From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Aug 29 00:48:36 1991
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA05278) Thu, 29 Aug 91 00:48:16 EDT
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA18434@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 91 21:04:54 -0700
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA06574; Wed, 28 Aug 91 21:03:13 PDT
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA00330; Wed, 28 Aug 91 21:00:22 PDT
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA08172; Wed, 28 Aug 91 21:00:17 PDT
Message-Id: <9108290400.AA08172@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),
        fantasci!traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (Joseph "Jo" E Poplawski),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #231: Msgs 2819-2832
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 28 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 28 21:00:12 PDT 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #231: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
2819  25-Aug-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Hordes of disintigrators << Hordes of Disinti
2820  26-Aug-91 Marc Alexandrovic Standard guns and ammo << Let's review the cu
2821  26-Aug-91 mwc@jake.cc.wayne Double Adventure Five << Aww, Scott, how are 
2822  26-Aug-91 kirsch@rhea.infor Engaging Jumpdrives on a planet's surface << 
2823  26-Aug-91 whservd!gsw@att.a Re: physics nullifiers and 2810: A Discussion
2824  27-Aug-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: Standard guns and ammo << > In addition, 
2825  27-Aug-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: Standardized guns and ammo << > From: jpb
2826  27-Aug-91 "Robert S. Dean"  Re: (2823) Re: physics nullifiers and 2810: A
2827  27-Aug-91 richard@oresoft.C Little-known ring-world fact << Just tinkerin
2828  27-Aug-91 Rob Miracle       Re: Engaging Jump Drive on a Planet << In Mes
2829  27-Aug-91 waylancm@mentor.c More firearms stuff << He's BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC
2830  28-Aug-91 Marc Alexandrovic Some more on standard guns and ammo, now also
2831  28-Aug-91 Marc Alexandrovic Oh well, some more ships. << Type ZN Sagaciou
2832  28-Aug-91 Marc Alexandrovic Numbering << Hello, The numbering system I us

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2819
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1991 17:08 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Hordes of disintigrators

Hordes of Disintigrators

Paul Dale writes about Disintigrators:

"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.  When you also
consider that they are expensive, large, heavy & suck power like
nothing else they become totally useless"
"Strengthening a disintegrator is the way to go."

Disintigrators in Trav
How do they work?
According to Book 4 Mercenary, Nuclear dampers "may be used to
increase or decrease the stability of atomic nuclei.  Projecting
from two different stations, the intersection of the two
transmitted broadcasts produces a series of nodes and
anti-nodes.  In the area of the nodes, the strong nuclear force
is enhanced making the nucleus more stable.  In the area of the
anti-nodes, the strong nuclear force is depressed, making the
nucleus much less stable.  Anti-nodes are focussed on incoming
nuclear warheads, causing them to shed neutrons at low energy
levels, rendering the warhead inoperable."

"The damper is later developed into a disintigrator weapon,
beginning at tech level 16."

OK!  If that's how disintigrators work... Well, what happens to
those neutrons?  If you are going to disintigrate a large object,
you are going to give off one hell of a neutron storm!  Anyone
nearby will get blasted.

OOPS!  What about mass difference?  When an atom loses a neutron
it looses mass.  This mass is converted into energy.  (That's how
atomic fission works!)  So when your ship's hull starts loosing
neutrons it is going to gain energy.  Heat.  Presumeably, the
heat is sufficient to vaporize the material being vaporized. 
Thus the target disintigrates.

UH-OH!  That's not what happens!  According to Adventure 3: 
Twilight's peak (the only time we see disintigrators ever
described in action)  The target just "vanishes".  No heat, no
radiation storm.  The target just disappears.  "Control is
sufficiently precise to vanish one man from a crowd or destroy a
party's (sic) weapons while leaving everything else intact."

Rationalization:  (How it works when Scott is Ref and crazy
enough to try to deal with ancient artifacts)
The energy released is drained away from the target by the weapon
and goes toward powering the weapon.  After all, disintigrating
an object in the manner they describe requires one hell of a lot
of energy.
	In an ancient TL 24 pistol, there is sufficient power
stored to disintigrate a certain amount of mass.  As soon as the
disintigrator is fired it disintigrates that mass and drains off
the energy of the reaction to recharge itself.  If the energy was
NOT drained off (as might happen if the pistol malfunctioned) the
energy is released into the environment and the pistol is now
drained.  (note that the energy released into the environment is
going to be on the order of several kilotons.)
	Advice to anyone finding a 300,000 year old disintigrator:
Don't fire at close range...

	With a Shipboard disintigrator, you would have a choice:
either disintigrate a certain amount of mass for a split second
which would release the fission energy (several kilotons...) or
absorb that energy to maintain the disintigrator beam.

The first type of attack will give off huge amounts of radiation,
and energy.  The second attack would merely vaporize a certain
amount of mass in the target.  Either way, I do not see how armor
is a defence.  The anti-node of the disintigrator can be focused
inside the ship.  (Thus you could have an internal explosion in
the kiloton range)

Disintigrating mass might be more desirable if you want to
capture a ship.  (just replace the missing components and plates)

But which ever type of attack you like, the damn thing has to be
more deadly than the TL 8-9 particle accelerators which the rules
say it is on par with.  (Actually less so because it doesn't get
an automatic hit!)

