From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Dec 12 01:05:35 1991
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA04336) Thu, 12 Dec 91 01:05:07 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA13350@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:59 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA01744; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:03:55 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA21609; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:34 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA19373; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:29 PST
Message-Id: <9112120500.AA19373@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 #271: Msgs 3272-3281
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:27 PST
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 Dec 11 21:00:22 PST 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #271: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3273  09-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Trade and Commerce << TRADE AND COMMERCE REVI
3274  09-Dec-91 gsw@whservd.att.C Re: potential energy in the Traveller (and ot
3275  09-Dec-91 Brian G. Vaughan  Concept for Traveller III << Traveller III [w
3276  09-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Latest from GEnie << It's gotten rather quiet
3277  09-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    A Little Joke << Since it is mentioned in one
3278  09-Dec-91 "J.A.F.O."        Star-lust (Inter species relationships) << So
3279  10-Dec-91 sm@ncrsecp.copenh GENIE: Re: d20 Task system << [ Added GENIE t
3280  10-Dec-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Aircrafts and Forces << A long time ago Scott
3281  10-Dec-91 gsw@whservd.att.C Re: Flying in Circles << > From: hayes@ll.mit
3282  10-Dec-91 gsw@whservd.att.C GENIE: ENERGY and Traveller: TNE << [Added GE

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3273
Date:     Mon, 9 Dec 91 14:24:39 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Trade and Commerce




TRADE AND COMMERCE REVISIONS

     I have been thinking about trade and commerce again in the last few 
days.  I don't have any solutions to the problem to suggest right now.  In 
fact, what I'm trying to do is to define the problem.  (-:

     Would we agree that the purpose of a trade system is to allow the 
referee to put enough money into a game to allow the players to maintain 
their own starship?  To do this, the system should not be so unbalanced as 
to make it too easy to win vast quantities of wealth, nor so difficult as 
to cause the players to go bankrupt every time they try it.  Ideally, it 
seems to me that it ought to be set up in a way that will make the profits 
proprotional to the risk...safe and steady will keep you eating, but a new 
starship will require some risks.  

     In order to design a new system, I think that it would be necessary to 
set the background with some decisions about Imperial economics.  Are 
planets mostly self-sufficient?  Do 'balance of trade' issues affect indi-
vidual merchants by making it difficult to sell things on backwater worlds 
with few trade connections to gain Imperial money?  Do the megacorporations 
tie up all of the steady trade in items with very high profit margins, 
leaving only occasional deals of this sort for the little guys?  Do planets 
routinely pass trade-restricting (or trade enhancing) legislation?  I think 
the answers to all of these questions are probably 'yes', but we've never 
been told so explicitly.

     I think it would also be very nice to get some idea of the volume of 
shipping available in various regions of the Imperium--even something as 
simple as the 'battalion strenght of armies' table from the Rebellion 
Sourcebook or the 5th Frontier War articles in JTAS would be a help.

     Hmmm...maybe I do have a few suggestions after all...if I was piecing 
together rules from the existing versions, I'd use something like the 
original Book 2 rules with tech level effects added in for manufactured 
goods.  I'd also modify some of the products to reduce the potential prof-
its from them--if you ever played with the old system, you'll remember that 
machine tools, radioactives, gems, and computers were the cargos of choice.

Rob Dean




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

Archive-Message-Number: 3274
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 14:06 EST
Subject: Re: potential energy in the Traveller (and other) universe

: From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
: Subject: Re: potential energy in the Traveller (and other) universe
: To: gsw@whservd.att.com
: 
: You wrote:
: >								Grav
: >   drives must use as much energy as the difference in gravitational
: >   potential energy.  Jump drives cannot jump to a higher point of
: >   potential energy without a commensurate cost.  By the way, this
: >   is a very good reason why jumps can never be into open space,
: >   but only into a star system, and wouldn't crash you into a star
: >   or planet.
: 
: Perhaps you can answer a question which has bothered me for a while,
: about potential energy.  Potential energy is based on your distance
: from a body exerting a gravitational pull, isn't it?  So how much
: energy do I have from being at a height of about 4 light years from
: Alpha Centauri?  If a ship jumps to a point halfway between here and
: Alpha Centauri, it has a lot of potential energy by being at a great
: distance from Earth and the Sun, but has less potential energy from
: Alpha Centauri than it did when it was in our solar system.

Quite true.  The ship gained potential energy w.r.t. Sol and lost
potential energy w.r.t. Alpha Centauri.  It also gained and lost
potential energy from a number of other stars and various celestial
bodies.  Since gravity drops off with the square of distance, the
energy differences w.r.t. Sol and Alpha Centauri should (I think)
dominate the equation, though, especially if you assume a roughly
uniform distribution of stars in the vicinity.  This might not be
valid near a nova cloud or black hole or quasar or similar such
phenomenon, I guess.

