From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 29-MAY-1994 21:08:18.36
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7811-7815 V45#16

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-14
 #6563) id <01HCXBSLD2V496WJT1@delphi.com>; Sun, 29 May 1994 21:08:14 EDT
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 21:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7811-7815 V45#16
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9405300103.AA01205@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun May 29 21:00:04 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Sun May 29 21:00:04 EDT 1994    Volume 45 : Issue 16

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 622  7812 28-May-1994 scs@vectis.demo  Non-humans in Traveller << One of the t
 622  7813 28-May-1994 Steven Gott      Regency Military << The organization of
 622  7814 29-May-1994 Grant Sinclair   Battle of the Fleets << In the "discuss
 622  7811 27-May-1994 David Johnson    All: Sword Worlds and Technology << Gen
 623  7815 29-May-1994 rancke@diku.dk   Economy, technology, and feudal technoc

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: 622
Archive-Message-Number: 7812
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 16:39:28 GMT0BST1,M3.4.0/02:00,M10.4.0/02:00
From: scs@vectis.demon.co.uk
Reply-To: scs@vectis.demon.co.uk
Subject: Non-humans in Traveller

One of the things which makes SF for me is Non-Humans. Despite the
number of pre-generated non-human races in Traveller (Vargr, Droyne,
Hivers, K'kree, Aslan) there seems to be no establised method of
rolling your own. Do the members of the list have any hints, tips or
suggestions on how to create a believable non-human race, for use as
either PCs or NPCs? Are there any favourites out there from the
annals of Traveller history?

P.S. Has anyone else noticed the similarities between the RCES
Marines as portrayed in Smash & Grab and the MI from Heinlein's
Starship Troopers?

P.P.S. Being a relative newcomer to the list, I would value the
input of those who chose to leave the list when TNE was launched, so
I vote for the 'temporary two lists' idea. (I have CT, MT and TNE.)

Stuart.


- ----------------------------------------------------------
scs@vectis.demon.co.uk
Stuart C. Squibb
Newport, Isle of Wight, England, U.K.

"When all else fails, do it yourself." - Lefler's Law #17


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

Bundle: 622
Archive-Message-Number: 7813
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 23:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Regency Military

The organization of the military forces of the regency need to make 
sense in light of the Regency's recent history.  This means that military 
force designs will have been strongly influenced by the Rebellion, the 
Black War and by VIRUS.  


Lets look at these historical events in reverse order.  VIRUS is a major 
problem for the Regency.  Every peice of electronics needs to be 
reconsidered.  All of the high tech logistical and staff assistance computers
in the Regency's Military need to be redesigned and made as VIRUS resistant as
possible.  There might even be a trend in the Regency's military to look for 
low tech solutions to military requirements.  A FN-FAL has no electronic parts
to host a VIRUS egg, for example.  

The Black war poses some very challenging problems for the Regency.  
Having to deal with a raider jumping in at the 100 diameter limit, 
blasting at full accelleration to the target, dumping its bombload of 100 
Megaton Nukes, and coasting out to the 100 diameter limit to jump away is 
a frightening threat.  Vampire vessels can exercise this same tactic so 
keeping a defense for this sort of attack is still required in the new era.

The rebellion suggests that the Regency should design a "Military with a 
conscious".  Officers should be expected to exercise some judment on 
following orders.  A ship captain assigned to carpet bomb an orphanage 
should be expected to use his or her conscious to conclude that this is a 
wastefull unmilitary activity and that this order should be refused.

I'm just scratching the surface here.  I think that any military force 
designed for the Regency will be shaped by its history  and the history 
of its neighbors.  It will also be shaped by the perceived needs of the 
Regency.  To design a military for the Regency requires that we identify 
these needs and find possible solutions for them.  I realise that this is 
not as glamourous as deciding how many MBT's per platoon, but by building 
a firm foundation first we will save ourselves a great deal of pain later on.

goodnight,

Steven Gott
Seattle, WA

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

Bundle: 622
Archive-Message-Number: 7814
From: Grant Sinclair <grant@cleese.apana.org.au>
Subject: Battle of the Fleets
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 21:34:22 +1523847 (CST)

In the "discussion" ("flames" is starting to be a better word) of fleet 
sizes, bear in mind that you are talking about two different sets of 
numbers.  TCS has budgets based on population and governments, and this 
figure covers _everything_.  The fleet sizes in Rebellion Sourcebook and 
elsewhere are _not_ everything.
 
