It’s not broken so much as it doesn’t do things the way you gearheads want, but since there’s a lot of none gearheads that play the game making a set of rules that work with the system and don’t require a bunch of college level math would make sense.
Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works
- Thread starter Geir
- Start date
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
No, it along with the Me262 and the P80 were early jets, not prototypes. The Sabre and Mig 15 were early
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
I think that TLs are fundamentally about population & productivity -- the greater the number of non-subsistence-agriculture 'specialists' a society can support, the more specialists you have developing technology. That is the 'cause', the driver. The 'result' is mostly two fold: 1} More available energy / productivity available to each person in the civilization, and 2} Better materials. The better materials are crucial, because it allows stronger, lighter, more durable, more useful tools to be made & used.
So a tech table should keep improvements both in energy & materials firmly center-of-mind.
The lowest energy tech is 'naked sophont, alone' -- levers, axles, and wedges is an advance; domesticating animals as an energy source is an advance; steam is an advance; internal combustion is an advance; electric motors are an advance. Increases in energy might be best described as 'X kWh of work available', rather than specifically 'Steam turbine' technology,
The lowest materials tech is 'naked sophont, alone' -- wood, hide, stone; copper, tin, lead; bronze; artisinal iron; foundry iron; the different grades & alloys of steel; aluminium & the other light metals; metamaterials; zeolyes; quasi-crystaline & photonic crystals; superconductors; plus all the quasi-particle enriched mateials & meta-materials we might discover in the future... these are all materials advances. Similarly, materils might be better described rather than named -- 'one point of armor per unit, for x mass and cost' as opposed to 'wooden curraise'.
But the materials and energy have to advance before the tools do.
That’s actually a pretty good description of how tech has worked historically. Basically every time a country enters a war they start by using the technology and tactics of the previous war. WW1 for example was fought with trench warfare which the German blitz handily defeated. We entered WW 2 still using byplanes even tho we had designed newer planes we hadn’t built them because we didn’t see the need.
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
It is broken, in that it goes out of its' way to be nonsensical. If you want a hand-wavy 'never sweat the details' approach to creating vehicles -- than you DO NOT need a set of vehicle construction rules; just wave your hands and *poof* this-stat-block-I-scribbled-on-a-napkin is fine. The core reason to have a detailed set of step by step instructions on 'how to put together a vehicle' is exactly the antithesis of *hand-wavy poof*; the core purpose is to make sure that vehicles built make sense in the universe.
'Gearheads' are the ones who buy 'Here is how to design stuff' books; if you ain't a gearhead, then it ain't for you -- no sweat, make stuff up or use the stock vehicles. Neither 'High Guard' nor 'Robot Handbook' 'require a bunch of college level math'; so stop trotting out that sleazy strawman.
Tech Level is based in infrastructure. As we develop new tech we expand our infrastructure to support it as we expand our Infrastructure we free up more and more labor from the general survival requirements allowing that freed labor to expand our infrastructure to free up more labor.
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
Yeah, infrastructure goes hand in hand with technology, but it is not a driver. Having roads allows goods to move between specialists; having telegraphs allows specialists to communicate. The key is 'number of people working together on a problem' -- and infrastructure can assist a lot, but it doesn't replace the people.
And this is were you are completely wrong. Many people who want a basic design system for their game do buy and use design books not just gearheads. And the chassis system used in the vehicle handbook is the same type of system used in Robot Handbook as does Highguard it’s just both those books only deal with a few chassis types.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
I think I've got the armour lined up now at least by cost. Need to go back and double-check the spacing, but I don't want to apply the same fix in reverse as the one for smaller spaceships.... so it won't align perfectly.
As for weapons... the Aerospace Defense Laser is actually totally ridiculous at 8D, since much smaller, cheaper, and lower TL lasers do more damage. 3DD.
I've already put in a smaller class of laser, plasma and fusion weapons, but I'll look at balancing them as well (which might push that ADL to 4DD)
Infrastructure is a force multiplier and the true indicator of Tech Level. Right now we are using about 5%+- of the worlds population to feed the world but in the 1400 that percentage was closer to 80% what changed Technology and infrastructure. Infrastructure lets a single person do the work of multiple people. And knowledge does not equal tech level. Infrastructure increases productivity which is one of the truest measures of technology. Yes infrastructure is a driver of technology for example until the first cellular network were beginning to be built there was no need to advance cell phone technology as the networks have advanced from 1G to 5G the phone technology has advanced to use that infrastructure. To use the farming example in places that don’t infrastructure to support tractors the percentage of people required to farm is vastly greater than where that infrastructure exists. Another example Car factories use a tenth of the personal that they used in the 1950 because we have the infrastructure to support better automation and robotics without that infrastructure the knowledge is useless
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
Yep; it is a tool. But what it multiplies is 'people working on something'; with a population of zero, a nigh infinite infratructure -- like any other tool -- is useless.
All to true but with zero population you have zero tech level. And in theory it’s possible for infrastructure to get to a self maintaining and productive. Look up a Von Neumann machine.
collins355
Cosmic Mongoose
I'll repeat my critique since 1980, equating Trav TLs to historical eras in printed material was a Bad Idea (TM).
