Tech advances

[email removed] writes:
>Subject: Tech advances
>
>I'm working on a framework for technology developments in Traveller (and
>SF games in general).  First, I'm trying to come up with the general
>categories available for advancement with tech level.  So far my list
>contains the following:

I am interested in this sort of thing too.

I did some tinkering with tech categories for a game I was
working on some time ago; I will have a look for it but I
think it's gone now.

>
>      Physics
>      Biology
>      Engineering
>      Psychology
>
>Each major category can have, of course, subcategories.  My goal for these
>categories is to be exhaustive, and approximately equal in effect.  Right
>now, 4 categories seems a bit sparse.

The problem about a rigid hierarchy is that it isn't the way these things
really happen.

As a VERY bad example of what I mean; I vaguely remember a situation where a
group of mathematicians and physicists were trying to solve a problem and
quite by accident an engineer got involved and new the answer straight off
because it was easily solved by a technique that engineers had been using
for many many years.

Back on the point again, do you intend to show cross relationships between
items (eg "gene splicing"-BIOLOGY without "Microscopes"-PHYSICS-ENGINEERING).

I wonder how many research projects died because the technology level in
a related field wasn't high enough and now that it is high enough have
they gone back to the original project or is it dead forever?

>So can anyone suggest some more non-overlapping categories?  For example,
>Medicine is now a subcategory (unlisted) under Biology.  If you feel this
>is a slight for a such a broad area, let me know and include your justifi-
>cation.  Let me know if I've neglected something.

Have a look in your local Library for any documents on Govt
expenditure on research.  When I looked many years ago
they had a reasonable breakdown under various categories
like "Life Sciences", "Energy", "Military", "Transport" etc.
It might give you some ideas.

Also, have a look at a complete SCIENCES list for a renowned University.

>Also, if anyone wants to take issue with my categories as they now exist,
>please do.  (I'll post my justifications so far if this thread generates
>any interest.)

I think I need more detail on your categories and what they represent
before I can make any meaningful criticisms.

An important aspect that I think is overlooked in many games is the amount
of detail really needed to achieve the objective of a game.  In an RPG you
can overwhelm players with detailed equipment lists down to the smallest
item (eg a comb) which when you get down to the real playing probably
isn't ever used in play.

If you are going to go to all the trouble of defining tech to the n'th
degree then you need a use for it in the game.

Just a thought.


Bruce...               [email removed]

[email removed] says:
>[email removed] writes:
>>Subject: Tech advances
>>
>>I'm working on a framework for technology developments in Traveller (and
>>SF games in general).  First, I'm trying to come up with the general
>>categories available for advancement with tech level.  So far my list
>>contains the following:

[deleted]

>The problem about a rigid hierarchy is that it isn't the way these things
>really happen.
>...
>I wonder how many research projects died because the technology level in
>a related field wasn't high enough and now that it is high enough have
>they gone back to the original project or is it dead forever?

(BTW, the situation which piqued my interest in technology development
was a trip to the National Air and Space Museum.  There was a display
of a steam-propelled flying top which had been developed by Classical
Greeks.  I also remembered the Incas using wheels for toys, but not for
any other purposes.  It just makes one wonder what we have today which
seems mundane but may be the basis for future technological advances.)

>Back on the point again, do you intend to show cross relationships be-
>tween items (eg "gene splicing"-BIOLOGY without "Microscopes"-PHYSICS-
>ENGINEERING).

What I had originally envisioned was the categories would be exhaustive
for tech-as-we-know-it.  Then extrapolated technology (fusion power,
anti-grav, etc.) could be represented as consisting of the various
constituent categories.  For example, fusion power would require a
certain level of PHYSICS and a certain level of ENGINEERING.  Societies
that had the requisite levels could have fusion, and societies with
greater levels could have fusion plants which were cheaper, smaller,
and more efficient.

Mainly, I'm trying to nail down categories so that "cheaper", "smaller"
and "more efficient" can be quantified and uniquely determined from
the various development levels which a society has obtained in its
tech development categories.

>An important aspect that I think is overlooked in many games is the amount
>of detail really needed to achieve the objective of a game.  In an RPG you
>can overwhelm players with detailed equipment lists down to the smallest
>item (eg a comb) which when you get down to the real playing probably
>isn't ever used in play.

Hmmm, yeah I suppose tech development really isn't relevent to Traveller,
which has a rich background of technology and devices.  But it sure is an
interesting thought exercise.

Well actually, wouldn't it be useful for Traveller to have some sort of
rule-of-thumb for how an increase in TL affects price, size, and
efficiency/effectiveness?  For example, how a Rhylanor-produced gauss
rifle (TL15) is "better" than one produced on Regina (TL12).

I remember Mercenary has a short quip on price discounts due to TL along
with price discounts for quantity purchases.  Does anybody out there
use a similar rule-of-thumb for improvements in size, etc.?

- - Chuck

Chuck Hamilton                                           [email removed]

"Crew or frozen watch casualties are replaced free at any naval base."

                                     - Trillion Credit Squadron, p. 35