Sword World Technology

David Johnson writes:
>Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:
>>As I recall it (correct
>>me if I'm wrong) you started out by asking how come Gram was the leader of
>>the Sword Worlds when Sacnoth was so much more powerful.
>
>Yes, I think that's it.
>
>>I assumed that
>>you were talking about powerful in the naval sense (since a TL or two
>>dosen't mean nearly as much as the population size in the economic sense).
>
>Okay, here's where I diverge.  I was thinking more along the lines of
>`economic' strength, which I agree is tied to population, than mere naval
>strength.  Keep in mind that Gram and Sacnoth are on the same order of
>population (6 billion and 3 billion, respectively).  Narsil is at 20
>billion but it's two TLs below Sacnoth.  Still, in a feudal technocracy,
>one tech level is going to make a *tremendous* amount of difference.  (It's
>like the difference between Japan and Mexico if Japan's economic power
>gave it corresponding political power in Mexico.)

But according to the only _Traveller_ rules we have on the subject (_TCS_)
technology _dosn't_ make that much difference. If you look at the credit
conversion table you'll see that the credits of two worlds with the same
starport type (which I take in this context to mean the same level of trade)
differ by only 5% per TL. Now, I'm not an economics major. Perhaps that
notion is as ridiculous as some of the mistakes that I am able to spot.
But since I don't know any better I'm arguing from those tables. With
twice the population of Sacnoth Gram is nearly twice as powerful as Sacnoth
economically.

>I believe I've accepted that these cycles *might* exist and that if they
>do they would explain Gram's leadership of the Confederation.  My concern
>has been that I can't see what *causes* these `techno-economic' cycles
>(since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel)

We don't agree on that. We have plenty of real world parallels for economic
cycles. Since we agree that a lower-than-15 TL can only be due to economic
reasons, economic instability _should_ result in TL instability. (Btw. I'm
not so sure we don't have any examples of that. Didn't some farmers put
their cars in the barn and go back to the horse waggon during the Great
Depression?).

>>But my whole point is that they _will_ have much more than a clue. The
>>knowledge is there even if the industry isn't.
>
>I feel that it takes more than just knowledge.  I don't care how much you
>know about internal combustion engines, if you can't refine oil to make
>gasoline and you don't have a continental highway network you're going
>to have a rough time getting your Yugo or Hyundai from Houston to Detroit.
>The knowledge may be there on a lower tech world but the corresponding
>infrastructure isn't.

Make that steamships instead and you have a better analogy, since the ships
of space don't need any highways. Even if you can't produce boiler plates
you may still be able to rivet them together when they come apart.

>>No, it proves that the authors of a board game have different priorities
>>from the authors of a role-playing game.
>
>Now wait a minute!  :-)  What happened to:
>
>>I really think you should try to make up an explanation that fits the known
>>facts rather than to make up an explanation and change the facts to fit them.
>
>And:
>
>>IMO one should prefer
>>the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version.
>
>Please, Hans, I've got a smile on my face right now and there is absolutely
>no malice in it.  I'm enjoying the living daylights out of our discussions.

No offense taken. I do mean that, but I also direct you to the word 'try'.
If different sources disagree we have to choose between them, and in most
cases I'd be inclined to choose the role-playing source over the board
game source. I'd be happier if we could reconcile them, but it's just not
possible. _TCS_ gives much bigger fleets than is present in 5FW.

>>The whole force is much less than the total available Sword World forces;
>>the attack on the Imperium appears to be a secondary effort. Most of
>>their prime units must have gone against the Darrians. Any Gram TL 12
>>units could be there.
>
>Well, maybe, but this doesn't agree with the campaign as it was reported in
>*Spinward Marches Campaign*.  According to *SMC*, the Narsil Fleet patrolled
>the Darrian border (and eventually lost the disputed worlds in Querion to
>the Darrians) while the Sacnoth Fleet patrolled the rimward border and
>was eventually destroyed by the Imperial 214th Fleet attacking from Glisten
>and occupying what became the Border Worlds.  Note the Narsil Fleet was
>deployed against the lower tech Darrians rather than the Imperial Navy.

I had forgotten that. OK, consider the above retracted. 5FW forces are just
generally understrength.

