It's gotten rather quiet over there in the last few days. I'll continue
monitoring on an occasional basis, and transfer anything back that the
'officials' have to say, but full two-way transfer is ending on Friday.
Back to our regularly scheduled TML chatter...
Rob
************
Topic 3 Thu Jun 01, 1989
J.FUGATE at 18:48 MDT
Sub: MegaTraveller - General Discussions
This topic is to be a catch-all topic for any discussion that doesn't fit in
any other topic.
************
------------
Category 11, Topic 3
Message 435 Fri Dec 06, 1991
C.BUSH3 [Clay] at 22:38 EST
This is my first post to this topic since my machine failed 11/9/91.
1) Adapting the rules to the T2000 system is not going to kill MT. Changing
to the task system did not invalidate ANY classic Traveller adventure.
Changing the world generation system is the only thing that would
fundamentally invalidate previous work. All those world descriptions, hand-
generated subsectors and sectors, etc., becoming invalid would alienate
current players.
The ship design and combat system is under severe attack from several
directions. Power from fission and fusion plants is said to be way too low,
and the new agility rule isn't liked by many. I would be happy to see jump
plants and fuel swell back up to classic Traveller percentages, with a
compensating increase in power plant outputs.
2) Traveller has always been more action-oriented than setting oriented.
Someone referred to some RPGs as being "poetry"-based. In Traveller, this has
meant that Imperial society was remarkably siimilar to twentieth century
Earth.
To me this threw away half the wonder of science fiction. Sure, you have
alien races--outside the Imperium. The Alien Modules and Books were very
significant because they provided flesh-and-blood outsiders to interact with.
By comparison, RL: Legionnaire goes the other direction of playing
characters in a specified society: the Latinized Galactic Empire. This could
be too specific for many tastes.
I prefer the ability to tailor the rules to a different universe than the
Third Imperium, in case I want to run a campaign based on a particular si-fi
universe. This permits me to run the Imperium as more feudal than most
referees do.
This point isn't sharp, but the "modern-day society" view colors many
people's conceptions and deserves people's attention.
3a) The Rebellion is not an overthrow of the Traveller storyline. It
appears so if people think in terms of modern nation-states. Historic FEUDAL
empires often fell apart with startling suddenness. (They also reformed if
there were only two sides...)
View the Imperium as a Holy Roman Empire cemented by modern education and a
strong central army. It's feudal, and people consider themselves from
Vland/Vland or from Spinward Marches as much as they consider themselves
Imperial citizens. YOU DO NOT HAVE MODERN DAY NATIONAL IDENTITY WITH THE
STATE. If the central military weakens itself fighting a civil war, large
regions become self- governing.
A rump central state surrounded by local powers was not unheard of. It
USUALLY took one or more generations to reconquer the old frontiers, if the
separation did not become permanent.
3b) The growth of the factions is sometimes said to be sudden and hard to
rationalize. The division of Alexander the Great's domains shows how fragile
feudal organizations can be (although that was scarcely an established
empire), and how several factions can quickly arise. (Yes, two is more
normal.) Still, the first Chinese empire collapsed when three clan leaders
killed the Emperor, and then fought over the spoils.
3c) Without development of trains and telegraphs, the United States would
almost certainly have splintered asunder--and stayed asunder--long before
1860. The Imperium only has an xboat courier net and no courier system ever
kept an empire together.
Given a sufficient shock, like 1117, the Imperium floated apart. And
because the issue had not been decided in 1117, there wasn't enough central
power to bring the pieces together again. So, I don't accept that Star
Viking's setting--a specific period in history--is wrong or a corruption of
the Traveller storyline.
Yes, a government collapse can be depressing. Ask a white Russian living in
the Ukraine. Most of these territories are at peace internally, however.
Yes, dividing formerly unified territories can be violent. Look at
Yugoslavia and at the India/Pakistan partition.
4) A computer virus destroys all computers in Imperia. Is this possible?