The figures in Rebellion Sourcebook only include cruisers, carriers, 
battleships and some escorts; they omit entire squadrons like AssaultRons 
(which I think explains a good point that someone made about how all the 
invasion forces could be carried by the number given for ships available 
to Dulinor).  I would imagine that the figure would certainly only be 
operational ships, and so would exclude ships in mothballs or "ordinary".
 
The figures in Rebellion Sourcebook are internally inconsistent anyway.  
Even if you interpret the 1000 ships figure as being each for numbered 
and numbered reserve fleets, it still seems small; 16 minimum size 
numbered fleets of 50 ships is 800 ships, which leaves little leeway.  If 
you don't believe that the 1000 ships is each for numbered and numbered 
reserve fleets, it is even further out.
 
To further explain the apparent inconsistency, there is the maintenance 
overhead aspect of the TCS rules (10% for operational ships and 1% for 
ships in ordinary).  Both the economics of shipbuilding and published 
sources surely show that there would be many ships in ordinary.  I have 
not seen this taken into account in some of the discussions.
(Incidentally, does anyone know why these are so high? Operational 
civilian ships only need 0.1%).  
 
Anyway, if you take Glisten as an example, it has an annual military 
budget of about TCr4.  Even if it had the biggest yards in the galaxy, it 
could still only build TCr40 worth of operational ships, as maintenance 
of these would soak up the entire military budget.  In Fighting Ships of 
the Shattered Imperium (which I know is not the best source of designs in 
the world, but it is official), TCr40 doesn't buy all that many _big_ 
ships; Battleships and Dreadnoughts are commonly TCr1 or more.
 
Even when you add in the taxation income from the rest of the subsector, 
the figures do not grow by orders of magnitude (particularly if you 
reduce the value of the money by starport/TL), since Glisten dominates 
virtually every other world in the subsector.
 
Anyway, it looks to me that GDW have always been deliberately vague about 
definitions of numbers, to avoid apparent contradictions like this.  So 
you are all free to some extent to interpret the numbers how you like.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Sinclair               The difference between a politician and a
grant@cleese.apana.org.au    snail is the snail leaves its slime behind
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Bundle: 622
Archive-Message-Number: 7811
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 20:26:40 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: Sword Worlds and Technology

Gentlesophonts:

First, please excuse me if I'm being redundant.  I'm having some mail
problems and have yet to see TML msgs 7773-7789 from Thursday night.

Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> But according to the only _Traveller_ rules we have on the subject (_TCS_)
> technology _dosn't_ make that much difference.

Uncle!  I don't have *TCS* so I can't discuss it.  We've fallen over into
the discussion with Cynthia and Steve about *TCS* and *HG* vs. *5FW* and
*RS*.

> >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.

Yes, I know.  This is where we agree.  There are Real World examples of
*economic* cycles, but . . .

> economic instability _should_ result in TL instability. 

Why?  This is what I'm having difficulty with.  You realize just *one* 
single example of a world that went *down* in TL and then back up would
make your case?  So far, I haven't seen such an example.

> 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?).

I think you're confusing the *use* of technology with the ability to
*produce* technology.  I think this figures in the historical example of
Regina that you keep using.  (I'll get to that in a bit.)  Nevertheless,
I'll give you this Depression-era `techno-economic' cycle if you'll grant
me that the *keiritsu* are a good example of feudal technocracy.

> Make that steamships instead and you have a better analogy, since the ships
> of space don't need any highways. 

Okay, a poor analogy but you get my point.  

> Even if you can't produce boiler plates
> you may still be able to rivet them together when they come apart.

