BSE Digest V1 #31 From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 18:19:05 +0000 BSE Digest Wednesday, 14 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 031 In this issue: + Re: BSE: Cargo Carrier = Carg... + Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP + BSE: CC Fire? Please... + BSE: QSN query + BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP + Re: BSE: QSN query + BSE: New Thread: Ship Designs + BSE: The History Part II + Re: BSE: New Thread: Ship Designs See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list or bse-digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PROTHORAX@aol.com Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:52:02 -0500 Subject: Re: BSE: Cargo Carrier = Carg... Thad hi, I must strongly disagree here! The CC was a scout ship for a large alien creature and the SAM have the ability to use it offensively by profile and in pass uses ------------------------------ From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 03:50:31 EST Subject: Re: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP Dave, Thank you. That was my understanding, too. The CC is very clearly a warship by design, and the understated name is typical of SAM nomenclature. The CC restrictions were by PROFILE. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil shampoo and lipstick overlords!" -Nietzsche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: Jackmyster@aol.com Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:33:38 -0500 Subject: BSE: CC Fire? Please... Now the crap really is getting deep! Prothorax, not every human is dumb! (only the ones that taste good...) Bests- J. ------------------------------ From: Jackmyster@aol.com Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:33:39 -0500 Subject: BSE: QSN query Funny how the QSN haven't ask the FGZ what happened to that ITS freighter. Lord Den of Earth ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 07:31:49 CST Subject: BSE: Cargo Master NEW SHIP Last Word on CC As most of you have now learned through the rumor mill, I have a vested interest in the CC debate, as I captured one several weeks ago. Yes, the IMP captured a CC... it didn't go boom. How? The only way possible, I boarded with a holoid teleporter and avoided the derelict/self-destruct mechanism. Why? The only SAM faction that lacks permission to be in IMP territory is the PGJ. They tried to test my resolve. Now, obviously, I would love to have this 910 hull monstrosity that can mount the firepower of 5 Dreadnoughts (15,000 mu cargo capacity as ITS) as a warship, however RTG ran a test battle last week and discovered that However ABM did it, the CC is hardwired as a freighter only. Am I disappointed? No. I still have the answer to my complaints to ABM for a better transport ship; one capable of hauling entire armor regiments. Bottom line, as disappointing as it is, the CC can't fight. (but can make one hell of a shieldship). Steve ------------------------------ From: Richard Chiang <richc@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 13:12:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: BSE: QSN query On Tue, 13 Dec 1994 Jackmyster@aol.com wrote: > Funny how the QSN haven't ask the FGZ what happened to that ITS freighter. > > Lord Den of Earth > Hmm. That seems curious to me too. You can never depend on those silly reporters. The official QSN position is that we are more concerned with the IMP as we are under IMP protection. If you IMP's are going to war or something, who will protect us from the big bad RIP?? The Council is of course curious on the FGZ position, but at least you commented on it as opposed to the initial IMP response. So please comment for our BSE audience as well as the situation of the civil war in FGZ. Minister Anton Qutroh QSN ------------------------------ From: Richard Chiang <richc@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 07:30:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: BSE: New Thread: Ship Designs I wanted to start a new thread concerning trading ship designs. Currently, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to trade affliation tech. The Question is does this cover ship designs. I am currently in negoiations to trade a ship design and the GM's have not ruled on it yet and I wanted to get some opinions out there and any ingenious solutions. Some of you I have talk to feel that ship designs should be freely tradeable. While I kinda like that, I understand the Gm's dilemma as they may be opening a pandora's box. The current trade I am speaking about will probably not unbalance the game, but there is a risk of other trades doing so. We would all end up running cargo carriers and base ships and that takes a lot of the diversity out of the game. I came up with a couple of compromises. Please tell me what you think of them and any other ideas you may have. 1. You can not trade your latest ship designs. IE we could not trade our new Cargo Master. (break it into merchant and warship designs) 2. Or, the designs can only go to a colony and any affliation can only do that once. 3. You can reverse engineer the design at a low Research Project as the owner of the design is aiding you 4. You have to give up a ship slot to trade a design. IE. the Samilians have 3 ship slots. If they wanted to trade a design, they could only have 2 ship designs in the future. 5. The receiving affliation must give up a ship design to get the new ship design. IE. we would have to give up the cargo master to get the cargo carrier. That's all I have come up as of right now. Also, I would be interested in discussing the new tech. system concerning ship designs. New ship designs just seem to be bigger versions of the current ship. While I think it should be doable, I think it should have an obnoxiously high Research Point requirement. It is silly to think that current technology would allow a significantly larger ship without some major breakthrough which may not even be possible in a lesser developed area like the periphery as opposed to the inner empire. In terms of game play, ship designs that are just bigger versions of existing ships will just result in a silly race for bigger and bigger ships. A better idea would be to require some breakthrough through possession of some new tech (eg using research on the thorlium jacium alloy found on snits to strengthen hulls to allow bigger ships). In this way, a rational would be provided why you can suddenly make a bigger ship. I think research projects that would improve existing ships should be dealt with more generously. An example would be colonist transport modules. These would fit more colonists than you would normally think possible but the tradeoff would be your ship could only haul colonists that run. The result is a more realistic real world tradeoff between flexibility and the benefits of speciallization. I like the UK's version of ships where certain ships have certain advantages taht are built in. Richard W. Chiang ------------------------------ From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:55:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: BSE: The History Part II ------------------------------------------------- FORWARDED MESSAGE - Orig: 14-Dec-94 06:58:52 Subject: BSE: The History Part II - Msg Number #602257 From: Paul Sinatra 76510,2760 To: All BSE Players Forum: PBMGAMES Section: 02 - SF Games/Open-End ------------------------------------------------- Attention players old and new; Because I'm slightly deranged and have nothing better to do with my time, I am attempting to pick up the History of The Capellan Periphery where it was left off in mid-1988. Any and all submissions are graciously requested and accepted. Anything that you the players or ex-players consider news worthy is eligible for inclusion, so please don't think your story is too minor to tell. The more documentation that can be provided the better, but even rumors and memories can be reported. All documentation submitted will not be returned, so if you can't part with something please send a copy. If you really, REALLY, want to include something and can't get it copied, let me know beforehand and I'll make arrangements to return it. Please spread the word around so that non-CIS members hear of this. Prehaps someone can post a copy of this on AOL or the Internet. All submitals should be mailed to: Paul Sinatra 1321 Coral Reef Ave NW Palm Bay, Florida 32907-8052 ------------------------------ From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 11:28:33 EST Subject: Re: BSE: New Thread: Ship Designs Richard, I do not like the idea of trading ship tech. One of the few things currently in the game that is WORKING to create meaningful trade is the barter/purchase of ships. If everyone ends up able to build the types of ships they want (and lets face it, most people only want a relatively few types - your restrictions wouldn't matter all that much -almost everyone would build the same few types) this would end. The game needs greater diversity of this type, not less. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil shampoo and lipstick overlords!" -Nietzsche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ End of BSE Digest V1 #31 ************************ To subscribe to bse-digest, send the command: subscribe bse-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com". 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 "local-bse-list": subscribe bse-digest local-bse-list@your.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". Up