BSE Digest v195 #232 From: kerry@freeside.fc.net (Kerry Harrison) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0000 BSE Digest Friday, 23 June 1995 Volume 195 : Number 232 Welcome to the BSE Digest, the place to discuss all the myriad aspects of life Beyond the Stellar Empire with other denizens of the Greater Periphery. In this issue: + Re: BSE: IMP shooting IND + Re: Stargates + IMP Post IND + Re: BSE: IMP Post IND + Re: BSE: BSE $$$ + Re: BSE: Shawn T. + Re: BSE: IMP shooting IND + Re: BSE Digest V195 #231 + Re: BSE Digest V195 #231 + Re: BSE: Re: Stargates + IND's and Hiports + Re: BSE: IND's and Hiports + Re: BSE: IND's and Hiports + Missing Nephew + Re: BSE:Starship Battle Suggestions + Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 #231 + Re: BSE:Starship Battle Suggestions + Re: BSE:Starship Battle Suggestions + Affiliation Technology + Re: BSE: IMP shooting IND + Re: BSE: IND's and Hiports + Re: BSE: Affiliation Technology See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list or bse-digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LUDENDORF@delphi.com Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 23:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: BSE: IMP shooting IND > As the new guy, SYoung3200 pointed out, as well as others in a roundabout > way, it is ILLEGAL for IMPs to target all IND! Yeppers, only Imperial posted Rick, You (and others) have referred to IMP law #24. A law imposed by Cohoes on the IMP. We're not under Cohoes anymore. Allow me to clarify a couple of points: [1] The ISP PD has the power to create laws or to repeal laws. [2] The laws printed in the book aren't totally accurate... RTG was simply copying them from the old rule book. For example, you see no mention of Law #29 (who can own DN's, etc.), which was enacted by one of my predecessors. [3] IND's who come to me and explain what legitimate business they have at Samm's, won't be shot at. [4] If the ISP PD temporarily repeals the law in this case, it ain't illegal. > ...If this was not the case, > we could have started on IND Pittsburg years ago, but the IMPs (as well of > our own sense of fair role-playing) forced us to PROVE it was RIP before > conducting military operations. Actually, IND Pittsburg was protected by law #15, which provides for the protection of IND colonies. Steve to all: this subject is closed as far as i'm concerned. Further messages on this topic will be ignored by me. I had my say. Bottom line, If you've got an IND ship that wants to visit Samm's for whatever strange reason, you'ld best contact me... PRIVATELY... first. I have IC justification for this action. Think, if I didn't justify things IC, I wouldn't be trying to discover a link between the IND ship and anything else. ------------------------------ From: David Isaac <76170.2705@compuserve.com> Date: 22 Jun 95 23:01:52 EDT Subject: Re: Stargates >>I have to say that I am dumbfounded regarding the deafening silence we have recieved from our posts about the Solar Array. Richard The AFT used to be interested in Stargates before most of them were destroyed. Our jump in ten tu's and the poor placement of the gates generally, limited the Stargates usefulness for runs within the Periphery and TransCanally. The Stargates however, were invaluable for our trade runs into the Transhole. But now the gates are down, the WCE are determined to keep them down, and most of our clients are unfortunatly distracted by concerns other than peaceful trade. The AFT would be very interested in your proposed Stargate policy if you would support access into the TransHole. I doubt however that your T3 partners, the WCE and the FGZ, would support such access. So...What's left to say? Dave ------------------------------ From: KeithVer@aol.com Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 00:28:02 -0400 Subject: IMP Post IND According to the rules IND is an affiliation, not technically but by definition. Legal like! So it can be posted. And if newbie (and I speak as a pseudo newbie, played before but starting over) is afraid of getting killed, losing a ship, then this ain't the game to be in. Checkers maybe..... keith ------------------------------ From: tandmb@sierra.net (Tony & Marcia Baldacci) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:26:12 -0700 Subject: Re: BSE: IMP Post IND >And if newbie (and I speak as a pseudo newbie, played before but starting >over) is afraid of getting killed, losing a ship, then this ain't the game to >be in. Checkers maybe..... Well said, Keith. There _are_ space opera PBMs out there which will allow you to be new & not get shot at for quite awhile - but they're "SLLLLOOOOWWWW growth" games. Tony B. ** Famous Last Words #20: "Who's the b*tch with the spiders???" ** ------------------------------ From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Morton M. Charnley III) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 07:17:18 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: BSE $$$ >In short, keep quoting to an absolute minimum PLEASE! > > You are absolutely correct. I do tend to forget when I am in a hurry. My apologies! Chip <hanging head in shame> - -- Chip Charnley ac217@detroit.freenet.org ccharnle@ef0424.efhd.ford.com My opinions are my own and do not represent anyone but myself. ------------------------------ From: Kevin Curnutt <kcurnutt@metronet.