>>So what the Traveller SWs owe to Piper is actually little more than
>>the concept of the sword names.
>
>Well, not exactly.  There are other similarities.  The whole feudal
>technocracy thing.  The *JTAS* article on the former Sword Worlds naval
>captain who's spouse/fiance was killed on their wedding day so she sold
>the family estate to buy a ship and chase the killers - nothing more
>than Lucas Trask in a dress!

I said 'little more'. You're right on both above counts. But Elaine would
have had no chance of going Space Viking from Piper's Gram if Lucas had
been the one killed. That 'nothing more' is quite a lot.

>>The societies are different in a number of
>>ways too (Women accepted in 'male' roles for instance).
>
>I think this `liberation' issue is merely a matter of when Piper was
>writing (early 60's) versus when GDW was creating Traveller (late 70's).

I think so too, but what's that got to do with it? It _is_ a pretty
significant difference between the two societies.

>Remember, the GDW material makes a big deal of the `mis-treatment' of
>women in the Sword Worlds.

Mistreatment? Men and women are assigned different roles in society,
thereby denying some women the chance to fulfill their potential (and
some men too, btw.) That's not good, but I wouldn't call it mistreatment.
On top of that women have a safety valve in that they are accepted in
'male' roles provided they adopt 'male' behaviour. Males are never
accepted in 'female' roles.

As Steve Bonneville points out:
>
>>The ranking flag, Riksdattar, is
>>much like Santanocheev.  [Incidentally, if her name is formed
>>in the Icelandic manner, Riksdattar is a woman.  Just an
>>observation for the SW culture watchers.]

Nothing contradictory in that. Riksdattar is a female accepted in a 'male'
role. And apparently she's really accepted, not just tolerated (Either
that or she's the daughter of a king. 'Rik' is a nordic name, but it
could also mean 'realm').

>I think there's a great deal of similarity between Piper's Sword Worlds
>and GDW's Sword Worlds on the issue of how women are portrayed/treated.

I think there's quite some difference.

>>That's just what I said. It's two different and independent bits of my
>>argument. The disparate TLs indicates a close tie to economy. Economy can
>>(and often does) fluctuate. Ergo TLs can fluctuate. If you postulate that
>>Sword World economy dosen't fluctuate you get stable TLs. If you postulate
>>that it does you get unstable TLs.
>
>Okay, but why suppose these still-unexplained cycles

I despair of explaining those cycles any better than by the sentence 'Economy
can (and often does) fluctuate'.

>when they're not needed
>to explain the disparity?  If the different economies are merely at
>different stages of development (with higher TL being an indication of
>greater `advancement') there is no need of these cycles.

Except to explain why it took Gram 14 centuries to go from TL 12 to TL 11.
OK, there's been some civil wars in between, but they've had centuries
since the 3FW. This _could_ be explained by a slow, steady, uneventful
economic rise over the centuries with, say, a TL per two centuries. Or
it could be an economic roller-coaster that pulls one world two steps
back every time it get one step ahead. Personally, knowing how today's
industrial magnates love to screw around with each other, the second
picture seems much more likely than the first.

>Then Zhodani aid,
>already well established in the canonical material, explains why Gram has
>lead the Confederation when one would expect more advanced (higher tech)
>Sacnoth to do so.

Or much richer Narsil.

>>Certainly. The stable economy theory. But one set of UPPs isn't enough to
>>say anything one way or the other about this.
>
>Ah, but what about *all* those other worlds *outside* the Sword Worlds
>that aren't experiencing these cycles?  What `facts' suggest the Sword
>Worlds should be different from the rest of the universe?

First of all, how do you know they haven't? Regina was settled in 75. It
was TL 10 in 1105. It was TL 11 or 12 in 1120, wasn't it? (I haven't the
books with me here and may be misremembering). Why did Regina gain one
or no TLs in 10 centuries and one more in 15 years? It dosen't make much
sense if you assume that TLs always increase or stagnate (barring wars).
It makes perfect sense if TLs rise and fall over the centuries.
Secondly, even if the Imperium _is_ stable there could be a very good
reason for that: Imperial control. The Sword Worlds have a political
machine, a commitee, to rule them. The Imperium has a single authority
who can shift things around to keep the economy more or less stable
whoever it may hurt in the short run. The Confederation Council has to
take short term hurts into consideration.

>>several sets of UPPs for the Sword Worlds, but since they have world
>>populations fluctuating by bilions within a decade
>
>Billions?  Really?  Can you cite the sources?  This is interesting from
>our allegiance/borders viewpoint too.

