Why the massive increase in cost for TL improvement

[Chas]

So, the title asks the question. You look at a TL advantage, say the spinal weapons - why are we including a 100% increase in the cost for the TL advantage? Here for the sake of saving 20% weight of the weapon, you are asking people to give up buying 2 spinals at the old weight! The TL advantages are much the same. Incredible cost increase... for what? There is nothing driving minimal tonnage that the TL on weight saving is resulting in to the degree provided.

You can pay more for a minimal saving on weight for jumps, but you're paying through the nose... why? The saving in space vs. the cost increase is not justified with the result. 100% increase in the jump cost for a 10% saving in fuel. Nope. Just build a bigger ship and get the benefits of the increased hull points and hard points.

The whole structure of the current pricing in Traveller means the high TL driven item gets a massive cost increase out of proportion with the effectiveness of the unit so built. A TL advantage is supposed to be that, an advantage. But what's happening if you consider the costs of the unit... it's a disadvantage! If Traveller was tonnage based or there was deliberate pressure to build small most of this would work, but it doesn't, we want to drive builds to be larger. Which is counter productive to what we are doing. Either that, or we are not pricing the relative values of advantages properly. A large hull should cost more than the proportional cost increase of the TL advantage, so it becomes cost effective to use TL advantages because you are saving space on a credit per credit basis.

Which then has a significance when you are trying to build for balance. You can't use cost in translating TL, in fact you get into serious trouble doing it. You build an effective low tech design, and if you are trying to balance by cost to a higher TL ship, that is simply a higher TL nothing special in itself, you can't do it.

Is there really any need to do anything but a marginal cost increase in theses cases - and then let the TL of the ship drive everything. You're either building at TL15, or you're not so you can't get it or it won't work. Is it not that simple? It's much more balanced game if the whole tech level pricing is pulled down to more equivalent cost/performance parameters.

Look at missiles and torps, they are specifically priced to realistically represent the performance of the unit... on a level playing field across technology levels - why can't other items?

 

[MongooseMatt]

In a nutshell, I very much want to have a system of diminishing returns once you start going outside the box. Yes, you can have your mega-death star weapon, but you will pay through the nose for it.

 

[Chas]

In a nutshell, I very much want to have a system of diminishing returns once you start going outside the box. Yes, you can have your mega-death star weapon, but you will pay through the nose for it.

Hmmm... then I can say what I've found to date is that this is simultaneously punishing those builds that are quite standard and quite logical in their 'natural' progression, like the TL adjustment on spinals.

You build a natural TL15 ship and you go why? For the same money I'll just build a bigger and better TL? ship that could beat that TL15 ship in a straight fight.

I'd like to suggest some of the limitations are managed differently. Like for spinals making the top end maximum weight of the spinals go up with TL. Then you can just build a bigger spinal at a high TL making a non-disadvantageous advantage, should you want to take it.

 

[phavoc]

There's no good way to model this. Players don't have to think about economics, or support issues (not the cost, but things like supply chains, etc).

Players always try to min/max everything within a gaming system.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I agree the added cost is too much. And that in general high TL gives too small advantages.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

You can pay more for a minimal saving on weight for jumps, but you're paying through the nose... why? The saving in space vs. the cost increase is not justified with the result.

Nobles in a feudal technocracy see things differently. Remember, Traveller is a role-playing game first. It's not a linear-scaled technology advancement simulator for every man's equally-evolving civilization.

The whole structure of the current pricing in Traveller means the high TL driven item gets a massive cost increase out of proportion with the effectiveness of the unit so built. A TL advantage is supposed to be that, an advantage. But what's happening if you consider the costs of the unit... it's a disadvantage!

Again, the nobles thing. Some people simply have the money.

Which then has a significance when you are trying to build for balance. You can't use cost in translating TL, in fact you get into serious trouble doing it. You build an effective low tech design, and if you are trying to balance by cost to a higher TL ship, that is simply a higher TL nothing special in itself, you can't do it.

