From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Dec 19 11:15:40 1991
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA06223) Thu, 19 Dec 91 11:15:20 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA04346@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 91 21:00:50 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA05186; Wed, 18 Dec 91 21:03:58 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA23255; Wed, 18 Dec 91 21:00:24 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA20408; Wed, 18 Dec 91 21:00:18 PST
Message-Id: <9112190500.AA20408@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 #275: Msgs 3319-3330
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 21:00:17 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 18 21:00:12 PST 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #275: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3319  13-Dec-91 gsw@whservd.att.C Re: (3308) Fusion Neutrons << Bart Massey (ba
3320  13-Dec-91 "Carl Fago"       Re: TML nightly: Msgs 3310-3312 V30#10 << Rob
3321  13-Dec-91 Hugh Schoenemann  GENIE: More Classic Traveller << [This came t
3322  13-Dec-91 Ed Sharpe         Slow Drug (Again) << This got mangled the fir
3323  14-Dec-91 Cynthia_Higginbot GENIE: Steve on Trav:New Era << As to my own 
3324  14-Dec-91 Cynthia_Higginbot Random responses << I'm back. This is mostly 
3325  15-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    This week in GEnie << This will be the last o
3326  16-Dec-91 Mike.Metlay@ORGAN a quick note on character generation << DON'T
3327  16-Dec-91 Adrian Hurt       Re: potential energy << This was originally p
3328  16-Dec-91 Adrian Hurt       Re: potential energy << "C. Roald" <HOBBIT@AC
3329  16-Dec-91 "Dr. Michael Hale Dark Nebula rules << In my last move, I manag
3330  15-Dec-91 Rob Miracle       Re: (3300) Re: General Traveller Questions <<

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3319
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 13:30 EST
Subject: Re: (3308) Fusion Neutrons

Bart Massey (bart@cs.uoregon.edu) writes:
> I'm not sure exactly what the objection is here.  As you know,
> the primary solar fusion reaction involves purely light
> hydrogen.  The key observation is that a hydrogen *atom is* a
> neutron -- QUESTION: what's the difference between a
> proton-electron pair and a neutron?  ANSWER: a mass defect and
> a bunch of empty space.  A free neutron will eventually decay
> into a proton and electron, and release a tiny bit of energy.
> If the objection is that the barrier potential to overcome to
> squeeze a p-e pair into a neutron is very large, I'll concede
> this, but I've always assumed they could just do it, at least
> by TL14 or so...

You're right, and I thought about that after I mailed my last
post.  Of course, that means that if (hopefully when) the GDW
folks decide to make the plant output realistic, they should
subtract the energy needed to create the neutrons from the
energy output of the power plant.  Also, fusion power plants
when first introduced would likely not have this ability, and
would have to use heavy hydrogen as I suggested.  Also, a
plant fusing only heavy hydrogen would have a higher energy
yield than one fusing normal hydrogen (I don't know what the
overall difference is -- I don't have the numbers handy).

This does not invalidate my suggestions, though.  The p-e pair
combination is simply a way of "donating" neutrons that I said
would be needed to fuse normal hydrogen.  Also, it might NOT
be feasible to duplicate this inside of a power plant.  It
still might be easier to use another means to donate neutrons
to the hydrogen before fusing it.

By the way, where does the electron come from?  I was under the
impression that the Sun, at least the part that is fusing, is
very positively ionic.  If this is so, then where are the
electrons coming from?  Is there another form of mass decay
taking place?  Or is this simply one of the means by which the
Sun regulates its rate of fusion?  Or am I simply misinformed?

Jerry Williams (gsw@whservd.att.com)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3320
Date:    Fri, 13 Dec 91 13:42 EST
From: "Carl Fago" <CDF1@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: TML nightly: Msgs 3310-3312 V30#10


Rob Dean writes...
>Date:     Thu, 12 Dec 91 16:58:28 EST
>From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
>Subject: (3310)  Operating Expenses

>Mike Surman suggested in his note the other day that we might consider
>revising
>the cost of a starship ticket down, in some revision of the trade and commerce
>system.  Along those lines, let me ask if anyone else thinks that Cr2000 per
>person per jump seems to be a bit excessive as a life support cost.  In my
>recent (hopefully soon to be restarted) game, the cash-poor players often
>asked what they were getting for that money, since it was a large part of
>what they were otherwise earning.  I couldn't answer...can anyone else?

2000 cr/jump is the _passenger_ rate, is it not?  The crews' lifesupport
is already figured in the cost of the ship expenses.  When I was running
a merchant with a crew, I did not charge the crew for passage.  The cost
of the crews' life support is figured into the cost of the ticket for
a passenger.

