BSE-L Digest 39 From: kerry@freeside.fc.net (Kerry Harrison) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 16:52:37 +0000 Beyond the Stellar Empire Discussion List <BSE-L@consensus.com> BSE-L Digest 39 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: From the ACLU: by mhughes@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) 2) IMPORTANT!! JESUS SAVES!! by mhughes@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) 3) Another Question for RTG by PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL 4) New Hull Type? by steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org 5) Fighter Bays by PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL 6) Fighter Bays by steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org 7) Ship Types by PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL 8) Re: Fighter Bays by rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) 9) Re: Another Question for RTG by Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> 10) Re: Ship Types by Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> 11) Re: Ship Types by rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) 12) Apologies to List Members by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com> 13) Re: From the ACLU: by Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> 14) Re: Apologies to List Members by PROTHORAX@aol.com 15) New Hull Type? by paulmans@tmn.com 16) Re: The Clubb twins by HarryFlash@aol.com 17) Re: From the ACLU: by HarryFlash@aol.com 18) Second Co-Governor Identified by HarryFlash@aol.com 19) Re: Space Combat by rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) 20) Re:QSN by v176@rex.uokhsc.edu (Todd D. Clapp) 21) Re: Second Co-Governor Identi... by StephMarte@aol.com 22) Colony Turns by "Middleton, Charles" <cmiddlet@SSBPOST.env.gov.bc.ca> 23) Re: Another Question for RTG by RTGThad@aol.com 24) Re: Ship Types by RTGThad@aol.com 25) Re: Space Combat by RTGThad@aol.com 26) Re: Colony Turns by RTGThad@aol.com 27) Re: New Hull Type? by Law2Be@aol.com 28) Re:QSN by Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 7:43:26 EST From: mhughes@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: From the ACLU: Message-ID: <9503011243.AA16202@pms144.pms.ford.com> > Again, sorry to you list types, but this is important > > **ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES ALERT** Arg! So, are long, off-topic articles OK as long as I subscribe to this list? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 7:49:44 EST From: mhughes@pms144.pms.ford.com (Mark Hughes) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: IMPORTANT!! JESUS SAVES!! Message-ID: <9503011249.AA16216@pms144.pms.ford.com> Derek Smith writes: > Sorry for you list types that this is non-topical, but it is > very important. > > *** PROTECT THE INTERNET. READ THIS MESSAGE *** Sorry for you list types that this is non-topical, but it is very important. *** SAVE YOURSELF. READ THIS BIBLE *** NIV and King James versions of the Holy Bible to follow... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 08:37:29 -0400 From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: Another Question for RTG Message-ID: <sf5432be.013@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> Thad and Pete, Under ABM, a ship could not set up a GP while in orbit of a planet. Is this a program constraint? If not, is there any chance you'll allow us to set up GPs from orbit? This rule has caused me problems a few times, and will plague me even more in the near future. I don't know how many times I've entered orbit of a planet I was exploring, only to discover that I had to go to another planet, land and set up a GP, run a GP turn just to re-enter the ship, and then return to the planet I was at originally. Later, Phil K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 07:19:02 CST From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: New Hull Type? Message-ID: <9503010736.S89072679@dallas.relay.ucm.org> Phil, > ...fighter bays...< Been there, done that. Fighter bays were deleted from the game years ago, cause no one like 'em. S.Mathews ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 08:58:21 -0400 From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: Fighter Bays Message-ID: <sf54379e.035@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> Steve, As I recall, weren't fighter bays actually an item that had to be carried INSIDE a ship? The ones I'm proposing would be actual hulls, and wouldn't take up any interior space. Phil K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 08:48:24 CST From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Fighter Bays Message-ID: <9503010900.S89166531@dallas.relay.ucm.org> Phil, Yes, fighter bays were an actual item. They were a 20mu item carried in the Main section, or in Ring-2 (back then it was ring-3 of a 5-ring colony) of a colony, or in a ground party. They were necessary to launch the 10mu space fighter. Fighter bays were done away with, and space fighters changed to 20mu to reflect the bay included. Back then, fighters were also usable in ground battles, and while having few air-to-ground factors, they were 9x more deadly than a ground fighter in air-to-air. A hull type? Would this hull be able to carry anything else other than fighters? What benefit would it be to use this hull over a normal hull? Would it carry more fighters than a normal