• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Rules Only: The Advantages of Low Tech Starships

So, I went back and reread the whole thread because it started so long ago. What I don't find is how I try to analyze things, and say, "If this is the case in the RAW, but RL doesn't support the reasoning, what about the OTU world makes the RAW the case?" I feel that RL at TL 7/8 has zero need to steer or limit my imagination of future tech (after all, jump drives and reactionless thrusters exist, why can we not accept other things also?). This is particularly the case when technology in RL has eclipsed the RAW. CT is over 45 years behind the present. So is it a sci fi game, or a historical game?

Clearly with RAW (in book 5, at least, book 2 ships seem to only care about the TL of the computer), people are only going to do new construction at TL15 yards, if they can. Power plants are half the mass, so half the cost, and for many things, TL15 is where they're most efficient/useful. That's a no-brainer if it's an available choice. But when those yards have more backlog than you're able to wait on (because that's what everyone wants), that's when you'll build at a lower TL yard and bite the bullet. The ship will cost more and be less efficient (using more space in the ship or giving less awesome performance), but that's the trade off if you need it right away. If you need a ship this year, and the TL15 yards are all full, you'll either pay a premium to bump someone else (and get in a bidding war if the others aren't willing to be bumped), or go to a lower TL planet and get it built there. (An old supervisor once told me, 'If you want something really bad, you'll get something really bad,' and I've found that to be true in so many things.)

The other thing is maintenance and repair requirements. As far as I can tell from my reading of LBB2 and 5, maintenance is TL agnostic. Rather than use TL7/8 examples of why this may or may not work, I said, 'What in-game things would need to be the case to make this true?' There was a comment in a recent thread that I can't find now, about a motorcycle that needed a repair in a place that did not have the TL to repair it. The operators had to buy a locally available/supportable bike to continue. So, about the only ways to make maintenance TL agnostic is to build the device (drive/power plant/whatever) such that the only things you need for annual maintenance are some ubiquitous consumables that can be made anywhere (WD-40 and maybe some filters), or that any complicated bits can be fashioned on board your own ship by 3D printing it. It certainly makes sense, 3D printers are available at TL7/today and will almost certanly be ubiquitous by the end of TL8. Put that in one corner of your engineering space, and you can locally make any sort of part you need, and that seems to answer all the questions. Nothing says ships don't have 3D printers, so lets run with that. Maintenance costs are simply to buy the raw materials to put into the 3D printer.

Iron is iron, available from TL 2 and up. And maybe consumables and filters and things are deliberately made with parts than can be bought anywhere spaceworthy, just for backward compatibility. That doesn't seem like a huge level of effort for the flexibility it gets you. The only things the RAW (MgT1) say you need a shipyard to be at TL for are full replacement of destroyed systems. CT Book 5 says 'In any case, repairs must be conducted at shipyards of the required tech level (although the referee may make exceptions).' That's a ton of leeway, and that means M drives can be repaired at TL 9 or below. Generally the TL F components on warships are screens, armor, computer, and power plant. That's a lot of stuff, but M Drive, J Drive, weapons, and general hull repairs are not on that list. And for civilian ships, the power plant is the probably the only component that has any reason to be TL F. And for very small ships (like many ACS), taking the tonnage and MCr hit on a lower TL PP may be worth it to get the flexibility to be repaired at more places.
 
Last edited:
Countering insurgencies tends to allow leveraging of superior technology and finances.

Since most polities want to do that at minimum utilization of resources, you'll get specialized, rugged aircraft, that need minimum maintenance, and have low operational costs.

Procurement costs could range from none to medium, depending if you're getting someone else's surplus, to needing to buying one new, with newish electronics.
 
Countering insurgencies tends to allow leveraging of superior technology and finances.

Since most polities want to do that at minimum utilization of resources, you'll get specialized, rugged aircraft, that need minimum maintenance, and have low operational costs.

Procurement costs could range from none to medium, depending if you're getting someone else's surplus, to needing to buying one new, with newish electronics.
So this is a good reason for regional/planetary navies to have lower TL warships. The 3I sells them on the cheap for what it can get (not sure if there's a price list for used warships), and the planetary Navies get sub-par weapons, but probably better than what pirates have and for cheaper than they'd cost new.
 
