T5.0.9 Equipment

[kilemall]

For portable/ship galleys examples, train kitchens are good too, similar space issues but geared more for several days of service rather then relatively quick flights.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/14589121@N00/sets/72157619460896343/

Given the space constraints, I would expect the larger kitchens on the 600-ton and up passenger liners, and that dining areas would multi-purpose common areas rather then dedicated space.

That might not be the case if the main attraction of a ship was the formal dining and less space devoted to private areas. A situation maybe where a Steward-4 crew may be worth their weight in gold.

 

[Timerover51]

I found this in the Gun Foundry Board Report to the US Congress in 1884, describing a hydraulic crane that have been installed by the British Elswick Ordnance Company in Italy. That should be about Tech Level 3.6 or so. Tech Level 4 is listed for 1900. Note the weight that could be hoisted, and remember that is English Long Tons.

The most notable hydraulic crane that has been produced from these works is the one erected in the Italian naval arsenal at Spezzia, which is capable of lifting 160 tons through a range of 40 feet. It is carried upon a ring of line rollers supported by a pedestal of masonry, and the slewing is effected by an hydraulic engine applied to a pinion which gears with a .circular rack. The rake of the jib or projection from the center of rotation is 65 feet, and its height from the quay-level is 105 feet. The crane is counterbalanced on the side opposite to the load.

The following is the listing for hoist in T5.0.9, per page 640.

Hoist
TL 7, Size 4, 25kg+, Cr 100+.
1000kg capacity typical. Used to haul heavy weights up
sheer surfaces. Hoists below TL4 rely on beastpower (brute
force) to operate.

I do have a lot of photos in my various Manuals for US military vehicles of the World War 2 period showing truck-mounted cranes of up to 15.000 pound capacity. And then their is the cranes used by the British Royal Dockyards and private warship builders to lift large armor plates and heavy guns, up to 110 tons, into place on new warships and to re-gun ships when the barrel was shot out. Those date to between 1880 and 1914. Saying that a hoist or crane only becomes standard in 1975 is a bit tiresome.

 

[Timerover51]

What you obviously don't seem to get:

TL listed is mature TL; EVERYTHING CAN BE BUILT 2 TL EARLIER THAN LISTED TL.

Which means you can use leather, bone, and wood at TL 1.

My objection to the Tech Level rating has to do with the materials being listed at becoming STANDARD at Tech Level 3, or circa 1700. Bone and leather were being used to construct shelters sometime around 30.000 BC. Stone was being used to construct building prior to 3500 BC, with the earliest walls of Jericho dating to perhaps 7000 BC.

Copper is listed as Standard for Armor at Tech Level 3, circa 1700 AD, with Bronze being listed as Standard for Armor at Tech Level 3.5, presumably somewhere around 1850 AD, and Iron is listed at Standard for Armor at Tech Level 4, circa 1900 AD. The Tech Level Stages effects go Experimental, Prototype, and Early.

By that progression, Copper was rare at Tech Level 1, along with presumably Bronze, and only became Early around 1500 AD or Tech Level 2. Iron would be Experimental at Tech Level 1, or from 3500 BC to 1500 AD, PROTOTYPE at Tech Level 2 in 1500 AD, and Early at Tech Level 3 in 1700 AD. Iron Armor was EXPERIMENTAL up to 1500 AD? Wood was the standard material from ship construction from prior to 3500 BC through about 1850 or so. By the Tech Level Progression, Wood was PROTOTYPE for shipbuilding up to 1500 AD.

The definitions for the Tech Level Progression terms are as follows, per page 497, T5.0.9.

Experimental: One of a kind. Lesser capabilities. Much heavier. High cost
Prototype: Rare. Lesser capabilities. Heavier and more costly.
Early: Primitive. Heavy. Costly.

Kindly relate those terms to the use of Wood, Leather, and Stone as building materials, Wood for shipbuilding purposes, or Bronze or Iron for armor and weapons.

 

[aramis]

Those materials are, at TL 1, significantly less likely to be used to best effect by TL1 societies than at TL 3... the tech stage effects are a reasonable means of achieving that lack of engineering finesse.