hull? Able to launch faster (so fighters usable in round 1)? S.Mathews ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 11:00:29 -0400 From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: Ship Types Message-ID: <sf54544a.089@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> As I said in a previosu message, it's always bugged me that ships are so universal in this game. There's nothing to prevent you from using a surveyor as a warship or freighter, and vice-versa (with the exception that larger freighters can't be outfitted for protection at all-- another unnecessary program constraint). One way to remedy this would be to assign special abilities to ships that will significantly help them achieve their stated purpose. Freighters, for instance, might receive a 25% hull shift (this would be in addition to any other affiliation-based hull shifts). However, since it is intended that they be used for hauling, they might be limitied in the total weapons MUs they can carry in MAIN. Or perhaps they might receive huge negative modifiers during space battles. Similarly, warships might receive space battle bonuses, but take longer to perform transfers. This is just an idea that's not fully thought out. Something like this would, I think, help to differentiate between various ship types. Phil K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 08:40:48 -0800 From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Fighter Bays Message-ID: <v01510104ab7a512c3132@[192.65.129.70]> >A hull type? Would this hull be able to carry anything else other than >fighters? What benefit would it be to use this hull over a normal hull? >Would it carry more fighters than a normal hull? Able to launch faster (so >fighters usable in round 1)? Steve, Allow me to guess what Phil was proposing (and thereby add my own 2 cents) From what I read of Thad's combat proposals, he's heading towards CV-class ships, not the current CVE's that we now can now equip. The only way *I* can envision this is either to make space fighters much better (which would unbalance things) OR to allow the construction of ships which could carry lots of fighters, but probably with some trade off in vulnerability. So I would guess a FighterBay type hull capable of holding 4 space fighters but perhaps having a maximum base speed of 2.5. Or maybe you couldn't thorlium plate them (hmm, this trade-off seems reasonable). Speed of deployment might be another advantage of FighterBay hulls. But if you want a carrier-class ship (which I think would add to the game), you have to change something (IMHO) --Russ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 95 10:47:18 CST From: Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> To: BSE Digest <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Re: Another Question for RTG Message-ID: <9503011648.AA09549@consensus.com> On Wed, 01 Mar 1995 08:37:29 -0400 <PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> said: >Thad and Pete, > > Under ABM, a ship could not set up a GP while in >orbit of a planet. Is this a program constraint? If not, >is there any chance you'll allow us to set up GPs from >orbit? > > This rule has caused me problems a few times, and >will plague me even more in the near future. I don't >know how many times I've entered orbit of a planet I >was exploring, only to discover that I had to go to >another planet, land and set up a GP, run a GP turn >just to re-enter the ship, and then return to the planet I >was at originally. > >Later, >Phil K. I'm glad you pointed this out since I was about to try this in the near future. I guess there is a use for you semi-old farts being on the net Phil! ;) Alan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 95 10:51:01 CST From: Alan Hatcher <ZU02380@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU> To: BSE Digest <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Re: Ship Types Message-ID: <9503011655.AA09587@consensus.com> On Wed, 01 Mar 1995 11:00:29 -0400 <PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> said: > As I said in a previosu message, it's always >bugged me that ships are so universal in this game. >There's nothing to prevent you from using a surveyor >as a warship or freighter, and vice-versa (with the >exception that larger freighters can't be outfitted for >protection at all-- another unnecessary program >constraint). One way to remedy this would be to >assign special abilities to ships that will significantly >help them achieve their stated purpose. Freighters, >for instance, might receive a 25% hull shift (this would >be in addition to any other affiliation-based hull shifts). >However, since it is intended that they be used for >hauling, they might be limitied in the total weapons >MUs they can carry in MAIN. Or perhaps they might >receive huge negative modifiers during space battles. >Similarly, warships might receive space battle >bonuses, but take longer to perform transfers. > I'd have to disagree Phil. One of the appealing aspects of the game to me is that you can you any ship to perform almost any type of activity. I wouldn't mind seeing a few minor changes that would say, make a freighter more useful as a freighter than a warship or vice versa though. I would prefer to use positive rather than negative reinforcement to accomplish it. A freighter is a bit better at hauling cargo or a fighting ship is a bit better a fighting