>What do you need to maintain life in space?  Food (cheap), air (cheaper),
>water (cheap), power (lots of it on a ship), specialized equipment (already
>included in the cost of the ship--extended life support isn't real cheap,
>plus we pay annual maintenance on it.)

The big item contributing to the cost of a passenger ticket is the ship
cost.  Also, I always assumed good fuel being bought and if I was able to
get fuel skimmed off a gas giant or from an ocean, that went into my pocket
as part of the profits.  Also, I had to be able to maintain and depreciate
the purification plant.

It is not so in-expensive as it seems to be able to run a ship.  I'tt try to
remember to post my balance sheet and calculations used to figure out what
it takes to run a merchant ship.  Let me say this, it was fun.

 *-=Carl=-*  INTERNET - cdf1@psuvm.psu.edu    | Be wary of strong drink.     |
             DELPHI - WULFGAR  GEnie - C.FAGO1| It can make you shoot at tax |
 Carl Fago   State College, PA                | collectors -- and miss!      |


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3321
From: Hugh Schoenemann <pyra.co.uk!hugh@sequent.UUCP>
Subject: GENIE: More Classic Traveller
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 17:49:47 GMT

[This came to traveller@dadla - please use traveller@metolius.wr.tek.com
in the future.  I also added GENIE on the subject line -- James]

Good folks,

I  have  read  with  some interest all the  various  comments  from  people
regarding  GDW's  proposed moves to redesign Traveller and thought I  would
throw my hat in the ring.

Like  a good many other correspondents to this thread, I first  encountered
Classic  Traveller  in  the early eighties, laying my  hands  on  virtually
everything  that  GDW put out - the "Little Black" Boxed Set, the  reworked
Big Boxed Set with the improved artwork, various Traveller-associated games
(Snapshot,  Mayday  and  Invasion  Earth), a host of  Traveller  Books  and
Supplements, the GDW-produced Adventures and Double Adventures and numerous
copies  of JTAS.  Even Referees Screens and Traveller posters didn't escape
my notice. In short, GDW produced it, I mostly bought it.

I  took  part in various adventures - Leviathan, Twilight's Peak (IMHO  the
best  there  was)  and various custom adventures to boot.   When  I  wasn't
adventuring,  I was using most (not all) of my Traveller gear to design new
worlds,  ships, peoples etc., modifying those rules I didn't like, couldn't
work with, or thought were "just plain dumb".

So  why  the dedication to the Classic Traveller game and game materials  ?
Am  I  one of those "anally retentive" types that  psychologists  sometimes
speak of, who collect anything from cigarette cards to Faberge eggs ?

No,  not at all.  Classic Traveller was compact, had a rules system  which,
once  understood  in  broad terms, would allow your average user  to  start
playing/designing  fairly  quickly.  I liked the modularity of the  game  :
You  want Mercenaries - buy Book 4.  You don't, don't.  You need more  info
on  the  Spinward Marches ?  Well, here it is ...  and so on (I  think  Rob
Dean made this point earlier this month).  Even the GDW Adventures were, on
the  whole,  well thought out.  They meshed in with the  already  published
materials  whilst, at the same time, allowing the GM a certain latitude  in
adding new twists to the adventures.

So  why  then didn't I move to MegaTraveller or T2K2 or whatever ?   Simply
put,  none  of  it added any value at all to the work I had  put  in  using
Classic  Traveller.  I smelt a marketing rat back then which, to be honest,
I can smell again.

My  belief is that GDW's current moves are influenced by little more than a
need  for  quick revenues, and they view a rewrite of the  Traveller  rules
(because,  all said and done, that's what it is) as the most expedient  way
to  do this.  IMHO, in this they are mistaken.  GDW could quite easily  put
most of their resources into bringing out some high quality, *well-proofed*
adventures, supplements whatever, in the same format as they used to be.  A
new  JTAS,  new  supporting  materials, more software ...   all  these  are
options  which they should consider.  (I would be interested to know  where
most  of  TSR's  revenues  are  derived.   New  players  ?   Supplements  ?
Adventures ? Can someone please shed some light on this ?)

I  also feel (but am willing to be proved wrong) that GDW will have extreme
difficulty  winning  the  hearts, minds and (most importantly to  GDW)  the
wallets of new gamers when there are so many competitive products out there
(Star  Wars,  GURPS etc.).  If they want to compete with these people,  the
materials  should  be just as glitzy, *better proofed* and  easily  played.