Is there really any need to do anything but a marginal cost increase in theses cases - and then let the TL of the ship drive everything. You're either building at TL15, or you're not so you can't get it or it won't work. Is it not that simple? It's much more balanced game if the whole tech level pricing is pulled down to more equivalent cost/performance parameters.

Look at missiles and torps, they are specifically priced to realistically represent the performance of the unit... on a level playing field across technology levels - why can't other items?

I saw "balance" mentioned a few times. I prefer variety over balance. I prefer games to be run by referees, too. Traveller is not a board game.

You build a natural TL15 ship and you go why? For the same money I'll just build a bigger and better TL? ship that could beat that TL15 ship in a straight fight.

There is much more to a TL than what a chart shows.

 

[Nerhesi]

Referees require house-rules if balance is in shambles.

House-rules are arbitrary, personal opinions, rather than (ideally), we'll discussed and thorough rule-sets.

In my 25+ years of role-playing, nothing creates more resentment and completely removes immersion than arguing about the rules or trying to understand how your imagined character now works differently than the rules that were written. Not to mention the inevitable disagreement about what the house-rules are (If you're a GM that just hands down house-rules without player agreement then you're right in the worst bucket - not you Shaun, generalising)

There are these huge posts on several rpg forums on the crippling annoyance of fluff-not-matching-rules. This goes hand in hand with the above.

Literally all the above can be minimized if not eliminated with thorough testing and robust balance. This is what I'm aiming for.

This will only leave me with the annoyance of mobile devices at the table and people looking at Chive boobs, or discussin what the latest physics discovery means.

 

[Chas]

Aye, tell me about it, fluff and optimization, RAW rules lawyers - we've all seen it.

I've been thinking about this and I'm going to suggest a overhaul of the pricing structure, and I think there'll be a better game for it.

There are two key issues with Traveller as is:
The entire ship design paradigm is based on an exceptionally artificial technology curve - the jump drive sizes are perfectly linear over a very wide TL spread.
The credit is standardized at a 'now' price - you're not sending the credit back in time to buy TL at their relative value then. You're spending credits now at what is relative value now. And you have to maintain that relative value or the game gets skewed in illogical directions. Like nobody ever wanting to build what would be a 'common' TL15 ship.

For what I'm about to propose I'd point to existing examples:
Laptops - 20 years ago a top end laptop cost about US$2000, today a top end laptop costs about US$2000, yet look at the difference your money is buying in performance, with also a 20 gap in the real value of the money.
Cars - think about the real value of what is in a car: the materials, the manufacturing processes, the engineering, the technologies. It's actually staggering that you can buy this machine (let alone the leasing structures that are in the US) for the $ value.

So what I would suggest is:
All technology advantages are of very minimal cost increase (though some balances need to be looked at 2 advantages for an increase in range now becomes correct) relative to what we are discussing now, 10-30% at most.
Disadvantages give a price reduction for TL increase and performance degradation, without going to extreme levels. We can see how the 50% reduction for budget tilts things. Keep this relatively low also.
There is a straight line cost down as a TL Advantage for selected items (need to look at this but say 5% per advantage).
Essentially these become something you do always get - except when you consider other advantages or disadvantages for genuine budget builds.
You need to be careful of course. You don't want to make your old tech cheaper than the new tech to the point you're only repeating the exercise of making old stuff so cheap relative to new that you are never building new technology. But the cost performance of selected items should be relatively low so that when you build a ship at TL x, the total package comes out as a proper balance.
Right now we have drives all heading upwards in size and cost - as the biggest single component of the ship by tonnage by a considerable margin. You have armor going up in cost, but is smaller - I don't know how the price performance balances out. But your other TL advantages should work towards helping this drive upward pressure reduced, not adding inordinate cost.
The pricing level should be such that it makes sense to build smaller, not simply allow the ship to expand larger because there are benefits in being big. You want to be as big as possible and will do so if the costs allow you to do this. The crux is you need TL size reduction of non-drive components to be easy to obtain. Then the Jump 4 ship TL15 ship can fit in more firepower and goodies - without sending the budget out to astronomical levels.

