But what do you make the spare parts for the Maker Devices with? IIRC, they can only fabricate items of up to one or two TLs lower than themselves. (Wiki: Maker/Meta)
Rules Only: The Advantages of Low Tech Starships
- Thread starter Spinward Flow
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
There is nothing to stop a maker from fabricating parts for itself at its own TL - the wiki is fanon and incorrect.
Well, you can make one that's effectively 1 TL higher than its TL of construction as an "early" version, so as to overcome the "can't duplicate items of same TL" constraint.
... or does it not work that way, because the Maker Device is then effectively the next TL up? Do you have to jump up 2 TLs ("experimental") to be able to do 1 TL higher, or does this become an infinite series?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
3D printers in existence today in the real world are being designed so as to be able to print all of the parts needed to make another 3D printer.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If it's a matter of tooling, have the three dee printers manufacture those first.
I'm not so sure about it...
I mean, while you're right in concept, I would not rule out those bases, despite being Imperial, are not also used by (at least) subsector fleet.
Think on US regular army (or Marines, for what's worth) as the Imperial Navy, and the NG as the subsector fleet. Are all NG equipped with a tech that its state could really support by itself, or some are higher "TL" thanks to the easiness to obtain (and maintain) it from a fellow state (or Federal Government).
IN ha surplus ships, some of them TL14-, others even TL15, and I'm sure some of those reach the Subsector Navies and use IN bases for support when their own subsecors cannot sustain them (in TL sense).
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Nobody is saying that the naval bases can't be used by the sector/subsector/planetary navies too.
What I am saying is that the Imperial Navy sets the "standard" for the tech level those bases need to be able to support (hint: it's TL=15).
High tech level bases can support low(er) tech level starships without too much trouble.
The reverse case ... not so much.
You aren't going to get very far with a TL=10 base trying to support a TL=15 starship.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
I would disagree that building a low-tech starship would necessarily be cheaper on a higher tech planet. Compare say today someone wanting to build the Titanic in a modern shipyard. Many of the necessary skill sets would be hard to find like riveters. Much of the ship's fittings and such require trades that are not in demand in shipbuilding today. Sourcing say period electrical cable would require it be made from scratch as it's no longer going to be available. Putting in gages that are mechanical in nature rather than electronic would be another difficulty.
As for a reason to go with low tech: If that tech is available somewhere at a good price (I take the "book" prices of everything as a suggestion rather than hard and fast number), then it might be worthwhile to go low. Another might be for a marketing approach. Our starships let you experience life centuries ago among the stars... Of course, it's also very possible that a player could simply want to build their own ship on the cheap using junkyard materials, and those happen to be lower tech at low prices...
As for a reason to go with low tech: If that tech is available somewhere at a good price (I take the "book" prices of everything as a suggestion rather than hard and fast number), then it might be worthwhile to go low. Another might be for a marketing approach. Our starships let you experience life centuries ago among the stars... Of course, it's also very possible that a player could simply want to build their own ship on the cheap using junkyard materials, and those happen to be lower tech at low prices...
Neither I am sure about this...
While IIRC the RAF still has some Spitfires for exhibition, can any RAF base really serve them? I guess most RAF aircraft mechanics would not even know where to begin with their engines, and parts should need to be sent...
Of course, unlike current RAF bases, in 3I most IN bases would be used to lower TL ships of lower navies, but even so, I guess they could have problems if the TL is too different, and that in most cases it would even be more efficient for those lower TL ships to be maintained in their own TL starports...
Returning the the name of the thread, the advantages of those low TL ships are easily resumed: None. At least if you can build higher TL ones.
I recommend you to read (if you have access to it) the article Going Places (barely) appeared in the issue 55 of the Challenge magazine (pages 12-21). It treats about TL 9 starships (even describes, in MT terms, most common designs in TL9 building). I will only quote a paragraph of it:
I recommend you to read (if you have access to it) the article Going Places (barely) appeared in the issue 55 of the Challenge magazine (pages 12-21). It treats about TL 9 starships (even describes, in MT terms, most common designs in TL9 building). I will only quote a paragraph of it:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
I may be wrong (as much as the article writers), but I don't even believe any TL 15 shipyard would build a TL 9 ship. Building it with stats that could be reached at TL9, sure, but a true Tl 9, why should they?