The  last  point here is crucial :  I find it hard to believe  that  people
want to read through tomes of rules to resolve game situations ("OK, you're
wearing  Cloth  when you're suddenly hit by a blast from a FGMP  at  medium
range.   Now  if we could just turn to page 18 ...  or is that 23 ?   Aaah,
but it's London and it's raining, so for weather effects I think we'll turn
to  ..."  and  so on).  You see, there has to be  this  constant  trade-off
between realism and playability - a very fine line to tread, and one which,
up until now, GDW have abjectly failed to negotiate.

My parting shot for all you GDW-type folks reading this :  if MegaTraveller
was an admission that Classic Traveller was wrong, and MegaTraveller is (by
GDW's admission) also flawed, what confidence can I have as a mere customer
that  Traveller - The Next Generation, won't also be brain-dead ruleswise ?
When  can  I expect the next rules change after that ?  Can GDW  assure  me
that this is the last rules change they will make and that this will really
be IT ?  I await a reply.

Oh,  and  *please*, GDW, don't expect me to believe that you have  my  best
interests  at  heart  because you are gamers.  Just because you  do  for  a
living  what  you  do  as a pastime does not  necessarily  instil  me  with
confidence.  A friend of mine is a brain surgeon, but he isn't a better one
because he talks brain surgery or lobotomises his cat come the weekend.

BTW,  I  know it sounds like a flame, GDW, but it ain't.  More of an  unlit
Molotov Cocktail. Now if you'd care to bring some matches next time ...

All the best everyone,

Hugh.
- -----



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

Archive-Message-Number: 3322
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 17:02:59 PST
From: Ed Sharpe <esharpe@phad.hsc.usc.edu>
Subject: Slow Drug (Again)

This got mangled the first time i uploaded it. So i am trying
again.

First some back ground on me.  I consider myself a wargammer who
does RPG's.  Keep this in mind when you flame me.  My latest
traveller campain had the players running a TCL 15 marine
platoon.  I used a lot of Striker rules in the campain.  Anyway
for my problem.  One of the players was something of a munckin
and abused medical slow drug.  To resole that problem I have
written the following set of tasks for the use of medical slow
drug.  I would like your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of them.  Note: I
used 7+ instead of routine. (or what ever the word is for a roll
of 7+).  Thank you.


The Use of Medical Slow Drug in Traveller

To diagnose the Injury
7+    Medial, Education,        30 Seconds,         Uncertain,    
                                                Non-Repeatable

To Prepare and Administer Medical Slow Drug
7+    Medical, Education,       10 Seconds,         Uncertain,    
                                                Non-Repeatable

To Avoid a Negative Medical Slow Drug Reaction
7+    Medical, Endurance,       3 Hours,            Uncertain,    
                                         Fateful, Hazardous,      
(Doctor, Patient)                             Non-Repeatable

HTK   ==     STR+DEX+END        Recovery     ==     END*3

Failure Table (1, 2, or 3 D6) (Uncertain) 
1     +1/2D6 hours recovery
2     +1D6 hours recovery
3     +2D6 hours recovery
4     +3D6 hours recovery
5     *1D6 hours recovery
6     *2D6 hours recovery
7     *3D6 hours recovery
8     *1D6 hours recovery       1/2 HTK Recovered
9     *2D6 hours recovery       1/2 HTK Recovered
10    *3D6 hours recovery       1/2 HTK Recovered
11    *1D6 hours recovery       No HTK Recovered
12    *2D6 hours recovery       No HTK Recovered
13    *3D6 hours recovery       No HTK Recovered    
14    *3D6 hours in comma, further medical treatment needed, no   
                                HTK recovered. 
15    +3D6 days in comma,  further medical treatment needed, no   
                                    HTK recovered. 
16    +3D6 weeks in comma, further medical treatment needed, no   
                                     HTK recovered. 
17    +1D6 Wounds         *3D6 Hours Recovery       No HTK        
                                               recovered. 
18    +3D6 Wounds         *3D6 Hours Recovery       No HTK        
                                           recovered.

Notes:
      Alien Species raise the difficulty one to two levels
(Referee determined).  Hasty attempts raise the difficulty level
by one & the lower the time factor.  Cautious attempts lower the
difficulty level by one and raise the time factor.  A Hasty Slow
Drug Reaction can not be made.  
      A Cautious Slow Drug Reaction can be made.  The time factor
is doubled. The time of the Slow Drug Reaction is uncertain.
      Without a Diagnosis and Preparation skill roll, a Slow Drug
Reaction roll becomes a 11+ roll, and failure automatically
rolled on 3D6.  For each No Truth result on skill rolls add 1D6
to the failure table.  For each  Some Truth add 1/2D6 to the
failure roll.  ie: a No Truth on the Diagnose, Preparation, and
Reaction roll requires a 3d6 roll on the failure table.