: > o Don't make Traveller or MegaTraveller stuff obsolete.  Provide for
: >   conversions to the new system.  Where things are changed in the
: >   new system, don't make them so different that you can't simply
: >   "fake it" with old characters/designs/etc.
: 
: This, of course, is going to be a real neat trick, given that you want
: the physics violations of Traveller and MegaTraveller fixed.

True, but I don't think Traveller was THAT broken.  Some of the
stats might have to be altered or given further constraints.

The physics violations may not be as much of a problem as you
think, though.  For ships, I'd settle for having all of the
types of equipment and weaponry carried over.  Then, if I'm
not too concerned with the physics behind what's happening
(I know that my ship is capable of a two parsec jump, carries
five triple beam laser turrets, and is capable of four G
acceleration from rest, for instance), I can go with what
I've got.  If there are enough example ships, I should be
able to guess at values that I didn't already know (such as
damage points or batteries bearing, if these systems change).

If I am concerned with everything being correct in the new
system (or matching physics better, or whatever), then I'm
going to want to convert the ship to the new system anyway.
It's still important that I have a starting point, though.

Characters are similar, but a bit more difficult.  I should
be able to look at an old Traveller character and know what
his stats and abilities roughly are in the new system,
without being forced to convert the character by hand.  This
could mean, for instance, doubling ability scores and adding
three to stats (as a rough approximation).  Again, if you
are converting characters to the new system, this is probably
not sufficient, but is a good starting point.

: > o Does anyone else out there like the 6-sided dice?  I always
: >   identified Traveller with 6-siders and the 2d6 bell curves used
: >   for everything.
: 
: Me too.  I'd settle for xD6 instead of 2D6, because then the piles of
: dice I've accumulated for use with Star Wars will have another use.

I'd settle for xD6 also.  Years ago, a friend of mine and I
invented a system for game based on TRON (right when the movie
came out).  We used 4d6-4 (or 4 dice labelled 0-5) for every
roll, in order to get a steep bell curve from 0-20.  From the
word I've been hearing, however, it seems like it's already
been decided to use d20's.

Actually, if you want realistic rolls, you should provide for
open-ended die rolls.  For example, use a d12 numbered from
0-11, where 11 means roll again and add 10, and 0 on the first
roll only means roll again and subtract from 0.  This makes it
possible for anyone to succeed or fail tremendously at any
task.

I think it's a matter of taste when it comes down to it.  I
prefer good old 2d6, but would live with a d20 roll.

If GDW decides to use d20, however, they should NOT make the
low rolls mean success.  People naturally tend to think of
high rolls as success.  IMHO, although I remember somewhere
(was it the TML?) where a study/survey was made and they
found out the same thing.

: -- 
:  "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
: 

Jerry Williams (gsw@whservd.att.com)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3275
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 14:21:28 -0800
From: Brian G. Vaughan <bvaughan@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Concept for Traveller III


Traveller III [working notes]
- -----------------------------
1.  1991 AD:  GDW begins work on revision of roleplaying game
		set in distant future.  DGP publishes last supplement
		and abandons game system.
2.  1991 AD:  Hardcore fans protest rumored changes, but to no avail.
3.  1992 AD:  HIWG and TML form alliance in opposition to GDW.
4.  1993 AD:  GDW, enraged by HIWG/TML alliance, unleashes Dreaded Virus
		to destroy GEnie and InterNet.
5.  1996 AD:  Dreaded Virus, completely out of control, wipes out all
		advanced computer networks, leaving world in chos.
7.  1999 AD:  World War III.

						Brian G. Vaughan
						bvaughan@ocf.berkeley.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3276
Date:     Mon, 9 Dec 91 18:54:35 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Latest from GEnie

It's gotten rather quiet over there in the last few days.  I'll continue
monitoring on an occasional basis, and transfer anything back that the
'officials' have to say, but full two-way transfer is ending on Friday.

Back to our regularly scheduled TML chatter...

Rob


 ************
Topic 3         Thu Jun 01, 1989
J.FUGATE                     at 18:48 MDT
Sub: MegaTraveller - General Discussions    

This topic is to be a catch-all topic for any discussion that doesn't fit in
any other topic.
 ************
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 3
Message 435       Fri Dec 06, 1991
C.BUSH3 [Clay]               at 22:38 EST
 
This is my first post to this topic since my machine failed 11/9/91.