But I wouldn't call that capability the same as the tech level of the folks
that built the boiler.  Again, I think you're confusing use with the
ability to produce.  Didn't we already settle on that a long time ago?
("That" being the idea that TL measures the ability to *produce* a certain
level of technology rather than the mere use or presence of it.)

> 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.

This is a good rationale.  I can accept this, but . . .

> 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.

*TCS* *also* gives much bigger fleets than the MegaTraveller *Rebellion
Sourcebook*, another role-playing *and* later-occurring source.  Since *5FW*
and *RS* seem to be somewhat in agreement, one might make the case for
accepting them over *TCS* and *HG*.  I'm not necessarily proposing this,
I'm just trying to point out that the choice isn't as clear to me as
it seems to be to others.

> >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.

I don't think it's appropriate to judge works outside the era they were
created.  My point is that if Piper had been writing in the late '70s,
I doubt this particular difference would exist, just as it was `impossible'
for the folks at GDW to create an `unenlightened' Sword Worlds in 1978.

> thereby denying some women the chance to fulfill their potential (and
> some men too, btw.) 

This is a very insightful point but, alas, we're not on alt.soc.conteporary.
roles.  :-)

> 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.

But isn't this information no more `reliable' than early `official' data
that painted the Zhos as `mind-sucking totalitarians'?  We have to accept
that these sorts of observations reflect the bias of whatever Imperial
`observer' provided the information.  GDW has established a tradition of
painting such sources as being `biased' to one degree or another.  That's
always been one of the appeals of Traveller to me.  Every point of view
is ambiguous - no simplistic `chaotic good' templates here!

> I think there's quite some difference.

Okay, let's a gree to disagree.  This whole Piper bit is an obscure tangent
anyway.  (But I'll bet some TML'ers are out combing the shelves of used
book stores for Piper works!)

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

I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological*
ability gets tied to it!  Beside your Depression-era example (which 
represents the most serious economic cycle ever *and* confuses use with
ablity to produce) I can't think of any other.

> Except to explain why it took Gram 14 centuries to go from TL 12 to TL 11.
> 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.

Basic scientific method:  my explanation of "slow, steady, uneventful"
growth explains the observable facts without any need of your mysterious
cycles.  On the other hand, just *one* example of a *down-turn* would make
your case.  So far, it hasn't been made.  (And things like the Long Night
or the Viral Collapse don't count!)

> Regina was settled in 75. It 
> was TL 10 in 1105. It was TL 11 or 12 in 1120, wasn't it?
> Why did Regina gain one
> or no TLs in 10 centuries and one more in 15 years?

Okay, here's where I think you're confusing *use* with *ability to produce*.
The comment above suggests to me that you're assuming Regina was at TL 10
in 75.  How could it possibly be at the time it was settled?  There were
no factories, no maintenance facilities, no *anything*!  The only
technological capability in the system was on the settlement ship(s).
Maybe these were at TL 7 or something but it must have been *decades*
(if not longer) before any starships were being built on Regina.

Of course, this all goes to pieces if you don't accept the `ability to
produce' definition for TL.  The problem with `use' is that every world
on the map becomes *at least* TL 9 every time a starship lands!

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

Well, at least we've found something to agree upon again.  :-)

> Where did you get that definition? I mean, if you made it up yourself you're
> begging the question.

Bingo!  You've caught me.  This is how I understand a feudal technocracy
from reading Piper.  Since I believe the GDW Sword Worlds have a great deal
in common with Piper's I accept that GDW must have lifted the idea of a
feudal technocracy from Piper.

> 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?

Not that I have come across.

> Have there ever been a formal feudal technocracy in Real Life?

Yes, I think the Japanese *keiritsu* (which is not a `corporate government'
but I'll get to that in a bit) is a feudal technocracy.
 
> 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.

This is good, but you're about to confuse *owning* the means of production
with *managing* an operation, i.e. a corporate government.

> 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.

A corporate government is a specialized form of autocracy.  In a corporate
government everyone involved is an *employee* of the person(s) in charge.
They have no choice but to follow the dictates of the manager or leave
the company.  Maybe I led you astray by describing the `king' in a feudal
technocracy as a `CEO'.  This was inaccurate and I apologize.  The `king'
is like the Chairman of the Board of Directors (often also the CEO).  As
such she is repsonsible for seeing that the will of the shareholders is
carried out.