A TL9 ship needs trice as larga a PP (at the same price per ton) than a TL15 one, so reducing its payload and costing the triple on it. In MT (the only version I know to enter on those details) it cannot have even artificial gravity (with the ill effects this can have for the crew and passengers health), not thrusters, relying on HEPlar MDs. Only the JD does not vary (aside from having a maximum of J1 capacity)...
As I said, this article depicted (in MT terms) some of the mostusual ships as built in TL9, the results, compared with those in IE (TL15) were:
As the article says, it's an inferior product at higher price. So, again, why should a higher TL yard build it?
Sure those shipyards have their building capacity filled with higher TL (and more profitable) commands, and building suchantiques would not be profitable, so they would only be built in TL9 worlds, and few of those have an A starpost to build them (and while HGsays the planetary fleet may build them even with lowerstarport, I guess commercial shipping is not). And even then, no TL price would be obtained, as it would be state of the art for them.
And that's for commercial shipping. If you intend military ships, with better computers (unavailable at TL 9), armor and weaponry, things would probably be worse and price difference increase...
A TL9 ship needs trice as larga a PP (at the same price per ton) than a TL15 one, so reducing its payload and costing the triple on it. In MT (the only version I know to enter on those details) it cannot have even artificial gravity (with the ill effects this can have for the crew and passengers health), not thrusters, relying on HEPlar MDs. Only the JD does not vary (aside from having a maximum of J1 capacity)...
As I said, this article depicted (in MT terms) some of the mostusual ships as built in TL9, the results, compared with those in IE (TL15) were:
- Scout (in IE J2, MCr 29) was J1 and costed MCr 53.5)
- Yacht: (in IE (the J4 capacity was an errata, it was J1), 43.6 MCr) costed MCr 49
- Fat Trader (IE MCr 67.5) costed MCr 90.5
- Free trader: (IE MCr 37) costed MCr 52.3
As the article says, it's an inferior product at higher price. So, again, why should a higher TL yard build it?
Sure those shipyards have their building capacity filled with higher TL (and more profitable) commands, and building suchantiques would not be profitable, so they would only be built in TL9 worlds, and few of those have an A starpost to build them (and while HGsays the planetary fleet may build them even with lowerstarport, I guess commercial shipping is not). And even then, no TL price would be obtained, as it would be state of the art for them.
And that's for commercial shipping. If you intend military ships, with better computers (unavailable at TL 9), armor and weaponry, things would probably be worse and price difference increase...
Conceded. I think the OPs point was using a hi-TL industrial infrastructure to cheaply mass-produce ships that could be readily MAINTAINED in areas where starports and shipyards have less technology capability. Yes, the product will be less performant than more sophisticated designs, but it is more readily kept operational out in the "fringe", using what resources are at hand. It's a form of bootstrapping. The trade bumps economies, which bumps innovation, industry and tech.
All of this, I think, goes back to the break that High Guard made from the LBB2 paradigm.
In LBB2, any Class A starport could fix any starship, because TL wasn't a strong constraint on (Jump) performance. Even in 2nd edition, J4 was TL-10* (computer limited), J5 was TL-11 (drives and computer)**. Just based on the drives, J4 was TL-9.
Bring in drop tanks from High Guard, and you can get J6 at TL-12 (computer limited and jump-capacitor TL) from LBB2 drives.
Definitionally, any Class A starport can build them, too -- which implies that for starship technology (though in some cases, just for starships), any world with such a starport has at least TL-12 and Jump-6 technological capability.
And then High Guard comes in and caps Jump capability by tech level, without changing the defined capabilities of starports. Oops.
(Wait -- not quite. They enabled TL-constrained starship construction at any starport (or none whatsoever!) for military purposes only...)
------------
* using D drives in 199Td. (I'm disregarding the XBoat since it doesn't work under LBB2 '81 RAW, even though it should work.)
** using K drives in 400Td
(J6 needed TL15 for full LBB2 compliance though, if memory serves.)
In LBB2, any Class A starport could fix any starship, because TL wasn't a strong constraint on (Jump) performance. Even in 2nd edition, J4 was TL-10* (computer limited), J5 was TL-11 (drives and computer)**. Just based on the drives, J4 was TL-9.
Bring in drop tanks from High Guard, and you can get J6 at TL-12 (computer limited and jump-capacitor TL) from LBB2 drives.