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:57:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: BSE: Shawn T. On Wed, 21 Jun 1995 LUDENDORF@delphi.com wrote: > Clarification: There has been no attack on Sumar, nor is one planned. IC, > the IMP doesn't know Sumar is involved...yet. I've still got a few more > tricks to try... like subjecting the imprisoned crew to a mind scan by > some Yerties. Steve, What are Yerties? Kevin ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:18:26 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: IMP shooting IND Joe, While it may be illegal under IMP law, particularly for the IMP themselves (this isn't my notion, just passing it along), one can at least justify the postings on a role-playing stand ("If we don't know who you are, we'll shoot you). I'm not advocating that stand, simply acknowledging it. Your threat, however, is poor (nonexistent?) role-playing, impossible to justify in-game, and just the sort of thing that made many on this list oppose the reinstatement of the old IND rules. Personally, I am in favor of allowing anyone to run an IND ship, but it's a priviledge than can be ruined for everyone by poor gamesmanship such as you suggest. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: David Isaac <76170.2705@compuserve.com> Date: 23 Jun 95 13:31:56 EDT Subject: Re: BSE Digest V195 #231 >>Guys (especially Chip!), snip >>...keep quoting to an absolute minimum PLEASE! Rick, Too right!! Sorry Chip but I was working up to say something myself. Dave ------------------------------ From: David Isaac <76170.2705@compuserve.com> Date: 23 Jun 95 13:31:50 EDT Subject: Re: BSE Digest V195 #231 >>If any of my IND ships get shot at by any colony I can guarantee that the offending affiliation is going to be undertaking a new highport construction program. IND Newbies, I refer you to Scragg's post "IMP shooting IND" if you would have us believe that IND are no threat. I would also point out that while most of us are targeting IND in our starports we have yet to excalate our response to firing into orbit. However, the only way to prevent IND attacks on our Hiports will be to issue those attack in orbit orders. The solution, assuming that you are not indeed a pirate, is to choose an affiliation! Dave ------------------------------ From: Kevin Curnutt <kcurnutt@metronet.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 12:42:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: BSE: Re: Stargates On 22 Jun 1995, David Isaac wrote: > But now the gates are down, the WCE are determined to keep them down, and most > of our clients are unfortunatly distracted by concerns other than peaceful > trade. > The AFT would be very interested in your proposed Stargate policy if you > would support access into the TransHole. I doubt however that your T3 partners, > the WCE and the FGZ, would support such access. So...What's left to say? Dave, I don't think the WCE is determined to keep the Stargates down forever. During a war, especially against an affiliation that is outside the Transhole, sure, but what do you expect? Kevin ------------------------------ From: ronk@triassic-142.Eng.Sun.COM (Ron Kleinman) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:45:54 -0700 Subject: IND's and Hiports >>From: "Cap'n Scragg" <scragg@infi.net> >>Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 22:20:07 +0000 >>Subject: IMP shooting IND >> >>If any of my IND ships get shot at by any colony I can guarantee that >>the offending affiliation is going to be undertaking a new highport >>construction program. I can build wargalleys all day, run them into >>orbits of planets with orders (special action) to target the highport >>of any colony that engages the ship. >> >>So if you ultra paranoids want to nuke IND ships be prepared to build >>new highports and replace tons of missiles. Oh, and I'll come back >>multiple times, war galleys are real cheap. >> >>Have a nice day Noble Citizens of the Periphery, Thus speaks the drug-crazed RIP maniac Capt'n Scragg! What I can't figure out is where he'd recruit the continual supply of zombies he'd need to fly ship after ship into certain death, in order to carry out this threat. Why, it's almost as if the entire periphery was just some sort of game, with no inherent reality of its own! Nicholas Van Rijn MerchantPerson QSN Blue Whale <OOC> - Although posted IC, Scragg's threat is very OOC indeed. It illustrates a point I'd made in an earlier posting where I predicted exactly this sort of situation would occur. Allowing anyone to create IND positions is a mistake. It will result in all IND's being targeted by sensible colony owners, due to inevitable power player abuse of this loophole (a good example of which is supplied above). Some restrictions need to be applied. Ronk ------------------------------ From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@freeside.fc.