and so on. Alan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 09:39:09 -0800 From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Ship Types Message-ID: <v01510107ab7a5dca2826@[192.65.129.70]> Phil/Alan, Freighters: 25% hull shift in main, but: (1) a base speed adjustment in combat. Straight ahead speed (for purposes of fleeing) is same, but for purposes of maneuverability, the base speed is doubled. There used to be a base speed factor in the weapon accuracy equation. I assume that there still is. (2) no thorlium plate on the main section. Normal (surveyors): no change Warships (requires a retrofit after construction involving jacium and thorlium and/or?): Base speed is modified reduced by 25% for purposes of weapon accuracy. What do you think? --Russ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 95 14:03:33 EDT From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com> To: amber <amber@hagar.ph.utexas.edu>, traveller <traveller@mpgn.com>, xboat <xboat@mpgn.com>, BSE-L <BSE-L@consensus.com> Subject: Apologies to List Members Message-ID: <9503011859.AA01282@internet1.lotus.com> Apologies offerred for the [very] long ACLU posts of yesterday. Especially to those outside the US. I hadn't considered that. For those within the US, I thought people would want to see it, even if it wasn't "official" list material, because of the potential effect that the bill in question would have on Internet Mailing Lists if it becomes Law. A) To those who expressed support, and there were many, thank you. B) To those who were annoyed (especially if it cost you extra money), I'm sorry. C) To those who took the time (and extra money) to flame me for it, I'll make a deal with you: 1) When they come for your Right to Free Speech, or whatever passes for it where you live, I promise not to lift a finger to help you. In exchange for that: 2) You may no longer email me personally. Such a thing is an unwanted contact and, as of this post, is AUTOMATICALLY defined as harrassment. D) To those who responded with intelligent thought (like that it will probably be struck down by the Supreme Court), thanks. It's good to see that some people are on their toes. I prefer not to take my chances [just] with the Court, though. It's too bad that this, and group A) were the smallest categories. At any rate, regarding posts of yesterday's kind, I won't do it again. I hope that lays the dead to rest. --Derek ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 14:57:13 -0600 (CST) From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: From the ACLU: Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503011423.A763-0100000@pentagon.io.com> On Wed, 1 Mar 1995, Mark Hughes wrote: > So, are long, off-topic articles OK as long as I subscribe to this list? > No they are not, the party involved has been warned. Kerry Harrison BSE-List Admin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:09:15 -0500 From: PROTHORAX@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Apologies to List Members Message-ID: <950301170913_36240590@aol.com> Let us gather brotheren?! and pray^^. For I have seen the light! and may we ask brotheren Smith to gather with us and ^^ and ask that his eyes are opened widely to the...ba baaa bbaa bbba...................<g>$) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 23:11:38 GMT From: paulmans@tmn.com To: bse-l@consensus.com Subject: New Hull Type? Message-ID: <199503012311.XAA01468@purple.tmn.com> aaaaaaggghhhhh!!!!! Fighters were good......We need a design here. Who's up for research? Sergeant Major ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 18:48:55 -0500 From: HarryFlash@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: The Clubb twins Message-ID: <950301184852_36350198@aol.com> Dear Stu, According to Tonya, she met and married Rlo during his famed mission against the COM in 188 (for which all citizens of Werth are still grateful). The delightful twins were born in early 189 (I'll get an exact date for you later - remember Werth was in total chaos that year). The major proof against Rlo was the fact that he videotaped his honeymoon night with Tonya. Actually, he videotaped it and also sold it as a live pay-per-view event! Indeed, Rlo has been actively marketing the tape throughout the CP ever since. Go to your neighbor video store and ask for "Rlo's Hot Wedding Night on Hile". I hate to bring up another possible family problem for you, but I've just been informed by Randy Heydrich (Special Prosecutor for the Werth War Crimes Tribunal) that the female half of the hated Co-Governors team (known up to now only as the Wicked Witch) now claims to be one Hillary Krieger. She says she is a member of your family. Can you shed some light on this situation for us? Is she a member of the Krieger family? I personally find her claims very hard to believe. She faces capital charges for her evil rule. Hillary sends you the following message "STU! SEND LAWYERS, GUNS AND MONEY! GET ME OUT OF THIS". I will be happy to answer any other questions you may have about Tonya, the twins, or the woman calling herself Hillary Krieger. I'll provide more information as it becomes available. Regards, Harry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 18:50:29 -0500 From: HarryFlash@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: From the ACLU: Message-ID: <950301185028_36351966@aol.com> I humble suggest that the