In a corporate government the CEO does not have to listen to the Vice
Presidents or other officers of the company -  she gives the orders and
they carry them out.  In a feudal technocracy, the Chairman ignores
the voices of the other Directors (who represent blocs of shareholders)
at her peril.  When things get tough, the directors *remove* the Chairman
and find a replacement.  In the corprate model, when things get tough
for an Executive Vice President, she finds another job (or jumps out
a window).

In a feudal technocracy the `king' owns the largest bloc of shares of
*everything* but he doesn't necessarily own everything.  If no one owns a
controlling bloc you get balkanization, like Joyeuse.  The `king' may
own everything, may own a majority of shares, or may own a plurality of
shares (the biggest bloc but not a majority).  `Fief' holders under the
`king' will have stronger positions (and more independence) as the `king'
owns less of the total holdings.

A good modern example outside the *keiritsu* would be the influence of
pension fund managers on corporate America today.  Because pension funds
often hold huge blocs of stock in a corporation they are able to influence
the policies and practices of the corporation.  They are, in effect, the
`fiefholders' of the Chairman or `king' who may still control the largest
bloc of shares but is no where near having a majority holding.

The key element here is that in a feudal technocracy the economic influence
of shareholders translates directly into politcal power.

> Granted, but the only way you can get that influence is if the king of
> Gram allows you to buy that controlling interest.

No, only if he owns everything.  If he only owns a plurality or majority
his `barons' can sell their shares at will.

> 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.

Right, and if King Harald buys an interest in Gram's holdings he becomes
a player in the political system there.  He may choose to honor his
`bond' to King Angus (sorry, I'm sticking with Piper) or he may not.  My
point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest 
economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus.  Unless of course
Angus has managed to control all the shares on Gram, in which case Gram
becomes an autocracy rather than a feudal technocracy.  (And then Harald
just uses his higher TL military to defeat Angus!)

> >Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power
> 
> Fallacy. See above.

I'll give you this is you give me an example of a downward turn in your
cycles, otherwise I'm sticking with the scientific method.  :-)

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

I think I've made a decent start.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7815
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: Economy, technology, and feudal technocracies
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 18:12:29 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>First, please excuse me if I'm being redundant.  I'm having some mail
>problems and have yet to see TML msgs 7773-7789 from Thursday night.

I've had the same problem.

>Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> 
>>But according to the only _Traveller_ rules we have on the subject (_TCS_)
>>technology _dosn't_ make that much difference.
> 
>Uncle!  I don't have *TCS* so I can't discuss it.  We've fallen over into
>the discussion with Cynthia and Steve about *TCS* and *HG* vs. *5FW* and
>*RS*.

Not quite. In your discussion with Cynthia and Steve you have two different
conditions (the different sizes of fleets) that is irreconcilable and
consequently the problem of which source to accept. In the economy question 
we have one condition set forth by one source and not mentioned in any 
other source. Since there is no contradiction I submit that we should go by
the one source we do have (Actually, we have two since _Striker_ gives
similar (though not identical) results. _Striker_ and _TCS_ are, however,
contemporary). The only known source we have on the effect of TLs on the
economy states that the difference of one TL on otherwise identical worlds
is that the higher TL planet's money is worth 5% more.

>>economic instability _should_ result in TL instability. 
> 
>Why? This is what I'm having difficulty with.

Is the difficulty with the fact that there are no examples, or is it the
very concept you can't accept? If the first there's not much I can do 
since I proposed them to explain somthing else. Since they are, therefor,
merely inferred I don't see how you can expect an example. If I had an
example I wouldn't have to infer it. If it's the concept, however, I shall
try to illustrate. Not that technological cycles must be, but merely that
they could be:

Example 1:
"I/S Hansen Motor" on Gram who builds jump-1 and -2 engines decides to
expand and builds an new assembly line in their factory for producing 
jump-3 engines. Gram now becomes TL 12 in space technology (by definition). 
"Sleipner Spring-motorer", the well-known jump engine manufacturer on
Sacnoth notes the subsequent drop in sales of jump engines to Gram and 
lowers the price on jump-3 engines. Baron Hansen decides that he can't afford
to fight this move and converts his jump-3 assembly line to make jump-2
engines. Gram is now, once again, TL 11. 