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:00:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: BSE: IND's and Hiports On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, Ron Kleinman wrote: > Allowing anyone to create IND positions is a mistake. It will result > in all IND's being targeted by sensible colony owners, due to inevitable > power player abuse of this loophole (a good example of which is supplied > above). Some restrictions need to be applied. It's one of the game rules - live with it, or if you prefer IC: "the frontier is a dangerous place, if you can't hack it you should consider returning to the Inner Empire where it's nice and safe (and boring)." No restrictions need to be applied - give it some time, eventually a balance will be reached or the rule will get changed. Kerry ------------------------------ From: Paul Schneider <pauls@realm.net> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: BSE: IND's and Hiports On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, Ron Kleinman wrote: > > Noble Citizens of the Periphery, > > Thus speaks the drug-crazed RIP maniac Capt'n Scragg! What I can't figure > out is where he'd recruit the continual supply of zombies he'd need to fly > ship after ship into certain death, in order to carry out this threat. > > Why, it's almost as if the entire periphery was just some sort of game, > with no inherent reality of its own! He gets them from the QSN recruitment center. Paul PS Sorry I couldn't resist. I agree with you and your points about IND. ------------------------------ From: "JASON GOFF" <JGOF4P1@S1.csc.peachnet.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:07:16 EST Subject: Missing Nephew Hay, has anysbody seen my nephew Roman lately? I tall ya, these kids today, give 'im 'is own ship and he starts runnin' all over da place! Hey, Stu, he an't at your place is he? I heard him say somethin about Utopia. Don Guido ------------------------------ From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 11:12:44 -0700 Subject: Re: BSE:Starship Battle Suggestions >>Coupling Damage-To-Flee to Morale has a certain appeal, except that >>the basic description of combat implies that the combat is all >>>>computer-driven once the forces are engaged. It's hard to imagine >>your battle computers caring about the ship's morale. >True but every ship's system has a manual override. I can envison >a low morale crew think that they were about to be blown to bits >and hitting the override and flying away. Or maybe the damage is >just so terrifying that they crys and pleads from the crew convinces >the Captain to order a retreat. If I were a captain, and my crew had a low morale, I certainly wouldn't give them access to a FLEE switch. Similarly, If I cared so little about the crew as to leave their morale in the dumps, their cries and pleads wouldn't matter very much to me. BUT The more I think about it, the more I would like to see morale impact a space battle. However, I think it's more like that morale would impact the _efficiency_ with which a ship operated. Say take the final attack and defense values of a ship and multiply them by (morale/100). So if you kept your morale high, it would a neglible effect on the outcome of a battle, but a fleet of Ensign Nonames would be in trouble. Especially if SeedShips started out with a morale of 50 (ie, average morale) WAIT A MINUTE! This is a Samillian Trick, right? Samillian ships probably have automatic morale settings of 100. I'm only in favor of morale rules if they apply across the board. - --Russ ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:13:26 EDT Subject: Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 #231 Dave, Actually, even if you target IND for space battle they can still get your hiport. What may happen is that in time, when enough damage has been done and commerce has been sufficiently impeded by shutting down gates & hiports, the "sleeping dragons of the Periphery" will awaken and MAN will they be pissed! Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: caz@primenet.com (Paul Ellis) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 12:22:24 -0700 Subject: Re: BSE:Starship Battle Suggestions > >WAIT A MINUTE! This is a Samillian Trick, right? Samillian ships probably >have automatic morale settings of 100. I'm only in favor of morale rules >if they apply across the board. > >--Russ > Russ, Lets not foget the ZCS with a minimum morale of 40 when turns are run or the FGZ morale reset to 70 when a turn is run. With this in mind I think that a morale affecting battle preformances would be a little unjust. Paul ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:42:10 EDT Subject: Re: BSE:Starship Battle Suggestions Russ, There would seem to be little rationale for using morale, for several reasons: 1. Morale, as it is implemented in BSE, seems to have little to do with the classic morale. In colonies, it's effectively some form of employment measure, and in ships it's pretty much a measure of the TUs active/TUs spent "inactive" (with mods). While you could argue that ship morale correlates somewhat with classic morale (as a measure of the "antsiness" of the crew), it isn't really morale. Where's the "God & country" effect? Where's the "We love our leader" effect? To specify but two. Indeed, certain crews, using classic morale, could get a sense of elan from how long they are able to hold out from shore leave (sort of like U.S. submariners being proud of their ability to stay submerged for longer than thos of the USSR). As none of even the simplest elements of "classic" morale have been utilized in BSE, I would urge against it having much effect in battle. 