Yep, I'll dig it out and post it later.

>>Are the US and Europe and Japan different countries? Yet their economies
>>are tightly intertwined.
>
>No, they're not tighly entwined politically *and* economically like the
>case would be in a feudal technocracy.  A better example would be, say,
>California and, heck, all the other states west of the Rockies put
>together.  When California wants federal water in Montana, it gets it.
>Largely because of it's greater population (which also gives it a larger
>economy) which gives it greater political power in the representative
>democracy we have here.

I'm beginning to see where you're going wrong. See below.

>>>If the economy is interstellar then political power in interstellar...
>>
>>I don't see how that follows.
>
>By definition.  In a feudal technocracy, economic power translates *directly*
>into political power.

Where did you get that definition? I mean, if you made it up yourself you're
begging the question. I admit that I'm vague about just how a feudal
technocracy works, but isn't that because it's a term GDW made up (Or lifted
from some SF book?)? Or is there some dictionary definition of the term?
Have there ever been a formal feudal technocracy in Real Life?

>You get to be `king' because you control the largest share of stock.

In a feudal society you get to be king because you have the support of the
great lords. In theory you gets that support because you own the land and
lend it to the great lords in return for their sworn support (In practice
the great lords often control the land whatever the King wants).

By analogy a feudal technocracy is one where the King theoretically owns
all the industry (the source of power analogous to land in a feudal
society) and lend it out in exchange for support. In practice many great
lords propably control their 'fiefs' whatever the King wants.

>Yes, it does, except that in Europe representatives are chosen through a
>representative democracy that places power in the hands of individuals
>equally while in a feudal technocracy (and in the *keiritsu*) those
>representatives are chosen by shareholders that place power in the hands
>of the owners of production.

What you are describing is a corporate government, not a feudal one. In a
feudal government power (in this case, ownership of shares) flows from the
top to the bottom. What you describe is power flowing from the bottom (the
individual shares) to the top.

>>The pacification campaigns took place before even the Ante-bellum period of
>>the Imperium. The 3rd frontier War took place after the Civil War and the
>>Psionic suppressions. I find no problem with accepting that Imperial
>>attitudes were different in those two periods.
>
>Another good point, but it still begs the question of the Imperium not
>`dealing with' the Sword Worlds.

After the 3FW the Imperium dealt with the Sword Worlds by invading them.
Later a different administration decided that the occupation was either
unnecessary ("They'll never dare do anything again, not in a thousand
years"), or just too expensive, or both. The 4FW was settled by negotiations
and one proviso must certainly be that the Imperium did not retaliate
against the Sword Worlds. And after the 5FW they again dealt with the
Sword Worlds, this time by setting up a puppet governmnt on half of them.
I just don't understand how you can say that they didn't deal with them.
They've dealt with them at least twice.

>>I must have a different definition of 'intergration' than you. I think these
>>worlds all produce whatever is most profitable at any given time and sell it
>>to anyone who will buy. That's not intergration in my book.
>
>If I'm Freya Freighters of Sacnoth and I buy a controlling interest in
>Loki Levitation of Gram I have not only gained economic influence on Gram
>but *political* power as well.

Granted, but the only way you can get that influence is if the king of
Gram allows you to buy that controlling interest. Remember the 'feudal'
in the government class. The king theoretically _owns_ those shares and
what you pay for must be the right to benefit from them. And one of the
things you must pay with is the promise to support him. So it's even
possible that King Harald will not allow you to invest in anything on
Gram.

>Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power

Fallacy. See above.

>then I'm going to gain more and more of this sort of
>control.  As soon as the King Harald of Sacnoth (thanks, Cynthia) buys
>a controlling interest in the holdings of King Angus of Gram, Angus

Angus? Could we select some oth name, please? How about Anders?

>becomes Harald's *vassal*!  That's how a feudal technocracy works.

Is it? Perhaps our first step should be to define just what a feudal
technocracy is and how it works.



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]
- ------------
        "This gives a possible range of 56 to 178 starships
         total  in the three Terran starport facilities,  a
         believable quantity for such a star system."

        "We have a maximum of 178 ships in port, and (as it
         is a busy star system)  we will say that there are
         70 docking berths at the Phoenix facility."

                        ---Journal of the Traveller's
                           Aid Society # 18