I agree no need to see increases every tech level. Refinement can manifest
in production, installation, and perhaps most elusive, optimal
situational employment.
I could see that justifying price reduction.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 15:11 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Matt (et al.)--
>
> I spent a few minutes digging around last night and found FF&S (but not
> any RC books) to confirm my recollections. FF&S is clear that you can't
> install computers from a different TL or sensors or MFDs from a higher TL
> than the controls. I am sympathetic to the argument that dynamic linked
> controls from TL 10, 11, or 12 are interchangeable (or holographic linked
> from 13, 14, 15, 16), but I followed the strict interpretation that hulls
> would be shipped without installed controls (see below) to the highest TL
> world where they would be installed. All controls regardless of TL have
> identical mass and volume, so setting aside the space is straight-forward.
> I pictured the hulls being shipped with empty cable runs (or whatever, the
> stuff is probably "fly-by-wireless") and decks and equipment shimmed into
> place or temporarily bolted or tack-welded to allow controls installation
> at the destination. Empty "cable conduits" could have leaders in them to
> enable pulling cables through at the destination. Or it could all be
> little fly-by-wireless relay boxes that you just stick to the walls, or
> it's a conductive jello solution that you pump through the control pipes
> and then all the little nano-chips in the solution automatically align
> when you say the magic words. It doesn't matter, but in a 20th century
> game it's most common for players and artists to imagine tech the way
> they're used to seeing it.
>
> Similar-ish thing with HEPlaR maneuver drives. It's not just a big bell at
> the back, but has internal ducting to multiple points for roll-pitch-yaw
> thrusters. Since these are simply based on the power devoted to thrust
> they can be installed at TL 10+ and a fusion plant of any TL can be
> dropped in (subject to controls TL), but the HEPlaR can only deliver the
> thrust it was built for.
>
> Armor, on the other hand (with an exception for Coherent SD), I saw no
> reason to say that TL 14 bonded SD is different from TL 15, or TL 12
> Superdense from TL 13. You could have a PC who's a connoisseur and could
> see that from the herringbone alignment of the atoms that slab was
> obviously built with TL XX manufacturing techniques, but that's color.
>
>
>
> > Matt--
> >
> > Yeah, that was the intent, and it sounds increasingly clear from your and
> > other recent responses that the intent was conveyed in the materials. I
> > know this would be in my working materials and would eventually have been
> > published, but I'm wondering if the published designs included discussion
> > or notes about, "higher tech XX is limited to YY performance by
> lower-tech
> > ZZ supporting systems." I've got all these materials, but I never have it
> > all unpacked at the same time, and I'm not in a position to create a
> > full-blown TNE archaeological site at the moment.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> >> Dave
> >> I got the impression from the published material that the Clippers in
> >> particular were built at varying tech levels from hull structure and
>
> >> modules to the J drives and weapons. Wasn't there a few multimission
>
>
> >> ships that were built with drop in, lower tech modules as well?
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> ---In , <dcndcn13@...> wrote :
> >>
> >> I don't know if this was clear in the published materials, but RC ships
> >> were definitely intended to be built the way you describe, big hulls
> >> built
> >> as economically and at the lowest TLs possible, with key
> >> force-multiplying
> >> systems (jump drives, power plants, computers, sensors, weapons, etc.)
> >> dropped in from higher TLs so the higher-tech worlds could focus their
> >> labor force on manufacturing key technologies that would be used
> >> elsewhere. If that wasn't clear it was probably because we had to
> >> publish
> >> ships that followed the "classic" approach of an entire ship being
> >> manufactured at a single tech level as examples of the normal approach.
> >> There were also limitations on plug-and-play, as you can't drop a TL 15
> >> computer onto a TL 10 network with a TL 12 databus and expect to get
> >> full
> >> TL 15 performance out of it.
> >>
> >> But the idea of maximizing production efficiency was embedded in a
> >> bunch
> >> of places, the one I'm thinking of right now is in the Covenant of
> >> Suffren
> >> where the waterworld had a big submarine hull industry that was going
> >> to
> >> provide a lot of help in producing kludgy spaceships. Going down an
> >> atmosphere is a lot easier than going up one atmosphere per 10 meters,
> >> the
> >> problem would be that off-the-shelf submarine hulls would be heavier
> >> than
> >> necessary, but they should have good G performance, and you could get
> >> SDBs
> >> or starships that look like Star Trek's SS Botany Bay.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
in production, installation, and perhaps most elusive, optimal
situational employment.