2. Morale for ships costs U$, at least if you run your positions so that they never fall below some certain level. This is another case of giving the player with the deepest pockets the advantage. 3. Some groups get, as you mentioned, racial or AFF morale mods. This includes, if I'm not mistaken, an auotmatic 70 for the FOE. Thus certain groups have their SAs greatly increased in efficacy. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: btb4@lehigh.edu (B T Braun) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 17:01:11 EDT Subject: Affiliation Technology TO: All members of the ACCC & other concerned parties FROM: Abercrombie Milquetoaste, USS Research Coordinator, USS Department of Research, Which Grovels in the Mud Before and Gets That Funny Squishy Feeling Over the Barked Commands of the USS Department of Retail Defense and Wholesale Surplus Gentlebeings, It has come to my attention since being kicked down...er,..promoted to this post in the Periphery that Inner Empire patent law is not exactly strictly adhered to in these regions. While the USS, as is presumably the case with most organizations, is fully prepared to wage total war against any who might reverse engineer our proprietary technology, it seems to me that such drastic measures are to be avoided if possible. I am proposing that all interested parties reach an accord over that sharing and copying of technology. While I have specific suggestions to make, I will await responses to this overall notion prior to further contribution. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ USS: Sheepwrights to the stars since 186. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:05:06 -0700 Subject: Re: BSE: IMP shooting IND >[1] The ISP PD has the power to create laws or to repeal laws. and >[4] If the ISP PD >temporarily repeals the law in this case, it ain't illegal. Cool. Emperor von Ludendorf. What does that Inner Empire guy, Jasil, think about all this? >Actually, IND Pittsburg was protected by law #15, which provides for the >protection of IND colonies. Except that now, the ISP PD would just waive the law and attack, or allow the SMS to attack. So what's your point? - --MacBeth By the way, the initial announcement was not that IMP Samms was targeting all IND, but rather it implied that all IMP colonies were shooting at all IND ships in orbit. That worried me. (g) And, by the way, Samms almost got an innocent victim who was just planning to orbit to see what had changed in the past 10 years. ------------------------------ From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Chip Charnley) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:37:36 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: IND's and Hiports >No restrictions need to be applied - give it some time, eventually a >balance will be reached or the rule will get changed. > >Kerry > > Kerry, You and I often disagree but on this one, I'm with you 100%! Chip ------------------------------ From: "Hendrick,Bill;=9462771" <BHENDRICK@kean.ucs.mun.ca> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 21:09:37 +0200 (IST) Subject: Re: BSE: Affiliation Technology On Fri, 23 Jun 1995, B T Braun wrote: > It has come to my attention since being kicked down...er,..promoted to this > post in the Periphery that Inner Empire patent law is not exactly strictly > adhered to in these regions. While the USS, as is presumably the case with > most organizations, is fully prepared to wage total war against any who might > reverse engineer our proprietary technology, it seems to me that such drastic > measures are to be avoided if possible. > Brad If you are worried about someone reverse engineering robotic pleasure sheep I don't think you will have a problem.<g> Bill ------------------------------ End of BSE Digest V195 #232 *************************** BSE Digest - All items Copyright (c) 1995, by their respective authors, permission is granted to redistribute as long as proper credit is given. To subscribe to BSE Digest, send the command: + subscribe bse-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@fc.net". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "bse@domain.net": + subscribe bse-digest bse@domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "bse-digest" in the commands above with "bse-list". An archive of BSE Digest back issues are available via anonymous ftp <ftp://ftp.io.com/pub/usr/kerry/BSE/Digests>. Up