One fun but incredibly complicated implementation is actually using the CT Striker cost table as a sort of ersatz currency/cost conversion for everything.

It’s intended as a high/low weapons mix resource tactical optimization subgame mechanic, but something else if applied to starship costs and trade.

So getting a maneuver drive replaced could be very cheap at a TL9 starport if the ship was built to that level but ridiculously expensive to have a TL15 part made/shipped there.

It may literally be cheaper to ship your entire Free Trader to an optimal starport for repair rather than get it fixed locally.

If you go this direction, TL capabilities need to be skewed upwards for the higher tech ships. A good example for CT would be the civilian vs military sensors, or ignore the fuel refinery mechanic and have TL13+ ships be able to run unrefined jumps. Reliability should also go up for say misjumps, first hit ignored, easier damage control, computer hits etc.
 
It may literally be cheaper to ship your entire Free Trader to an optimal starport for repair rather than get it fixed locally.
Assuming time is free, yes.

There's been chatter that there's a rule somewhere about the TL effect on costs. It's not in the LBB, might be in TCS, but I'm not sure where its at. But it's far enough off the main stream that it tends to not be in the main stay of discussion when it comes to topics like this. It always, "Well, yea, but there's this <rule> buried in <supplement>".

You'd think they would have pushed it toward the front of the line when it comes to gear costs, ships costs, and trade.
 
Assuming time is free, yes.

There's been chatter that there's a rule somewhere about the TL effect on costs. It's not in the LBB, might be in TCS, but I'm not sure where its at. But it's far enough off the main stream that it tends to not be in the main stay of discussion when it comes to topics like this. It always, "Well, yea, but there's this <rule> buried in <supplement>".

You'd think they would have pushed it toward the front of the line when it comes to gear costs, ships costs, and trade.
It's in the main book in TNE...
 
Assuming time is free, yes.

There's been chatter that there's a rule somewhere about the TL effect on costs. It's not in the LBB, might be in TCS, but I'm not sure where its at. But it's far enough off the main stream that it tends to not be in the main stay of discussion when it comes to topics like this. It always, "Well, yea, but there's this <rule> buried in <supplement>".

You'd think they would have pushed it toward the front of the line when it comes to gear costs, ships costs, and trade.
As I understand it both systems are explicitly not canon for the OTU. They are after all wargames set in the Traveller universe so service that entertainment goal. All rules should be considered in their intended role for entertainment and a nod to world sim at best.

The TCS TL currency subsystem is for the taxation resources gathering portion of fleet budgets. It includes a flat per capita tax times population, a modifier of taxation rates for government types in states of war and peace, and a world tax value modifier predicated on TL and starport. There is a split for local vs Imperial tax.

The Striker currency subsystem is a side product. The resource system first has the world economy calculated by a per capita per TL base, multiplied by trade codes and population. The result is a world GNP which the referee determines the defense percentage, average 3% but ranges from 1-15%. The percentage going to the Imperium, space and ground forces has to be decided. Separate factions will get a slice each of that.

The currency table is used for the cost of importing and supporting equipment. Like the TCS version it is correlated by TL and starport. The higher the tech discrepancy, the more it costs to bring in the weapon. The common result is forces equipped to local tech with a few high end weapons to give an edge.

So fit for purpose, the Striker table would be best for importing parts.

It gets really weird if you apply it to all trade. I would ditch any TL modifier with cargo speculation. A flow of cheaply procured resources flow to high tech worlds and desirable high tech goods become multiples of profit- probably would need the possibility of not selling at all, what would TL 3 worlds want or afford air/rafts for?

Really interesting from a down and dirty picture of possibly why the Imperium has the non uplifted world paradigm.

There was a separate article in a JTAS that IIRC presented the Striker version for general buying and trade. Not a follow up as I recall, I think the complication made it not functional for common gameplay.

If nothing else, good reminder that the odd things we have might not pass the RL test but are the way they are for game effect.
 
Setting aside transportation costs, it's only cheaper if the direct and indirect production costs are lower.

The assumptions would include that lower teched production techniques are less expensive than higher ones, for a given product.


iie_img_goldrush.jpg
 
Back
Top