Example 2:
As before, but this time Hansen manages to get some other nobles to back
him and proceeds to sell jump-3 engines to all of Sleipner's former customers 
driving Sleipner off the market. Sacnoth is now TL 11 (in space tech).

(Btw. there's another, perfectly simple, explanation of how Gram could be
as strong as Sacnoth (Note that I don't agree that they need to be): Gram
could be solidly TL 11 in most areas and TL 12 in space technology while
Sacnoth was TL 12 in just enough parts to qualify for TL 12 status but of
only TL 10-11 in other, vital areas (Check _World Builder's Handbook_ for
details).) 

>You realize just *one* 
>single example of a world that went *down* in TL and then back up would
>make your case?  So far, I haven't seen such an example.

How many worlds do we have any historical data on? A mere handful. While an
example might prove my point, the absence dosen't disprove it (since I'm
merely trying to establish that it could happen).

>>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?).
> 
>I think you're confusing the *use* of technology with the ability to
>*produce* technology.  

No I don't. If the depression drove some people to abandon their cars, a
more severe depression could, conceivably, have driven almost everybody
to do so. If that happened, most car factories would close down and very
few new cars would be made (In fact, for a time you might have people 
using old cars that were no longer manufactured  -  a use TL _higher_ 
than the production TL). 

>I think this figures in the historical example of
>Regina that you keep using.  (I'll get to that in a bit.)  Nevertheless,
>I'll give you this Depression-era `techno-economic' cycle if you'll grant
>me that the *keiritsu* are a good example of feudal technocracy.

Can't do that since I still don't know exactly how the *keiritsu* work. I'll
accept that they form your definition of a feudal technology, but I suspect
that your definition is not the only possible one. Certainly your definition
is not that of a feudal system (though I acknowledge that compound words
sometimes take on a meaning quite different from any of it's components. I
would regard that as a bit of a cop-out, though. IMO a feudal technocracy
ought to be feudal in some way). 

>>Even if you can't produce boiler plates
>>you may still be able to rivet them together when they come apart.
> 
>But I wouldn't call that capability the same as the tech level of the folks
>that built the boiler.  

Neither did I. I said that the people who couldn't _build_ a boiler might,
nevertheless, be perfectly capable of repairing it. This was in connection
with being able to maintain higher-han-your-own-TL equipment, remember?

>Again, I think you're confusing use with the
>ability to produce.  Didn't we already settle on that a long time ago?
>("That" being the idea that TL measures the ability to *produce* a certain
>level of technology rather than the mere use or presence of it.)

I think so. At least, I heartily concur. TL _ought_ to indicate the ability 
to produce (unfortunately there are countless worlds with low population and 
high TL where that dosen't make sense. How can 10 men build a starship?).

>>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.
> 
>This is a good rationale.  I can accept this, but . . .
> 
>>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.
> 
>*TCS* *also* gives much bigger fleets than the MegaTraveller *Rebellion
>Sourcebook*, another role-playing *and* later-occurring source.  Since *5FW*
>and *RS* seem to be somewhat in agreement, one might make the case for
>accepting them over *TCS* and *HG*.  I'm not necessarily proposing this,
>I'm just trying to point out that the choice isn't as clear to me as
>it seems to be to others.

Try comparing the _TCS_ naval expenditure of Cr 500 per citizen with the
real world (Double it to account for non-space forces too). A credit is
supposed to correspond to a US$. Now compute the taxes the average 
swordworlder would pay to support 42 200,000 T battleships  -  no, make 
that 500,000-tonners if you like. Compare that figure to the real world. 

>I don't think it's appropriate to judge works outside the era they were
>created.  My point is that if Piper had been writing in the late '70s,
>I doubt this particular difference would exist, just as it was `impossible'
>for the folks at GDW to create an `unenlightened' Sword Worlds in 1978.