Similarly other TL cost advantages are pulled right down. The spinals matrix cost might be 5%, 10%, 15% cost increase. If you're building a x TL ship you can get these benefits. If the TL of your yard is lower, you cannot. The Imperial Navy wins because it's building a Lexus on a Lexus production line while other people are building Model T's. If the balance is right the cost/performance for the total ship is about right, you get a better cost performance on the individual item because it is offset elsewhere.

User other mechanisms to help with TL drift. Allow the maximum weights of spinals to increase with TL. As TL gets better yes you can build a bigger spinal that does shake not itself apart. Nothing unreasonable about that.

The rationale is that when you build a new TL, you are already building in many performance set costs that push the package upwards. In many ways you are already struggling to bring costs down relative to old ships, and older ships are still effective fighting machines - remember the 20K TL12 torp destroyer I put up. Because it's jump 2 it wiped any jump 4 TL15 ship out at far far lower cost. But it's only Jump 2 because that is what was standard for that time. If you build a TL15 Jump 2 ship, you still can't beat it on a credit per credit basis... it's not sensible for what you are purchasing in 'now' credits and where technology levels/cost should have gone. There is leeway in the cost upward pressure to even allow some TL advantages for free. By keeping a relatively low cost increase for TL we should be able to find a feasible middle ground that makes sense for performance/cost.

 

[Condottiere]

Economically, if you hold a quasi monopoly, the price reflects what the seller believes the market will bear, inclusive any overheads, capital, research and development costs he has to recuperate.

Since Moore's Law doesn't apply (anymore, with two year cycles), most tech bases could be considered mature, with competition.

But I suspect it's more to balance things off, otherwise anyone one or two levels below is going to get wiped out.

 

[Chas]

Economically, if you hold a quasi monopoly, the price reflects what the seller believes the market will bear, inclusive any overheads, capital, research and development costs he has to recuperate.

Since Moore's Law doesn't apply (anymore, with two year cycles), most tech bases could be considered mature, with competition.

But I suspect it's more to balance things off, otherwise anyone one or two levels below is going to get wiped out.

Yes, but the problem isn't there. It's that anyone one or two tech levels higher is getting wiped out credit for credit!!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You do not have to take the expensive tech upgrades, it's only a choice.

But I agree that higher TL gives rather few basic advantages. A TL 15 ship should beat the equivalent TL 14 ship, and simply destroy the TL12 predecessor.

Missile to hit and Stealth contain a direct TL modifier, that is a good start.
Computers and software gives some TL advantages.

 

[Chas]

You do not have to take the expensive tech upgrades, it's only a choice.

But I agree that higher TL gives rather few basic advantages. A TL 15 ship should beat the equivalent TL 14 ship, and simply destroy the TL12 predecessor.

Missile to hit and Stealth contain a direct TL modifier, that is a good start.
Computers and software gives some TL advantages.

Yes, the way stealth works is a good basis to do more scaling. The cost of Superior Stealth is not, heh. Now that is a credit cost/performance breaker... :lol:

 

[MongooseMatt]

Yes, but the problem isn't there. It's that anyone one or two tech levels higher is getting wiped out credit for credit!!

The assumption to make (and this has always been thus for TLs, and not just for ships) is that the higher Tl world has far more Credits to burn.

 

[Chas]

Yes, but the problem isn't there. It's that anyone one or two tech levels higher is getting wiped out credit for credit!!

The assumption to make (and this has always been thus for TLs, and not just for ships) is that the higher Tl world has far more Credits to burn.