   1) Adapting the rules to the T2000 system is not going to kill MT. Changing
to the task system did not invalidate ANY classic Traveller adventure.
   Changing the world generation system is the only thing that would
fundamentally invalidate previous work. All those world descriptions, hand-
generated subsectors and sectors, etc., becoming invalid would alienate
current players.
   The ship design and combat system is under severe attack from several
directions. Power from fission and fusion plants is said to be way too low,
and the new agility rule isn't liked by many. I would be happy to see jump
plants and fuel swell back up to classic Traveller percentages, with a
compensating increase in power plant outputs.

   2) Traveller has always been more action-oriented than setting oriented.
Someone referred to some RPGs as being "poetry"-based. In Traveller, this has
meant that Imperial society was remarkably siimilar to twentieth century
Earth.
   To me this threw away half the wonder of science fiction. Sure, you have
alien races--outside the Imperium. The Alien Modules and Books were very
significant because they provided flesh-and-blood outsiders to interact with.
   By comparison, RL: Legionnaire goes the other direction of playing
characters in a specified society: the Latinized Galactic Empire. This could
be too specific for many tastes.
   I prefer the ability to tailor the rules to a different universe than the
Third Imperium, in case I want to run a campaign based on a particular si-fi
universe. This permits me to run the Imperium as more feudal than most
referees do.
   This point isn't sharp, but the "modern-day society" view colors many
people's conceptions and deserves people's attention.

   3a) The Rebellion is not an overthrow of the Traveller storyline. It
appears so if people think in terms of modern nation-states. Historic FEUDAL
empires often fell apart with startling suddenness. (They also reformed if
there were only two sides...)
   View the Imperium as a Holy Roman Empire cemented by modern education and a
strong central army. It's feudal, and people consider themselves from
Vland/Vland or from Spinward Marches as much as they consider themselves
Imperial citizens. YOU DO NOT HAVE MODERN DAY NATIONAL IDENTITY WITH THE
STATE. If the central military weakens itself fighting a civil war, large
regions become self- governing.
   A rump central state surrounded by local powers was not unheard of. It
USUALLY took one or more generations to reconquer the old frontiers, if the
separation did not become permanent.
   3b) The growth of the factions is sometimes said to be sudden and hard to
rationalize. The division of Alexander the Great's domains shows how fragile
feudal organizations can be (although that was scarcely an established
empire), and how several factions can quickly arise. (Yes, two is more
normal.) Still, the first Chinese empire collapsed when three clan leaders
killed the Emperor, and then fought over the spoils.
   3c) Without development of trains and telegraphs, the United States would
almost certainly have splintered asunder--and stayed asunder--long before
1860. The Imperium only has an xboat courier net and no courier system ever
kept an empire together.
   Given a sufficient shock, like 1117, the Imperium floated apart. And
because the issue had not been decided in 1117, there wasn't enough central
power to bring the pieces together again. So, I don't accept that Star
Viking's setting--a specific period in history--is wrong or a corruption of
the Traveller storyline.
   Yes, a government collapse can be depressing. Ask a white Russian living in
the Ukraine. Most of these territories are at peace internally, however.
   Yes, dividing formerly unified territories can be violent. Look at
Yugoslavia and at the India/Pakistan partition.

   4) A computer virus destroys all computers in Imperia. Is this possible?
   RINGWORLD's history involves development of a bacteria that attacked the
Ringworlder's metaconductors. Due to the nature of the Ringworld, the
inhabitants could not restore their civilization. Such events could happen or
be made to happen in Imperia.
   Imperia, however, has a diversity of technologies reflecting a diversity of
races. No logical or biological virus could affect all branches. However, the
Imperial government use standardized TL15 equipment, and could afford to
import same to lower tech worlds.
   An attack on the hi-tech computers would drastically weaken the navies,
bureaucracies, communications, and power of all factional governments. They
would lose control of border regions and areas that weren't self-supporting.
Recovery processes would develop locally and would fragment Imperia's economy
and culture even more.
   It is noteworthy that HIWG-UK development postulates a cyberpunk culture in
parts of Gushemege, and recent TNS items suggest the residents of TL16
Shakumash bear Lucan little goodwill. Developing a nannite/bacteria that eats
TL15 silicon wafers sure wouldn't help Lucan or Dulinor. (And TL16 stuff may
be safe... Hmm...)
 ------------
 ************
Topic 29        Mon Nov 18, 1991
DIGEST.GROUP [Staff]         at 00:43 EST
Sub: The WISH List                          

You know that the new Traveller is coming soon to a game store near you - but
is you had your way, what would you want to see in it?
 ************
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 100       Fri Dec 06, 1991
C.BUSH3 [Clay]               at 22:39 EST

   I'm back after a long absence. (Since 11/9.)

