"Bruce Pihlamae" [email removed] writes:
> Would you really use ship-to-ship nuke missiles against ground targets?
> I would have thought you'd need specialist missiles for atmospheric
> re-entry and atmospheric operation.
Why not? Presumably, the Imperial Navy uses specialized ordinance for
planetary attack, but there will be occasions when an ordinary ship needs to
attack a planet. Ordinary missiles (conventional or nuclear) can probably
be pressed into service. "Ortillery" well-established in the Traveller
universe; in a pinch I'm sure that the player characters will improvise
something that will work.
> Should be cleaner and less stopable to simply use a streamlined
> kinetic weapon than a nuke.
> Has anyone done some design work on what a kinetic missile should look
> like, costs, size, damage etc?
I haven't, but the subject has been kicked around both on TML and in the
Science-Fiction field for a while. One proposal was a bundle of steel rods,
each rod with a guidance unit and control surfaces. The bundle would be
"parked" in orbit, and provided with a rocket motor to de-orbit the bundle
on command. During re-entry, each rod seeks its target, and should impact
with enough energy to punch a hole through just about anything (tanks,
ships, runways, etc).
Martyn J. Wheeler [email removed] writes:
> I'd love a status window that
> tells me how many "squares" of computer room or gunnery controls I
> need to add, for example, or how much mess room space I have left.
Presumably something like AutoCAD would be up to it; not that I own a copy
of AutoCAD. I don't know what's available in PD/ShareWare CAD packages, but
perhaps one of them would also do the trick.
When the TNE ship design system comes out, I will probably create another
ship design spreadsheet, and I will almost certainly create a page that
shows the major components in terms of deckplan "squares" (or whatever TNE
will use; I would like to see the 0.5"=1.5m scale continue). A possibility
would be to key this data into a programmable calculator (my trusty HP41C
comes to mind) so that the calculator can keep track of it; perhaps using a
set of keys to request "squares remaining" and another set to subtract
"squares drawn" from a set of categories.
> With the advent of laser printers (not that *I* have one), your
> concerns about the quality of hardcopy output are probably less
> significant these days.
The paper size is a little small, though. Most laser printers still only
handle 8.5x11" paper. While I drew some plans this small (small craft and
100-tonners) most were on 11x17" paper (about the same size as those
provided with Azhanti High Lightning) and some were 17x22". I also do the
original drawings in color (red for drives and heavy equipment, green for
controls and electronics, black for hull, bulkheads, partititions and
detals, and sometimes blue to mark fuel spaces). These colors all xerox
well; and many copy shops can reduce from the larger sizes to 8.5x11"; it is
much easier to create a crisp drawing in a large scale and reduce it than it
is to try to add detail to a small drawing.
A plotter that will do 11x17 will cost from $400(used) to $1600, while one
that can do 17x22 will cost over $1000 even if I can get one used (does
anyone have a plotter they are going to throw away?). In both cases, this
is much more than I can justify for deck plans; a laser printer is easier to
justify (I can use it for more things) but it is still out of my price
range. So I will continue to do them by hand.
> What are the effects of orbital bombardment on un-hardened ground
> targets? What are the range of effects of a single-ship nuclear or
> conventional missile attack on a target such as a troop encampment, a
> starport, or a government building?
Some information from Striker may be useful in some recent TML discussions.
Striker Rule 75: Naval Vessels, says (in part):
"75.C Weapons: ... When conducting direct fire on the battlefield, ship
weapons have the same capabilities and fire control limits as other direct
fire weapons. When firing from orbit, a forward observer is necessary. ..."
"75.C.3 Missiles: Turret-mounted missiles have warheads equivalent to 15cm
CPR gun rounds; bay-mounted misssiles have warheads equivalent to 25cm CPR
gun rounds. There are 25 launchers in a 50-ton bay, and 50 launchers in a
100-ton bay. Ship missiles have the same guidance system types as tac
missiles: they may be target designated, homing, or drone. ..."
"75.C.7 Forward Observers: ... However, ships high overhead (such as those
in orbit), and ships with missiles and meson guns in any positions, may be
guided in their fire by a forward observer. The observer must have a map
box and a battle computer, and must be in communication with the ship. ..."
The MegaTraveller rule book thoughtfully neglects to provide data for odd
sizes of CPR gun rounds, so you'll have to interpolate. You should probably
use the howitzer table (Striker used only one table, with modifiers for the
type of gun; if I remember correctly, howitzers used no modifiers). I
would presume that the warhead would be HEAP for anti-ship missiles, but
ground-attack missiles probably offer all types of warheads.
It is not clear what type of guidance system standard anti-ship missiles
have. I would presume some type of passive homing guidance; however,
"semi-active" (ie: target designated) homing would be a popular option.
High tech missiles may even be have both, with the guidance system selected
at launch time.
> I would basically like to know the capabilities of a battery-round
> from a single missile turret (standard 3-missile rack), and from a
> 100t missile bay, using conventional and nuclear anti-ship munitions
> as might be found on an average merchant ship. :-)
I don't know about your campaign, but in mine, any ship which had nuclear
anti-ship munitions on board is hardly an "average merchant ship". The best
designation they could hope for would be "privateer", with "pirate",
"corsair", and even "terrorist" and "criminal" being strong possibilities.
[email removed]
> I had some trouble concearning wilderness refueling at my last MT session.
> I think a typical Far Trader oder a Subsidized Merchant using a
> Maneuver=1 drive needs 18 hours from the jump exit (100 diameters) to a
> small GG. Even worse, if they approach a large GG.