I could see that justifying price reduction.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015, 15:11 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Matt (et al.)--
>
> I spent a few minutes digging around last night and found FF&S (but not
> any RC books) to confirm my recollections. FF&S is clear that you can't
> install computers from a different TL or sensors or MFDs from a higher TL
> than the controls. I am sympathetic to the argument that dynamic linked
> controls from TL 10, 11, or 12 are interchangeable (or holographic linked
> from 13, 14, 15, 16), but I followed the strict interpretation that hulls
> would be shipped without installed controls (see below) to the highest TL
> world where they would be installed. All controls regardless of TL have
> identical mass and volume, so setting aside the space is straight-forward.
> I pictured the hulls being shipped with empty cable runs (or whatever, the
> stuff is probably "fly-by-wireless") and decks and equipment shimmed into
> place or temporarily bolted or tack-welded to allow controls installation
> at the destination. Empty "cable conduits" could have leaders in them to
> enable pulling cables through at the destination. Or it could all be
> little fly-by-wireless relay boxes that you just stick to the walls, or
> it's a conductive jello solution that you pump through the control pipes
> and then all the little nano-chips in the solution automatically align
> when you say the magic words. It doesn't matter, but in a 20th century
> game it's most common for players and artists to imagine tech the way
> they're used to seeing it.
>
> Similar-ish thing with HEPlaR maneuver drives. It's not just a big bell at
> the back, but has internal ducting to multiple points for roll-pitch-yaw
> thrusters. Since these are simply based on the power devoted to thrust
> they can be installed at TL 10+ and a fusion plant of any TL can be
> dropped in (subject to controls TL), but the HEPlaR can only deliver the
> thrust it was built for.
>
> Armor, on the other hand (with an exception for Coherent SD), I saw no
> reason to say that TL 14 bonded SD is different from TL 15, or TL 12
> Superdense from TL 13. You could have a PC who's a connoisseur and could
> see that from the herringbone alignment of the atoms that slab was
> obviously built with TL XX manufacturing techniques, but that's color.
>
>
>
> > Matt--
> >
> > Yeah, that was the intent, and it sounds increasingly clear from your and
> > other recent responses that the intent was conveyed in the materials. I
> > know this would be in my working materials and would eventually have been
> > published, but I'm wondering if the published designs included discussion
> > or notes about, "higher tech XX is limited to YY performance by
> lower-tech
> > ZZ supporting systems." I've got all these materials, but I never have it
> > all unpacked at the same time, and I'm not in a position to create a
> > full-blown TNE archaeological site at the moment.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> >> Dave
> >> I got the impression from the published material that the Clippers in
> >> particular were built at varying tech levels from hull structure and
>
> >> modules to the J drives and weapons. Wasn't there a few multimission
>
>
> >> ships that were built with drop in, lower tech modules as well?
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> ---In , <dcndcn13@...> wrote :
> >>
> >> I don't know if this was clear in the published materials, but RC ships
> >> were definitely intended to be built the way you describe, big hulls
> >> built
> >> as economically and at the lowest TLs possible, with key
> >> force-multiplying
> >> systems (jump drives, power plants, computers, sensors, weapons, etc.)
> >> dropped in from higher TLs so the higher-tech worlds could focus their
> >> labor force on manufacturing key technologies that would be used
> >> elsewhere. If that wasn't clear it was probably because we had to
> >> publish
> >> ships that followed the "classic" approach of an entire ship being
> >> manufactured at a single tech level as examples of the normal approach.
> >> There were also limitations on plug-and-play, as you can't drop a TL 15
> >> computer onto a TL 10 network with a TL 12 databus and expect to get
> >> full
> >> TL 15 performance out of it.
> >>
> >> But the idea of maximizing production efficiency was embedded in a
> >> bunch
> >> of places, the one I'm thinking of right now is in the Covenant of
> >> Suffren
> >> where the waterworld had a big submarine hull industry that was going
> >> to
> >> provide a lot of help in producing kludgy spaceships. Going down an
> >> atmosphere is a lot easier than going up one atmosphere per 10 meters,
> >> the
> >> problem would be that off-the-shelf submarine hulls would be heavier
> >> than
> >> necessary, but they should have good G performance, and you could get
> >> SDBs
> >> or starships that look like Star Trek's SS Botany Bay.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>