RINGWORLD's history involves development of a bacteria that attacked the
Ringworlder's metaconductors. Due to the nature of the Ringworld, the
inhabitants could not restore their civilization. Such events could happen or
be made to happen in Imperia.
Imperia, however, has a diversity of technologies reflecting a diversity of
races. No logical or biological virus could affect all branches. However, the
Imperial government use standardized TL15 equipment, and could afford to
import same to lower tech worlds.
An attack on the hi-tech computers would drastically weaken the navies,
bureaucracies, communications, and power of all factional governments. They
would lose control of border regions and areas that weren't self-supporting.
Recovery processes would develop locally and would fragment Imperia's economy
and culture even more.
It is noteworthy that HIWG-UK development postulates a cyberpunk culture in
parts of Gushemege, and recent TNS items suggest the residents of TL16
Shakumash bear Lucan little goodwill. Developing a nannite/bacteria that eats
TL15 silicon wafers sure wouldn't help Lucan or Dulinor. (And TL16 stuff may
be safe... Hmm...)
------------
************
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 100 Fri Dec 06, 1991
C.BUSH3 [Clay] at 22:39 EST
I'm back after a long absence. (Since 11/9.)
LOREN
I would be willing to contribute/test/evaluate any revised ship design
and/or combat system.
THE COMPUTER VIRUS
See the end of my post in Topic 3. It's a suggestion.
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE REVISION
Constructive ones only, too.
Leave the world generation system alone. Too many players and referees have
rolled up individual systems (extended generation), subsector and sector
listings (basic generation), and programs based on them. Changing it would be
a critical discontinuity that would hurt sales of the new rules.
Years ago I noted the original basic system's unscientific bias toward
nitro-oxy atmosphere worlds. The later extended system, for example, produces
very different results in the number of habitable worlds. There's an article
in an old Colorado gaming newsletter titled "It's a Cold Universe Out There."
My opinion is that this section works for users, and should not be changed.
I would like to see a "World Book" in the new rules. Players Manual,
Referees Manual, and Imperial Encyclopedia was one way to organize the rules.
I prefer world generation and development in a seperate book like in the black
books.
This World Book would include elements from WBH, if possible, and I like the
"Aspects of Culture" from Challenge magazine. (I bet GDW can find it faster
than I could.)
Front section: for players, would have the comparative technology charts and
sample vehicles (planetary transportation).
Second section: the basic generation system, subsector and sector mapping
forms.
Third section: the extended generation system and the forms to record it.
Fourth section: generating a technology profile, "Aspects of Culture,"
government form, generating a religion.
Fifth section: rules for mapping planet surfaces and forms for surface maps.
Generating animal encounter tables. (Face it, if they aren't on the surface
and out of a city, animal encounters don't occur to PCs.)
Revise starship design, and put it in a supplement. I strongly support this
idea.
I favor increasing power plant output to match engineering estimates made by
those with some training in that area. This may also involve reducing fuel for
fission plants and such: I don't know.
Make jump drives and their fuel larger. Actually, MT reduced fuel
consumption from the black books.
Relate agility to maneuver drives. With the black book's formula, I
rationalized that agility represented the ability to supply power to the
maneuver drives while powering weapons. Also, limit maximum agility to the
maneuver ability.
Limiting craft to 6-G has generated controversy. Yes, modern fighter craft
can achieve much higher speeds. Modern aircraft CARRIERS, however, do not
maneuver at even 1G! Emphasize the role of inertial comp in big craft, and
provide rules for G effects that would permit craft with _everyone in couchs
and everything tied down_ to design for higher speeds. Then you will have very
fast _small craft_.
TWO LEFT FIELD OPINIONS:
1. I do not think design sequences need be strictly compatible between
vehicles and starships. Aircraft and mechanical engineers who design engines
for similar output produce different results: the aircraft engineers make
smaller, lighter, but much more expensive engines.