That was what I had assumed was going on behind the scenes Matt, but I'd suggest the costs have gone too far upwards for the technologies. The difference between TL14 and 15 should be incremental, evolutionary, and the spending should be similar in line with cost performance. A TL15 spinal costing 100% of the base spinal for 20% weight saving is not incremental. Again I point to the missile and torp table. There you have a clear basis to pay for cost performance. There are items that you pay extra for that provide a directly related result - where if you assume the higher TL culture has more money you can justifiable spend it and then provide a larger budget for even cost. However the advantages and TL differences provided for the cost are not incremental, they are proportionally well beyond any cost benefit. When you already have a fixed cost increase for drives and other components that you cannot avoid to build a better TL15 ship. Twice the cost of your most expensive component, the jump drive, to save 10% fuel? I would suggest that this 2 x TL advantage, to save fuel should be free. Then your TL15 Jump 4 ship can begin to stay within cost balance of the technologies below.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The assumption to make (and this has always been thus for TLs, and not just for ships) is that the higher Tl world has far more Credits to burn.

The traditional formula has been, from TCS to Pocket Empires, that higher TL entities have slightly more credits, but get much better bang for the buck.


If we use a precarious analogy: A ship, aircraft, or even infantry division from TL4, 5, 6, or 7 would easily defeats it's lower tech predecessor, the increased combat effectiveness with each single TL is vast.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Twice the cost of your most expensive component, the jump drive, to save 10% fuel? I would suggest that this 2 x TL advantage, to save fuel should be free. Then your TL15 Jump 4 ship can begin to stay within cost balance of the technologies below.

To all intents and purposes, it may well be free - the one thing we have not defined (and I really don't wish to at this stage ) is how much more money a TL15 economy has to burn on military adventures compared to a TL14 world. If it is three orders of magnitude more (say), that huge price increase is well within its stride but puts it out of reach of the TL14 power, even if they have access to TL15 technology. Think of the Central African Republic matched against a European power or the US. In theory they can buy the latest kit but in practice it is way out of their reach, so they stick with T-72s and Hughes choppers modified into gunships.

(somewhere like Ethiopia might have been a better example there)

Anyway, that is a situation I would be kinda okay with. If this were a typical miniatures game, that price jump would be an issue. Within the context of an RPG setting, hand-waving those costs alone might be enough to separate the TLs.

Alright... now debate

 

[Chas]

Twice the cost of your most expensive component, the jump drive, to save 10% fuel? I would suggest that this 2 x TL advantage, to save fuel should be free. Then your TL15 Jump 4 ship can begin to stay within cost balance of the technologies below.

To all intents and purposes, it may well be free - the one thing we have not defined (and I really don't wish to at this stage ) is how much more money a TL15 economy has to burn on military adventures compared to a TL14 world. If it is three orders of magnitude more (say), that huge price increase is well within its stride but puts it out of reach of the TL14 power, even if they have access to TL15 technology. Think of the Central African Republic matched against a European power or the US. In theory they can buy the latest kit but in practice it is way out of their reach, so they stick with T-72s and Hughes choppers modified into gunships.

(somewhere like Ethiopia might have been a better example there)

Anyway, that is a situation I would be kinda okay with. If this were a typical miniatures game, that price jump would be an issue. Within the context of an RPG setting, hand-waving those costs alone might be enough to separate the TLs.

Alright... now debate

I personally prefer the money upgrade to be toned down because we do have a level playing field in what a credit can buy. The Imperial Navy has a bigger budget, but it shouldn't make sense that the best budget is a cheaper ship that can still beat the more expensive one.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If we simply give a TL15 world lots of more money than a TL14 world, but no real TL advantages to ships, they will both just build lots and lots of TL12 ships.

A TL15 ship should be better bang for the buck than a TL14 ship.

If we want something like our world we probably want both, so a TL8 country has much more money than a TL4 country, a TL8 ship is much more expensive than a TL4 ship, but vastly better bang for the buck. I imagine todays Royal Navy could easily defeat the massed battleships of the Home Fleet of 1916.

 

[Chas]

Yep.

 

[Nerhesi]

So - two things to implement then:

Significant Reduction of the TL improvement cost increase for both normal weapons and spinals.

So Weapon Advantages:
+25%
+50%
+100%

Spinal Advantages:
+10%
+20%
+30%

Yes Spinal scaling should be even cheaper Call if personal preference / dirt cheap miniaturization of something gigantic

Thoughts?