Ed Sharpe
esharpe@phad.hsc.usc.edu^Z

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3323
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 91 14:56:14 CST
From: Cynthia_Higginbotham%agwbbs@cs.tulane.edu (Cynthia Higginbotham)
Subject: GENIE: Steve on Trav:New Era

 
 
As to my own preferences vis a vis this "new Improved" Traveller:
 
1)  Keep the existing character design system with trivial mods.
 
2)  Keep the existing task system.
 
3)  Dump the Starship Design system, and start over with the 2300AD
    system as a basis.
 
4)  Rebuild the world generation system to include the good points from 
    2300AD, specifically the atmosphere rules, and the 
    colony/infrastructure elements.  MT really desperately needs a 
    quickie world infrastructure guideline.
 
5)  Upgrade the power systems to realistic levels.  I have served aboard
    a Nuclear submarine, and the existing fission plant rules are a bad
    joke.  The Fusion rules produce power outputs per liter of hydrogen
    fused which are pathetic.  The anti-matter rules are only off by 
    a factor of a thousand or so, though.
 
6)  Dump that 6G limit.  If you want a 20G battleship, build one.  It 
    would require that 59% of your ship be maneuver drive, and 17% be
    power plant for that maneuver drive, and the remaining 110% would 
    provide fuel for 30 days, but what the hey?  You want it, don't 
    put arbitrary restrictions, let the system provide it's own 
    restrictions.
 
7)  And how about an economic system that works this time????
 
 
                                Steve Higginbotham

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

agwbbs!cynthia_higginbotham@cs.tulane.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3324
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 91 14:59:38 CST
From: Cynthia_Higginbotham%agwbbs@cs.tulane.edu (Cynthia Higginbotham)
Subject: Random responses

 
I'm back.
This is mostly in reponse to Mike Surnam's responses to someone's
questions of a few days ago.
Plus a few odds and ends over the last few weeks worth.
Plus anything else I think of.
(note that this is not really planned in advance.)
 
 
>Whose the guy who regards himself as an expert on military affairs in 
>traveller (as in the one who has access to email)
 
I think I am one of them.
 
 
>> Do 'balance of trade' issues affect individual merchants by making it 
>> difficult to sell things on backwater worlds with few trade connections 
>> to gain Imperial money? 
 
>Backwater worlds would probably be happy they get visited by starships
>and would buy everything they could afford. Most sf literature is
>written under this assumption. These planets are not profitable for
>the big outfits but are for the little guys, the 'typical' tramp
>freighter ships that have lower overhead.
 
They sure would.  Unfortunately, lack of credit or items salable offworld
would leave them able to buy just about nothing.  Notice that there are 
several worlds in the Spinward Marches (Nakege/Jewell/Spinward Marches 
for instance) that produce no goods salable anywhere within a dozen 
parsecs.  Since it wants to buy anything brought in, it must do so with 
Imperial Credits.  Where do they come from?  In the real world, you get 
foreign currency by selling things to the foreigners, but Nakege has 
nothing anyone wants to buy.  It's a mystery to me!  Government subsidies?
Not likely, the Imperial government is too Laissez faire to do that.   
Magic??  Probably.  The GDW people don't seem to be capable of adding, 
much less doing economic (or any other) analysis of their system.
 
 
>> 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? 
 
>I would think this depends upon the particular items and the quantity
>involved. If a market produced only a small quantity of something it
>probably wouldn't be worth it even if it was very profitable (Piper's
>Cosmic Computer novel had a planet that produced brandy that was
>very expensive on Terra but they could only sell it to the infrequent
>ships that passed through the system and then at a very reduced rate.
>They also salvaged military equipment but again couldn't sell it for
>what it was worth.)
 
Probably they do, on major worlds, anyway.  See Andre Norton's Free 
Trader stories.
As to the Cosmic Computer analogy, consider that the average merchant 
ship  being dealt with in those stories was about 9,000,000 MT tons.
There was a ship (approx. 1,000,000 MT tons) described as too small to 
make it worthwhile to put FTL drives into.  So the average ship like that 
could buy up the entire wine harvest, store it in one corner of Hold #10, 
and then finish loading later.  The economic parallels between Piper's 
works and MT are virtually nonexistant
 
 
>> Do planets  routinely pass trade-restricting (or trade enhancing)
>> legislation?
 