2. Limit meson weapons to the same ranges as energy weapons (currently two
hexes in space combat). Meson decay has very short time spans, and even
"accelerating mesons to relativisitic speeds" will not give the same range as
particle accelerators.
This would have major effects for starship combat, and for planetary defense
and bombardment. But I think the science supports it far than it supports the
current system.
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 101 Sat Dec 07, 1991
J.KUNDERT [Farstar] at 00:44 EST
Clay speaks at last:
<Virus suggestion up in Topic 3>
I like it. Now we have to convince GDW.
Still, Loren and Co. have told us to wait for the whole story. How long we
have to wait will influence the nature of our response (if it doesn't affect
the actual content, it will make certain opinions rather irate).
<Make jump drives and their fuel larger. Actually, MT reduced fuel
consumption from the black books.>
MT Jump Drives are exactly the same size as High Guard J-Drives. Only the
fuel comsumption has dropped.
For a 100-ton example:
J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6
Book 2 ?+10 10+20 ?+30 15+40 ?+50 20+60
High Guard 2+10 3+20 4+30 5+40 6+50 7+60
MegaTrav 2+10 3+15 4+20 5+25 6+30 7+35
The Book 2 and High Guard numbers are deceptive, since a certain power
plant rating was also required, while MT Jump Drives operate in isolation.
Because of the current explanation of Jump Drive, I prefer the isolation
approach. Alternate (non-Imperium universe) technologies might do it the
other way.
As for increasing fuel consumption of J-Drives: If you must, as long as
overall starship fuel requirements stay about where they are. Again, I prefer
the MT version. Since J-Drives are not rated in specific power terms, any
revision of Powerplants need not touch Jump Drives.
<Relate agility to maneuver drives...>
Unlike a great many folks who have argued this point before me, I do not
see a big problem with MT agility. Or rather, I don't see the same problem.
The ship Rob Dean posted to Topic 4 recently is a good example. MT does not
tie Agility to Maneuver rating, but DOES limit it to 6. Unlike the
technological reasons for a 6G ceiling to Thrusters, there is no reason for
such a limit on Agility. None.
To solve this problem, look at the description of Thruster technology in
SOpM. Here we are told that M-Drives can overload to 400% for brief periods,
and that they can produce reduced thrust in directions other than 'forward'.
Elsewhere in SOpM we are told that Artificial Gravity technology is unstable
over 6G, and only useful for industrial purposes which do not require a
sustained field (this leaves out M-Drives, I think, and is the reason for the
6G limit some people are complaining about).
Based on this, I would define Agility as the ship's ability to produce
overdrive thrust IN ANY DIRECTION. Agility is thus limited to 4 times the
normal rating of the drives, with no other limit (no stopping at 6). Note
that since the drives are being run AT 400% (not +400%), Agility is limited to
3 times thrust unless no normal thrust is being generated (100% to thrust;
300% to Agility).
There is a catch, however. Agility would be based on LOADED weight (or
'current' weight for advanced types), and would almost certainly do bad things
to the Thrusters if kept up for any length of time (those of you with SFB
experience: think 'Orions'). The SOpM says that a good Engineer is required
for any serious overdriving, and I must agree.
If the circumstances of too much overdrive can be added to whatever becomes
the combat system, then all Agility become 'Emergency' Agility. This will
counteract the ability of highly specialized ships to potentially dodge lasers
(Agility 15+). Oh yes, Inertial Compensation is also limited to 6Gs, so high
Agilities will throw things around regardless.
<Limiting craft to 6-G has generated controversy...>
I agree with this entire paragraph, but would point out that (according to
SOpM) Thrusters are unstable over 6Gs, and Fusion Rockets cannot thrust
sideways (without blowing up), thus limiting both as Agility Generators at
high G (see above). By giving Fusion Rockets a different Agility Limit, the
high possible thrusts are balanced out ("He may be fast, but he can't dodge
like a Thruster ship."). Doubly unstable Thrusters are their own reward.
