Jame's Tech Level Revisions

[coliver988]

Another aspect of technology is cultural and biological issues. The culture has to be set up for a specific technology to be feasible, even if technically all the pieces are there. As atpollard said:

[FONT=arial,helvetica] At TL 2, 90% of the population are 'Farmers' and at TL 5, 80% of the population are Factory Workers. What 'could' be done at TL 2 from a physical point may require TL 5 for the social change to make it common.[/FONT]

And biology also plays a part: suppose that for whatever reason, flight never developed on Earth: no birds, no bugs, not even a flying squirrel. How long would it have taken us to learn to fly then: would we even consider the possibility? Heck - would we have planes even now? Or just really fast cars and trains?

Finally, as for importing technology: technology has its own cultural imperatives: you cannot import a technology without effecting the culture, often significantly and disastrously. Sometimes things work out, but often, they won't. Either that or I've seen far too many Star Trek episodes where things go horribly wrong from external technologies....

 

[Ishmael]

you cannot import a technology without effecting the culture, often significantly and disastrously. Sometimes things work out

This made me think of the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"

This also made me think that the real defining aspect for tech level should be materials technology. Even if know-how is common, noone can build a jet out of wood/bone/skins/cloth...and a crappy one ( maybe ) out of bronze. <stone?..ceramics! but thats high tech imtu>

There also must be a threshhold of population for each tech to support the infrastructure of such materials production.

How many workers worldwide support a chip fabrication plant?..power production, raw materials. industries to make the equipment, etc, etc. And then there is the pop required to support to pop of actual workers.

100,000 people alone will not be able to make a jet fighter from scratch without outside support, even if they know how...at least not in a reasonable time. Have to dig the ore...smelt it..AFTER doing it over and over to make smelting furnaces and so on. They wouldn't even be able to build, by themselves, a CNC machine, I bet, much less a radio....Now if they import stuff like raw materials and/or appropriate tools/machinery...sure.

imtu, I put a dm of (pop-6) on tech levels. I suspect it should be worse, but this gives results I can accept. If folk want higher tech, they import of daydream about it. ( to be fair, I also give dm's based on social profiles from pocket empires too...my own house rule )

 

[Icosahedron]

= ATPollard.
If all of these ancient technologies had converged and Rome had built an aircraft, it would have all of the other defining technologies of TL 5 and would no longer be an Ancient Society but an Industrial Society.

Good point. I'll have to go away and ponder that one!

= Ishmael.
imtu, I put a dm of (pop-6) on tech levels. I suspect it should be worse, but this gives results I can accept. If folk want higher tech, they import of daydream about it. ( to be fair, I also give dm's based on social profiles from pocket empires too...my own house rule )

This makes sense, but are you saying that TL cannot exceed (Pop minus 6)? That would kill an interstellar empire unless you had some very good compensating DMs. What else do you use, or am I misreading you?

 

[aramis]

I suspect he means
Pop TLDM
6+ +0
5 -1
4 -2
3 -3
2 -4
1 -5

 

[atpollard]

Thanks aramis,
I was thinking the same thing as Icosahedron, but that did not make sense in the context that Ishmael used it. Now it makes sense.

Ishmael,
Does the TL DM extend in the + direction (Pop A = +4 TL)?


I use an IMTU guideline that maximum sustainable TL = Pop:
* So a world with Pop 8/TL 6 is tech self sufficient but not living up to it's full potential.
* A world with Pop 8/TL 8 is tech self sufficient.
* A world with Pop 4/TL 8 requires trade to maintain it's TL (like Denmark, a small country but not a primative one - just not self sufficient.)
* TL 15 requires an 'association' of worlds with a combined population over 10^15 (since there are not many Pop F worlds out there to maintain a self-sufficient TL 15).

It is a simple rule to provide a Ref with hints of how trade and political alliances operate in any specific region of space. (Why is this world High Pop but Low Tech? Who does that world trade heavily with to sustain that TL, and what did they specialize in?)...

 

[Jame]

On that note, I would suggest that there would be worlds that you would need a minimum TL to sustain life on, regardless of population, such as a Mars-like world: even if you had population 1 on Mars you'd need at least TL-7 in order to keep anyone alive.

 

[aramis]

On that note, I would suggest that there would be worlds that you would need a minimum TL to sustain life on, regardless of population, such as a Mars-like world: even if you had population 1 on Mars you'd need at least TL-7 in order to keep anyone alive.

that strongly depends upon your take on what TL is.

The two major approaches:
1) TL is local manufacturing capability
2) TL is local common-use goods

In the case of the latter, yes, there is a minimum. TL 5 should be able to build vacuum habs (but not of need decent space suits)... and TL6 should be able to maintain a long term presence and can build (crappy) space suits.

