Re: Re: [FT] Tech Level? Is there such a thing?

The_Beast wrote:
>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 [snicker-snack] 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.

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 
>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. 

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 
>as Wave/Nova, in the old system, are not just different, 
>but scary.

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
>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...

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 
>systems, this had some possibilities, but got complicated 
>faster than my enthusiasm could cover.

<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,
		      Aaron
-------------------