> The_Beast wrote:
Sure. But the piston craft can't go supersonic. Odds are the hull offers more
protection in certain critical areas on the later aircraft, though that
doesn't have to be the case. (In fact, faster aircraft may
rely on speed/dodging instead of armor; FT doesn't cover to hit
modifiers for speed because of the different flight medium & methods of
propulsion, so whatever.) I'm pretty sure the weapons on an F-16 are
better than those from the WWII aircraft. So while it's tough to say
specifically where a break in tech level occurs, they *are* there.
In fact, one reason it may be difficult to say where they occur is because
many components may be the same on some aircraft (e.g., engines)
while the weapons/"armor" were different, so the overall average tech
level of the aircraft is slowly sliding upwards... the other problem is that
"tech level" is usually a lot coarser scale than this. I'd say
sub-sonic to supersonic flight is a tech level (it took a lot of
purposeful research to overcome), and some of the weapons differences
(self-guided weaponry, maybe?) but overall there's not a *lot* of
difference.
Someone with a bit more knowledge of the planes in question may want to look
at the mass of certain systems as a percentage of the mass of the
plane. Do WWII-era planes have the same engine+fuel:plane mass ratio as
an F-16? If they're reasonably close, then compare the flight range,
max speed, etc.; I *know* that's different. So there's some "tech level"
differences. Whether they'd be important on a scale with starships, I dunno,
but I'm sure similar breakdowns for interstellar
travel can be made -- actually, heck, just look at Master of Orion II.
Or Starfire, even just the novels (which is all I've got of it). I know
they're not completely in agreement with the game, but you can easily see tech
levels creeping up, to the point of (IMO) the ridiculous in "Insurrection".
> However, my image of a tech level advance would work more
Doesn't have to be; that's just a different tech tree ("biological weapons")
that humanity didn't walk down. Equating tech levels between different trees
for a campaign system would be hard if not impossible, but could be attempted.
> Also, 'genre' weapons, such
Those would be a bit trickier. That's something like "eureka tech",
which doesn't really have a solid foundation in physics/whatever until
it's "discovered" (and not even then). In SF, these items are generally
things the author uses to set up the story -- e.g., the Langston Field
in Pournelle's CoDo universe, combined with the FTL "bottleneck" points (also
used in Starfire, among other places) sets up a certain type of navel warfare.
If the Langston field didn't exist, battles would be a lot shorter....
Hmm. Are there any RL examples of something like that? Quantum Physics
developed from something like it ("everyone" thought light was particles,
until they found it was a wave as well...) but I'm thinking more along the
lines of something that works but we don't entirely know
why....
> [convert w/SFB book] I'll just say
Sounds logical enough to me. Keith Watt did something similar for his
relatively low-tech FT varient; most ships use SMLs/SMRs with only class
1's as point defense, since powering a large laser takes too much energy.
> With blocks and precursors for size of hull, and the other
<grin> I'd like to see it (off-list), but I don't know that I'd really
have a lot of time to devote to it either... besides, so much of systems
like this depends on the wishes of the writer. ^_^ But then, so do the
various gaming systems, it's just that those were the ones that were
published.... ^_-
Later,
Has anyone discussed the possibility of adding some kind of tech level to FT?
I was thinking about it because I use B5 Earthforce ships in FT (with regular
FT designs, nothing special) and I recently found a model that works for the
Victory Class Destroyer.
Of course you can't really do the Victory in regular FT. There's a frightening
EA Sourcebook rendition on the net, but you can't really build a ship with a
higher tech level than the rest of the fleet in regular FT.
I don't know how it would work. Presumably, there would be a base tech level
where everything works pretty much as it does now. Perhaps buying a higher
tech level would give you access to a set of improved systems (lower mass?)
but would cost a bit. It would let you build a smaller ship which was really
more powerful than an older
larger ship -- Say the old Federation dreadnought
vs. the Movie USS Enterprise or the Victory vs. the Omega Destroyer?
Maybe it's more complication than it's worth. Perhaps this would allow players
to create alien races that use basically the same technology as humans but at
a higher tech level?
The difficulty with adding tech levels to FT is that it doesn't lend itself to
small reductions for improved systems: a Class 1 Beam at MASS 1 POINT COST 3
is tough to reduce.
My views on tech would be more of an availability issue. In other words,
something to the effect of "Class 2 Beams don't become
available till TL 2" or some variation there-of.