In the case of mode 1, there is no minimum TL for the world itself, only for a nearby trade partner...

 

[Ishmael]

Here is my method for generating worlds.
--------------------------------------------------

size = 2d6
As I am generating a main world here, I want to skew it towards more
earth-like ( size 8 )

atm=2d6-7+size
hyd=2d6-7+atm
I figure that atm pressure would keep liquid water from boiling off.

pop = 2d6 - dm's
atm dm = int(abs(atm-6)/1.5) or
-1 for taint and -1 for each step away from standard
hyd dm = int(abs(hyd-6)/2.5)
gov = 2d6-7+pop
law = 2d6-7+gov

tech = 1d6 + (pop-6) + dm's
the 'pop-6' represents the level of population needed to maintain a
minimum tech
dm's:
+2 +1 0 -1
radical progressive conservative reactionary
enterprising advancing indifferent stagnant
expansionist competitive unaggressive passive
fragmented discordant harmonious monolithic
militant neutral peaceable concilliatory

These dm's are based on the assumption that military and growth needs
drive research and technology. Lower dm's represent idyllic, pastoral worlds
full of luddites and hippie communes.
This tech level is local manufacturing, not local knowledge. Any
technology higher than this must be imported in some fashion. Technology
available from imports is the highest tech level from a :
class A starport within 4 jumps
class B starport within 3 jumps
class C starport within 2 jumps
etc.

starport type ;
tech - 6 = 'A' if 7 or more
'B' if 5 or more
'C' if 3 or more
'D' if 2 or more
'E' if 1 or less
'X' if -4 or less

I feel that starports should be maintained by local manufacturing and i
nfrastructure. Higher tech can be imported of course.
Experience shows me that tech levels will end up lower than OTU average
( which suits me just fine! ).

Thats pretty much my idea in a nutshell. Referees should change
anything/everything for the sake of the story/personnal preferences. I just got
tired of airless rockballs with billions of people...and random starports
without influence from anything else.

 

[Icosahedron]

Here is my method for generating worlds.
--------------------------------------------------

I just got
tired of airless rockballs with billions of people...and random starports
without influence from anything else.

Good stuff, Ishmael. If only that logic had gone into the original CT product.

 

[Ishmael]

thanks..I'm glad you liked it and that someone can find it useful
but d*mn, that post was ugly looking..
and a few typos that mess things up, too

I'll clean it up and post it on my google page all pretty
I think I'll do it that way for things like this from now on.

 

[Plankowner]

Ishmael, you might want to clean that up and send it over to Mongoose Publshing, they are wrapping up the playtest for their version of Traveller and are still working on the World Gen stuff.

It may not get used, but part of it might...

 

[Ishmael]

naw
I posted this years ago on the TML, so its been around for awhile
( I don't remember what name I used there at that time )
its for the community at large
anyone can use it however they like.

just a houserule I made to fix something I felt was boken ( or rationalise it at least )
I seem to play this hobby by doing that a lot


I'll clean it up in the next couple of days
I'm spending more time now with blender so it might be a few days

 

[Peter Schutze]

>I just got tired of airless rockballs with billions of people...and random starports without influence from anything else.

An excellent reason to play TNE .... nearly all the airless rockballs are graveyards there and not many good starports anywhere

something like your mods should be built in on any traveller system ! I kind of use the same logic building my own universes ..... big populations or narrow focusses are required to have high tech or good starports.

Most of the time I make lower pop worlds settled for exploitation worlds (ie mining colonies) or fairly narrow industrial focus with specific planning for shipyards eg the depot worlds or the heavy pop worlds

 

[Ishmael]

Ishmael, you might want to clean that up and send it over to Mongoose Publshing, they are wrapping up the playtest for their version of Traveller and are still working on the World Gen stuff.

I decided to do that in case its useful to people.
I even decided to join the Mongoose forum.... not sure I'll say much, but then again, I do love to argue some things and it looks like a hot place to arg..err...discuss trav rules, eh?. Good ideas can be had there.

I put it in a Word6 .doc made with OpenOffice2.

http://moukotiger.googlepages.com/my_uwp.doc

the first thing I've posted on my googlepage for Trav. I'll have to do more ( when I find time to write more...my notes are scattered over tons of ragged sheets on paper/napkins/scraps/etc. )


=== whew....the mongoose boards remind me of the tml when I was on there. Bickering dropping the signal/noise ratio to unacceptable lows. I'll just lurk there and drop it after ahwile. These boards here are much nicer and more useful, in my opinion ===

 

[Icosahedron]

( when I find time to write more...my notes are scattered over tons of ragged sheets on paper/napkins/scraps/etc. )

Heh. Man after my own heart.
One day, I'll gather it all together in a LBB (LARGE Black Book).

