If it's a campaign flavor thing, and logistics plays role, then organics might
be more effective, but require a much higher level of logistical support
(specialized serum or media to keep the organic circuits alive, special
environmental controls such as cooling or heating etc) or that
the organic version is lower quality but can be self-sustaining (i.e.
horses vs cars).
As John pointed out, it doesn't really matter if you're PSB'ing since
what really matters is the final effect - it doesn't matter if a Class 1
beam is made from titanium/ceramic composite and powered by a fusion
reactor or a Bio-metallic sheath guided by a neural network and powered
by bio-capacitors, as you would roll the same dice in the end.
But if you're looking for flavor, then different tech foundations are a good
way to provide variety.
In many computerized straegic games, resource management plays a key role, but
more than just resources in general, the best games have at least 2 and
usually 3 resources that need to be managed (usually some form of money, a
material resource and an "energy" or "magic" resource). Simply forming your
tech tree to be balanced or favoring one of the three resources provides a
different feel to each group. Perhaps one tech tree is metallic based, one
organic based, and one energy based. In game terms, it would not make a major
difference, but in terms of motivations for a particular group it could lead
to interesting conflicts or agreements.
For instance, if the energy based group uses mostly brute energy for their
applications, they will be more interested in gas giants to harvest hydrogen
or systems where they can place giant solar collectors. Metallic based
technology may be more interested in asteroids and
metal-heavy planets. Organic based groups would be interested in
planets with lots of organics or scooping up comets for vital raw materials.
In some cases, multiple groups could share a system because their needs are
different, and they do not conflict for resources. In cases of wars, it
suddenly becomes possible for one group to totally devestate the opponent's
resources with complete disregard since the attacker is not dependent on the
same resources (does a scorched earth policy deter someone who doesn't care
about the earth?)
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
From: B Lin
> But if you're looking for flavor, then different tech foundations are a
I concur and the Unity will in fact be much more bio-tech orented than
most other nations, with extensive genetic engineering, cloning, etc which
many other nations either can't or won't do. But it's a long step from "we
grew a human with built-in IR vision" or "we grew a stinging nettle
whose venom is an amphetamine" to get to "we grew a functioning battleship".
Remember that we're not talking one hyperpower vs everyone else, we're talking
about a balance of power system, and I don't think it's plausible for one to
have a tech base that different from the others.
I agree in that each of the nations should have some effect, or style
-- whatever, that makes them unque, and fun to play.
IMHO "hard" tech is better than Bio-tech, any day.
But, I just could never wrap my mind around a bio based tech. I keep having
visions of a battle commander asking why some piece of vital equipment won't
work, and is told "its having a bad day...", or someone was late with it's
chow...
I personally don't think there should be so much "bio-tech" in sci-fi.
I am tired of seeing heros crawling though some creature's intestines or
other. Gross.
Donald Hosford
> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> From: B Lin
G'day,
> Remember that we're not talking one hyperpower vs everyone
You know I'm going to disagree here;)
But for context if we are going the route of the long night (or whatever its
called) how long is it since they had a common base point to spring from? I'd
agree they're unlikely to be shockingly different (i.e. not likely to be
beyond "we could grow our own IR eyes too if we didn't think it was an
abomination") if the split was within a few 100 yrs and it's a dusk rather
than a night that has passed by, but if some of these planets had many 100s of
years of being "alone" (or with restricted number of neighbour contacts a any
rate) then there is a lot of potential to have very different tech bases
without one of them
necessarily coming out as the all-powerful one (rock-scissors-paper
outcome I was thinking). If there is no "out-right" better (i.e. no
overwhelming incentive to change from what you've got) and your deeply bought
into existing infrastructure then the spread of tech to be universal is not an
absolute requirement (at least not quickly).
Mind you even I have troubles with the thought of a completely organic
ship, organic bits/circuits yes, but all organics is stretching it ;)
Have fun
Beth :-P disagreed:
> how long is it since they had a common base point to spring
I think if you have cultures A B C and D in contact with each other for some
hundreds of years and E not, then E is unlikely to be in the same league with
ABCD as far as tech level. I suppose you could say that E started off as
relatively high tech and stagnated in isolation while ABCD caught up, if you
really wanted to have this situation.
It's a little implausible to say "they made contact just at the same time that
the tech levels got competitive", but someone who's looking for living
starships isn't likely to be too worried about implausibility....
G'day,
> I think if you have cultures A B C and D in contact with each other
This is not so much pursuing the biotech argument as asking a general "why?"
question. Is there some reason why E has to be worse off than ABCD (or
stagnated)? I can see the whole competition thing happening in ABCD, but if E
has come across a new field of research the others haven't and happily
branched off by themselves for yonks why the immediate assumption they have to
be worse off?
> It's a little implausible to say "they made contact just at the same
True, but given I was assuming everyone wasn't on the same page and 100%
competitive, but space was big enough that the lead guys didn't want to
conquer it all anyway I was happy to see a wide divergence in tech levels. I
don't know of any period in history where there was a universal tech level.
> but someone who's looking for living
True again. I'm not keen on the idea of living space ships myself, I do like
the idea of biological components to starships though... And as for the
gentleman concerned with getting a bioship on the wrong day of the month he
should be more concerned if he were the focus of the bioships aggression on
said day, at least if there's no chocolate around;)
Cheers
> but someone who's looking for living
To quote the favourite line of a female friend of mine: "I have PMT
and a gun.....any questions??"
;-)
G'day,
> To quote the favourite line of a female friend of mine: "I have PMT
In my experience there would then be some male giggling and a "oohhhh why
don't youjust go have a little rest then?", followed by a bang and "... any
other questions?";)
Cheers
> Jon T. wrote:
> To quote the favourite line of a female friend of mine: "I have PMT
So how is Mary these days...?