LOREN
   I would be willing to contribute/test/evaluate any revised ship design
and/or combat system.

THE COMPUTER VIRUS
   See the end of my post in Topic 3. It's a suggestion.

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE REVISION
   Constructive ones only, too.

   Leave the world generation system alone. Too many players and referees have
rolled up individual systems (extended generation), subsector and sector
listings (basic generation), and programs based on them. Changing it would be
a critical discontinuity that would hurt sales of the new rules.
   Years ago I noted the original basic system's unscientific bias toward
nitro-oxy atmosphere worlds. The later extended system, for example, produces
very different results in the number of habitable worlds. There's an article
in an old Colorado gaming newsletter titled "It's a Cold Universe Out There."
   My opinion is that this section works for users, and should not be changed.

   I would like to see a "World Book" in the new rules. Players Manual,
Referees Manual, and Imperial Encyclopedia was one way to organize the rules.
I prefer world generation and development in a seperate book like in the black
books.
  This World Book would include elements from WBH, if possible, and I like the
"Aspects of Culture" from Challenge magazine. (I bet GDW can find it faster
than I could.)
  Front section: for players, would have the comparative technology charts and
sample vehicles (planetary transportation).
  Second section: the basic generation system, subsector and sector mapping
forms.
  Third section: the extended generation system and the forms to record it.
  Fourth section: generating a technology profile, "Aspects of Culture,"
government form, generating a religion.
  Fifth section: rules for mapping planet surfaces and forms for surface maps.
Generating animal encounter tables. (Face it, if they aren't on the surface
and out of a city, animal encounters don't occur to PCs.)

  Revise starship design, and put it in a supplement. I strongly support this
idea.
  I favor increasing power plant output to match engineering estimates made by
those with some training in that area. This may also involve reducing fuel for
fission plants and such: I don't know.
  Make jump drives and their fuel larger. Actually, MT reduced fuel
consumption from the black books.
  Relate agility to maneuver drives. With the black book's formula, I
rationalized that agility represented the ability to supply power to the
maneuver drives while powering weapons. Also, limit maximum agility to the
maneuver ability.
  Limiting craft to 6-G has generated controversy. Yes, modern fighter craft
can achieve much higher speeds. Modern aircraft CARRIERS, however, do not
maneuver at even 1G! Emphasize the role of inertial comp in big craft, and
provide rules for G effects that would permit craft with _everyone in couchs
and everything tied down_ to design for higher speeds. Then you will have very
fast _small craft_.

  TWO LEFT FIELD OPINIONS:
  1. I do not think design sequences need be strictly compatible between
vehicles and starships. Aircraft and mechanical engineers who design engines
for similar output produce different results: the aircraft engineers make
smaller, lighter, but much more expensive engines.
  2. Limit meson weapons to the same ranges as energy weapons (currently two
hexes in space combat). Meson decay has very short time spans, and even
"accelerating mesons to relativisitic speeds" will not give the same range as
particle accelerators.
  This would have major effects for starship combat, and for planetary defense
and bombardment. But I think the science supports it far than it supports the
current system.
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 101       Sat Dec 07, 1991
J.KUNDERT [Farstar]          at 00:44 EST
 
Clay speaks at last:
 <Virus suggestion up in Topic 3>
   I like it.  Now we have to convince GDW.

   Still, Loren and Co. have told us to wait for the whole story.  How long we
have to wait will influence the nature of our response (if it doesn't affect
the actual content, it will make certain opinions rather irate).

 <Make jump drives and their fuel larger. Actually, MT reduced fuel
consumption from the black books.>
   MT Jump Drives are exactly the same size as High Guard J-Drives.  Only the
fuel comsumption has dropped.
   For a 100-ton example:

               J1     J2     J3     J4     J5     J6
 Book 2        ?+10  10+20   ?+30  15+40   ?+50  20+60
 High Guard    2+10   3+20   4+30   5+40   6+50   7+60
 MegaTrav      2+10   3+15   4+20   5+25   6+30   7+35

   The Book 2 and High Guard numbers are deceptive, since a certain power
plant rating was also required, while MT Jump Drives operate in isolation. 
Because of the current explanation of Jump Drive, I prefer the isolation
approach.  Alternate (non-Imperium universe) technologies might do it the
other way.
   As for increasing fuel consumption of J-Drives:  If you must, as long as
overall starship fuel requirements stay about where they are. Again, I prefer
the MT version.  Since J-Drives are not rated in specific power terms, any
revision of Powerplants need not touch Jump Drives.