 

[Ishmael]

Heh. Man after my own heart.
One day, I'll gather it all together in a LBB (LARGE Black Book).

you got that right.
I keep telling mysdelf that I need to write eveything doewn in one place and make my own version of Trav to 'fix' everything I don't ike about it. Actually, the mongoose debates have egged me on to consilidate my ideas. Now to just write them down and share...too bad I'm lazy and am a rotten writer.

a little at at time, I suppose.
COTI is where I'll show it when I get around to doing it. I already dipped my toe into MT damage using AHL...now to expand it...it'll either be good or awful, but I'll share it anyways so to 'give back' to the game that I love

 

[Icosahedron]

Hmm, seems we're engaged in parallel development, I've been looking at AHL combat myself since I finally got a copy on the CD a few months back - maybe we should collude?

Trouble is, we'd never agree on anything.
This is also a problem with 'giving back'. Noble sentiment, and one I share in principle (I'd love to be rich enough to buy up and share DGP) but most of the Trav community just won't be interested - NIMTU is the only general concensus. That's why Mongoose and T5 are struggling - everyone disagrees on what is a good idea and what 'ought' to be included.
There has been too much division for too long in Traveller.

 

[Ishmael]

Hmm, seems we're engaged in parallel development, I've been looking at AHL combat myself since I finally got a copy on the CD a few months back - maybe we should collude?

Trouble is, we'd never agree on anything.
This is also a problem with 'giving back'. Noble sentiment, and one I share in principle (I'd love to be rich enough to buy up and share DGP) but most of the Trav community just won't be interested - NIMTU is the only general concensus. That's why Mongoose and T5 are struggling - everyone disagrees on what is a good idea and what 'ought' to be included.
There has been too much division for too long in Traveller.

I'd love to collude on things....trading ideas and seeing things from other viewpoints. I always have this feeling that I have blinders on when tinkering and fall secretly in love with my own ideas. Can't judge them objectively if that turns out to be the case. I might be missing something or failing to see how to improve.

I don't care if we disagree, so long as it doesn't degenerate into the vicious backbiting that I've seen in other places. If I toss 100 ideas out there and someone/anyone finds one or two useful, then I've given back.

Fragmented Trav society was inevitable anyways and its a waste of time to 'repair' it. The very fact that LBB's were open ended and easy to houserule cast Trav's destiny for arguments. Having "one TU to rule them all" makes things worse when there are those that treat it as 'my precious" and slam any change in it. I think the many rules failed in part from being force to be compatible with the OTU, warts and all....and the reason I am so herectical.

I just want to get rid of special case dm's is all
"+1dm except if world is size 2, then dm=+3", etc.

share ideas and discuss them rationally...THAT's how to improve the game and let folks pick and choose like at a chinese buffet

....flames?..pffft...its just a game

 

[Icosahedron]

I'd love to collude on things....trading ideas and seeing things from other viewpoints. I always have this feeling that I have blinders on when tinkering and fall secretly in love with my own ideas.

Don't we all?

Can't judge them objectively if that turns out to be the case. I might be missing something or failing to see how to improve.

I don't care if we disagree, so long as it doesn't degenerate into the vicious backbiting that I've seen in other places. If I toss 100 ideas out there and someone/anyone finds one or two useful, then I've given back.

Seems we share opinions on flaming, too.

Fragmented Trav society was inevitable anyways and its a waste of time to 'repair' it. The very fact that LBB's were open ended and easy to houserule cast Trav's destiny for arguments.

Very true.

Having "one TU to rule them all" makes things worse when there are those that treat it as 'my precious" and slam any change in it. I think the many rules failed in part from being force to be compatible with the OTU, warts and all....and the reason I am so herectical.

LOL. Yep, I gave up on later editions when each 50% of each 'rule' book became background for a TU I didn't use. Not cost-effective. Now I've picked up many of them second-hand and I just pick out the bits I like.

I just want to get rid of special case dm's is all
"+1dm except if world is size 2, then dm=+3", etc.

share ideas and discuss them rationally...THAT's how to improve the game and let folks pick and choose like at a chinese buffet

....flames?..pffft...its just a game

Yep, I can't see us arguing.

I bought a copy of BITS At Close Quarters a few weeks ago. It was sitting on a shelf at under a fiver. Now I'm comparing it with AHL and aspects of MT to try to arrive at a Grand Unified Combat Mechanism

When I have time. Even the smallest of my projects tend to extend over several months, and this is BIG.