Item 4031443 91/10/17 21:20
From: J.KUNDERT James R. Kundert
To: C.FAGO1 Carl D. Fago
Sub: Recent TML musings
In the past weeks, I have been watching the TML with great
interest. I would appreciate it greatly if you would post this
letter, so that I can get my 2 cents in. This covers no single
topic...
- A while back, someone asked about playing nobles. Without
getting long-winded, let me remind you that individual planets
have rulers and nobility, who may or may not ALSO have Imperial
titles, but will have power. Unlike a holder of an Imperial
patent, the relative power of such planetary nobility is entirely,
justifiably, at the mercy of the Referee, because the home
planet can vary so much. The King of a world with 4000 people
may have a high title, but won't have as much power as the state
governor ("Baron") of a world with 4,000,000 inhabitants.
- About Star Viking: All system questions aside, my understanding
of the "Plunder Era" is that it is at least a decade further
down the (Imperial) timeline, possibly more. Those of you disgruntled
with the Rebellion Era should probably read "Prologue: Adventures in
the Imperium's Past" in Journal #20 (yes, I know it's hard to find).
The important point is that the history of the three Imperiums is
defined well enough for play at nearly any point along the timeline.
Star Viking could be about several periods of humaniti's history,
including the post-Rebellion era. What Star Viking does is extend
the known timeline forward as well as backward. Traveller has always
been applicable to differing levels of technology. If it weren't, it
wouldn't have rules for building craft at any TL other than 15.
- Burton, Hordelings, et all: If you design ships using hardpoint
variations or other _major_ anomalies from the RM, please label
them for us. Minor anomalies can be ignored; major anomalies don't
get used (unless well labeled).
- To all you craft designers: I've been collecting ship designs from
many and various sources, and I have noticed that odd Tech Levels get
most of the attention. Let's see a few 12s and 14s, eh?
- Scott Kellogg and other Wet Navels: Here is a timetable for Wet
Navy, George's "Proposed Waterfaring Craft Design Rules",
and related events:
Apr 29, 1990 -- Wet Navy, Part 1 (Sailor characters), and Part 2
(Design) appears in GEnie Games RT Library. The author
is Terry McInnes.
May 7, 1990 -- Terry McInnes starts Topic 38 (Wet Navy) in the
GEnie Games RT.
Jun 5, 1990 -- Wet Navy, Part 2 (rev 4) appears in Games Library.
This is the last revision to appear on GEnie.
Further revision is piecemeal in Topic 38 or never
appears on GEnie.
Jul 30, 1990 -- Wet Navy, Part 3 (Combat) appears in GEnie Games
RT Library. This includes the first draft of the
fiction which appears in Challenge 53.
Aug _, 1990 -- I (James Kundert) first log on to GEnie.
Oct 5, 1990 -- I begin design of a Meson-bay submarine. Holes
in then-current design system halts project.
Discussion of rotating spinal mounts follows my
question about facings. (All documented in Topic 38).
Nov 26, 1990 -- Initial report: sale of Wet Navy to Challenge Magazine.
Dec 2, 1990 -- Stephen Madjanovic appears in Topic 38, and promptly
turns the power/speed formula inside-out. Further
revisions occur, of which very few reach GEnie.
Apr 4, 1991 -- George William Herbert posts his "Proposed
Waterfaring Craft Design Rules" to the TML.
Apr _, 1991 -- Terry McInnes goes on vacation for two months, and is
entirely unreachable during that time. Some final
revision takes place with the assistance of
an anonymous naval architect.
Apr 13, 1991 -- Rob Dean posts his first Waterfaring designs to the TML.
May _, 1991 -- I gain net access. Late in month I join the TML. Aside
from Wilson "Mac" Liaw (who doesn't talk much), this is
the first time the two (GEnie/HIWG and TML) are
connected.
Jun 3, 1991 -- I post my first (and only) message to the TML
(as [email removed], an address I no longer use)
and pass the word about Wet Navy. Frantic E-Mail
flies for several days between George and myself, and
a letter gets sent to Challenge.
Jun 19, 1991 -- George posts the results of his letter to Challenge.
Jul 6, 1991 -- Scott Kellogg posts his "Herbert Dean class Meson Sub"
to the TML.
Jul 7, 1991 -- Feasibility of Deep Meson Sites and Subs argued on TML.
This continues for some time.
Jul 10, 1991 -- Rob Dean first appears on GEnie.
Oct 13, 1991 -- Challenge 53 appears in stores. Contains first half of
Wet Navy Design rules. There are problems, but most
occured between submission and publication. Corrections
should appear with second part.
Nov _, 1991 -- Challenge 54 appears in stores. Contains the remainder
(we hope) of the Wet Navy Design rules. This should
include sub depth limits (which are part of design
evaluation).
Dec -, 1991 -- Challenge 55 appears in stores. May or may not have
further Wet Navy material (I don't recall the final
decision from Challenge).
Note that your Meson Sub appears near the bottom of this chronology.
Even with Rob and Carl present on both networks, GEnie and the TML are still
basically isolated from each other, so there is no COPYING involved.
Submarine SDB designs at high TL tend to start looking the same after
some thought is applied to weapons technology.
As a comment on the sub itself: without grav plates and inertial
compensation, that sub is not going to be able to fire the Meson-T at
targets more than 20 or 30 degrees above (or below) the horizon. Spinal
Mounts must be aimed by turning the ship (or sub). Only massive structures
(like the Imperial Palace, or a planet) have the space available for
rotating spinal mounts.
I hope to return to an active role on the TML before too much longer.
James "Farstar" Kundert
=END=