Definitionally, any Class A starport can build them, too -- which implies that for starship technology (though in some cases, just for starships), any world with such a starport has at least TL-12 and Jump-6 technological capability.
And then High Guard comes in and caps Jump capability by tech level, without changing the defined capabilities of starports. Oops.
(Wait -- not quite. They enabled TL-constrained starship construction at any starport (or none whatsoever!) for military purposes only...)
------------
* using D drives in 199Td. (I'm disregarding the XBoat since it doesn't work under LBB2 '81 RAW, even though it should work.)
** using K drives in 400Td
(J6 needed TL15 for full LBB2 compliance though, if memory serves.)
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. Are starships mass produced?
2. While upgrading manufacturing facilities, it's quite possible that the older machinery is still kept, or resold to some other company, rather than scrapped, which may or may not export and reassemble them in a lower teched system.
3. As long as there is still demand for lower teched products, and the lower teched manufacturing facilities exist, they can continue to keep producing those goods, as you've already paid for the tooling.
4. If the cost of labour, real estate, taxation, or whatever is the issue that favours higher teched manufacturing, you can move the factory to a system where that wouldn't matter, assuming it made economic sense.
5. Our current design mechanism allows us to squeeze more performance or efficiency of products whose default technological level is lower, or at least for major spacecraft systems, but usually at a higher cost.
6. The difference, at least in the current edition, is three technological levels, which means you could make a more efficient jump factor one drive at technological level twelve, or a jump factor two at fourteen.
7. The concept for Book Two alphabet jump drives seems to be software locked as regards to actual range.
8. I don't think there is much compatibility between that and High Guard, though you could set up a set of universal standards that if followed allow compatibility for spacecraft systems integration.
9. That could, with the use of extensive distribution systems to starports, compatible components that are easily repaired or installed at even nominally lower designated technological level starports.
2. While upgrading manufacturing facilities, it's quite possible that the older machinery is still kept, or resold to some other company, rather than scrapped, which may or may not export and reassemble them in a lower teched system.
3. As long as there is still demand for lower teched products, and the lower teched manufacturing facilities exist, they can continue to keep producing those goods, as you've already paid for the tooling.
4. If the cost of labour, real estate, taxation, or whatever is the issue that favours higher teched manufacturing, you can move the factory to a system where that wouldn't matter, assuming it made economic sense.
5. Our current design mechanism allows us to squeeze more performance or efficiency of products whose default technological level is lower, or at least for major spacecraft systems, but usually at a higher cost.
6. The difference, at least in the current edition, is three technological levels, which means you could make a more efficient jump factor one drive at technological level twelve, or a jump factor two at fourteen.
7. The concept for Book Two alphabet jump drives seems to be software locked as regards to actual range.
8. I don't think there is much compatibility between that and High Guard, though you could set up a set of universal standards that if followed allow compatibility for spacecraft systems integration.
9. That could, with the use of extensive distribution systems to starports, compatible components that are easily repaired or installed at even nominally lower designated technological level starports.
You're probably right here, but those TL limitations for jump were kept in most (if not all) latter editions, and decisive for the canon history of Interstellar Wars (where the advantage in jump TL12 gave to the Solomani is told to have been decisive)...
Of course, with LBB2 paradign alone, ships are not so defined by TL, so TL9 small traders don't really differ from TL15 ones (there's no difference among a TL9 Scout and a TL15 one).
But this, OTOH, would make most of this thread moot, as if there's no differences, there are no advantges for any of them...
If a space zone large enought as for not being worth to buy a higher TL ship uses lower TL ships to ease maintenance, they are likely to build them locally too. That's why I said that there's no advantage if you can build higher TL ones (and I'l lad "or buy them"). This zones would not fulfill this premise, so, I agree they mnight be using lower starships for local ( tramp) trade, but even them, in 3I, would probably be serviced formegacorp owned long distance bulk trade by Corporative owned higher TL ships, built and maintained elsewhere (as Al Morai ships in SMC).
So I understand, as this would be a good part of the mass production discount...
I guess there are currently areas of the world where TL can be considered one or two levels lower than state of the art (let's say WWII TL, at leat in manufacturing capacity). DOes this mean there's a market for WWII TL materials (be them planes, ships, or whatever you may think about).
I guess something similar would happen in 3I. Maybe not in everyday consummer products, but nearly sure in such valuable assets as starships.
