From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 11-MAY-1994 21:03:45.16
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7533-7533 V44#11

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-14
 #6563) id <01HC86EQ4NCW94GF5T@delphi.com>; Wed, 11 May 1994 21:03:37 EDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 21:00:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7533-7533 V44#11
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9405120102.AA25989@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed May 11 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Wed May 11 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 44 : Issue 11

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 601  7533 11-May-1994 David Johnson    Shall Not Perish 12 - Tech & SW << Gent

This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the
submission address will be distributed. The biweekly digest is currently
distributed each Wednesday and Sunday at 9:00pm.

Submissions: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca -or- uunet!engrg.uwo.ca!traveller
Administrator: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (James Perkins)

The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bundle: 601
Archive-Message-Number: 7533
Date: Wed, 11 May 94 19:13:22 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: Shall Not Perish 12 - Tech & SW

Gentlesophonts:

First off, my cr0.02 about deep space jumps and refueling.  (Please keep
in mind my avowed aversion to rules details.)

I've always considered that jump calculations use gravity wells as `targets'.
The better your jump drive (jump-2 over jump-1, say) and/or the better your
navigator (navigation-2 over navigation-1, say) the better you are at
`targeting' a specific gravity well.  Furthermore, the stronger a gravity
well (i.e. a star over a gas giant or giant over a rocky planet) the easier
it is to target  (it's also `stronger' if you're closer).  Similarly, the
lesser the `interference' of other gravity wells (no similarly or larger
massed objects in the vicinity - and `vicinity' increases with mass) the
easier a specific gravity well is to target.

What this means is that in a typical system the largest star will be the 
easiest target.  Jumps from outside the system will require higher jump
numbers and/or higher skilled navigators to target smaller bodies like
gas giants and planets (and at least the star's well gets me `targeting'
in the general vicinity).  The gas giants in a binary or trinary system
will be more difficult to target than those in a solitary system.  Similarly,
the planets in a system with several giants will be more difficult to target
than those in a system with only one giant.

With this premise `coordinated jumps' are quite difficult which seems to
mesh with canonical thinking.  My fleet can probably all emerge in orbit
about a system's major gas giant but it will have to maneuver afterwards
to regain its formation.

Jumps to deep space are difficult because there is no gravity well to serve
as a target.  Even if I stage some sort of refueling post it will be
difficult to get close - the lack of any other significant gravity wells
in the vicinity helps but I'm still targeting something *much* less
massive than a star, gas giant or planet.  It's possible but some ships
are going to emerge at a distance from the staging target that is beyond
the range of their maneuver drives/life support.  Fuel drones will get
there eventually since they don't have to worry about running out of
recycled air.  (I guess in this d**med New Era they'll run out of fuel too!)
As I build up fuel at the staging depot my gravity well will increase
making it easier to target but this will still be much more difficult than
jumping to a star system.

That's the rationale.  I don't have any specific rules to back it up.
Basically, if the ref wants them to make it they will, and if she doesn't,
they won't.  IMHO, that's role-playing.


From Tuesday night, Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> Dominate how? And how quick is quickly?

Well, something like what all this *Smash and Grab* stuff is supposed to
be about for those Sword World wannabees in the Reformation Coalition.
I, King David I of Sacnoth, send my TL 12 fleet down to Gram, shoot up
the capital, drop a few `planetbusters', execute the King of Gram and
his family, set up some disguntled duke as king, and send emmissaries 
to the other Sword Worlds expressing my sincerest hopes that I won't
need to visit their world next.

> How would this affect the inter-planet dealings? Individual Sword Worlds 
> may be feudal technocracies, but the Confederation itself is a  -  well,
> a confederation ;-)

The Confederation is really little more than a mutual-defense pact set up
to protect the Sword Worlds from Imperial incursions and to permit joint
`defensive' operations against the Darrians.  Think more of NATO
than the European Union.

> Ah, but thats the whole point. You don't have the factories because you can
> buy your TL 12 stuff cheaper from Sacnoth than you can build them yourself.

Sure, I do this if I value cheaper products over dependence upon Sacnoth
(or whatever world currently is on an `up' cycle).  If I'm as smart as the
Japanese I don't get caught in this trap.