<I do not think design sequences need be strictly compatible between vehicles
and starships...>
Agreed. The goal is to able to USE them together. As long as I know what
to do if that Destroyer shoots at aircraft (or cars, or boats), then having
several design systems is not a big problem.
<Limit meson weapons to the same ranges as energy weapons...>
YES! YES! YES!
This change would give meaning to the PA again. By the way, High Guard PA
weapons had better to-hit numbers than the Meson Gun. This should be
reinstated over the fiasco of the MT ship combat tables. MT made a laughing
stock of the Spinal PA (not that it wasn't a problem in High Guard, but MT
made it worse).
On a general note, the ability of small ships to affect large ones needs to
be addressed. The current system does not reflect the 'reality' of TAS News
items and other Imperial literature. The Neo system should be true to its
background.
Farstar
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 102 Sat Dec 07, 1991
B.BORICH [Kagekiha] at 05:53 EST
The problem I and most others seem to have with the virus runs
into the following:
1. Designing/making it (easiest to solve, I'd vote for nannites
aside from the fact that Imperial tech quite apparently
doesn't have this capability yet, though it could be explained
away as an ancient find perhaps, this makes it hard for the
Imps to combat, but easy for the Ancients, it would also
be versatile enough to effect imperial TLs and capabilities.
Of course you still might have the below problems, except
for 4).
2. Keeping it secret
3. Spreading it and having it work at similar times, or at least
not be identified for years.
4. Different TL's
Clay mentioned the Ringworld semiconducter as an example, while I have
previously considered this, there is still the problem of options
2-4 above. While the Ringworld is somewhat as large as the Imperium, in
number of worlds contained, the Ringworld is a lot faster to travel around.
It takes years to cross the Imperium from end to end with jump drive,
doing this on the ringworld would take about 10 days max at a leisurely
pace using jump.
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 103 Sun Dec 08, 1991
V.UJCIK [Duke James] at 13:01 EST
29 Loren,
And the reason they were returned was because I hadn't lived at that address
for over three years. Someone there failed to update my address -- one of the
reasons that I cancelled my sub to Challenge, I didn't get any when I moved
and repeated attempts with letters (4) and phone calls (5) failed to get my
address changed over a one year period.
My point is that if GDW can't input a simple address change into a database,
it's no wonder we have MT!
<FLAME OFF>
Jim
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 104 Sun Dec 08, 1991
D.CHEEVER at 14:58 EST
A bit more time to consider things have led to the following additional
thoughts... Scale: I think that it is important to give careful consideration
to scale going into this revision. The Imperium is large to the extent that it
would be totally impossible to provide a density of support for the entire
thing. As the new rules are intended to provide an INTRODUCTION for NEW
PLAYERS, remember that pages devoted to the big picture (such as most MT
material) take away from the space that can be devoted to material ready for
immediate referee use. I would like to see any background material in the
begining rule set focus in great detail on at best a couple of worlds. Just
something to get them into the game and playing UNTIL further enlarged
material comes out. If you want to put a few spaceships into it make them ones
produced at local yards and give full background and deck plans. If you want
trade to go on develop an economic background that gives the referee something
to work with and reveal to the players. Vehicles in the basic rules should all
have obvious uses in the limited setting in the rules. Don't have a mis mash
of material equipment and background from all over the Imperium. Make it
totally complete and totally unreliant on any other published MT or Classic
material. Combat: I think that it is important, especially in introductory
adventures to have combat always be the last or worst choice of resolution
series. Combat tends to come natural to players (especially ones who have a
strong T2000 background), but in most cases it should not be the preferred
method. Highlight what ever mechanism is used to resolve conflict with out
resource to arms. Set a strong tone for the game.
Thanks,
Dave Cheever
P.S. As posts on borad 20 will indicate Jim is not alone in his trouble with
addresses.....
------------