jump space.  Why 100 tons?

Ok, the reason I am asking is the Cessna Jump trainer design I put out
for your amusement.  More than 60% is cargo space.  (frankly I didn't
want cargo space, but the rules made it so.)  That 60% is essentually
wasted volume.  The whole ship would fit into a 40 ton package.  So,
why do I have to use the 100 ton min?

I realize that small jump capable ships have limited utility, but I wanted
the Cessna to be CHEAP!  If I didn't have to get a maneuver drive for a
100 ton ship, and the associated power plant it would be much cheaper.

How many people would scream if the rule was ammended to be such
that the minimum size jump drive is that given in the book for the 100
ton ship, but the actual ship may be smaller?  To keep such things in
balance we could say that the min size drive remains the same per jump
number.  thus

Jump #	Min Size
1	27Kl
2	40.5Kl
3	54Kl
4	67.5Kl
5	81Kl
6	94.5Kl

What do you say folks?

Mr. Scott
Master of Horde and Sorcery

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2808
From: chk@alias.COM (C. Harald Koch)
Subject: 2300AD is hard science fiction? Hah!
Date: 	Thu, 22 Aug 1991 10:18:58 -0400

> Remember that MT is supposed to be 'space opera', not hard scifi.  If you want
> hard scifi, use 2300AD, or create your own universe.  Stop trying to bludgeon
> MT to make it fit.

Actually, there's all sorts of neat tricks you can play in 2300AD that
violate current physics; their numbers for stutterwarp drives (for example)
violate conservation of energy in a big way.

Why, you ask?

First, for you non-2300 types, the stutterwarp drive is a strange hyperspace
drive. It cycles about 100,000 times per second, and each cycle creates an
instantaneous jump from one point in space to another, thousands of meters
apart, without crossing the intervening space. The net effect is Faster Than
Light travel. However, the velocity vector of the ship in realspace is
completely unaffected by this travel. If you are in orbit about a planet in
one system, and stutterwarp over to the other system, you arrive with your
original vector unchanged (making orbital maneuvers intersting... :-)

The stutterwarp effect is drastically reduced inside the .01G barrier of a
gravity well, so FTL travel within a system is not possible. However, you
can still make good time using stutterwarp instead of reaction drives within
a system. The drawback is that the materials to build stutterwarp drives are
extremely rare, thus the drives are prohibitively expensive. There are only
a few thousand starships in existence in 2300AD, and they're all o/o by the
military or large governments/organizations. (btw, this is the real reason
for using organizations in 2300AD; it's the only way to get access to a
starship without paying commercial rates).

Anyway: most starships don't have maneuver drives. To change your velocity
vector, you stutterwarp to an appropriate point in a gravity well, and then
'fall' until you reach your desired velocity. This requires computers (and a
skilled ship's pilot, which is why we invented the Pilot crew position which
is missing from the rules). This also led us to think about other things you
can do with gravity wells...

- - There's a really neat power generator using stutterwarp: hang a stutterwarp
  drive, inside a large magnet, inside a large wire coil, inside of a gravity
  well. stutterwarp away from the planet, then fall towards the planet. While
  moving towards the planet, the interaction between the magnet and the coil
  agenerates electricity, which also slows you down again. However, you get
  more energy out of the system than you put in, using current
  electromagnetic generator efficiencies and 2300AD stutterwarp energy
  costs. Perpetual motion, anyone?

- - There's also a really neat doomsday device using the same principle. Hang a
  stutterwarp drive in a gravity well. stutterwarp up, fall down. You can
  very quickly get your realspace velocity vector up to large fractions of
  c. Then, turn of the stutterwarp. You impact the surface of the planet...


Anyway, my real point is, don't go calling 2300AD "Hard Science". It breaks
just as many current phyiscs rules as MT does...

- -- 
C. Harald Koch  VE3TLA                Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada
Internet:    chk@alias.com      chk@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu      chk@chk.mef.org

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2809
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 09:59:40 -0400
From: John Lusk <lusk@cs.unc.edu>
Subject: 2300AD as hard science

>   Actually, there's all sorts of neat tricks you can play in 2300AD
>   that violate current physics; their numbers for stutterwarp drives
>   (for example) violate conservation of energy in a big way.

Don't forget that the very concept of FTL travel produces all sorts of
contradictions, without even having to consider numerical values for
generator efficiencies and stutterwarp energy costs.  The thing is,
FTL travel is almost an essential "gimme", unless you want to confine
yourself to one planet and its in-system neighbors.  As far as I can
tell, games that do that turn out to be cyberpunk.  2300 has fewer
gimmes than MT.  As a computer-science type, I take exception to GDW's
concept of computer abilities and costs in 2300, but that's not too
hard to fix.  When I eventually return to MT, I hope to be able to
excise a lot of stuff, like psionics and disintegrators and black
globes and maybe even anti-gravity, BUT . . . it'll be a lot of work,
which is one of the reasons that I prefer 2300 for the time being.

John.

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

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