Which brings me on to the use of nuclear dampers as defences.  It
occurs to me, that unless a target vessel knows what it is being
attacked with, it will not be able to do anything about it.  A
software program will have to be set up for the dampers to defend
against disintigrators.  Until the defender has seen a
disintigrator and experimented with it, they will not be able to
defend against it.

Scott Kellogg
Look Out!  Double Adventure Five is Coming!!!!!!!

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2820
From: Marc Alexandrovich Volovic <mav@cs.huji.ac.il>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 01:19:41 PDT
Subject: Standard guns and ammo

 
Let's review the current situation.
 
Pistol, Centerfire, Semi-Auto, Narrow Skirt Ammo
       .25 ACP (6.35mm)
       7.62mm Tokarev M30
       7.63mm Mauser
       7.65mm (.30) [Walther PP series, for example]
       .32 ACP
       .380 ACP (9mm Short) [Multitudes of modern pistols]
       9mm Sov [Makarov]
       9mm Parabelum [Multitudes of modern pistols]
       10mm [Smith and Wesson 1006 and 1076, Glock 22]
       .41 AE [Jericho 941 and 941F, Smith and Wesson models]
       .45 ACP (11.4mm) [Colt M1911A]
 
Pistol, Centerfire, Revolver, Wide Skirt Ammo
       .357 Magnum [Revolvers, IMI Desert Eagle]
       .38 Long
       .38 Special
       .41 Magnum [Revolvers, IMI Desert Eagle]
       .44 Special
       .44-40
       .44 Magnum [Revolvers, IMI Desert Eagle]
       .45 Long Colt
       .455 SAA [Webley Revolver]
 
Rifle, Centerfire, Military (Military cartridges have Ball, Tracer,
Incendiary, Balistite, Training and AP rounds)
       4.7mm Caseless [G11 Assault Carbine]
       5.45mm Sov M-74 [AK-74 and derivatives]
       5.56mm Nato (.223 Remington) [M-16, Galil, S-80]
       7.62mm Nato (.308) [M-14, M60, Galil Sniper Rifle, LAR, FAR]
       7.62mm Sov M-43 [AK-47 and derivatives]
       7.62mm Sov M-54R [PKS, SVD]
       .50 (12.7mm Nato) [Barret M-80]
 
Rifle, Centerfire, Civilian
       .222 Magnum              .30-40 Krag
       .250                     .300 Magnum
       .270                     .303
       .280                     .308 (7.62mm Nato)
       7mm Mauser               .350
       7mm Magnum               .375
       .30 Carbine              .458 Magnum
       .30-06                   .460 Magnum
 
Looks bad enough?
Lets examine the most popular cartridge in the world - 9mm Parabelum:
 
The standard ball bullet is 115 grain full metal case (FMC) projectile.
But there are alternatives - I carry 122 grain FMC rounds in my pistol,
a friend of mine has alternating 147 grain semi-jacketed hollow point
(SJHP) and 127 grain FMC. There are also 94 grain jacketed hollow point
(JHP), 105 grain silvertip HP (SHP), 115 grain military grade FMC made
with stronger propellant (the +P rating of some 9mm Para bullets is the
civillian version of this type) which can damage pistols firing it too
many times (these rounds are for submachineguns - UZI, MAC-11, etc).
 
There is now a shotgun round for the 9mm - 8 pellets in a container round,
Glazer safety slugs, 85 grain high speed FMC, 100 (or near) grain soft nose
bullets. There are types I do not know about, probably.
 
In addition, the weights of the weapons seem wildly off the mark. Lets
examine a modern pistol in detail. The pistol is Smith and Wesson 5904
semi auto (indeed, the pistol I carry):
 
                S&W 5904        TL7 9mm Auto
Length:           195mm           200mm
Weight:           780gm          1350gm
Rounds:         15/20              15
15x115grain FMC: ~200gm
15x122grain FMC: ~180gm (very light round cases)
15x147grain SJHP:~400gm
15x9mm Imperial                   200gm
15x9mm AP Imperial                150gm
 
Problems: Weight! The heaviest 9mm I am acquainted with (CZ-75) weighs around
1000gm. The lightest (Glock 19) weighs around 480gm. Where did the 1350 figure
come from?
 
Bertil?
 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Marc A. Volovic -                       Procrastinator and do-no-gooder|
| mav@LIZARDO.huji.ac.il     Snail: P.O.B. 23114, 91230 Jerusalem, Israel|
|             Dept. of Linguistics, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                       Fencers do it with rapid thrusts                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2821
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 09:07:05 EDT
From: mwc@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Mick Collins)
Subject: Double Adventure Five

          Aww, Scott, how are we gonna come up with dumb puns for "Double Adventure Five"?

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2822
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 17:12:14 EDT
From: kirsch@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Subject: Engaging Jumpdrives on a planet's surface

Hi folks,

just a short question. Can somebody tell me, what will happen, if a ship
tries to enter Jumpspace on the surface of a planet. Err... I do not mean,
what will happen to the ship! I'm interested in what happen to the planet?

Any suggestions ?