A TL 1 wood house may be pretty, but it's hardly as strong as a TL3 house. Same for sleds and sleighs. Modern wood homes generally would be "Cheap"... with all the negatives for strength. Note that the TL stage effects also allow for continued improvement to base TL+3 or 4 or so...

One of the interesting side effects is that it's possible to get microjump jump drives at TL 7...

 

[Epee]

I really like the Developmental Stage / Tech Level system; combined with QREBS it is a splended means of producing gaming-accurate models of tools, vehicles, and structures. Sure there are details that can be argued endlessly and, like historians, we would still have to agree to disagree. But such-n-such coming earlier or later than the Tech Tables indicate is simply an example that the application of the Tech Level / Dev Stage / QREBS system needs some polish. My suggestions:

• Establish the "Early" date for all listed technologies. Since "Early" is when a tech begins to become common this sets a ground level for expected use. Prototype and Experimental should be left more to the call of the referee as "potential".
• Decimal Tech Levels should be used to indicate quickly develping tech. Each decimal point given as a development date, tenths or hundredths, should be used for the developmental stage rather than whole tech levels. This would have to be applied with care as the tech levels themselves tend to become shorter as they progress.

 

[whulorigan]

• Establish the "Early" date for all listed technologies. Since "Early" is when a tech begins to become common this sets a ground level for expected use. Prototype and Experimental should be left more to the call of the referee as "potential".

I would probably also add the observation that Prototype and Experimental technologies in many cases will only be found at government/military/megacorporate research facilities, and may be classified research, depending on the nature of the technology involved.

• Decimal Tech Levels should be used to indicate quickly develping tech. Each decimal point given as a development date, tenths or hundredths, should be used for the developmental stage rather than whole tech levels. This would have to be applied with care as the tech levels themselves tend to become shorter as they progress.

Perhaps a suggestion for errata might be that the TL-Progression for any particular item might be defined as [slow/standard/fast]. Perhaps something similar to the following:

Slow Progression (as currently published in T5.09):
TL -3 Experimental
TL -2 Prototype
TL -1 Early
TL +/-0 Basic/Standard
TL +1 Generic/Improved
TL +2 Modified
TL +3 Advanced
TL +4 Ultimate

Standard Progression:
TL -2 Experimental/Prototype
TL -1 Early
TL +/-0 Basic/Standard
TL +1 Generic/Improved/Modified
TL +2 Advanced
TL +3 Ultimate

Fast Progression:
TL -1 Experimental/Prototype
TL +/-0 Early/Standard/Basic
TL +1 Generic/Improved/Modified
TL +2 Advanced/Ultimate

 

[mike wightman]

I like this idea.

 

[Epee]

I would probably also add the observation that Prototype and Experimental technologies in many cases will only be found at government/military/megacorporate research facilities, and may be classified research, depending on the nature of the technology involved.

Perhaps a suggestion for errata might be that the TL-Progression for any particular item might be defined as [slow/standard/fast]. Perhaps something similar to the following:

After a certain tech level gov & Corp research will certainly become the standard. However, libertarian that I am, I'd let the nature of the research vis a vis the local or Imperial law level and the expense of the research dictate the level of organization and secrecy.

 

[kilemall]

Fast Progression looks like the one for me.

Classic TL 11-15 is too incrementalist for me anyway. I'd like to see just as radical a change between TL10 and TL14 as TL1 to TL5.

 

[Ackehece]

I myself am not a big fan of creating even more creator rules just to make some happy. It works as intended now for the most part.
If it was broken (like gun maker vs vehicle maker....(you can build vehicles in vehiclemaker that are totally immune to any gun in the gunmaker) then fix it. it isn't broken

 

[mike wightman]

Fast Progression looks like the one for me.

Classic TL 11-15 is too incrementalist for me anyway. I'd like to see just as radical a change between TL10 and TL14 as TL1 to TL5.