Yep. Someone here on TML worked out that it was much cheaper (in terms of
lost time; those extra couple of days result is many lost trips per year) to
buy fuel at the starport than to use wilderness refuelling. Therefore, most
merchant starships will only use wilderness refuelling where *NO* source of
local fuel is available (Naval and Scout forces will, of course, refuell
from local gas giants whenever it suits their missions).
Fuel purification systems may be economical for merchants, especially as
tech level increases. You have to trade off the decreased cargo revenue
(from the volume that the purifier requires) agains the increased cost of
refined fuel. In some cases, where the anticipated runs will not have
refined fuel available, the purifier is required for safe operation.
> If I remember the ideas of refueling by asteroid ice, discussed in this
> list earlier, I think mining an ice asteroid could take much less time for
> a small ship.
I don't think so; it all depends on the relative location of the mainworld,
gas giant, and ice asteroids (if any), as well as the time it takes to mine,
melt, and purify a load of fuel. How long will it take you to mine, carry,
and melt over 20 metric tons of ice, even working in microgravity?.
Mark Watson [email removed] writes:
> Given the appropriate choice of characteristics (and I'm not sure that
> the WD set is the right one) this is a very effective way of managing NPCs
> in game terms, and of differentiating between them (note also that aliens
> will get mods on their initial throws).
I like what I have heard so far. Perhaps here on TML we can come up with
some better "personality characteristics" for a revised version of the
system; how about some suggestions? I think the "Morality" statistic should
be replaced with something better - maybe even a couple of somethings.
Perhaps "Compassion", "Conscience" and "Legalism" statistics?
> The 5 alien supplements, esp the minor race one.
Yes! It seems that as soon as good, detailed information about aliens
starts to be published, its time to re-arrange the game universe and the
aliens get put on the back burner again. A Science-Fiction roleplaying game
should have aliens in it; please make this a priority.
> starship operators manual, vols 1 AND 2 - I got the impression that this
> would lead into a set of sourcebooks for particular types of ship
That was the scuttlebutt I heard; however, I'm not sure how successful these
would be. Although I thought that volume 1 was nice, I've heard far more
negative comments than positive.
> combined scenario / sector sourcebooks, like the Flaming Eye, like the
> planned Black Duke, etc.
Or at least matched pairs; a sector sourcebook and a matching campaign
sourcebook. This way more information could be put into each one, and
people who don't intend to use the campaign material won't have to pay for
it.
> World Builder's Handbook, and the planned Grand Explorations book (how I
> was looking forward to that one).
Didn't hear about Grand Explorations ... but I thought that the World
Builder's Handbook was a neccesity. Since TNE is supposed to stress
exploration and recontact, I should think that an exploration sourcebook
would be a high priority (if not, perhaps it should be; after all, this is
one of the few major area of Science-Fiction literature that both Classic
Traveller and MegaTraveller were weak on).
> Finally on this point, I'd like to see the DGP equipment charts and task
> libraries (assuming there is still some form of task system) continue
> in some form, rather than have the dreary and less useful equipment lists
> I can see in other games (including the original MT rules).
I like the DGP equipment sheet and task library format very much. While I
don't consider it as high a priority as other parts of the TNE system, I
would certainly pay money for a suppliment composed of nothing but different
pieces of equipment detailed and illustrated on these sheets.
In my opinion, the best way to produce these would be as unbound sheets for
inserting into a looseleaf binder. This way, each referee can use a blank
sheet to create his or her own equipment sheets and place them in the binder
too (put the blank sheet in the back of the design rules suppliment). Pages
from a loose-leaf binder can be conviently removed and xeroxed for players to
use. This approach should also lower production costs, and allow the sheets
to be sold at a reasonable price.
> 3) Related point - sort out your licensing! Get some licensees to replace
> the lost ones ... they add to the vitality of the game.
Agreed. And the more freedom each licensee has to be creative and unique,
the better the game will be. The original idea of granting separate areas
to each company was a good one, as it allowed each to have relatively free
reign withought having to worry that GDW or another company would come along
and contradict a plotline in progress.
> I'd also like to see some of the old licensed material, in particular
> the Paranoia stuff, rehabilitated and reprinted if possible.
I'd like to see all of Classic Traveller collected, re-edited, and
re-printed. Heck, I'd even do it myself, if I could get permission from all
those involved (hint! hint!). I have some experience through my job with
book-on-demand publishing; and this sort of reprint work seems like a
perfect application. Using book-on-demand, I believe that I could manage to
pay a reasonable royalty, make a small profit, and keep the final cost under
control. The only drawback would be that book-on-demand is not compatible
with the way that most book and game distributors work; such reprints would
probably be available only as mail-order. This may be a feature, not a bug;
it would prevent the reprints from competing directly with TNE.
> I've often thought that the period
> after Alexander provides a good model for the post-Rebellion era - a number
> of strong and stable rump states (for Egypt and the Seleucid Empire read
> Deneb, Vland and Antares), a few which fall pretty quickly (Gushemege,
> Illelish for the Greek and Indian possessions) and the gradual infringement
> of newer and more vital empires at the periphery (for Rome and Parthia,
> provide the alien empires of your choice).
I think that the Imperium was more like Rome, and will agree with Cynthia
that it will take a good long time to fall (after all, Rome wasn't sacked
in a day). This is why I picked Charlemagne as an example (and yes, I am
aware that he was centuries after the fall of Rome, not decades).
The "Virus" seems to me to be the factor that speeds up the fragmentation
and fall of the empire. This may also hinder the formation of states to
fill the power vacuums created by the fall of the Imperium.
In your "Alexanderian" model, how about the Solomani for Rome?
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the Far Future