Some of the players in my campaigne told me:

We will make a program in the ship's computer, which will engage jumpdrive,
if we are not back till... They think, the planet will be destroyed (or
at least an area of 400 km^2.

Any comments ?

That's it, Juergen

P.S.: If the suggestion above is true, it should be a much easier way,
      to destruct a planet, than using high KE weapons. Simply use a small
      Scout/Seeker and engage his jumpdrives on a planet's surface.

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

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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2823
From: whservd!gsw@att.att.COM
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:06 EDT
Subject: Re: physics nullifiers and 2810:  A Discussion from GEnie

> The following discussion of Agility is from GEnie:
> 
> [ ... ]
> Item    8057512                 91/08/22        03:26
> From:   B.BORICH                        Bryan J. Borich
> [ ... ]
>     A  way around this problem was given by considering  the  way 
> maneuver drives worked and how agility works and then considering 
> inertial compensators as a possible solution.
> [ ... ]
>     Taking  these things into account a theory occured  that  as-
> sumed  that  a more primitive form of  inertial  compensators  is 
> built  into  the ships as part of the maneuver  drives  and  hull 
> structural  members.  These inertial compensators are  simple  in 
> design  and are available at TL9 (in actuality the major  differ-
> ence between the TL9 and TL10 compensators is the computer  elec-
> tronics and the fine tuning necessary, requiring that environmen-
> tal  compensators  be built through the entire ship where  it  is 
> needed to protect the crew and cargo).
> [ ... ] [ uses this to explain why agility works the way it does
> and why the 6G limit, etc. ]

This sounds exactly like what I posted to the TML on 8/6.  I had
mentioned that it could be used to justify the way agility works,
but there is a more fundamental reason for a "physics nullifier"
here.  In fact, there are a number of "physics nullifiers" inherent
to Traveller.  You have a choice: accept them or change the nature
of the game.

I'm not talking just about the way agility is calculated, either.

I'm also not going to try to prove why interstellar travel breaks
our physics.

A huge problem is that of energy.  Traveller craft use fusion power
(this is given).  Ships are also capable of accellerating to some
very high velocities (sustaining 1G for a month is going to get you
pretty close to the speed of light).  Fusion just DOESN'T supply
that much energy.  Even if you were converting mass to energy with
100% efficiency, you still would have to use a sizable fraction of
the ship's mass as fuel.

Face it.  There's a problem.  If you really don't want "yet another
physics nullifier" then switch to fusion rockets and forget about
it.  Of course, that's not Traveller anymore.  (Don't get me wrong,
I think it would be a great game.  It's just not Traveller, that's
all.)  While you're at it, you might as well nix FTL drives at the
same time.

If you really want to stick with Traveller, then it is a question
of choosing your physics nullifiers.  While you're at it, why not
assemble a set of physics that works with the present rules?  As
long as it is consistent, I say this is OK.

I'm not going to argue about which set of physics nullifiers is
better -- I already have mine, thank you.  But don't argue over
every rule as a matter of present day physics.  I'm not saying
you can't question a rule, mind you -- I don't like the "excess
power = agility" rule either.

Whenever anyone posts an idea for justifying something, we tend to
get a bunch of posts to the effect of "It won't work.  How could
anyone have thought of such a stupid idea?  Ha."  C'mon.  Nothing
works if you close your mind (Hummingbird population extinguished
when they discover that they can't in fact fly.  News at 11. 8-).

Of course, you could also forget about justifying everything and
simply play the game 8-).

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:  Don't worry so much about
trying to make everything work by current physics.  If it really
bothers your sensibility to leave things unexplained, then by all
means explain them.  But you WILL have to make modifications to
present-day physics.  If you decide that your set of "physics
nullifiers" doesn't support the Traveller rules, then so be it.
But don't complain if I decide to make up one that does, or choose
not to worry about it.

Jerry Williams
gsw@gummo.att.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2824
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: Standard guns and ammo
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 14:42:54 MET DST

> In addition, the weights of the weapons seem wildly off the mark. Lets
> examine a modern pistol in detail. The pistol is Smith and Wesson 5904
> semi auto (indeed, the pistol I carry):
>  
>                 S&W 5904        TL7 9mm Auto
> Length:           195mm           200mm
> Weight:           780gm          1350gm
> Rounds:         15/20              15
> 15x115grain FMC: ~200gm
> 15x122grain FMC: ~180gm (very light round cases)
> 15x147grain SJHP:~400gm
> 15x9mm Imperial                   200gm
> 15x9mm AP Imperial                150gm
>  
> Problems: Weight! The heaviest 9mm I am acquainted with (CZ-75) weighs around
> 1000gm. The lightest (Glock 19) weighs around 480gm. Where did the 1350 figure
> come from?
 
  In 3G, the weight of the gun is dependent on the power of the round, which
directly affects the mass of the reciever and barrel, but the barrel is
greatly affected by length. The resulting weight of the gun can be reduced by
putting a multiplier on the price. I suspect that I put a 0.75 mod on the
weight of that gun, which gave a 2.0 mod on the price.

