BSE-L Digest 43 From: kerry@freeside.fc.net (Kerry Harrison) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 16:16:17 +0000 Beyond the Stellar Empire Discussion List <BSE-L@consensus.com> BSE-L Digest 43 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Ship Specializations by Charles Meredith <74214.2743@compuserve.com> 2) Ship Specializations by Charles Meredith <74214.2743@compuserve.com> 3) Re: RTG Ship Specials by PROTHORAX@aol.com 4) BSE: Newsflash by David Isaac <76170.2705@compuserve.com> 5) Re: RTG Ship Specials by Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> 6) Re: Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... by RTGThad@aol.com 7) Re: RTG Ship Specials by RTGThad@aol.com 8) Re: Ship Specializations by RTGThad@aol.com 9) Re: BSE: Newsflash by PROTHORAX@aol.com 10) Re: RTG Ship Specials by PROTHORAX@aol.com 11) Re: RTG Ship Specials by PROTHORAX@aol.com 12) Re: Ship Specializations by Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> 13) Re: RTG Ship Specials by Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> 14) Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... by steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org 15) Re: RTG Ship Specials by PROTHORAX@aol.com 16) Re: RTG Ship Specials by RTGThad@aol.com 17) Re: Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... by RTGThad@aol.com 18) Re: Attack at the Stargate by Cojran Michael <cojran@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> 19) BSE Quick Reference to Hull Shifted Ships by Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> 20) Re: Hull Shifts & Ship Specialization from RTG by Christopher Allen <gtt-pd@consensus.com> 21) Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... by steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org 22) Hull shift changes by Shannon Rundquist <75477.1627@compuserve.com> 23) Group Pickup Authorization by Shannon Rundquist <75477.1627@compuserve.com> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 05 Mar 95 08:40:17 EST From: Charles Meredith <74214.2743@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:BSE-L@consensus.com" <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Ship Specializations Message-ID: <950305134017_74214.2743_BHT55-1@CompuServe.COM> Does this mean you are going to allowships such as the Merchantman, Cargo Master and Cargo Carrier to mount and fire weapons? Are you planning to impose a level 1 merchant spec on these ships or are they going to get all the disadvantages of merchant; but none of the advantages? I think the Missile and Torpedo classes should be combine as well as the liner and luxury liner. Escorts should be granted something for speed; and carriers something for space fighter defense. Lastly, Tractor beams are going to have to get a good face-lift in order to make the tug worth while. If you are going to count what the tug is hauling in calculating the tug's basespeed (smart move), then you need to give it some more engines. I know, I know. Research the cargo pods; but without some kind of definition, this class is doomed.... ------------------------------ Date: 05 Mar 95 08:40:20 EST From: Charles Meredith <74214.2743@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:BSE-L@consensus.com" <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Ship Specializations Message-ID: <950305134019_74214.2743_BHT55-2@CompuServe.COM> >>a) Merchant- advantage: all items in Cargo section >> disadvantage: cannot fire weapons in combat >> >>b) Transport- advantage: ground combat items in Cargo >> disadvantage: all other items in Cargo & Main >> >>Suggest changing the Merchant advantage to all non-lifeform items in >>Cargo section, otherwise there's no reason to use the Transport advantage As a counter proposal, change the merchant disadvantage to cannot fire weapons or launch ground assaults (paradrop, etc). Also, it would be nice if the ship's defense force could be housed in the command section. I would not want to get rid of the capability to trade in military hardware or military troops. And I certainly don't want to give up the capability to move colonists. Chazz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 09:31:29 -0500 From: PROTHORAX@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <950305093128_39741877@aol.com> (ooc) our CC can fire offensive weopens in system with unlimited number of ships and only one may be used out side system offensively. later david ps due to you do not control a system you are limited to one offesive