Happy New Year!

 In message 2033, [email removed] (Robert S. Dean) writes:
 >
 >Item  1:  MESON COMMUNICATORS  I have been asked why I never  put
 >these things on nay of my starship designs.  Well, there are  two
 >reasons.  They serve no purpose, and they're expensive.  Serve no
 >purpose, you say?  Exactly.  The only advantage of a meson commu-
 >nicator  versus any of the other tight beam comm systems is  that
 >it can transmit through solid objects.  However, assuming that it
 >works  more or less like a meson gun, you need to know the  exact
 >range before using it.  Thus, unless you can already see and talk
 >to the other ship, you can't use your meson communicator.  I also
 >have a feeling that I wouldn't want to be aboard a ship receiving
 >a slightly misaligned meson communication--even though the 20  or
 >30  megawatts of a communication beam aren't anything next  to  a
 >spinal  mount's  output, I'd hate to be on the bridge  when  that
 >message decays ten feet from the meson receiver.

     Um, I don't think so.  I always thought that the meson communicator
receiver worked more or less on the same principle as the meson screen.
As I understand it, a working meson screen makes an incoming meson
beam decay "early," on contant with the screen.  If this is how the
receiver works, then you don't need to know the range.  If you use a
diffuse beam, you don't even have to be all that accurate with your aim,
either.  You just have to get a small fraction of the beam to the
receiver so that the early decay of the mesons can be detected (we have
detectors that can handle small numbers of particles *now*--who knows
what a TL15 culture might manage?).  If you use some form of, say,
pulse modulation that is designed to be easily distinguishable from
random noise (assuming that there's all that much of a chance of running
into "wild" mesons), then the resultant energy density needed at the
receiver end is safely low.  This is assuming that the receiver is at
the extreme range of the transmitter, which increases the chances of
the beam reaching the end of its lifespan in the same general area.  If
you're closer to the transmitter than that, I would think that it would
be perfectly safe, since I can't think of any good reason to ever set
the beam duration for anything less than maximum.


- - --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)

In message 2033, [email removed] (Robert S. Dean) writes:
> Item 7 TDR VEHICLE SYSTEM  Has anyone looked at my draft  vehicle
> system version 1.1?

  Eh, 1.1? I've seen a version 1.0 that was dated 29 Nov 90, but no 1.1.  I used
part of 1.0 for the play during the holidays.
  The "Damagepoints from weight" thing is nice. Heavily armoured SDB's will
get far larger capability to absorb damage than flimsy civilian transports.
(I assume that "weight" in the damage point formulas is unloaded weight. It is
 given as clean weight in the COACC part but just "weight" in the vehicle/
 craft/ship part.)

  Regarding Agility.. (The entire TML screams and runs for cover, but don't
worry, I'm not seeking to restart the old "What Is Agility? Where does it live
and what does it charge by the hour?" argument.)

  I don't really understand how one should compute agility. In the general
section you say "Agility is equal to the acceleration available after all other
systems have been powered." and in the COACC part "Agility formula for aircraft
(and grav vheicles) is forthcoming."

  The first sentence seems to be like good old Striker, where grav-vehicles
could be powered by a fraction of the effect that was listed and get a fraction
of the listed thrust. In Striker (in the three design examples at least) the
vehicles wouldn't have enough powerplant to go at top speed while they were
operating their weapons. Is it this "reduced acceleration while everything is
powered" speed that you mean?

  I also have to put my vote for the fusion rocket. I think that there is
something grand about a large spaceship at 6 gee with a long glowing flame of
heated (hydrogene? water? ammonia?) trailing after it.
  But it might just be a severe case of space opera that has hit me:)

> Item  4: GREAT ADVENTURE IDEAS What are some of the  best  adven-
> tures  people have run/played in?  For all the years  I've  owned
> this game, I've not played it much, and I wonder what people have
> done that they thought worked well.

  Somehow, I usually manage to make intro adventures that are stronger than the
campaigns that follows. This is true for all types of RPG's I've been involved
in. It probably has something to do with the time I spend on it. In any
case, I'll only talk about my views on introductiory adventures.

  I like adventures to be fairly complex with several bottoms. The ones that
the players have liked the best were those that could accomodate several
different styles of play (Adventures that could be approached and from either a
discovery/exploration, scientific, economic or gung-ho angle and solved from any
angle.)
  Those kinds of adventures are especially successfull as first adventures
when you arn't really sure which style of play that that group will take.
(They took the discovery/exploration/gung-ho angle with a minor in economics:)

  Traveller has the famous concepts of the push, the pull, the enigma and the
gimmic (I'm almost afraid to admit it, but 3 of the reasons in "the push: the
5 top reasons why everyone in the galaxy hates you" (a cartoon in challenge
some issues back) fit in on the pc-s in my current campaign, and they don't
cheat at dice:)
  I'd like to extend those concepts to the pushES, the pullS, the engimaS and
the gimmicS. If you onlt have one push and one pull working during an adventure,
it will tend to follow the path of a charged particle, away from the source of
the push to the location of the pull. Solving enigmas on the way and collecting
the gimmic in the end (usually).
  (Knightfall could be taken as a good example of this kind of "charged particle
campaign", but it has several sequential strong pulls in effect.)

  A better model would in my opinion be to have several pushes and several
pulls in effect from different locations at the same time. Different players
(and different NPC's) would interpret the situation in different ways and
support different actions. Suddenly the linear adventure has got several more
dimensions. The course it will take is not longer predictable and, at least
those of this type that I have run, have been more enjoyed, by myself and the
players.

  As a summary, the following structure has worked for us:
PC-s get apparently simple assignment from a patron (Always have a reason why
*They* of all people gets the assignment, I thought the "late at night at
the starport, desperate lawyer looks for anyone with a scoutship" ploy worked).
  After they have started on the assignment (and the patron gone somewhere else
so that they can't go back and gripe about it and demand additional information)
{strange things start to happen/strange facts are discovered} that hints that
the whole thing might be more complex than anticipated.
  They discover the first part of the puzzle, which in this case were where to
travel to, but when they there the mystery thickens and several more pushes
(the first was a deadline) and pulls (the first one was a reward) materialize.
  After some stalling in which they pick up pieces of the puzzle they begin to
see a pattern and soon the end is in sight.
  Then another bottom with more pushes and pulls reveals itself and the middle
part of the adventure is resolved in a dramatic climax.
  Then comes the end of the adventure with no great surprises, up till the very
end when there is another, final, dramatic point.

  I'm not claiming that this is The Formula For Epic Adventures, but it worked
for us.

- - -bertil-
- - --
"Words on the net aren't usually worth the paper they are written on."