 <Relate agility to maneuver drives...>
   Unlike a great many folks who have argued this point before me, I do not
see a big problem with MT agility.  Or rather, I don't see the same problem. 
The ship Rob Dean posted to Topic 4 recently is a good example.  MT does not
tie Agility to Maneuver rating, but DOES limit it to 6.  Unlike the
technological reasons for a 6G ceiling to Thrusters, there is no reason for
such a limit on Agility.  None.
   To solve this problem, look at the description of Thruster technology in
SOpM.  Here we are told that M-Drives can overload to 400% for brief periods,
and that they can produce reduced thrust in directions other than 'forward'. 
Elsewhere in SOpM we are told that Artificial Gravity technology is unstable
over 6G, and only useful for industrial purposes which do not require a
sustained field (this leaves out M-Drives, I think, and is the reason for the
6G limit some people are complaining about).
   Based on this, I would define Agility as the ship's ability to produce
overdrive thrust IN ANY DIRECTION.  Agility is thus limited to 4 times the
normal rating of the drives, with no other limit (no stopping at 6).  Note
that since the drives are being run AT 400% (not +400%), Agility is limited to
3 times thrust unless no normal thrust is being generated (100% to thrust;
300% to Agility).
   There is a catch, however.  Agility would be based on LOADED weight (or
'current' weight for advanced types), and would almost certainly do bad things
to the Thrusters if kept up for any length of time (those of you with SFB
experience: think 'Orions').  The SOpM says that a good Engineer is required
for any serious overdriving, and I must agree.
   If the circumstances of too much overdrive can be added to whatever becomes
the combat system, then all Agility become 'Emergency' Agility. This will
counteract the ability of highly specialized ships to potentially dodge lasers
(Agility 15+).  Oh yes, Inertial Compensation is also limited to 6Gs, so high
Agilities will throw things around regardless.

 <Limiting craft to 6-G has generated controversy...>
   I agree with this entire paragraph, but would point out that (according to
SOpM) Thrusters are unstable over 6Gs, and Fusion Rockets cannot thrust
sideways (without blowing up), thus limiting both as Agility Generators at
high G (see above).  By giving Fusion Rockets a different Agility Limit, the
high possible thrusts are balanced out ("He may be fast, but he can't dodge
like a Thruster ship.").  Doubly unstable Thrusters are their own reward.

 <I do not think design sequences need be strictly compatible between vehicles
and starships...>
   Agreed.  The goal is to able to USE them together.  As long as I know what
to do if that Destroyer shoots at aircraft (or cars, or boats), then having
several design systems is not a big problem.

 <Limit meson weapons to the same ranges as energy weapons...>
   YES!  YES!  YES!
   This change would give meaning to the PA again.  By the way, High Guard PA
weapons had better to-hit numbers than the Meson Gun.  This should be
reinstated over the fiasco of the MT ship combat tables. MT made a laughing
stock of the Spinal PA (not that it wasn't a problem in High Guard, but MT
made it worse).
   On a general note, the ability of small ships to affect large ones needs to
be addressed.  The current system does not reflect the 'reality' of TAS News
items and other Imperial literature.  The Neo system should be true to its
background.

 Farstar
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 102       Sat Dec 07, 1991
B.BORICH [Kagekiha]          at 05:53 EST
 
     The problem I and most others seem to have with the virus runs
 into the following:
     1.  Designing/making it (easiest to solve, I'd vote for nannites
           aside from the fact that Imperial tech quite apparently
           doesn't have this capability yet, though it could be explained
           away as an ancient find perhaps, this makes it hard for the
           Imps to combat, but easy for the Ancients, it would also
           be versatile enough to effect imperial TLs and capabilities.
           Of course you still might have the below problems, except
           for 4).
     2.  Keeping it secret
     3.  Spreading it and having it work at similar times, or at least
         not be identified for years.
     4.  Different TL's

     Clay mentioned the Ringworld semiconducter as an example, while I have
 previously considered this, there is still the problem of options
 2-4 above. While the Ringworld is somewhat as large as the Imperium, in
 number of worlds contained, the Ringworld is a lot faster to travel around.
     It takes years to cross the Imperium from end to end with jump drive,
 doing this on the ringworld would take about 10 days max at a leisurely
 pace using jump.
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 103       Sun Dec 08, 1991
V.UJCIK [Duke James]         at 13:01 EST
 
29 Loren,
  And the reason they were returned was because I hadn't lived at that address
for over three years.  Someone there failed to update my address -- one of the
reasons that I cancelled my sub to Challenge, I didn't get any when I moved
and repeated attempts with letters (4) and phone calls (5) failed to get my
address changed over a one year period.  
  My point is that if GDW can't input a simple address change into a database,
it's no wonder we have MT!