CC and I'm not sure by your KZK profile you can use offensive CC. check with RTG. later ------------------------------ Date: 05 Mar 95 11:24:43 EST From: David Isaac <76170.2705@compuserve.com> To: "bse-L@consensus.com" <bse-L@consensus.com> Subject: BSE: Newsflash Message-ID: <950305162442_76170.2705_CHL63-2@CompuServe.COM> Hot off the Press. The Keeper of the Linquistic Data base deep in the basement of the AFT Council hall has announced that from this day forth the word 'traitor' will be replaced with 'treyder' and that proper use necessitates spitting on the ground or in the formal, "coughing forth" after use. In a related story the only remaining AFT member of the Treyder (coughing forth) clan, Vice Admiral Wiley Treyder (coughing forth) has been releaved of command, stripped of his rank and turned over to the marshals office at Southern Weyr. The charges to be brought before the grand jury are reported to be conspiracy, complicity and treason. Supporters of the Admiral were heard to say that "the dotering old fool couldn't conspire to tie his own shoes" just before they were ran out of town on a rail. Walter Cranky Chartered Company Press ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 10:37:00 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503051016.A12022-0100000@pentagon.io.com> On Sun, 5 Mar 1995 PROTHORAX@aol.com wrote: > (ooc) our CC can fire offensive weopens > in system with unlimited number of ships > and only one may be used out side system > offensively. later david > > ps due to you do not control a system you > are limited to one offesive CC and I'm not > sure by your KZK profile you can use > offensive CC. check with RTG. later The KZK are not SAM, they are descendant from SAM but have choosen a different evolutionary path millenia ago. KZK have no limits on their ship usage nor do they have any interest in controlling systems. Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 12:07:30 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... Message-ID: <950305120729_39824765@aol.com> Todd: The IMP are one affiliation for the purposes of these rules. Sp, ships built at ITS colonies will get the 25 MU shift. Glad you like em! Thad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 12:08:03 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <950305120801_39825079@aol.com> No, they will be merchant class vessels. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 12:17:17 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Ship Specializations Message-ID: <950305121714_39831151@aol.com> 1) No, Merchant class ships as they exist now will still be Merchant class ships. 2) Missiles and Torpedoes are separated for a reason <g> 3) Under the new combat system, Carriers and Escorts will have other neat things associated with the <as well as the other types>. 4) Tractor beams will definitely get an overhauls, as will HGLs, Auxiliary Thrusters and a number of other items. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 13:42:19 -0500 From: PROTHORAX@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: BSE: Newsflash Message-ID: <950305134218_39890893@aol.com> (OOC)<g>!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 13:42:23 -0500 From: PROTHORAX@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <950305134223_39890938@aol.com> (ooc) Neat?! I might add! The WaSP view control of a system paramount in the heath of there queen mother. We also try to follow SAM tradition and remain neutral that doesn't concern interstate. That is why CC are really limiting offensively outside of interstate. later david ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 13:42:27 -0500 From: PROTHORAX@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <950305134225_39890970@aol.com> Thad hi, Are talking about CC not having our profile abilities? later david ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 13:38:39 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Ship Specializations Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503051314.A927-0100000@pentagon.io.com> On Sun, 5 Mar 1995 RTGThad@aol.com wrote: > 1) No, Merchant class ships as they exist now will still be Merchant class > ships. Call'em cargo vessels, cuts down on the confusion. > 2) Missiles and Torpedoes are separated for a reason <g> So would future missile/torpedo-type weapon systems require their own special class? OR is RTG going to make changes to the way missile and torpedoes work? > things associated with the <as well as the other types>. What about the Merchant and Transport types, right now there is no reason to choose Transport (or for that matter Liner) instead of Merchant. > 4) Tractor beams will definitely get an overhauls, as will HGLs, Auxiliary > Thrusters and a number of other items. Good. Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 13:43:44 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503051308.B927-0100000@pentagon.io.com> On Sun, 5 Mar 1995 PROTHORAX@aol.com wrote: > (ooc) Neat?! I might add! The WaSP view > control of a system paramount in the heath > of there queen mother. We also try to follow > SAM tradition and remain neutral that doesn't > concern interstate. That is why CC are really > limiting offensively outside of interstate. Control of a system is fiction, control of a world is fact. - Ancient Kazereckii Saying ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:37:56 CST From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... Message-ID: <9503051550.S100784845@dallas.relay.ucm.org> > ...ships built at ITS colonies will get the 25 mu shift. Thad, There are no ITS colonies. All Imperial colonies are IMP, except for a few special cases. Should we IMP now declare which IMP affil. our colonies are? Also, IMP affil. tech is tied to the affil of "IMP". A colony which is not IMP doesn't have access to this tech (I checked at an "ISS" colony I own. Printout said "no affiliation tech"... and this was last month). Will RTG be changing this or do these colonies have to rediscover our already existing techs? S.Mathews ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 18:59:47 -0500 From: PROTHORAX@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <950305185945_40158636@aol.com> Ah yes, but the wind above your head is better to control then the earth around your legs. WaSP proverb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 20:14:21 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: RTG Ship Specials Message-ID: <950305201420_40227129@aol.com> Dave: Your CCs are Merchant Class ships <cannot fire offensive weapons>. It takes a special action on your part to arm them for combat. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 20:18:08 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... Message-ID: <950305201806_40230713@aol.com> Hmmm..I know there are a few ISS colonies and some ICN colonies, I assumed there were some ITS colonies too. No, all IMP colonies should have IMP tech, I think. Unless you want to set up inter-service rivalries by separating them. It's your (the IMP playership's) choice. As you say, right now, it seems each affiliation has its own affilaition tech, so the IMP players wlil have to decide if they want to change that. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:28:34 -0700 (MST) From: Cojran Michael <cojran@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Cc: Beyond the Stellar Empire Discussion List <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Re: Attack at the Stargate Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950305192401.5732C-100000@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> Let me get this straight....a ship flying WCE colors gunned down an AFT craft, whose captain was a former AFT council member, with no just cause. Hmmmm.... Well WCE, how are you going to defend this? Or is this just something that you feel 'just happened', and will be forgotten? I would like to think that you would consider the AFT a powerful trade partner, as most other governments and companies do. Kinda seems like you damaged that possibility. Awaiting a reply. Zed Thunder AFT Sgt. at Arms ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 20:50:08 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> To: BSE Mailing List <bse-l@consensus.com> Subject: BSE Quick Reference to Hull Shifted Ships Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503052032.A9983-0100000@pentagon.io.com> BSE Quick Reference to Hull Shifted Ships CLASS TH CH/MH/EH CMUs MMUs EMUs mBS EKN Searcher 37 7/22/8 210 660 240 1.1 EKN Defender 112 20/70/22 600 2100 660 1.2 EKN Transport * 123 8/95/20 240 2850 600 1.4 FOE Inquisitor 105 31/45/29 930 1350 870 0.8 FOE Devestator 150 31/90/29 930 2700 870 1.2 HDN Warship 32 8/16/8 800 1600 800 0.3 HDN Freighter * 148 20/120/8 2000 12000 800 1.3 ITS Yacht 12 3/4/5 75 100 125 0.7 ITS Survey Cruiser 33 8/16/9 200 400 225 1.0 ITS Space Liner * 61 9/40/12 225 1000 300 1.4 ITS Escort 80 18/49/13 450 1225 325 1.7 ITS Supra Hauler * 150 5/125/20 125 3125 500 2.1 ITS