Loose Change

My two cents on a variety of things -

"Robert S. Dean" [email removed] says:

>to offend anyone.  As you are all aware, the scheduled MegaTraveller robot book
>isn't on any DGP schedule I've seen lately, so anyone wanting to use robots is
>forced to limp along with Book 8.  The following is my attempt to lay out a
>Book 8 robot in a format similar to the current "standard vehicle" format,
>hopefully with enough info that anyone could "reverse engineer" the design if
>necessary.  I did this a while ago, so I *think* that I laid out any components
>in the Referee's Manual Vehicle system according to that system rather than
>Book 8, and revised the Book 8 configuration numbers to match the vehicles.

Personally, I like this format.  It adds uniformity and readability.  I would
like to see more robots.  No offense to vehicle designers but I, at least
for now, have more use/need for robots and small starships (less than
2500 tons).  My players are not interested in military activity and large
starships are out of their reach.

Speaking of scheduled releases, has anyone heard anything about the new
adventure that's coming out (soon?) called "On the Edge" (I think)?  It
set in the Spinward Marches but usable anywhere.  Its due out in '91 and
that's all I've heard so far.

About Trade/shipping:

With respect to Jim Baranski's posts (1869 and 1879) I agree.  It seems to
me that a planet's import/export market will be driven by population,
tech level, and trade classification.  Large populations are needed for the
work force to mine raw materials, to manufacture finished products, to
grow food/livestock, or to consume finished products and food/livestock.
The tech level will influence the desirability of an item.  Why use TL8
computers if you could get TL15!  The trade classification indicates that
planets speciality or needs.

The comment that all planets will have raw material (unless it has been
used up already as may be the case on an old planet like Terra) is
generally okay but you can have planets/systems that are low in heavy
elements.  These systems will not be origin worlds for life (since life
is filled with heavy elements like iron) but may be colonized (why?).
If the system is a second or third generation system (ie was formed very
early in the life of the galaxy) there would be little heavy elements
present and they would be deep in the core of the planet.  Heavy elements
all come from stellar deaths (basically) so early on few stars would have
died so forming systems would be poor in heavy elements.  A planet in this
predicament would probably be poor and have to import *everything*!  On the
other hand, the gas giants of such a system would be very pure.  They
could be the source of some of the cheapest fuel in the Imperium!

Looking back over what Jim wrote and what I just wrote brings up an
interesting point.  Trade is using *during* the game that means it needs
to be a quick resolution type system.  Your players don't want to sit
around on their hands while you determine what a planet has to offer.
Maybe there should be a simple, reasonable system for routine use or for
players who aren't interested in trade as the main theme for a game and
an advanced, expanded version for times when that is called for kind
of like the starship operators manual.  For the streamlined version
maybe a variation on the MT version or the Classic Traveller version
could be used.  Just make a couple of patches to the most glaring holes.

About the TDR ship design rules by Rob Dean:

>       For space faring craft, normal acceleration now becomes
>       thrust/weight.  If this value is less than one, the craft cannot
>       lift off from a standard gravity planet. For operations near a
>       planetary surface, figure speed of spacecraft based on
>       (thrust/weight)-1 to account for power required to maintain lift.
>       Agility is equal to the acceleration available after all other
>       systems have been powered.

What about Cargo?  Do you mean to imply that some average weight should
be assumed for acceleration calculations or should you recalculate with
each cargo run or ignore cargo?  Otherwise (after a brief once over) it
looks good to me!  I am glad to see that you didn't start over from
scratch but rather fixed the existing system.  I don't want to learn an
entirely new game, I just want some of the holes filled!

Adrian Hurt writes:

>>                                               Are there other ways to land
>> ships?  Are there reaction drives that are not destructive?  Some scenarios
>> have space ports have gravitic landing platforms, and scorched earth
>> wilderness landings.  I kind of like that.
>
>Reaction drives are bound to be destructive.  It's all down to Newton's 3rd
>law.  Without doing sums, force pushing ship up = force pushing ground down.
>If mass of ship = huge, force pushing ship up = lots, so force pushing ground
>down = lots, so being under the ship isn't a good idea.  Gravitic landing
>platforms - you mean a big repulsor that lets the ship down gently without
>the ship doing anything?  Nice idea, and I expect the ship gets charged some
>CR for it.

Two things: First I been looking in the various MT books and have come to
the conclusion that when they say "reactionless" they mean using no
reaction mass or no exhaust.  A variation on anti-gravity technology or
the like.  Second anti-gravs are reaction drives (they push against gravity)
but aren't destructive (no flatten houses or people when one flys by).

TLH

- - --
T.L.Hayes                  |
MIT/Lincoln Laboratory     |
Lexington, MA              |