next person who posts non-BSE materials on this board be POSTED by the entire CP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 19:13:35 -0500 From: HarryFlash@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Second Co-Governor Identified Message-ID: <950301191331_36377750@aol.com> TO: ALL FROM: Randy Heydrich After the collapse of the COM the colony of IND Werth was ruled by two individuals known only as the Co-Governors. They committed many horrible crimes and were finally overthrown when Harry Flashman liberated Werth. The oppressed citizens of IND Werth nicknamed the two Co-Governors the Big Bubba and the Wicked Witch. The "Wicked Witch" now claims to be one Hillary Krieger, a member of the Krieger family. We are waiting for word for the Krieger family about this strange claim. The "Big Bubba" has now been definitely identified as Sir Forest G. "Gumpy" Curry, brother of the famous Sir Arthur Curry. Harry Flashman, a close personal friend of the Curry family, is crushed by this news. Sir Arthur, your brother (who doesn't appear to be too bright and may well have been used by the other Co-Governor as a front) is facing capital charges. He sends the following message to you: "SIR ARTHUR, WHEN WILL YOU COME AND PICK ME UP AND TAKE ME HOME?. THIS PRISON CELL IS LIKE A FROZEN BOX OF CHOCOLATES: COLD AND SMALL." I will post more information on the war crimes trial of these two individuals as it becomes available. Randy Heydrich Special Prosecutor Werth War Crimes Tribunal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 18:41:48 -0800 From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Space Combat Message-ID: <v01510103ab7ade8967b6@[192.65.129.70]> Thad, > I don't want to get too far out ahead of everybody here, this is a bit >confusing unless you have all the whole picture, so I don't want you guys to >make snap "too complicated" decisions until you see the whole salami. > >How you make all these choices? We haven't got that far yet in terms of >mechanics. Probably a tactics order sheet or some such. There will be many >more options than those available on the current turn sheet. Likely it will >be a small extra charge per the number of orders that you write <like a buck >for x number>, or maybe just a buck no matter how many you change. I really doubt that you can make it too complicated for me (g). I just hope that the default settings will provide a reasonable chance of survival for newbies (or experienced people who forget to change their combat program). I have a hazy idea of what you're getting at. One thing I wonder about is how you're going to handle movement. Why not just make combat program changes an Activity? It takes 5 TUs (to a max of 20 TUs) to make the changes and run the diagnostics and fail-safe checks. --Russ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 21:21:41 -0600 (CST) From: v176@rex.uokhsc.edu (Todd D. Clapp) To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re:QSN Message-ID: <9503020321.AA20795@rex.re.uokhsc.edu> To: Lord Asakura Soteki, QSN VAdm From: Adm Allen Landover, ICN PD Subject: Drell System Imperial vessels may go anywhere they want within Imperial space which includes the Drell system. Anyone firing on an Imperial vessel must be prepared to face the consequences of such an action. This is not a new policy nor is it open to discussion or negotiation. There will be no modification of IMP procedures or operations based on your "announcement." Adm Allen Landover, ICN PD ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 22:38:26 -0500 From: StephMarte@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Second Co-Governor Identi... Message-ID: <950301223605_36614290@aol.com> TO: Harry Flashman You found him!! Bless you!! Forest has been missing for 6 years! TO: Randy Heydrich Werth Special Prosecutor You're a lawyer so I can understand why it isn't obvious to you Forest is what is commonly known as an 'idiot savant.' His speciality is chemicals (be careful if he asks you to drink something). Other wise he's harmless as a baby - he's only dangerous behind the stick of a flitter. He's a complete innocent. For God sake's man, investigate Hillary! (Just use a pair of rubber gloves) Forest's record is spotless. The only thing you'll find on him in the files is an incident at SMS Ilium Novum. While i was govenor there Forest got a hold of one of those little GTT turbojets and did more damage to our rec center than a marine with a laser carbine. You'll note he paid his fine in full. I would be in your debt (this is not a bribe) if you would return Forest to the nearest WCE facility. Respectfully, Sir Arthur Curry WCE Second Coming ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 22:21:00 -0800 (PST) From: "Middleton, Charles" <cmiddlet@SSBPOST.env.gov.bc.ca> To: bse-list <bse-l@consensus.com> Subject: Colony Turns Message-ID: <2F55645A@envgate.env.gov.bc.ca> Thad, It's nice to here the tidbits about the new space battle program. But what about the Colony Turns. For example on production, instead of sending turns in to produce this quantity of something or that, I would like it broken down into percentages. IE you would dedicated a percentage of your production to one of your three rings. With in each ring you can dedicate 10-20 items on percentage of that ring. For example if you have 10,000 mu production per week you could dedicate 50 % to non-military ring and 