> And you don't build that ship yourself becuase it's cheaper to buy it from
> Sacnoth, too. This also impose a natural restriction on Sacnoth's ability to 
> dominate the Confederation: If they become too expensive the other worlds 
> _will_ build TL 12 factories  -  which will propably trigger a recession on 
> Sacnoth and close down a lot of industry  -  quite possibly enough to drop 
> Sacnoth a TL in the process. That's what I mean by economic cycles.

There are other ways for Sacnoth to preserve its dominance.  The technology
of the US is largely available to Latin American nations.  Unfortunately,
many of these nations lack the stability, primarily political, required to
support a similar level of economic and technological achievement.  Fostering
this instability has been standard American policy for nearly a century.
One of the reasons Central Americans who can't own American cars don't build
their own factories is that the US military drops in every once and a 
while to topple the local government.  When we're not doing that we're
supplying arms to some `disgruntled duke' who keeps the fires of instability
burning.  We are able to do this because we have the will and a significant
technological advantage.  The other Sword Worlds won't be able to `gang
up' on Sacnoth for the same reason that everyone from the Rio Grande to
Tierra del Fuego hasn't `ganged up' on the US.

> On the contrary, there is a lot of intergration. That's why their economies
> can affect each other that way. What they don't have is much economic 
> _control_. Each world will do what seems best for itself.

If the King of Gram is equipping his navy with TL 12 equipment built on
Sacnoth then he's *not* doing what's best for Gram and his fief-holders
*ought* to depose him.
 
> How do you know that? By that logic the independent worlds along the edge
> of the Imperium should have fallen to the Imperium long ago too. They are
> certainly even weaker than the Confederation.

Well, except these other worlds don't keep invading the Imperium.  Clearly,
the Sword Worlds are able to coordinate their efforts well enough to fend
off not only Imperial military efforts to neutralized them but political
and economic efforts as well.  The Imperium has not been doing to the Sword
Worlds what I've described for the US in Latin America and suggested for
Sacnoth within the Confederation.  If they've tried, it hasn't worked or
the Sword Worlds wouldn't keep joining the Outworld Coalitions.  The Zhodani
may be a factor (although the alliance between the Zhos and the Sword
Worlds is one of convenience - there's little love for the Zhodani among
the Sword Worlds people) but I suspect there must be a great deal of political
and economic cooperation among the Sword Worlds to have permitted them
to remain independent.

Ooops!  Maybe I've made your point.  Maybe this is why Sacnoth doesn't
just take over!  :-o  But then again, if relations among the Sword Worlds
are friendly then they ought to see some advantage in several high-tech
worlds with class A starports.  Maybe there is some sort of negotiated
`balance of power': Sacnoth gets the high tech and Gram gets the shipyard?
(But don't the shipbuilding rules state that any world can build ships for
its own navy regardless of starport class?)

> (Do me a favour and describe how a feudal technocracy functions. Of all the
> government types that's the one I've never been quite clear about. I have
> a vague idea, but I can't quite see how it would work in practice). Anyway,
> as I said above, the Confederation is not one.

Well, first, the Confederation is nothing more than a bunch of cooperating
feudal technocracies (with some exceptions).

Second, keep in mind that, IMHO, GDW has never gotten the feudal technocracy
aspect of the Sword Worlds right.  The canonical take on this government
type has been merely a `high-tech' aristocracy.

A feudal system is one in which ruling authority is granted to a specific
individual by others who provide support to that individual in return for
his efforts at coordinating their collective activities.  In medieval
times this was centered around common defense.  The fief-holders provided
military and economic support to the `lord' and in return he used these
common forces to protect each of them from `barbarians' and such.  In a
technocracy these efforts are not limited to military affairs but are
focused on the entire range of technological activities.  The `lord' is
essentially the `chairman of the board' of a huge conglomerate.  He
coordinates the activites of manufacturers, distributors, financiers,
retailers, etc. so that each can function in the marketplace.  It's something
like the Japanese kieritsu(sp?).  In the case of the Sword Worlds this
sort of thing is happening on a planetary scale.  Every technological (and
economic) interest on Sacnoth holds `fealty' to the King.