> The difficulty with adding tech levels to FT is that it doesn't lend
Not exactly. This assumes that the base set of rules in the FB's is the high
end of the tech curve. In my Imperium Campaign (Traveller+) I figure
that the FB tech is at about TL12 or so. (Star travel starts at TL9 and humans
top out at TL15-16 in this system, TL12 is the nominal Imperial average
TL)
> From there as the TL goes down the systems get bigger and clunkier and
> My views on tech would be more of an availability issue. In other
This is the other thing that I do. For example, the old and new P-Torps
are merely different TL's. The other thing that I did was had a beginning set
of Beam tech called "Disruptors" that are completely ineffectual against
Screens. These have now been regulated to civilian tech for the most part,
Military grade beams are as normal vs. Screens. The other TL based modifier
that you can use is maximum available Thrust. If a beginning warship ship has
a max thrust of 1 vs. the cutting edge cruiser has a thrust of say 6 or 8 (And
still has to spend the same general amount of space on the engine...) that has
a pretty significant effect on the balance of power. The same can be said for
vector and cinematic based movement. (The players *fear* the appearance of the
Eldar on the board... Thrust 8 and cinematic movement against their max Thrust
6 and vector movement) The other thing that you could experiment with is
limiting the ship size against TL. If the biggest starship that a TL(whatever)
polity can build is size 100 (or 50 or 150) it is sure going to also have an
effect. All in all these "fixes" only work in the context of some sort of
campaign game, or the SFB situation where there are hundreds of official
designs each
with an official BPV/EPV (or whatever the commercial cost is called, I
can't remember)
The idea of modeling tech levels is fun, but one I find dangerous.
The main problem I have with the discussion tends toward the slippery quality
of 'tech level'.
I will bore you for a moment with an analogy. The distance between the USA's
Brewster Buffalo and the Hellcat was pretty big in combat, but they
were both basic rotary engine powered. There's another leap to the P-51,
admittedly an in-line, but still a piston-driven craft, which didn't
have a
chance against a ME-262, unless cleverly catching one taking off or
landing. The 262 would be laughed at by F-86, which, in turn, would
cause
fits of laughter to an F-16 pilot.
Where does one level end, and the next begin? They are ALL
air-breathing,
internal combustion, single-engined craft.
However, my image of a tech level advance would work more like an alien ship,
say the Krivak or Savasku back when either was on steroids, with properties
that are beyond the structure of current tech. Also, 'genre'
weapons, such as Wave/Nova, in the old system, are not just different,
but scary.
I'd started trying to combine FTII systems with SFB's Campaign Designer book
for a system with smaller steps, but I doubt that it would be of much
assistance to you.
Since comments dropped like that tend to elicit questions, I'll just say that
various systems required 'tech research blocks', with beams on the first level
being restricted to class 1's, without PDS, but costing and massing like 4's.
The next level, the 1's dropped to cost and mass of
3's,
and 2's could be added to new construction at 4's cost, etc...
With blocks and precursors for size of hull, and the other systems, this had
some possibilities, but got complicated faster than my enthusiasm could cover.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
> From: devans@uneb.edu
<snip>
> I'd started trying to combine FTII systems with SFB's Campaign Designer
I tried something similar with mediocre results.
<snip>
> With blocks and precursors for size of hull, and the other systems,
I ran into the same problem...
A very simple tech level system one might wish to try...
Use TL to modify TOTAL damage delivered to the target (+1/level if
target is
a lower TL, -1/level if it's higher). I wouldn't add bonus damage per
weapon tho, just per volley. If you modified each weapon's damage seperately,
a moderatly higher TL ship would do too much damage (IMO), and a slightly
lower TL ship might not be able to score any damage at all.
Just my 2 cents...
Pete
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
> itself to small reductions for improved systems: a Class 1 Beam at
This also the way I would prefer to go, rather than modifying masses or
effects. I, at least, would not feel comfortable with the play balance effect
of changing weapon etc. values.