I agree.
What do we get from TL9 to TL15?
Improvements in fusion power generation
Improvements in jump drive
Both of these could be considered part of the prototype-ultimate progression, so nothing new there.
Nuclear damper technology and 'meson' technology are the only other new stuff.
Stretching the computer and robot advancement over so many TLs is also a bit contrived.
Genetic engineering and synthetic organisms are in the labs here in the real world, so prototype stage right there.
In CT there is a line in LBB3 about referee's making stuff up to fill in the blanks on the TL table...
Strangely enough I really like what T5 has done with the TL20+ stuff, especially the approach to the singularity

 

[Ackehece]

. Saying that a hoist or crane only becomes standard in 1975 is a bit tiresome.

this is an artifact of giving an entire world a TL rather than an industry. Technology does not advance at the same rate in every industry, or even within an industry.
the cotton gin 1794, steam power 1781 (actually discovered and demonstrated by the greeks - 50AD) fast water pumps (screw pumps and water wheels used by the Egyptians 3000bc), electric generation (generated long before practical purposes. 1831) Interchangeable gun parts...

all became common within a 100 year period and yet we would say that steam power and electric power would be sequential not simultaneous

that is why the T5(.09) system allows stuff up to 3 TL before as it more accurately reflects the stunning diversity of technology.
just see this
for an example of tech diversity - all can do similar functions all developed at different times and places all requiring different tech levels to build (roots pump has drastically higher tolerances than a plunger pump. )

 

[Timerover51]

Those materials are, at TL 1, significantly less likely to be used to best effect by TL1 societies than at TL 3... the tech stage effects are a reasonable means of achieving that lack of engineering finesse.

A TL 1 wood house may be pretty, but it's hardly as strong as a TL3 house. Same for sleds and sleighs. Modern wood homes generally would be "Cheap"... with all the negatives for strength. Note that the TL stage effects also allow for continued improvement to base TL+3 or 4 or so...

One of the interesting side effects is that it's possible to get microjump jump drives at TL 7...

I would suggest you look at the construction of a Greek Trireme. Or the Parthenon at Athens for your comments on used to best effect.

Also, the woods used for construction have not changed in the past 5000 years, except that weaker pine is used instead of the oak formerly used. Previously, houses were also built using mortise and tenon construction, considerably stronger compared to the balloon construction which is used today. The same would hold true of building stone, and Roman cement is still holding the Colosseum together. You might also consider the Minoan Palaces on Crete when it comes to using stone. Then, you have Hadrian's Wall in England, dating from about 150 AD. The fort at Housesteads is still in excellent shape, except for the odd vandals chipping away at the stones. As for use of wood, I would recommend you do some reading in marine archaeology on Greek and Roman ship construction techniques.

 

[Epee]

The ancients did some nice work, no doubt. However, we generally only have examples of their monuments, a few upper-end homes and shops in Pompeii, and precious little more than images of their ships.

While we shouldn't hold the ravages of the ages against the ancient builders neither should we hold the lack of it against later builders. Consider the Tudor White Palace, USS Constitution, and many of the wooden homes of the Colonial period still extant, not to mention modern construction like Hoover Dam. Technology, as it advances, tends to produce things that do the same job as well or better using less time, weight, treasure, and resources.

Homes, while they seem permanent to us, have always been intended as temporary in societal terms. Monuments are built of stone or concrete, while houses are built of brick or wood.

 

[Timerover51]

The ancients did some nice work, no doubt. However, we generally only have examples of their monuments, a few upper-end homes and shops in Pompeii, and precious little more than images of their ships.

You may wish to do some reading in marine archaeology and also Bjorn Landstrom's book, The Ship. You might also want to take at look at the Viking ships which have been found.

While we shouldn't hold the ravages of the ages against the ancient builders neither should we hold the lack of it against later builders. Consider the Tudor White Palace, USS Constitution, and many of the wooden homes of the Colonial period still extant, not to mention modern construction like Hoover Dam. Technology, as it advances, tends to produce things that do the same job as well or better using less time, weight, treasure, and resources.

Homes, while they seem permanent to us, have always been intended as temporary in societal terms. Monuments are built of stone or concrete, while houses are built of brick or wood.

I am dropping the subject. However, I would encourage you to read one of more of the following books.

Engineering in the Ancient World, by Landeis
Technology in the Ancient World, by Hodges
The Ancient Engineers, by L. Sprague de Camp
Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, by Yigael Yadin

The first three should be fairly easy to get via interlibrary loan as you are in the US, the latter might be considerably harder to find. I should note that I have all of them.