  The reason why it gets so heavy, is that the round has to be much more
powerful to penetrate AF 2, which compares to 5mm armor plate. Computing actual
penetration in mm using 3G/Timelords and crossreferencing this on the
Striker/MegaT chart of armor mods to get the penetration. This ment that it was
harder to get the lower penetrations (1-6) but much easier to get the higher
penetrations (7+) with the weapons. I 'punched up' the load of some of the 
lighter weapons and rounds to reach their rated penetration in MegaT, but I 
didn't decrease it for those that begun to overachieve. 
  
  (A quick check with 3G gives that a TL7 9mmP has a DV (Damage Value, it gives
the penetration in MegaT) of 22, but the 9mm auto in the Imperial Encuclopedia
has a Pen of 2, and the round would need a DV of 27 to get a Pen of 2. There
wouldn't be any difference in penetration ability between a 9mmP or a
.357 Magnum if I did them with the real propellant loads, since all of them 
would get a penetration of 1. (DV's between 14 and 26 are Pen 1, because the
Striker/MegaT armor factors are too far apart at the low end of the scale:
AF 1 = 2.5mm, AF 2 = 5mm, AF 3 = 7.5mm))

  Hmmm... (sound of opinion changing) I think I'm beginning to agree with Rob
about lowering the AVs of the armors, so that I wouldn't have to boost the
rounds, but what do we do with all the futuristic armors that we don't know
how thick they are? Keep as is? Divide by 2? Remember that the AF of 18 for
a Battledress-15 means that it's armor equals 5cm of armor plate!

> | Marc A. Volovic -                       Procrastinator and do-no-gooder|

- -bertil-

P Regina							      239-1121
  The spokessophont for the chamax plague issued a statement yesterday where it
  protested the non-equal treatment the chamax plague is recieving on the
  joke front. Usually well disinformed sources expect other groups like
  the 'Kinunir', the 'Bright Face' and the 'Marooned' will follow up with
  statements of their own soon.
- -- 
"Det a"r en Svensk grej. Du skulle inte fo"rsta^..."


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2825
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: Standardized guns and ammo
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 15:33:03 MET DST

> From: jpb <jpb%umbio.med.miami.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
> Subject: (2817) Standardized guns and ammo
> 
> Recntly someone mentioned (I forgot to keep the message around, and
> don't recall who it was) that rounds would not be interchangable
> between tech levels.  I always assumed that there was some sort of
> standard "Imperial 7mm" or "Imperial Marine 9mm long" like we have
> today with such things as 7.62 NATO or .45 ACP.  Sure, you can
> occasionally find non-standard stuff, but it seems to me that it'd be
> much cheaper to produce rounds locally (maybe 1 world in the subsector
> gets the contract and ships them to the bases).

  The reason why it is very hard to do a round that is compatible with weapons
from all TLs (or at least 4 and up:) is that the energy of the powder increases
rather drastically. For the round to physically fit in the weapons, it will
have to be the same shape and size, and that means that the amount of powder
cannot be changed (except in very special circumstances, like the 5.56mm sub-
sonic for supressed weapons).
  And since the volume of powder is the same, but the energy increase, you
would get all kinds of interesting effects if you put a TL15 7.62 N in an
TL4 7.62 bolt action rifle. The hitech weapons would also have to be designed
for a greater than nessesary energy, with would make them heavier and more
expensive, and the lowtech weapons would become *much* heavier if their
designers had to prepare them for someone using hitech rounds in them.

  (The Swedish military standard 9mm is a Husquarna brand modified version of 
the old German Luger (ie a TL5 construction). There have been many cases where
old Husquarnas have cracked because the shooter had carelessly loaded it with
(TL 7) 9mm rounds intended for the M/45 SMG, and we are only talking about a
difference of 2 TL's here)
 
> As far as guns go, they are probably produced under contract from a
> standard design so that troops do not need to be retrained when they
> are stationed in different subsectors.
 
  Standardization:
    Advantages:
      No development costs.
      Standardization (but remember the TL effects!).
    Disadvantages:
      Royalties.
      Not adapted to local conditions.
      Is it really nessesary for a planetbound force?
  
  Local development and production:
    Advantages:
      Export potential (if you have lo-tech neighbours)
      Helps technical development on own planet.
      Adapted to local conditions.
    Disadvantages:
      Noncompatibility.
      Development costs.

  This question is highly dependant on how many people that really travel
extensively in the Imperium. I've always been under the impression that a
majority of the travels are done by a small minority consisting of those whose
work carry them between systems, nobles and adventurers. The majority of the
population of a certain planet couln't care less if their brands of ammunition
wasn't available 1pc away because they won't leave their planet.

  This is of course not true for organizations that span an area larger than
a system, like the IMC and the MegaCorps. I suspect that that is why 
Interstellarms have had such a hit with their standard line of weapons.

> Joe

- -bertil-
- -- 
"Det a"r en Svensk grej. Du skulle inte fo"rsta^..."

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2826
Date:     Tue, 27 Aug 91 9:14:12 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (2823) Re: physics nullifiers and 2810: A Discussion from GEnie

In his letter dated Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:06 EDT, Gerry Williams wrote:
>
> Of course, you could also forget about justifying everything and
> simply play the game 8-).
>

You could.  (And in the real world, mostly I do...)  What I have an aethetic
objection to is any game in which really strange things are done to the
'reality base' for no apparent gain in the game's play.  I think of it as
the same sort of trouble I would have with a fantasy game that made swords
better than halberds for wounding someone in plate armor, or a modern game
which is supposed to be 'realistic' in which characters can routinely absorb
a couple of .50 caliber machine gun bullets in the head <!> without becoming
unconscious.  It destroys my suspension of disbelief.