>I think this would depend upon the government type. A Dictatorship
>would want to keep the populace ignorant so would enforce strong
>import conditions (i.e. keeping all the high tech goods for its own
>use).
>A more liberal govenment would want to better the conditions of its
>citizens and would be probably have less severe import conditions.
>But even in this type of system imports would be monitored so as to
>lessen the impact upon society.
 
Interestingly enough, trade restricting legislation seems to be a 
crucial part of many published adventures, most GM's arsenals, etc.
HOWEVER, any such trade would pretty much violate Imperial Law on 
interstellar trade (there are supposed to be no restrictions on such).
Odd, isn't it?
 
 
>> I think it would also be very nice to get some idea of the volume of
>> shipping available in various regions of the Imperium...
 
>I would probably say it is very similar to the conditions today.
>Heavy traffic through the main trade routes by the everyone with 
>lighter traffic to the outlying regions by small subsidiaries or
>small independents.
>Look at any major city. Planes, for instance. Every airline in the area
>has flights into the city so connections can be made. But only the
>small airlines service the smaller regional airports.
 
>To pin down actual numbers would take some time. But even in the 
>Imperium scheduled flights would be an integral component of
>communications.
 
>Since there would be frequent flights, one per day per major planet
>for the major lines might be appropriate, would necessitate cheaper
>travel costs. Travel costs, as they are now, seem to be too high.
>Which is another point I find irritating. I would think that the
>average or at least the above average citizen would want to take
>a cruise offplanet. As it is now it would take a major portion of
>a citizens income just for the ticket! 
 
Hmmm.   One Tukera Long-Liner per day landing at Efate.  So we are 
talking about 90 passengers arriving at a world of 6,000,000,000 
or so per day.  Atlanta has several hundred arriving flights per 
day, at 300+ passengers per flight.  Atlanta also has a population 
of 2,000,000 or so.  Trying to match traffic patterns would result 
in about 10,000 Tukera Liners per day arriving at Efate.    
Because of the high cost (similar to Cruise Ships, as opposed to 
airplanes), divide that by 20.  That would leave about 500 Tukera 
Liners per day at Efate.  One per 3 minutes.
It would also result in about one per 20 seconds at Terra or Muan 
Gwi.
Note that travel by starship parallels travel by merchant ship 
early in this century, rather than air travel.  Note also that when
using the city/planet analogy to compare the real world to MT, you 
should include air transport, water transport, rail transport, and
highway traffic to get a good picture of amount of trade between 
cities/planets.  The analogy is really pretty poor, anyway, so try 
using the country/planet analogy.  You still have to consider ALL
cross-border traffic, but the picture is probably more realistic.
 
 
To Rob Dean:
 
>system.  Along those lines, let me ask if anyone else thinks that Cr2000
per
>person per jump seems to be a bit excessive as a life support cost.  In my
 
The life support costs are a joke.  Everything, except possibly airline 
food, should be covered by the life support systems you pay for when
you buy the ship.
 
In response to the discussion of Potential energy in MT, the maximum 
potential energy relative to anything is equal to the energy of escape
velocity from the thing.  Therefore, the potential energy relative to 
the Sun when halfway to AlphaCent is slightly less than KE of escape
velocity from the Sun (which is about 1.905 E 11 Joules per Kilogram)
Note that the PE with respect to the Sun of someone on Terra is about
- -1.887 E 11 Joules per Kg.  The actual PE needed to get anywhere
relative to the Sun from Terra is only 886,000,000 Joules per Kg.
 
 
 
 
                               Steve Higginbotham.
 
 

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

agwbbs!cynthia_higginbotham@cs.tulane.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3325
Date:     Sun, 15 Dec 91 16:12:09 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  This week in GEnie

This will be the last of the full coverage GEnie cross-loads that you will
be seeing.  As I mentioned before, I will continue to monitor things over
there, and provide the text of any official announcements from the company.
However, as you can see by the rather low quantity of traffic below, discus-
sion is dying out over there, at least until GDW says something again.

Rob Dean


 ************
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 109       Mon Dec 09, 1991
C.BUSH3 [Clay]               at 23:00 EST
 
   I've been reviewing my letter file from Roger Myhre. Following is my
summary of his wish list for starship combat. (I've left out some specifics.)

OVERALL COMMENTS
    Lack of tactics is biggest issue with Traveller combat. Ship velocity and
heading have no bearing on what you may fire at. Armor is basically unitary;
it does not matter which facing was hit.

