Re: Tech Level Differences

> On Wed, 20 September 2000, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:
> > One way it falls short is that their are qualitative differences
between
> > technology levels. 
 
> Good comments, Tom.
 
> If you look at artillery pieces today, you'll find that the guns
themselves
> aren't radically different in size compared to WW2, yet the
capabilities in
> the range finding equipment and the actual projectiles are far more
advanced.
> Or take a look at modern tanks. They are actually more massive than
> equivalent WW2 vehicles, but the capabilities are far different.

> One suggestion I was given for my homegrown universe was rather simple
> and easy to adapt: change range bands. Change beams in a lower tech
level
> from 12" range bands to, say, 9". Or 6".

Actually, I would suggest that there might be a couple of different ways
to
go about this.	If it's the beam itself that is lower tech, then sure,
change
the range band.  But if the targetting equipment is what's lower tech,
then
keep the maximum range the same but decrease the sub ranges that it
takes
before you have to roll higher to do damage with it.

Possible example:  a low-tech society has managed to get beam emitters
that
are equivalent to a modern B3, but their targetting for the distances
that
the weapon can fire is inferior.  To play this out, the first two range
bands
are, say, 9" and 18", but the third range band goes all the way from 18"
to
36".  For pulse torpedoes, it might well be that you use the same hit
tables
as the old ones, but the furthest band simply goes from 18" to 30"
rather
than 18" to 24".

A society with bad beam emitters might simply have the range bands
reduced
altogether, as you say.  One with bad emitters and worse targetting
might
have non-linear range bands as well as shorter bands to boot.

A society with inferior metallurgy might need two or three hull mass to
get
one integrity point.

A society with yesteryear's point defense might only be able to use PDS
that
fires against fighters as though it were a B1, or worse.  Similarly,
their
fighters might be unwieldy monstrosities that take a lot more
maintenance (i.e.
the bays can only carry half as many as a "modern" one can) whilst their
weapon miniaturization is weak enough that they can only fire at ships
and
other fighters with a handicap (e.g. treat everything as having one more
screen than it actually does).

At the same time, the cost it takes to build them in raw materials and
resources would be at least as much as it would take for a "modern"
society
to build something better.  After all, just because it sucks doesn't
mean it's
just as hard for a bass-ackwards civilization to build it as it is for a
modern one to build a ship of similar or even _less_ mass that could
kick
it from here to February and back again.

Throw all of these things together, and simulating the kind of
technology
difference that you might see putting a WW2 battleship against a modern
aircraft carrier wouldn't be _too_ hard to pull off.
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 The Stilt Man		      stiltman@teleport.com
   http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/stiltman.html
   < We are Microsoft Borg '98.  Lower your expectations and	>
   < surrender your money.  Antitrust law is irrelevant.	>
   < Competition is irrelevant.  We will add your financial and >
   < technological distinctiveness to our own.	Your software	>
   < will adapt to service ours.  Resistance is futile. 	>