<FLAME OFF>

     Jim
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 104       Sun Dec 08, 1991
D.CHEEVER                    at 14:58 EST
 
A bit more time to consider things have led to the following additional
thoughts... Scale: I think that it is important to give careful consideration
to scale going into this revision. The Imperium is large to the extent that it
would be totally impossible to provide a density of support for the entire
thing. As the new rules are intended to provide an INTRODUCTION for NEW
PLAYERS, remember that pages devoted to the big picture (such  as most MT
material) take away from the space that can be devoted to  material ready for
immediate referee use. I would like to see any  background material in the
begining rule set focus in great detail on at best a couple of worlds. Just
something to get them into the game and playing UNTIL further enlarged
material comes out. If you want to put a few spaceships into it make them ones
produced at local yards and give full background and deck plans. If you want
trade to go on develop an economic background that gives the referee something
to work with and reveal to the players. Vehicles in the basic rules should all
have  obvious uses in the limited setting in the rules. Don't have a mis mash
of material equipment and background from all over the Imperium. Make it
totally complete and totally unreliant on any other published MT or Classic
material. Combat: I think that it is important, especially in introductory
adventures to have combat always be the last or worst choice of resolution
series.  Combat tends to come natural to players (especially ones who have a 
strong T2000 background), but in most cases it should not be the preferred
method. Highlight what ever mechanism is used to resolve conflict with out
resource to arms. Set a strong tone for the game.

Thanks,

Dave Cheever

P.S. As posts on borad 20 will indicate Jim is not alone in his trouble with
addresses.....
 ------------




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

Archive-Message-Number: 3277
Date:     Mon, 9 Dec 91 18:56:06 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  A Little Joke

Since it is mentioned in one of the notes from GEnie I just mailed, I thought
I ought to put up my "Prey-class Target Drone", designed as a protest 
against the current agility system.  (-:

Rob Dean





Prey class Reusable Target Drone TL15

     The Prey class was designed for the Imperial Navy, and is intended to
serve as a target in fleet exercises.  In order to make the craft as hard 
to hit as possible, all unnecessary equipment (such as propulsion systems)
has been left off of the design.

  CraftID: Prey class Target Drone, TL15, MCr272.54
     Hull: 86/215, Disp=95, Config=4USL, Armor=40G, Unloaded=2601.26t,
           Loaded=2604.52t
    Power: 80/160, Fusion=21600Mw, Dur=4.3hrs
     Loco: none, Agility=44 (Excess energy=21597.36Mw)
     Comm: Radio=Continental
  Sensors: PassEMS=VDist(50km), PassEnScan=Formidable
      Off: Hardpoint=1
      Def: DefDM=+51
  Control: Computer=5*3, LargeHoloDisplay*1, HoloLonk*1
    Accom:  Crew=1 (Pilot), Seats=Roomy*1, Env=basic env, basic  ls
    Other: Fuel=46.6kl, Cargo=0, ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=Strong



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

Archive-Message-Number: 3278
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 15:00 GMT
From: "J.A.F.O." <BSU646@vaxb.bangor.ac.uk>
Subject: Star-lust (Inter species relationships)

Someone mentioned the low opinion the Solomani must have of inter-species
relationships...... Well sadly for the racial purists at Sol-Sec they share a
planet with THE race most likely to get upto sexual hi-jinx with ANY vaguely
compatible species....... The Dolphin!  The geneers at Gen-Assist were unable
to eliminate the "rescue fever" from the cetacean psyche so I see no reason
why the uninhibited nature of the Dolphin sexual behaviour would've gone too!
 Un-uplifted dolphins engage in sexual play with -ANYTHING- from dolphins of
either gender, to pool toys , water inlets and in the case of the TV star (loved
by kiddies everywhere) 'Flipper' a female trainer!  
  As with the concepts of property the Dolph's probably 'play along'  with human
taboo's to fit in.  But if a Dolph' feels that it's Ok or maybe just wants to 
shock someone..... 
  David Brin's 'uplift' books eg. startide rising give good Dolph' characters
including a Dolph' who comes onto one of the human crew......
   as the man said 'thy dolphin was no lustier.....'

 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3279
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 11:30:00 MET
From: sm@ncrsecp.copenhagen.NCR.COM
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 11:30:52 MET
From: sm@ncrsecp.Copenhagen.NCR.COM (Sven Munther)
Subject: GENIE: Re: d20 Task system

[ Added GENIE to subjec tline so Carl can forward to GEnie - James ]

LESTER.SMITH writes :

>I'd like to take a minute to talk a bit about the D20 task system we're
>planning for the Traveller revision.
>
>First, the skill or attribute level you have is your target number for an
>Average task. Easy is vs. twice that number; Very Easy versus four  times the
>number. Difficult is vs. half the number; Very Difficult vs.  one-fourth. For
>instance, a character with a skill level of 8 would be rolling for the
>following numbers or less:
> Very Easy: 32
> Easy: 16
> Average: 8
> Difficult: 4
> Very Difficult: 2

Are these numbers supposed to be roled with a d20 ? Then very high skill
levels are going to be needed. What about attributes - do they add to the
number ?