SCALE
    Smaller time scale for time and movement. He suggests 1 minute turns and
15 km per square/grid.

EASIER DAMAGE SYSTEM
    Easy-to-use, generic damage record form for all types of craft. If it's
impractical to use one form, then as few variations as possible, and they
should be obviously different. (Try finding destroyer #3 in a stack of
Leviathan ship forms.)

    Faster task resolution for hit and penetration. Compare offensive to
defensive factors and roll D100. (Adding a +11DM on a dozen weapon factors
seems bad.)
    One table to roll hits.
    Special tables for spinal mounts rather than rolling umpteen times.
Perhaps compare weapon factor to ship size: results would be ship-kill,
cripple, or damage. Cripple or damage would involve one die roll, and give
guidelines for allocating damage.
    Regard internal hits as criticals, where internal hits are nasty no matter
what weapon type inflicted the damage.

    Use a damage point based system, the same as personal combat does. Compute
damage factor for a ship's battery from the damage and penetration factors
given in Player's Manual so that entire system is consistent.


ANOTHER TWO CENTS FROM ME, (Clay Bush, not Roger Myhre)

    Someone in recent discussion noted that Aliens were getting dropped during
each revision of Traveller. MT made obsolete the Alien Modules, and now a
T:2000 conversion will invalidate important parts of the two MTA books.
    Aliens are very important to any si-fi game, and deserve careful attention
in GDW's marketing plans.
    I feel that the best way to handle the major non-human races is to
consolidate character generation for them into one big, bound book. Feature
character generation and role-playing aspects; cut back on history and
physiology as needed to make them fit.
    While one big rule book may be a bad idea, I feel that one _comprehensive_
treatment of the major alien races is workable. Most everyone who bought MTA1
is buying MTA2: the common interest is there. Also, this is supplementary
material.
    The one big rule book is a problem, because then you have character
generation, animal encounters, starship design, etc., all in one place, and
readers have to page through it to find anything during play. With aliens, you
aren't trying to find different sections during play.
    A release after the revised rules come out (and early comments on the
rules in) would provide important, general background for developing
campaigns. After MT, how many referees sidestepped Aslan waiting for the MTA?
I think quite a few judging from the number of HIWGers who put off projects
waiting for MTA1 or MTA2.
    Drop the "bomb" and then referees will feel free to run with the ball. Any
lack of written adventures in the product is made up in the number of referee-
generated adventures it supports.

    (Personally, I blame Americans' obsession with not making mistakes.
Perfectionism and fear of mistakes cripples many people's initiative, but
encouragement to "wing it" doesn't help many. It's too close to the problem.
    (Since supplements are meant to support, the ones of most use to referees
should receive the highest priority. Aliens is the first place to look at
supplements in any si-fi system.)
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 111       Sun Dec 15, 1991
K.BRENNAN2 [Kevin]           at 13:46 EST
 
   While I doubt that this will make much difference, I'd  like to point out
that the MT/2300 task system works  perfectly well with the T2K2 skill levels -
it's been used  in the local Twilight campaign ever since the new edition  was
released. (And note to Lester - an automatic success  rule could be added,
though I personally don't feel it to be needed, since it only comes up on
Formidable or Impossible  tasks. I won't insult your intelligence by pointing
out that the 2300 version uses a d10, so bell curves are not  necessary ;->).
Actually, I think it works much better than  the "real" T2K2 task system, and
intend to do this unless drastic revisions are made.

   I agree with Clay that a _NeoTraveller Alien_ book would  be a good idea,
and somerules for generating alien characters (for everyone with the old
background) should be  in the basic book. 

   While I'm here, I'd like to point out once again that interstellar anarchy
(Twilight: 2000 with spaceships) is of  absolutely no interest to me. I don't
know yet if that's  what GDW is aiming for, but it certainly sounds like it so
 far. My campaigns require interstellar goverments  (preferably large ones,
who don't always get along but are  not at war) to be playable, since they are
based on  intrigue, with very little violence.

   In Traveller, it's hard to do that without organization  on an interstellar
scale, because the characters are less  likely to get involved in local
intrigues and find it too  easy to escape their enemies. If the factions
around Lucan's Imperium remained intact, I'll find it a lot easier to  accept
the revised universe. (Frankly, my main concern with  the rules change is how
much stuff I have to throw out. It's  the setting that makes or breaks a game
for me).

   I generally agree with Bryan Borich's "five points",  though I don't really
expect to see 1 or 5.