Dreadnought 150 30/95/25 750 2375 625 1.7 MYR Myrship 30 10/10/10 1000 1000 1000 0.2 PFM Gallese 44 10/24/10 400 960 400 0.8 PFM Man-O-War 140 25/85/30 1000 3400 1200 0.8 PFM Merchantman * 147 12/100/35 480 4000 1400 0.7 QSN Pinnace 21 3/9/9 72 216 216 0.7 QSN Xebec 30 6/15/9 144 360 216 1.0 QSN Felucca 48 6/30/12 144 720 288 1.2 QSN Ship Of The Line 135 30/75/30 720 1800 720 1.3 QSN Merchantman * 147 12/100/35 288 2400 840 1.2 QSN Cargo Master * 294 12/210/72 288 5040 1728 1.2 ZCS War Galley 18 6/6/6 150 150 150 0.8 ZCS Cutter 47 8/23/16 200 575 400 0.8 ZCS Galleon 62 10/40/12 250 1000 300 1.4 ZCS Frigate 110 25/60/25 625 1500 625 1.2 ZCS Man-O-War 140 25/85/30 625 2125 750 1.3 ZCS Merchantman * 147 12/100/35 300 2500 875 1.2 * - cargo vessels, cannot carry offensive weapons ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:04:01 -0800 From: Christopher Allen <gtt-pd@consensus.com> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Hull Shifts & Ship Specialization from RTG Message-ID: <v02120601ab801f778102@[198.68.251.11]> At 5:05 PM 3/4/95, Kerry Harrison wrote: > k) Liner- advantage: colonists (including alien versions) > in Cargo, life supports in Command > disadvantage: all other items in Cargo & Main > > l) Luxury Liner-advantage: entertainment modules in Cargo > disadvantage: [all other items in Cargo & Main] > I'm fairly clear the need for Liner specialization, but I can't see why anyone would want the Luxury Liner specialization unless they could combine it with the Liner specialization as well. Plus, are entertainment modules the same a rec modules, if so, currently recreation modules are lost during regular ship maintence, making Luxury Liner even less useful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... Marshall Whispers, Chairman & CEO aka Christopher Allen .. ... Galactic Transport & Trade 4104-24th Street #391 .. ... GTT HQ, GTT Colony Gaspree (#1656) SF, CA 94114-3615 .. ... Petroom (#2713) in Newbian System (#2) home 415/647-6401 .. ... <GTT-PD@consensus.com> (call before 9 Pacific) .. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 23:47:14 CST From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Hull Shifts & Ship Specia... Message-ID: <9503060000.S102207384@dallas.relay.ucm.org> No... I don't want to establish "interservice rivalries". All IMP colonies should share the same tech. Please ensure that the computer recogonizes this fact. Now, back to the existing question, since there are no IIS colonies, Does this mean the ITS hull shift is now lost? If not, do we IMP have to now declare which seperate affiliation our respective colonies are? If not, will an "IMP" colony be permitted to build an "ITS" ship (or that of any other IMP service) as it always has been? S.Mathews ------------------------------ Date: 06 Mar 95 02:02:51 EST From: Shannon Rundquist <75477.1627@compuserve.com> To: BSE LIST <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Hull shift changes Message-ID: <950306070250_75477.1627_GHJ55-1@CompuServe.COM> Excellent Changes (besides what it does for us MYR - I think it's good anyway). Question - I seem to be missing section 3 of the 'Ship Specialization' - clue me in someone? Shannon Rundquist Speaker Silver Cascade ------------------------------ Date: 06 Mar 95 02:14:03 EST From: Shannon Rundquist <75477.1627@compuserve.com> To: BSE LIST <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Group Pickup Authorization Message-ID: <950306071402_75477.1627_GHJ55-2@CompuServe.COM> I have another idea (I heard that 'Uh oh') which I will pass on here. Group pickup authorization. The 'in-between' solution to giving out pickup code to whole colony or sending pickup authorization to one ship. Essentially, allow 8 groups of a max of 4 items on it. Each group would have it's own pickup code. Then, if I make a deal with someone, they can have anyone they desire to pickup that stuff by specifing the group code # and the pickup code for that group. I lean toward the idea of only printing out the group info when requested, but if this is small enough, maybe it does not really matter. Note also - what is on the group should be completely independent of whether or not the item is actually in the colony. That is the governor's responsibility to ensure that it is available. Also, if desired, the shipper accessing the group should be able to get a listing of what is left on it - at any time. Comments? Crits? Ripe Oranges? Shannon ------------------------------ End of BSE-L Digest 43 ********************** Up