For Traveller, we basically have to accept the Jumpdrive and the grav plate
in order to stay with the game.  My aesthetic preference is that new 
technologies not be multiplied to cover what were probably intended as
approximations in the rules.  What Traveller really needs is a set of
Designer's Notes, to tell us what sort of things they skimped over and
why.  I also tend to see most of these new explanations for rules as
creating more problems than they solve.  If an inertial compensator is
really a misnomer for a grav plate system that is aligned opposite the
engine, then we haven't altered the assumptions of the game.  If it really
'neutralizes mass' then we have to spend a lot of time explaining why this
simple <?> TL9 invention <per the GEnie note> isn't used to ease transport
problems at higher tech levels, and why (for example) we don't just put a 
little tiny rocket on the ship, nullify the mass, and accelerate at 150Gs
for a couple of hours until the fuel runs out instead of carting around
those big fusion plants.

Despite the fact (or maybe because of it) that I have done extensive work
with the new vehicle design system, I feel that it was not especially
improved by addding all the extra detail compared to High Guard or Book 2.
However, because it is so detailed, my aesthetic sense is once again offended
when someone suggests to me that thousands of megawatts of power can be pumped
into some sort of mysterious agility generator, when the system requires me
to specify every piece of electrical equipment down to the cigarette lighter.
(-:  Where is this agility generator hiding, and how much does it weigh per
kl? (-:  If the inertial compensators are responsible for agility, then
the rules should tell me that a ship that has none has no agility, right?

Ah well, what can I say?  The current rules are just not very well thought out
in a lot of important ways.  (All cargo is worth the same amount per kl?  Makes
for a very dull merchant game, let me tell you...I'm tossing that out and
using Book 2 again for the moment...)  The strength of Traveller is in the
background.

Enough ranting for now.  Is anyone else going to be at the World Science 
Fiction Convention in Chicago?  Leave a message for me on the Voodoo message
board if you are.  (If you've been to a worldcon you know what I mean...if not
ask a native.)

Rob Dean


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2827
From: richard@oresoft.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Little-known ring-world fact
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 7:19:19 PDT

Just tinkering around with some numbers in preparation for the
upcoming PBEM season.  At R-alpha, a ringworld with a 1AU radius, if
you decided to walk the circumference, and you could steadily make
25km per day, it would take over 110,000 years to complete the
journey.

The size of this monster never fails to amaze me.
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@oresoft.com      richard@agora.rain.com
"Up to my ailerons in alligators."
Certainly this is worse in a Cessna than in a Mooney.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2828
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 12:25 EDT
From: Rob Miracle <RWMIRA01%ULKYVX.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Engaging Jump Drive on a Planet

In Message: (2822) Engaging Jumpdrives on a planet's surface,
kirsch@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de wrote
>just a short question. Can somebody tell me, what will happen, if a ship
>tries to enter Jumpspace on the surface of a planet. Err... I do not mean,
>what will happen to the ship! I'm interested in what happen to the planet?

>Any suggestions ?

I don't have the rules on me, but under the Old Traveller rules, you just had a
bad nasty DM if you were within 10 diameters.  Something about gravity wells
messing up the Jump physics.  Since they didn't say what would happen if you
were on the planets surface, some players logically argued that you could
engage Jump and live with the -DMs.  If you pilot is good enough, this has a
high probablility of just being a mis-jump.

Since Jump is not a propulsion system like the manuver drives, you could infer
that the jump drives just effect the mass of the ship and would put it into
jump space.  Where, and at what direction and jump velocity would be very
random due to the severe effects of gravity.  There would be probably no damage
to the planet since it is not a hyperspace object.

Now it is possible that the ship would be destroyed since the mishap chance is
very high.

>Some of the players in my campaigne told me:

>We will make a program in the ship's computer, which will engage jumpdrive,
>if we are not back till... They think, the planet will be destroyed (or
>at least an area of 400 km^2.

Your call there.  MegaTraveller may have a more definitive answer.


>P.S.: If the suggestion above is true, it should be a much easier way,
>      to destruct a planet, than using high KE weapons. Simply use a small
>      Scout/Seeker and engage his jumpdrives on a planet's surface.

A hand full of TL-15 Nukes are a lot cheaper than a 10Mcr scout.  I would
suspect that ramming the planet would do more damage than jumping from it.

Rob



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

Archive-Message-Number: 2829
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 11:55:11 -0500
From: waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Craig Waylan)
Subject: More firearms stuff

He's BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCKK!!

Yes, Mr. Science is back in action(that's 'MR.', not 'DR.', dammit!), and
I thought I'd toss in my two bits on the recent firearms discussion. I don't
have any material in front of me, so this is only as reliable as my memory:
usually pretty good, but I encourage corrections.

Since the various and sundry types of firearms are already getting plenty
of air time, let's toss another bone in the pot: ammunition.