There is fair scope in FT to define tech levels through availability:
Beam size
single- or multi-arc weapons
Availability of Needle beams, missile, pulse torpedos, etc. one or more fire
controls per ship
no screens/level 1/level 2
max.mass per ship max.thrust
max.thrust/mass ratio
armour
(no)Fighters/special fighter types/no.of fighters per ship
PDS/ADFC
Greetings
The Mass idea was appealing to me because the Excalibur (from B5) actually
seemed like a smaller ship than the Omega or the Warlock destroyers, but was
really more powerful. The idea of a smaller ship which is more powerful than a
larger ship is something you can't do in FT unless you build it at a
particular mass and cost it at that mass and say it's really a lighter mass in
real life. I liked the idea that you could do the same thing on a lower mass,
paying less for the mass cost and more for access to the higher tech level.
You can do some of this in availability, but people don't like it if you take
away something they already have. I almost think you'd have to define improved
versions of the existing weapons first and then give them access to those
weapons (and systems) slowly as the TL of a campaign (or the TL of their race)
increased?
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
...
> > My views on tech would be more of an availability
On Wed, 16 May 2001 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT) David Griffin
> <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Mass idea was appealing to me because the Excalibur (from B5)
actually seemed like a smaller ship than the Omega or the Warlock destroyers,
but was really more powerful. <
I hope you'll pardon the nitpicking, but I rather think the Victory class is
the biggest warship that the EA has (the Explorer class is another matter) at
a mile and a quarter (call it 2000 m) long. I don't
know how long the Omega or Warlock are (and I suspect no-one else does,
either), but I think they're considerably smaller. I could be wrong, of
course.
Now, we just have to hope that AoG get approval for the mini...
Phil
There's a fair amount of controversy about just how big the various ships are.
I think the Warlock is longer and bigger than the Victory. However, maybe the
Whitestar is a better example.
Certainly, pound for pound, the White star (also of somewhat indeterminate
size) is a *relatively* small ship with relatively big firepower AND
relatively superior defense.
I hope the mini for the Victory gets approved too. I found one that I think
will stand in quite well from Brigade Miniatures. It's the Jericho.
Main site:
http://www.brigademodels.co.uk/
The miniature in question:
http://www.brigademodels.co.uk/NoFrames/SFS/Items/SFS-075.html
What do you think?
--- Phillip Atcliffe <Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk>
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT) David
--- Phillip Atcliffe <Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk>
wrote:
...
> I hope you'll pardon the nitpicking, but I rather
This guy agrees with you:
http://members.home.net/malsar/starship_scales_homepage.html
He talks a lot about scale.
On Wed, 16 May 2001 06:22:50 -0700 (PDT) David Griffin
> <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There's a fair amount of controversy about just how big the various
However, maybe the White Star is a better example. <
> Certainly, pound for pound, the White Star (also of somewhat
Oh, I'm not arguing against the concept of a high-tech ship of small
size and heavy punch. I merely wanted to point out that the Victory is known
to be pretty big, and I was of the opinion that other EA designs (with the
notable exception of the Explorers) were somewhat smaller.
I checked out the Starship Scales website, and while I'm a little
dubious as to the size of some of the ships -- e.g., the Omega at 1700+
m long seems a bit large -- it's interesting. Thanks for the steer.
> I hope the mini for the Victory gets approved, too. I found one that
> What do you think? <
I like the Jericho; that's why I have three of them (two in my UNSC fleet, and
one in the OUDF) and have to restrain myself from getting another. But I would
like a genuine Victory mini (or two); after all, the Jericho is a little small
when placed against the AoG B5 stuff (the scale of which is all over the
place, anyway).
Phil
> Phillip Atcliffe wrote:
[...]
> I checked out the Starship Scales website, and while I'm a little
I remember seeing it quoted from JMS some years ago that Omegas were about 1
mile long. On one evening shift when things were quiet here
a co-worker and I sat down with an image of an Omega next to B5 from
one of the eps and calculated the length of the Omega. It came out to
1/5 that of the station (we also calculated the length of the station
to be right about 5 miles, and calculated the varying levels of centripetal
gravity generated from the spinning of B5. IIRC, we figured that CnC was
~1/3 Earth norm? (memory is fuzzy; it's been too long and I don't know
where our notes ever ended up :-/ )
Because of FT simplicity, it's possible to stream the weapons into distinct
tech fields. (Hull, thrust, energy, kinetics, missiles,
electronics/defences).
The next tech upgrade is available at double mass.
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/ftcamp1.htm#Research
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[Firestorm] GM Battletech Webgame#2
> -----Original Message-----
On Wed, 16 May 2001 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT), David Griffin
> <carbon_dragon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idea of a smaller ship
No, there is a way. Don't fill up all the available mass with weapons. This is
quite possible. You also end up with a cheaper ship. You could have a mass 40
ship filled to the bulkheads with weapons, and you could have mass 60 ships
with a lot of excess space. It's quite legal and easy.