Fully agreed.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
LBB2 was a constrained paradigm that could not be extended.
More like it wasn't made immediately obvious.
You have to reach for LBB3 in order to figure it out.
| LBB3.77 (p10) | LBB3.77 (p9) | LBB3.81 (p15) | LBB3.81 (p14) | |
| TL=9 | Starships  | model/3 computer | A-D | model/3 computer |
| TL=10 | H drives or less | model/4 computer | E-H | model/4 computer |
| TL=11 | K drives or less | model/5 computer | J-K | model/5 computer |
| TL=12 | N drives or less | model/6 computer | L-N | model/6 computer |
| TL=13 | Q drives or less (errata printed as O) | model/7 computer | P-Q | model/7 computer |
| TL=14 | U drives or less | model/7 computer | R-U | model/7 computer |
| TL=15 | All drives | model/7 computer | All drives | model/7 computer |
Model/8-9 computers didn't exist until LBB5 ... hence why the Kinunir class has a model/7 computer (it was "top of the line" in the rules at the time in 1977).
So in LBB2, there were limitations on jump capacity ... it's just that the limitations where indirect.
At lower tech levels, only small(er) ships were capable of high drive performance. In LBB2.77 you needed a TL=9 D drive to achieve factor 4 in a 200 ton hull, but if you wanted to control a Jump-4 drive you needed a model/4 computer so the requirement bumped up to TL=10.
With "standard drives" under the LBB2 system, you simply need to have a drive letter compatible with the local tech level ... but the RAW never gets around to mentioning this because all the info you need to figure that out is broken out in LBB3, not in LBB2 anywhere. If there had been a quicker cross reference for standard drive tech levels printed in LBB2 I guarantee you that the understanding of the limitations for support of higher drive letters and lower tech facilities would have been more clearly communicated and understood. It also would have factored into the "any type A/B starport can maintain any drive" assumption much more explicitly.
- For example ... Efate/Regina/Spinward Marches (TL=13) can construct and maintain drive letters A-Q but is unable to construct (and therefore provide maintenance for) drives R-Z (since those are TL=14-15 standard drives and Efate is TL=13).
For one thing, you can't even put "magical" TL=15 Z drives into hull sizes smaller than 800 tons.
For another, you can put TL=12 M-N drives into a 400 ton hull and get factor 6 out of them ... and TL=12 is model/6 computer technology, so the "soonest" you can reach Jump-6 is actually TL=12 in a 400 ton form factor.
But the problem is that the easy cross reference lookup for all of this is functionally "scattered" between LBB2 and LBB3 such that most of the time people can't be bothered putting the disparate pieces together again for a more unified "whole" understanding.
Ultimately, it all comes down to a case of premature optimization in the editing of how the Rules As Written wound up getting laid out and written. The parts and pieces for a more fulsome understanding are there ... but you have to hunt them down (and capture them) before you can assemble that more complete (and to my mind more varied and interesting) understanding.
Also, can we just concede that the idea that specific tech levels are "limited" to a specific range of drive letters like LBB3.81 has printed is just flat out DUMB?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
If the prices remain unchanged as the tech level gap widens, then there is no advantage to be found (as you have asserted).
However, if the construction costs come down as the tech level gap widens (as I have asserted, and which LBB4 supports as cited), then there may be a competitive advantage for a high tech shipyard to build a starship to a lower tech standard for ease of use/maintenance outside the star system where the ship is constructed (compatible with local support elsewhere).
Bingo.
Some are ... but not all.
We use the notation of "volume production" to specify the difference.
"Standard" drives using drive letters (LBB2 paradigm) are basically mass produced by all type A/B starports of the requisite tech levels.
"Custom" drives using drive factors (LBB5 paradigm) are all custom fit jobs that have minimum tech level requirements to produce parts for.
Think of it this way then.
In a world with F-22 fighter jets, there's still a market for Super Tucano turboprops in that same world (go figure, eh?).
In fact, more Super Tucano turboprops have been built and sold than the number of F-22 jets.
Crazy, right?
Guess which one is easier to maintain (and cheaper to operate!) under austere "battlefield" conditions with limited military budgets and a more limited aerospace engineering sector for support.
Guess which one has a wider market for sales ... the high tech jet or the low tech turboprop?
Let us know what conclusions you draw from this real world example of high tech versus low tech in the same world.