Something that a lot of ordinary people have found out(that the police and
military won't notice 'till the end of the century at least! :) is that
ammo technology has changed *a lot* in the past decade or two. Back before
the early '80s (I don't work well with precise dates, no flames please),
about all anybody used was plain 'ol FMJ - Full Metal Jacket - a lead
bullet wrapped in a thin copper (or other soft metal) jacket to give it
a little more oomph. If you didn't want to shell out for FMJ, you got 
even plainer 'ol Ball ammo - no jacket; cheap for training & practice,
but leaves a mess in your barrel. If you were really in a bad mood, you got 
some HP - Hollow Point - a lead bullet, with or without a jacket, which had 
a divot taken out of the middle so that on impact with a reasonably soft 
target(usually a person), it expanded outward into a large flat surface
(called 'mushrooming', get the picture?) and caused really nasty wounds. 
Unfortunately, nobody really cared what shape the divot was when they 
started making these things, so their mushrooming effect wasn't terribly 
reliable. Finally, if you really had some spare cash, or were in some
armies, you might even get some AP rounds - Armor Piercing - just use
something harder than lead(hence the high cost to make).

You'll note that I'm only discussing common types of rounds; there have
always been people who 'roll their own', casting their own custom bullets
and so forth. Also, 'gee-whiz' rounds like tracers, discarding sabot,
explosive-tipped, etc. either only existed in medium- to large-caliber
rifles, or(when put into handgun-sized calibers) were about as reliable as
your average public-transit system(in other words, not very!).

Recently, however, most companies have gotten a *lot* better with their
production techniques, as well as having much more creative R&D people.
Fr'instance: my personal choice for 'carry' ammo is the Winchester SilverTip
Hollow Point(STHP); weighing in at 129 grains in 9mm, it is, IMHO, the
best combination of penetration and stopping power in this caliber. A friend
of mine did some testing with this round in his .357 Magnum, and found that
it *very* reliably expanded in soft targets(just water jugs, guys :); but
against hard surfaces, it 'noses in', collapsing on the divot for better
penetration. Federal Hydra-Shok ammo uses a bizarre-shaped divot with a
post, or sprue(or something) in the middle for easily comparable results.

As Mark noted, various companies now make 'shotshell' rounds in handgun
calibers; .22 shotshell has been around for some time as a bird or rodent
round. It would make a wonderfully safe shipboard round in your 10mm
Autopistol(as long as your targets were unarmored :)

Another new creature in the zoo is the Glaser Safety Slug. This thing is
basically a bunch of tiny pellets(I don't remember what size), inside a
soft plastic(?) shell. The entire 'packet' is fired from the gun, which
then breaks on impact, causing fairly nasty wounds(again, only to unarmored
targets), but it won't go through walls or doors and so forth. They'd be
perfect for modern-day police departments, except for their outrageous
price: ~$18 for a packet of -6- shells is ridiculous!

Tracer and explosive rounds are also more availiable in pistol sizes these
days - more reliable too, although an expl. round will go off on the first
thing it hits, including panes of glass, etc., so watch what your PCs are
shooting at! These things are also a lot more available(frighteningly so) to
the general public. At any decent-sized gun show(the Indy 1500 in Indianapolis
is good), you can buy damn near *anything*. Did you know that, even though
you have to be 21 to get a pistol in Indiana, you can buy explosive handgun
ammo, over the counter, without even showing a driver's license? Don't you
feel safe with that kind of firepower at your disposal?(note:this is sarcasm:-)

I could probably go into a tirade about the NRA, but I've prattled on enough 
as it is. 

Suffice to say that even at TL7.5(and holding...), firearms are more than
deadly enough to get your PCs on the 'Imperium's Most Wanted' very quickly.
In game terms, even low-tech guns kill people *quickly*, not just from the
bullet itself, but from the *kinetic energy* it brings with it. I'll leave
it to you Physics types to do the calculations, but I'm pretty sure that
gauss weapons, with their 4mm needle bullets, are horribly overrated. They
may have a small enough cross-section to penetrate heavy armor, but they
won't do much damage once they get there. An old .45 slug, in comparison,
can't get through even modern body armor(cheap Cloth), but the impact alone
*will* knock you on your ass, and may very well kill you from blunt trauma
alone(ever been hit with a baseball bat at full speed?). Advance 
miniaturization from higeher TLs will only make things worse(yes, Virginia,
they already make explosive-tip shotgun slugs...try not to think about it); 
It'll be a long time indeed before energy weapons replase slugthrowers on the
battlefield, if only because they're cheaper.
*******************************************************************************
*	      Legion		 * "And all this science, I don't understand; *
* waylancm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu  *  It's just my job, five days a week..."    *
*******************************************************************************

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2830
From: Marc Alexandrovich Volovic <mav@cs.huji.ac.il>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 01:41:46 PDT
Subject: Some more on standard guns and ammo, now also referring to armour :-)

 
Lesseee... Hmmm....
 
  I prefer to manually decrease the AV (in MegaT) instead of dividing by
two.
 