There's a tendency for players who do "design your own" ships to make the
ships as powerful as possible. This is usually because campaigns and "bring an
X point ship" style games require as nasty a ship as possible. However, if
your group is trying to represent a specific universe (homegrown, book based,
or media based), you can build interesting designs you won't see usually.
> ateske@hicom.net wrote:
> The_Beast wrote:
The problem of tech levels is that they assume that everything changes at
once. The F16 uses a weapon that is almost unchanged after 130 years (the
rotary cannon) and computers that were impossible to build 20 years ago (the
most recent batch). The ME262 is an interesting comparison to
the P-51. The P-51 was more advanced in many areas than the ME262, and
superior in most of the others, but the P-51 was at the end of its
development. There was no way to improve it without making a break from its
design principles. The ME262 was rather crude and unreliable (but really,
REALLY FAST), and towards the end of the war had enough toys
added that the crew of a two-seat version would not have that much
difficulty adapting to the crew tasks of an F4 (assuming the they could read
the
instruments), but a P-51 pilot, while a good stick-and-rudder man, would
be of little use in a modern airforce. The technology of the ME262 had
growth potential, the tech of the P-51 did not; however, piston engined
aircraft remained in use for some time, even in the Viet Nam war.
> In fact, one reason it may be difficult to say where they occur is
while the weapons/"armor" were different, so the overall average tech
level of the aircraft is slowly sliding upwards... the other problem is that
"tech level" is usually a lot coarser scale than this. I'd say
sub-sonic to supersonic flight is a tech level (it took a lot of
purposeful research to overcome), and some of the weapons differences
(self-guided weaponry, maybe?) but overall there's not a *lot* of
difference.
Another problem is that sudden shifts in the technology in use by a society is
related something else that is hard to model. Metallic aluminum used to be
more valuable than gold. When someone managed to find a way to smelt aluminum
in a way that was as cheap as bauxite was plentiful, the world changed and
flight became something that anybody could do.
[This is the point where I have to plug "Connections", by James Burke.
It is a must read]
An idea for tech levels is to reduce the range bands for weapons, or make
weapons heavier. Here is my suggestion. These are not real tech levels, but
sliding levels of technological maturity. For simplicity's sake, I like to use
levels of obsolescence, with the human tech described in FB1 at Olevel0. Each
level of obsolescence adds 1% to the mass required for the ftl drives, and
each point of thrust. The range bands are reduced by one mu for each level of
obsolescence (obsolescent pds are only useful against obsolescent fighters),
but doubling the mass of the system reduces its obsolescence by four (but not
to less than Olevel0). Doubling the mass of a beam to reduce obsolescence
makes it equivalent to the next class of beam for determining firing arcs
Fighters lose 2mu of first movement, 1mu of secondary movement, 1mu of range,
and one point of endurance (fighters may also have their mass doubled to
reduce obsolescence).
SM's lose 2mu of max range, ERSM's lose 3mu. Doubling the mass of SM's does
not help.
The effect on electronics is also marked. First, the difference between
***
The problem of tech levels is that they assume that everything changes at
once.
***
Well, that DOES act as an argument for a 'tech block' system. Each line can be
advanced, in the main, independently, but you can tie different blocks
together, as you wish, by either/both using early parts of one line as
precursor, or/and reducing the research costs of particular advancements
in others.
***
An idea for tech levels is to reduce the range bands for weapons, or make
weapons heavier. Here is my suggestion. These are not real tech levels, but
sliding levels of technological maturity.
...
***
So you're doing the adjustments for tech levels relative to two combatants,
not fixed per level, right?
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> ***
Tech blocks have their own problem from a simulation, if not gameplay, point
of view. The interconnected nature of technology means that the blocks and
their dependencies must be almost purely arbitrary. Who would have figured
that the "manned landing on the moon" techblock requires the "thermos flask"
tech block (Connections: Eat, drink, and be merry).
> ***
Yes, because the ME262 and the F-15 belong in the same tech level (but
at
different maturity levels within it), as the F-15 does not have anything
that the ME262 lacked, except (possibly*) a digital computer system (the first
field effect transistor was created about 1930, but noone had any idea what to