It would have been far better (and saved endless electrons of arguments over the decades) if they had stuck with clear technological progress breakpoints. We aren't playing Earth, we're playing a distant far-flung stellar civilization in the 57th Century. Just tell us what the breakpoints are - e.g. TL6 in the charted space setting is achieved when you master nuclear fission. TL8 is reached when you master fusion (not/not fusion+ mind) and grav technology. TL8 doesn't mean Earth 1980-89.
Anyway, that didn't happen and we were stuck with the somewhat lame "tech level labels in terms of historical dating are intended as a guide only" (The Traveller Book page 85). So continue....
It would have been far better (and saved endless electrons of arguments over the decades) if they had stuck with clear technological progress breakpoints. We aren't playing Earth, we're playing a distant far-flung stellar civilization in the 57th Century. Just tell us what the breakpoints are - e.g. TL6 in the charted space setting is achieved when you master nuclear fission. TL8 is reached when you master fusion (not/not fusion+ mind) and grav technology. TL8 doesn't mean Earth 1980-89.
Anyway, that didn't happen and we were stuck with the somewhat lame "tech level labels in terms of historical dating are intended as a guide only" (The Traveller Book page 85). So continue....
One thought here...
The design system does not really care about motive technologies and power sources, only the final result.
For debate: The performance of the early jets and late props are within the same ballpark...
Limpin Legin
Emperor Mongoose
I would somewhat agree with you, although I'm quite happy that the rulebooks just quotes progress on Earth as an analogy to the Traveller Technology Levels.
Not all worlds in the Traveller Universe will have the same political-economic make-ups as Earth, hence could likely develop different Technologies at different rates. However, the Traveller TLs plot progress as a linear thing; so you would get Televisions need to be invented before Grav technology arrives. That is characteristic of Traveller but might not be found in an episode of Star Trek, for example.
What I find odd about the TLs is that TL5 - 7 happen over what is considered a hundred years of Earth progress, and then TL8,9 - 16 happen over 30 odd centuries of speculative science fiction!
It might have been nicer to see the TLs modelled as Traits rather than levels. But that would be less compact on a subsector form.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Good bronze versus mediocre iron.
The Tupolev Bear demonstrates the limitations of the propeller; and whatever they're currently cooking up, that the propeller is more efficient for subsonic transports.
The Tupolev Bear demonstrates the limitations of the propeller; and whatever they're currently cooking up, that the propeller is more efficient for subsonic transports.
ProfGrizzlyJon
Cosmic Mongoose
My undying question relates to integration. I want to be able to make modular hull components that have vehicular characteristics (think Eagle Landing Module or Dune Carryall/spice harvester, but spacecraft scale).
I can do that now, with a lot of extrapolation about shipping size and the STIT, but it feels clunky.
I can do that now, with a lot of extrapolation about shipping size and the STIT, but it feels clunky.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
Let's see shall we (tons is 1000kg)
Me262 6.5->7 tons, 900kph, 4x 30mm cannon, up to 2x500kg bombs
Meteor 4.8->7 tons, 970kph, 4x 20mm cannon, up to 2x450kg bombs
P-80 3.8->5.5 tons, 956 kph, 6x 0.5" mg, up to 450kg bombs.
Avg early jet fighter 5.0->6.6 tons, 942 kph, 4x25mm cannon, 750kg bombs
Spitfire Mk24 3.3->4.4 tons, 730 kph, 4x 30mm cannon, up to 610kg bombs
Mustang P51D 3.5->4.2 tons, 710kph, 6x mg, up to 2x 230kg bombs
FW 190 A-8 3.2->4.4 tons, 652kph, 2x 0.5" mg, 4x 20mm cannon, up to 3x250kg bombs.
Avg advanced piston fighter 3.3->4.4 tons, 697 kph, 4x20mm cannon, up to 600kg bombs
So, a question about armor - it's actually more than just the plate itself, at least for heavier armor factors. Basic ballistic protection can be provided via layering (i.e. a bulletproof vest, or say cockpit protection for pilots). However when you get into naval armor or anything designed to protect against larger shells you have to take into account an underlying structure to both support the armor as well as safely channel the energy away from the impact point so the armor doesn't collapse and you respect the laws of physics.
As armor protection goes up you should be paying a larger penalty for it. Traveller doesn't care about weight/mass, just spaces. If you scale the spacing up this should also help eliminate the rules allowing a 50 dton fighter to have the same level of armor protection as a 100,000 dton dreadnought. It would also mean that smaller ships just could not afford to have the same levels of protection that larger ships do becuase realistically they cannot afford the space cost.
A totally aside question - I recently saw a video on the old Fairey rotodyne (compound gyrocopter). It's probably too niche to have a rule for, but would the rules be capable of allowing for odd vehicles of this type? I recall that Traveller 2300 had the X-wing concept, which would have been a more modernized version of the rotodyne I suppose.
As armor protection goes up you should be paying a larger penalty for it. Traveller doesn't care about weight/mass, just spaces. If you scale the spacing up this should also help eliminate the rules allowing a 50 dton fighter to have the same level of armor protection as a 100,000 dton dreadnought. It would also mean that smaller ships just could not afford to have the same levels of protection that larger ships do becuase realistically they cannot afford the space cost.
A totally aside question - I recently saw a video on the old Fairey rotodyne (compound gyrocopter). It's probably too niche to have a rule for, but would the rules be capable of allowing for odd vehicles of this type? I recall that Traveller 2300 had the X-wing concept, which would have been a more modernized version of the rotodyne I suppose.