Another good way to look at this is as a `plutocracy'.  The economic elites
(`technocrats' in a high-tech society) are also the political elites.  Unlike
conventional Western democracies (some might argue this point), there is
no separation between politcal power and economic power.  In the US we have
as much separation of `business and state' as we do of `church and state'
but in a technocracy this is not the case.  It's not like the `state-
controlled' economies of the old East bloc - it's still a `capitalist' system.
If your `company' or `fief' goes sour your political influence does as well
(because you can no longer support your `liege').  Again, the Japanese
system - if you ignore the politcal government - is a good model.

> >Well, if this was the case, why wasn't Sacnoth the capital at that point?
> 
> Because it was only one of 20+ worlds and the rest wanted it differently?

Maybe, but again, if I'm the King of Sacnoth my TL advantage permits me
to pretty much `smash and grab' at will.

> >Leadership clearly fluctuates among the Sword Worlds so ought not these
> >fluctuations be tied to any fluctuations in technology?  
> 
> Why should it? It is tied to political power. One source of political power
> is technology, but it's not the only one.

Now you see that in a feudal technocracy, technological power *is* political
power.

> Besides, the leadership dosen't
> fluctuate all that much. The Sword Worlds had been led by Gram for centuries 
> in 1120.

A good point.  I can't explain it.  As I understand it I don't see how any
world but the technological leader can be the dominant world.  (And Gram is
clearly mentioned as `dominating' the Sword Worlds.)  Maybe the Zhodani
influence is a factor but it seems to me that the anti-Zhodani sentiments
in the Sword Worlds ought to work against this.  (The Contact article on
the Sword Worlds from *JTAS* mentions the anti-Zhodani sentiment.)

> Elucidate please. I'm not trying to be snide, I actually can't see why that
> should affect the inter-planet relationships.

Hope my explanation of a feudal technocracy helped.  I don't see any specific
reason why it should apply to inter-world relations except that since many
Sword Worlds are feudal technocracies I would expect them to take a similar
approach to inter-world affairs.  I just don't see a bunch of economic barons
voting and negotiating joint communiques.

> Oh, dear! You really have a gamer's mentality, don't you? (And, yes, here I
> am being snide ;-)

Yes, I admit it.  I want the Sword Worlds to be as fractious and quarrelsome
as they were in Piper's *Space Viking*.  You see, since `my' Sword Worlds
have always been that way I *really* have no use for the rehashed Space
Viking-wannabees of the Reformation Coalition.

(Speaking of rehashing Piper, does anyone remember how much that Amber Zone
article about the `rogue' Sword Worlds captain in the 800-ton mercenary
cruiser from the post-5FW war *JTAS* seemed *so* familiar to the plot of
*Space Viking*?  You know, the Sword Worlder who had (in this case) her
fiance killed just as they were to be married and so sold the family
estate to buy a ship and go hunting for the killer?)

> The Sword Worlds have had their civil wars, true, but
> they don't have them twice a decade. I think they've had four or five in
> 15 centuries.

Another good point but only because I don't think the Sword Worlds have
been portrayed sensibly since the beginning.

> Maybe the Sacnoth 
> leaders think a destructive stalemate would destroy too much. And, as
> I've mentioned above, if Sacnoth dosen't sell those ships then the other
> worlds _will_ build the factories to make the parts and build their own. If 
> that's the way it works, then the only reason why the other worlds are not 
> TL 12 is precisely that Sacnoth IS selling them ships and spare parts.

Maybe, but keep in mind the US policy in Latin America.  Sacnoth doesn't
*need* to dominate militarily in order to dominate.  Especially if the
economies are as integrated as you've described then the feudal technocracy
extends *across* the subsector and there ought to arise someone at the
top and that someone ought to be the highest tech world.

> > This entire `technological cycles' idea seems to me to be more and more
> > difficult to rationalize.
> 
> Did I help?

Well, it seems to explain the way the Sword Worlds have been portrayed better
than how I *think* they *ought* to be portrayed.  :-)  I guess I need to
understand what causes these cycles - why doesn't this occur in the Imperium?

I'm sitting on the fence here.  I guess I'm struggling with those differences
in the Sword Worlds that were introduced either to keep them `different' 
from Piper's novel or just because whomever `created' them wasn't really as
much of a Sword Worlds fanatic as I am.  In either case, I just don't 
think the differing TLs and lack of several starports in the Sword Worlds
makes sense and I'd like to `fix' in in TNE.

Thanks, Hans, for the chance to work through this.  I hope it continues.

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

End of TML Biweekly
******************