   Foreshadowing Dept. (TNS, Challenge #47): "An anonymous  source close to
Emperor Lucan said that the recent `super- weapons speech' does relate to
these naval successes. `The emperor would not have put his technical staff on
the spot unless he knew that real breakthroughs were being made. What our
scientists have accomplished is, in a word, startling.  The emperor expects a
complete cessation of hostilities as  soon as his ultimatum is delivered to
the leaders of the  various rebel factions'." Hmmm...
 ------------

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3326
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 00:57:00 EST
From: Mike.Metlay@ORGAN.MUSIC.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: a quick note on character generation

DON'T forward this to GEnie, Carl: I sent a copy to Rob, and then realized
that the TML might want to see it..... [Metlay, I nuked GENIE from the
subject line.  That's the flag that Carl looks for -- James]

metlay
- ----------------------

One other small matter that I hope will be addressed by the new character
generation system in TNE: multiple career changes as a legal part of the
rules. The average person in our society changes careers over twenty
times in his or her life; in Traveller you're not allowed to do it at all,
unless you're a Vargr. You're a Navy man when you're 18, and the only way
you can try something different when you're 26 is to muster out and 
become an adventurer, with a big set of gaps in your skill lists as compared
to the 42-year-olds out there. My personal bias would be to state that a
person can only serve in one MILITARY establishment in their career, and
would then need to move to paramilitary or civilian organizations. This
would lead to careers like the following:

"Well, I was a bomber pilot in the War-- got a bunch of decorations. Then
I decided to give civilian life a try, so I used my piloting experience
to hire on as a commercial pilot hauling passengers and cargo. After some
years of that, it got kind of old, so I decided to give writing a try.
And now I make a living doing writing and mass media production, with my
skill base as a means of qualifying me as a technical consultant."

Sound like the typical sort of random hashing around that you'd expect 
from an easily-bored Vargr? Well, surprise surprise: as anyone who
wears plastic ears to conventions could tell you, that was Gene Roddenberry's
resume at any point in the last two decades of his life. Think about it.

metlay

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3327
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: potential energy
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 10:33:21 GMT

This was originally private email, but I have no objection to letting the
TML in on it, so I'll reply here.

gsw@whservd.att.COM writes:
> 
> : From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
> : Subject: Re: potential energy in the Traveller (and other) universe
> : 
> : What is the equation relating potential energy to distance, once you allow
> : for the fact that gravitational attraction is itself dependent on distance?
> : Specifically, does your potential energy increase or decrease as your
> : distance from the attracting body increases?
> 
> I don't remember the formula either.

So do any TML physics experts want to tell us?

>					I think that there is a certain
> amount of energy which is enough to overcome ALL of the gravitational
> potential energy of the Earth.  If you assume that energy is kinetic
> energy, then you can divide out mass from the equations and get an
> escape velocity.

I believe the escape velocity is the velocity you need to have initially,
so that gravitational deceleration will not prevent you from getting to
an infinite distance, where the gravitational force of the Earth upon
your ship will be zero.  Of course, other factors will probably prevent you
getting to an infinite distance from Earth in reality.

>		    I would say that for a jump drive to land you 1/2
> way between Sol and Alpha Centauri, it would have to expend more than
> enough energy to bring the ship to escape velocity.

Well, it will have to expend some energy in order to make up for the
potential energy it will gain due to its increased distance from Sol.
But it will get some of that back because it loses some potential energy
due to the reduced distance from Alpha Centauri.  There's also the matter
of what the ship's potential energy due to its distance from Regina will
do.

> I was thinking along the lines of Larry Niven style jump drives, I guess.
> In that case, jumps are made between stars, not into open space.

This messes up the trick of a ship with a jump-1 drive but enough fuel for
two jumps, which executes one jump-1 into empty space and then a second
jump-1 to the destination, thus making a 2 parsec journey possible.

> : > True, but I don't think Traveller was THAT broken.  Some of the
> : > stats might have to be altered or given further constraints.
> 
> OK, so maybe altering the stats won't be enough.  But Jump-4 and
> Maneuver-3 should still be understandable under the new system.

Yes, but the snag is that a ship capable of Manoeuvre-3 under the old
system will either no longer be capable of it (because the drives are
now bigger), or be capable of it but now have some new cargo space
(because the drives are now smaller).

I wonder if they will use the same sort of trick they did when they
introduced High Guard, whose calculations for drive size and fuel
consumption were different from those in Book 2 - the old drives are
standardised models, suitable for use on small ships if it is an
advantage to do so.