>If you don't have any skill at all, you roll percentile dice vs. your
>controlling attribute. For instance, an Easy test of Observation, for a
>character with no Observation skill but an Intelligence (Observation's
>controlling attribute) of 14 would be 28% (percentile roll vs twice the
>attribute level).

28% chance without any skill for an easy task. That is better chance than
skill level 2 - almost skill level 3. If these numbers for some reason are 
to be rolled with a d10 (maybe he forgot to convert from T2000) then it is
still better than skill level 1.

>Now, some people have been arguing that a character with skill level 1 in
>Traveller has roughly a 50% chance of succeeding at an Average task, while a
>character with a skill level of 1 in T2K2, for instance has only a 10% chance.
>That's very true. But given the change in task philosophy, a character from MT
>trying for an Average task with a skill level 1 would,  when converted to the
>new system, be making a Very Easy task roll with a  skill level of 2--a 40%
>chance of success. Couple this with the fact that new system characters tend
>to consolidate their skill points, rather than dispersing them quite as much,
>and that reasonable tests can be made vs  the related attribute, and I think
>you'll find the new system works very nicely. It certainly won't leave a
>universe full of bumbling fools, as  might have been suspected.

Does he mean that :

Very Easy ~ Routine
Easy      ~ Difficult
Average   ~ Formidable
Difficult ~ Impossible 

This would give very roughly the same chances - but it is a very strange
naming they have given the new task levels.

>As I've said before, I realize that the new system FEELS different from the
>2D6 one. And that's a valid point. But the 2D6 system has some  problems of
>its own. My own complaints about it have always been that  tough tasks price
>low skill levels right out of the market, and that  doesn't feel right to me
>to have no chance at all if a character has at least a modicum of skill. For
>instance, a MT character with a skill level of 2 has no chance of succeeding
>with with a Difficult task. But the equivalent character in the new system
             ^^^^^^^^^
I guess he means Formidable

>would have a skill level of 4,  needing a 2 or less for a Difficult task and a
>1 or less for a Very  Difficult task.
>
>Also, the 2D6 bell curve has always bothered me. (I realize I'm treading upon
>sacred ground here, for some, but it's the truth.) A +1 modifier  does not
>mean the same jump for a character with skill 10 as for one with skill 6, for
>instance. In the new system, a +1 is a +1 is a +1.

Yes a +1 is a +1 one with the new system. Still some times a +1 cuts your 
chance of failure to half. The 2d6 system is also an unfair, but at least
it does look like a probability bell curve. Bell curves are good enough
for The Real World (TM), but not for GDW ?  :->

>Those are my comments for the moment. Any questions or comments? I'd be happy
>to respond.
>
>Sincerly,
>
> Les

I have read the task system in DC and now these suggestions for the new
traveller revision. I am afraid they are changing the best skill resolution
system on the market to something very inferior.

I am also afraid that everybody who matters on GDW already have made up
their mind on this subject.

Sven


PS  Rob, please pass this to Genie



- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Sven Munther                       Sven.Munther@Copenhagen.NCR.dk
NCR Corporation                    Sven.Munther@Copenhagen.NCR.com
Systems Engineering-Copenhagen     ...!mcsun!dkuug!ncrsecp!sm


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3280
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Aircrafts and Forces
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 11:51:44 MET

  A long time ago Scott wrote about aircraft speeds and thrusts and about that
they didn't match up with COACC.

  The normal way an aircraft work is that the thrust of the engine decrease
or is constant while the counterforce from the air resistance grows. When 
they are equal, the plane stops accelerating. Some aircrafts, like the
fuel-guzzling Saab JA-37 Viggen will be at bingo fuel long before this happens,
so their real top speed is unknown in a way.
  Different engine types have also different thrust vs speed charts, which is
why ramjets/after burners are such a good idea at great speeds.

  Thus you can reach very high speeds with a low thrust engine, if the a/c has
low air resistance and the thrust of the engine don't decrease. The anti-grav
of Traveller gives a thrust dependent on power input (ref Striker). Exactly
how they manage this non-physical feat is unknown, but a vehicle using it 
should have a top speed only dependent on the relationship between air
resistance and thrust.

  As for aircrafts, it would depend on air resistance versus thrust and the 
type of engine used.