  My AV table is:
 
    Jack                        0 (1)       Hostile Envir Vacc Suit-9   4
    Mesh                        1           Hostile Envir Vacc Suit-12  5
    Flak Jacket                 2           Hostile Envir Vacc Suit-13  6
    Cloth                       3           Hostile Envir Vacc Suit-14  7
    Ablat                       1 [4]       Combat Environment Suit     4
    Reflec                      0 [8]       Combat Armour-11            5
    Vacc Suit-8                 2           Combat Armour-12            7
    Vacc Suit-12                3           Combat Armour-14            9
    Vacc Suit-14                4           Battle Dress-13            10
    Body Pressure Suit          1           Battle Dress-14            14
    Hostile Envir Vacc Suit-8   3           Battle Dress-15            18
 
  No longer do people chance to take hits from Gauss rifles :-).
 
  Craig (who, among other sins, mangled my name) makes the mistake of
overrating the Glazer Safety round. It is, indeed, a very damaging
round, but it lacks in stopping power. For short ranges, I'd prefer the
9mm 147 grain SJHP over any combination of DS and Glazer.
 
  Thus - high calibre pistols have an edge in self-defence situations,
with ranges below 25m.
 
  The Gauss rifle, on the other hand is a military weapon. It has
absolutely no use (worse, it is absolutely deadly) in a self-defence
situation of any range in a civillian context. It is intended to lay
down high rate of fire at a reasonable range with low recoil and high
penetration - wounded soldiers are better than dead soldiers, especially
if the needles are hard to remove.
 
  Other weapons have specific niches - the body pistol, the integral
laser gun and others.
 
  As for weight versus price - 3G is VERY wrong here. Here are prices
and weights of four 9mm pistols I know. Prices are in I$ - Israeli
dollars (i.e. Israeli sheqels converted to US$ at US$1=IS2.35).
 
                Gun           Price  Weight
 
            CZ-75             I$510  990gm  (exc ammo, 1150gm with ammo)
            S&W 5904          I$851  780gm  (exc ammo, 990gm with ammo)
            Glock-17          I$595  550gm  (exc ammo, 800gm with ammo)
            IMI Jericho 941   I$425  950gm  (exc ammo, 1250gm with ammo)
 
  It cannot be said that the Glock is the least advanced - indeed, it is
MORE advanced than either the Jericho or the CZ and possible more
advanced than the Smith and Wesson. Of the guns, two (S&W and Glock) are
US manufacture, one is Israeli (Jericho) and the one (CZ) is Czech.
 
  Now what? :-)
 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Marc A. Volovic -                       Procrastinator and do-no-gooder|
| mav@LIZARDO.huji.ac.il     Snail: P.O.B. 23114, 91230 Jerusalem, Israel|
|             Dept. of Linguistics, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                       Fencers do it with rapid thrusts                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2831
From: Marc Alexandrovich Volovic <mav@cs.huji.ac.il>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 01:58:15 PDT
Subject: Oh well, some more ships.

 
                 Type ZN Sagacious Obliterator Intruder
                 Type YP Auerin Caetian Pleasure Yacht
 
 
  The Type JH was designed to be a fast, maneuverable intruder, armed
with missiles and a light laser battery. Somewhere in the development
process, a retaliation ship was requested by the Imperial Navy. Under
the designation ZN, 2 ships were built and tested.
 
  The type ZN carries 80 half-ton projectiles in the cargo hold. These
may be offloaded during flight using the two heavy robotic arms and
released. The official designation of the craft in imperial service is
Type QK Balastor Winhoek.
 
  At least two megacorporations are known to possess the plans for the
Type ZN. GSbAG ships YP-R15431 Auerian Caerian, YP-R15432 Auerian
Dioerika and YP-R15433 Auerian Easwyir have been identified as ZN
Intruders. Requests for information pertaining to these ships were
shuffled and reshuffled continuously.
 
  All Type ZN ships operate their reactors at 73% efficiency during
normal operations. Each hour off full reactor usage consumes 1.25 hours
of fuel. For especially long range operations or emergency jumps the
ship may switch off the maneuver drive to perform a second jump and seek
immediate refueling.
 
  Recently, GSbAG introduced the Type Y3. It is clearly a downgraded ZN
Intruder with lighter armament, smaller engines and computer and longer
range.
 
 
  CraftID: Type ZN Sagacious Obliterator Intruder, TL15, MCr529.631
    AuxID: Type YP Auerin Caetian Pleasure Yacht, TL15
    AuxID: Type QK Balastor Winhoek Courier, TL15
     Hull: 455/1136, Disp=500, Config=1AF, Armour=40G, Unloaded=5780.364 tons
	   Loaded=6228.555 tons
    Power: 28/56, Fusion=7434Mw, Dur=22/30 days
     Loco: 18/36, Jump=3, 63/126, Maneuver=5, Agility=4, EmergencyAgility=6
	   Max=3840 kph, Cruise=2880 kph, NOE=190 kph
     Comm: Radio=System(1000 au)*3, Laser=System(1000 au)*3,
	   Maser=System(1000 au)*3
  Sensors: EMM, HiPenDens=1km*3, NeutrinoSensor=10kw*3,
	   ActiveEMS=FarOrbit(500,000)*3, JammerEMS=FarOrbit(500,000)*3,
           PassiveEMS=InterStellar(2 parsecs)*3, HeavyRobotArm*2
           ActObjScan=Routine, ActObjPin=Routine, PassObjScan=Routine,
           PassObjPin=Routine, PassEnScan=Simple, PassEnPin=Routine
      Off: Hardpoints=5
 