> Also, they should have at least the same range of weapons and
> equipment.  If I have characters aboard a ship in the old system,
> I want to be ABLE to convert to the new system.  And I don't want
> to have to give up my repulsor bay because these are not included
> in the new rules.

No, but you may have to give up your repulsor bay because the new
rules say it uses more power than the old rules, and your ship can't
provide the required power.

- -- 
 "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: 3328
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: potential energy
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 11:12:49 GMT

"C. Roald" <HOBBIT@AC.DAL.CA> writes:
> 
> The physics convention is that potential energy is NEGATIVE, so that it 
> increases (gets less negative) as you increase the separation. At 
> infinite separation, the PE rises to zero. (A common definition is that 
> PE represents how much energy has to be added to bring two objects to 
> infinite separation.

Ah, this makes things a little easier.  In effect, if you are a long way
from something, your potential energy due to its gravity is approximately
zero; if you're sitting on top of it, your potential energy is large and
negative - you have to expend a lot of energy to get away.  If you're at
distance 0, you're in big trouble, but that's really only possible if the
something that you're trying to get away from has radius 0, i.e. it is
probably a black hole.

>				     On the other hand, if you were to 
> jump from a distance r from Sol to a distance r from AC, then the net
> cost of the jump is
> 
> 	G m M(AC)/r - G m M(Sol)/r = G m [M(AC)-M(Sol)]/r.
> 
> A first approximation calls M(Sol) about the same as M(AC), so the net
> cost of the jump is ~= 0, plus the drive energy to make a jump of twice 
> the distance.

Why twice the distance?  (I assume that in this sentence, "distance" means
"distance from Sol to Alpha Centauri".)  If the energy require to make a
jump of this distance is E, then you're saying you need to expend 2*E.

>		On the other hand, GmM/r is the escape energy of Sol, 
> which is the kinetic energy required to produce a velocity of ~30 km/s.
> For a ship weighing say, 1 T, that's 4.5e11 J, or 450 000 MJ. Not to
> be sneezed at.

A ship accelerating at 1-G will achieve that velocity in less than an hour,
using just its manoeuvre drive.  (To get to 30000 m/s using an acceleration
of 9.8 m/s^2 will take 3061 seconds, i.e. 51 minutes.)  Maybe not to be
sneezed at, but that's the sort of figure that all spacecraft play with
routinely - that's why you don't want to collide with anything!

So the ship expends its 4.5e11 J, and get into jump space.  One week later,
it emerges from jump space near Alpha Centauri, and gets 4.5e11J back -
what happens to this energy?  Presumably it gains this energy as it emerges
from jump space, and the energy ends up back in the ship's jump capacitors.

- -- 
 "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: 3329
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:41 -0400
From: "Dr. Michael Hale" <MHALE@AC.DAL.CA>
Subject: Dark Nebula rules

In my last move, I managed to lose my copy of the rules to Dark Nebula.
If anyone on the list has a copy (or knows where to obtain same), I would
like to hear from you.

Thanks.
Mike

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3330
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 19:54 EST
From: Rob Miracle <RWMIRA01%ULKYVX.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: Re:  (3300) Re: General Traveller Questions

>Rob Miracle writes:
>>>Question 14
>>>
>>>I tried to make a scout vessel (as the one from the encyclopedia) and
>>>absolutly nothing was acurate . As it turned out the power listed for vessels
>>>in the encyclopedia were on average 3 times the power I worked out for them
>>
>>That is another general complaint of the MT rules. One of the things that bugs
>>me about the ship generation is that you can't build a decent starship below
>>TL14.
>
>Well, it depends on your definition of decent.  Personally, I think of 13 as
>the bottom end of 'what's militarily useful', given the present Imperial
>situation, and TL11 as the bottom end of 'what's commerically useful'.
>
>What did you mean?

Rob,
  What I ment was that based on the trade and commerce rules and the cost of a
ship vs the available cargo/passenger space, you cant build a usable ship.

Look at the Vehicals in the MT Imperial Encyolpedia:

Air/Raft:     TL 15
GCarrier:     TL 15
Speeder:      TL 15
All Ship's Boats: TL 15
All Star Ship's:  TL 15  (Including a Type S scout and a Type A free trader)

If it requires TL 15 to build a Free Trader to have that little passenger space
and cargo space, there is no way to afford the payments if it is built at a
lower TL.  Try building a Free Trader at TL 12.

The only space vehicals below TL 15 in the IG are the Gazelle Close Escort and
its attached gig.  They are TL 14.

Rob (Miracle)


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

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