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3281
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 09:54 EST
Subject: Re:  Flying in Circles

> From: hayes@ll.mit.edu (Tony Hayes)
> Subject: (3270) Artificial Gravity via Flying Circles
> 
> Flying the ship in circles would "plaster" the crew to the walls not the
> floor.  Centripetal force and all that.  [ ... ]

It's exactly because of centripetal acceleration that this works.  The
ship would fly in a circle, accelerating TOWARDS the center.  Since the
floors are towards the back of the ship, this works.  Here's an ASCII
picture:
                <-- path of ship

               *****
            ***     ***
          **           **
         *               *
         *               *
      | *      center     * ^
      | *        of       * |
      v *     rotation    * |
         *               *
         *       ^       *
          **    / \    **
            *** |_| ***
               */^\*
                 ^  ship is accelerating TOWARDS the center of rotation
                 ^
                -->

Jerry Williams (gsw@whservd.att.com)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3282
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 10:54 EST
Subject: GENIE: ENERGY and Traveller: TNE

[Added GEnie to the Subject line so Carl will forward it -- James]

These are some strong recommendations that I have for the new
Traveller.  I'm not going to go into ALL of the scientific
detail, but I hope that the folks at GDW take the time to do
so.

o Correct fusion and fission power plant output and fuel
  consumption.  It should be simple to get the correct
  numbers for fission plants.  For fusion plants, you
  must find the energy gained from a fusion reaction.  A
  science textbook is probably a good source for this --
  if I had the information handy I'd post it.

  For fusion, there is a problem with fuel -- ordinary
  hydrogen does not have enough (or any) neutrons to fuse
  into helium.  Thus, current fusion uses heavy hydrogen
  (deuterium or tritium) which is found in SMALL amounts
  along with normal hydrogen.  Refinement of fuel could
  then mean either selecting out all of the heavy hydrogen
  or better yet MAKING most of the hydrogen "heavy".  It
  could also be possible to burn normal hydrogen, but you
  would need to find a way to "donate" neutrons to the
  reaction.  Note that this would probably be harder and
  more damaging to the reactor than pre-treating the
  hydrogen in the first place.

After adjusting the power plant output, you'll HAVE to make
this next change:

o Correct fuel amounts required for maneuvering.  It is
  currently possible for a ship to gain more kinetic
  energy from its maneuver drives than it puts into them.
  This makes impossible things such as perpetual motion
  machines not only possible, but you get energy to boot.

  The formula for kinetic energy is:

             1   2
         E = - mv
             2

  where m is the mass of the ship and v its (relative)
  velocity.

  It MUST cost MORE than this much energy to accelerate
  a ship of mass m to a new velocity v.  Currently it
  costs LESS in many cases.

  I could convert this equation into a more usable
  form, but the idea is the same -- you can't get energy
  for free, or else the whole universe falls apart.

  It's been a while, but I once used this equation to
  determine how much fuel would be required for a
  fusion plant to accelerate a ship to 0.1c.  Assuming
  all deuterium, I think that 1/2 of the ship needed
  to be fuel.  That drops down to about 4% (I think) of
  the ship if antimatter is used (assuming total energy
  conversion -- I don't know what the real output of an
  antimatter reactor would be).

  By the way, fusion powered ships should have an
  exhaust -- all of that helium being created as a
  by-product.  It would be dead weight otherwise.  Of
  course it doesn't have to be coming out of the ship
  at 20,000 degrees -- the fusion reactor could even
  use cold fusion, or the energy from the excess heat
  might be tapped somehow.  In fact, it doesn't even
  have to be helium, in theory.  You could even put
  out "normal" air, if your reactor is capable of
  enough control over the fusion reaction.

  I think you'll find that if you make the energy
  costs for propulsion reasonable, you won't need to
  play around with 6G limits -- simply limit the
  power output of power plants and make maneuver
  drives capable of high-G thrust inefficient at
  lower G's.  Then it would be POSSIBLE to design
  ships with high accelerations, but only FEASIBLE
  for smaller ships.  Sure, someone could build a
  dreadnought which is all power plant and high-
  consumption drives, but it would need to be
  refueled hourly and would be exorbitantly
  expensive.

  Also note that grav drives must ALSO use more
  energy -- they must use more energy than the
  combination of difference in gravitational
  potential energy PLUS the difference in kinetic
  energy (the same is true for all drives, but I'm
  assuming that maneuver drives simply impart a
  vector of acceleration, to which gravity must be
  added).  This post is long enough, though, so I
  won't go into the gory details.

I hope these suggestions are taken in earnest.

Jerry Williams (gsw@whservd.att.com)

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

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