25% each to space and ground combat rings. Then I could dedicate 20% of non-military to consumer goods, 20% to farms, 20% to mines, 10% to jump engines, 10% to thrust engines, 10% to ICM's, 10% to BCM's. This would allow me to produce a wider variety of goods each week. Also if I forget to send in a turn I don't lose a week or two of production. You would be able to modify your %'s but only by 25-30% per week. If you did a crash change you would be hit with a 30% production penalty. All changes would only take effect the next week. I would also like to have permanent weekly turns. IE running a FE each turn, xfering mines to an outpost each week, xfering items to another colony. These are just some ideas that I had. Charles Middleton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 01:31:58 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Another Question for RTG Message-ID: <950302012951_36780926@aol.com> Why not just land at the planet you are exploring, set up the GP and leave, leaving the GP behind? Or, why not already have a GP ready to go on board and disembark it at the orbit you want <i.e. set it up in advance, before you leave for the planet>. I am not trying to be contrary, but yes, it is hard coded into the system and would take some doing to change. I am not saying I am totally against making the effort, I'd have to think about it some more. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 01:32:07 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Ship Types Message-ID: <950302013206_36782427@aol.com> Gee, Phil is on to something here <ship specialization>. Now how did me and Pete miss that, hmmmm....<g> All good things come to those who wait <g><evil GM laughter> Thad ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 01:46:43 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Space Combat Message-ID: <950302014640_36791652@aol.com> Well, we could make it a TU cost, but then you would have to run a turn for all your ships in order you change the battle program <even if you wre just sitting in space> whereas a low cost tactics turn sheet could be used just to change those orders without having to run a whole turn. I don't want to add costs if I can avoid it. Additional orders are going to be necessary, so we need to make it so it's doable on both ends. Thad ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 02:16:25 -0500 From: RTGThad@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: Colony Turns Message-ID: <950302021554_36807147@aol.com> Hi Charles: Keep a copy of that message and send it again in six months or so <g> No seriously, they are not bad ideas at all, but we will have to deal with our immediate commitments first. Not to mention the weekly adjustments routines are a nightmare <g>..... Thanx for the thoughts, I'll keep in mind. Thad/RTG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 02:38:17 -0500 From: Law2Be@aol.com To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re: New Hull Type? Message-ID: <950302023816_36817126@aol.com> Steve, Was that because fighters were nowhere near as useful as they will be in the future? If you change combat routines, and fighters, both in use, and role, then perhaps the idea of a fighter bay is once again attractive. I think it deserves consideration as it may spawn other special hull types, such as ore bays, troop bays, etc. Perhaps even a tug type ship that could use fighter modules, ore mod, etc. This is used in "Federation and Empire" now. The bays may have been ahead of thier time is all. But I do support the idea of Specialized hulls for these bays, after all, when was the last time the USS Nimitz was used primarily as a cargo ship? Most of us have warship(s) standing around waiting for action, why not a carrier? Later, Rick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 02:32:40 -0800 (PST) From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu> To: BSE-L@consensus.com Subject: Re:QSN Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503020240.C7325-0100000@uclink2.berkeley.edu> On Wed, 1 Mar 1995, Todd D. Clapp wrote: > To: Lord Asakura Soteki, QSN VAdm > From: Adm Allen Landover, ICN PD > Subject: Drell System > > Imperial vessels may go anywhere they want within Imperial space which > includes the Drell system. Anyone firing on an Imperial vessel must > be prepared to face the consequences of such an action. This is not a > new policy nor is it open to discussion or negotiation. There will be > no modification of IMP procedures or operations based on your "announcement." > > Adm Allen Landover, ICN PD > adm allen landover, i may be incorrect about this but i believe i was informed by imp sources that drell is considered under the control of the qsn. in fact, the isp pd has said that the fgz is allowed to attack qsn in drell without fear of imperial retribution. the fgz are jus not allowed to attack qsn positions in imperial space. this would do more than imply that the imp do not consider drell imperial space. please check with the isp pd and inform us on the official imperial position. as there is some sort of mixup to would like any official ruling/position to come from the isp pd as he is the senior official of the stellar empire. i regret any mixup and look forward to correcting it. minister anton qutroh qsn minister of propaganda ------------------------------ End of BSE-L Digest 39 ********************** Up