		BLaser=xx4	Missile=xo3
		  Batt	 2	   Batt   2
		  Bear	 2	   Bear   2
 
      Def: DefDM=+14/+16, OptimizedNuclerDampe=1
 
		Sandcaster=xx4
		      Batt   1
		      Bear   1
 
  Control: Comp=9/fib/ecp*3, LargoHoloDisp/ecp, HoloHUD/ecp
    Accom: Crew=15 (1 Bridge, 1 Engineering, 2 Command, 5 Gunnery, 5 Troops,
           1 Medic), Accom=Stateroom*5, SmallStateroom*5, basic env,
           basic ls, extended ls, grav plates, inertial comp, airlock
    Other: Fuel=3517.2kl (1 jump-3 + 30 days running mode), Cargo=185.187kl,
           Scoops, Purifier=24hour, Magazine=40 battery rounds, ObjSiz=Avg,
           EmLevel=Faint
 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Type Y3 Gabilonne
 
 
  In 1114, GSbAG introduced a new pleasure yacht. The Type Y3, sporting
a conference room (3m x 14m x 8m), convertible into a squash court or a
light pistol shooting range, a sauna/jacuzzi room (3m x 8m x 7.5m) and
single staterooms for crew and passengers alike, became a successful
product, with 78 hulls purchased.
 
  In 011-1121, when BC-SMN049031 Zampok and its squadron jumped into the
Tavonni system (Vilis/Spinward Marches 1520) for routine refuelling, it
was a witness to a battle between a craft identifying itself as Y3-C1417
Muir Runner and a class T patrol cruiser T-N053003 Outrigger. The Muir
Runner continued to combat the Outrigger, destroying it and jumping
outsystem before the Zampok could intercept. Sensor scans showed that
the Runner exhibited much higher performance than is expected of the Y3
class, and suspicions are now rife that it has been, in fact, a ZN
Intruder, a class the Y3 closely resembles.
 
  Examination of purchasers shows that of the 78 hulls, at least 20 were
purchased by megacorporrations, notable among them GSbAG itself (seven
hulls) and Tukera (five hulls). The records do not indicate the exact
specifications of the purchased craft, an irregularity now under
criminal investigation.
 
 
  CraftID: Type Y3 Gabilonne Yacht, TL15, MCr191.6
     Hull: 455/1136, Disp=500, Config=1AF, Armour=40G, Unloaded=4537.623 tons
           Loaded=5282.806 tons
    Power: 15/30, Fusion=4068Mw, Dur=30/35 days
     Loco: 18/36, Jump=3, 36/72, Maneuver=3, Agility=3, EmergencyAgility=4
           Max=2850 kph, Cruise=2137 kph, NOE=190 kph
     Comm: Radio=System(1000 au), Laser=System(1000 au)
  Sensors: ActiveEMS=FarOrbit(500,000), PassiveEMS=InterStellar(2 parsecs)*3
           ActObjScan=Routine, ActObjPin=Routine, PassEnScan=Routine
      Off: Hardpoints=5
 
		BLaser=xx4	Missile=xo3
                  Batt   1         Batt   3
                  Bear   1         Bear   3
 
      Def: DefDM=+10/+11
 
                Sandcaster=xx4
		      Batt   1
		      Bear   1
 
  Control: Comp=6*3, HoloHUD*3, HoloLinked*30
    Accom: Crew=10 (1 Bridge, 2 Engineering, 1 Command, 3 Gunnery, 2 Steward,
           1 Medic), Accom=Stateroom*15, High=3, Middle=2, Conference Room,
           Sauna/Jacuzzi, basic env, basic ls, extended ls, grav plates,
           inertial comp, airlock
    Other: Fuel=2977.2kl (1 jump-3 + 30 days), Cargo=500kl, Scoops,
           Purifier=12hour, Magazine=50 battery rounds, ObjSiz=Avg,
           EmLevel=Moderate
 
 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Marc A. Volovic -                       Procrastinator and do-no-gooder|
| mav@LIZARDO.huji.ac.il     Snail: P.O.B. 23114, 91230 Jerusalem, Israel|
|             Dept. of Linguistics, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                       Fencers do it with rapid thrusts                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2832
From: Marc Alexandrovich Volovic <mav@cs.huji.ac.il>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 02:00:07 PDT
Subject: Numbering

Hello,
 
  The numbering system I use for my ships is based on the American
aircraft numbers.
 
  The hull number is organized thus:
 
        tt-nnnyyxxxxxx
 
   tt   Type (class) letters - BC, QK, YP, Y3, VH, etc
  nnn   Owner code. C - Civillian, R - Corporate, SMN - Spinward Marches
        Navy, IIN - Ilelish Imperial Navy, ZSN - Ziru Sirka Navy
   yy   Year of procurement
xxxxx   Hull number in the year of procurement
 
 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Marc A. Volovic -                       Procrastinator and do-no-gooder|
| mav@LIZARDO.huji.ac.il     Snail: P.O.B. 23114, 91230 Jerusalem, Israel|
|             Dept. of Linguistics, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                       Fencers do it with rapid thrusts                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 

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

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