Do you really think that no contemporary of Piper wrote about social
systems with more equal treatment of men and women than his Sword Worlds?
Or that TCS couldn't have gotten away with describing a minor, antagonistic
power as far more repressive than they did?

>>I despair of explaining those cycles any better than by the sentence 
>>'Economy can (and often does) fluctuate'. 
> 
>I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological*
>ability gets tied to it!  

Because if technology wasn't tied to economic features then most every
world in Charted Space would be TL 15! (Except those with religious or
philosophically induced limits.)

>Beside your Depression-era example (which 
>represents the most serious economic cycle ever *and* confuses use with
>ablity to produce) I can't think of any other.

Conceeded, but let me address that confusion of use and ability to produce.
I'm not confusing the two. But if something becomes too expensive to buy,
don't you think that it would shortly thereafter go out of production? So
if use decline sufficiently and does pick up again, the ability to produce
automatically disappears too. 

>>Except to explain why it took Gram 14 centuries to go from TL 12 to TL 11.
>>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.
> 
>Basic scientific method:  my explanation of "slow, steady, uneventful"
>growth explains the observable facts without any need of your mysterious
>cycles. 

Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite
incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries
is not slow, it's moribund.

>>Regina was settled in 75. It 
>>was TL 10 in 1105. It was TL 11 or 12 in 1120, wasn't it?
>>Why did Regina gain one
>>or no TLs in 10 centuries and one more in 15 years?
> 
>Okay, here's where I think you're confusing *use* with *ability to produce*.
>The comment above suggests to me that you're assuming Regina was at TL 10
>in 75. 

True. I conceed that point.

>How could it possibly be at the time it was settled?  There were
>no factories, no maintenance facilities, no *anything*!  The only
>technological capability in the system was on the settlement ship(s).
>Maybe these were at TL 7 or something but it must have been *decades*
>(if not longer) before any starships were being built on Regina.

Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. So the
question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in
EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades? 

>Of course, this all goes to pieces if you don't accept the `ability to
>produce' definition for TL.  

No, I accept that.

>>Where did you get that definition? I mean, if you made it up yourself you're
>>begging the question.
> 
>Bingo!  You've caught me.  This is how I understand a feudal technocracy
>from reading Piper. Since I believe the GDW Sword Worlds have a great deal
>in common with Piper's I accept that GDW must have lifted the idea of a
>feudal technocracy from Piper.

Funny, I too think that Piper's Gram describes a feudal society, possibly
even what GDW thought of when they coined the term 'feudal technocracy', 
but I disagree that it describes one that works the way you claim. The only 
shares I remember mentioned is the ones in the Tanith Venture, an offworld
commercial venture. Every other 'holding' in the book is a solid land fief.
The holdings are enhanced by various commercial features like the mines
on Traskon and the Karvall steel mills, but the old feudal fiefs were also
enhanced in value from whatever water mills and mines to be found on them.
Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological
advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra.

>>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.
> 
>This is good, but you're about to confuse *owning* the means of production
>with *managing* an operation, i.e. a corporate government.

I don't think so.

>>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.
> 
>A corporate government is a specialized form of autocracy.  In a corporate
>government everyone involved is an *employee* of the person(s) in charge.
>They have no choice but to follow the dictates of the manager or leave
>the company.  

In a feudal society a vassal's ability to disregard the dictates of his
liege lord is no greater. His whole right to his fief is tied up with his
obligation to obey his liege lord's legitimate orders.

>The `king'
>is like the Chairman of the Board of Directors (often also the CEO).  As
>such she is repsonsible for seeing that the will of the shareholders is
>carried out.

It only just struck me, but why are you assuming that there are any share-
holders? I repeat: "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 lends it out in exchange for support."

>In a corporate government the CEO does not have to listen to the Vice
>Presidents or other officers of the company  -  she gives the orders and
>they carry them out. In a feudal technocracy, the Chairman ignores
>the voices of the other Directors (who represent blocs of shareholders)
>at her peril.  When things get tough, the directors *remove* the Chairman
>and find a replacement.  In the corprate model, when things get tough
>for an Executive Vice President, she finds another job (or jumps out
>a window).

Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal
technocracy? What's the difference? 

I think it would be useful to agree on the equivalences of various terms
in the three systems we're talking about. Here's mine:

Traditional feudal society      Corporation             Feudal technocracy

King                                 -                  King

The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for
support from his vassals. In that respect he is the equivalent of the
owner or the shareholders of a corporation. But an owner's power does not
depend on the support of their CEOs, so there is no real correspondence.

 Fief                           Corporation             Corporation

Land was what supported the fighting men that was the military power in the
old feudal monarchies. In more advanced societies industrial holdings pro-
duce wealth that pays for military power.

Vassal (Duke/Count/etc.)        CEO                     Vassal

The vassal manages the fief for the king. If the fief is an industrial
holding then his work resembles that of a company CEO.

Steward/Reeve/Guard Captain     Company Officer         Company Officer

The officers who helps to run the holding, hired and fired by the man in
charge.

Sub-fief                        Subsidiary              Subsidiary

A vassal may parcel out parts of his holding to lesser vassals. 

Feudal service                  Dividends               Feudal service

In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with
money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money.

     -                          Board of Directors           -
     -                          Shareholders                 -

These have no real equivalents in a feudal society.

>In a feudal technocracy the `king' owns the largest bloc of shares of
>*everything* but he doesn't necessarily own everything.  

You didn't get this from Piper. Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron
Trask owns all of Traskon. Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas
Trask pledges Traskon in return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not
just a share of it. 

>If no one owns a
>controlling bloc you get balkanization, like Joyeuse.  

If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization.

>A good modern example outside the *keiritsu* would be the influence of
>pension fund managers on corporate America today.  Because pension funds
>often hold huge blocs of stock in a corporation they are able to influence
>the policies and practices of the corporation.  They are, in effect, the
>`fiefholders' of the Chairman or `king' who may still control the largest
>bloc of shares but is no where near having a majority holding.

Still sounds like corporate politics. I don't see where the feudal bit gets
into it at all. The Chairman of a Corporation dosen't excersise _any_
control over the pension funds, does he? The pension fund managers dosen't
perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even
pay him money). Thus there is no true equivalence between the pension fund 
managers and a fiefholder in a feudal society.

I realize that I assume that the word 'feudal' in 'feudal technocracy' has a 
semantic content close to the normal definition of the word and is not a
mere buzz-word. 

>The key element here is that in a feudal technocracy the economic influence
>of shareholders translates directly into politcal power.

In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for 
the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power.

>>Granted, but the only way you can get that influence is if the king of
>>Gram allows you to buy that controlling interest.
> 
>No, only if he owns everything.  If he only owns a plurality or majority
>his `barons' can sell their shares at will.

If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them.

>>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.
> 
>Right, and if King Harald buys an interest in Gram's holdings he becomes
>a player in the political system there.  

But what if King Anders just refuse to let his baron sell his holding?

>He may choose to honor his `bond' to King Angus 

He damn well better.

>(sorry, I'm sticking with Piper) 

Why? We are talking about the GDW Sword Worlds, aren't we? Why invite
confusion?

>or he may not.  

Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief. 

>My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest 
>economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus.  

1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory.
2) He isn't that much stronger.
3) Assuming just for a moment that your view of feudal technocracies is
   true (which I doubt), the whole concept could as easily work the other 
   way round. King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making 
   Harald a puppet of his.

>Unless of course
>Angus has managed to control all the shares on Gram, in which case Gram
>becomes an autocracy rather than a feudal technocracy.  

If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of 
it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy. 

 .(And then Harald
>just uses his higher TL military to defeat Angus!)

Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram
militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price.

>>>Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest economic power
>> 
>> Fallacy. See above.
>
>I'll give you this is you give me an example of a downward turn in your
>cycles, otherwise I'm sticking with the scientific method.  :-)

No, I was talking about their respective GPPs. Of course, if King Anders
owns a big slice of Sacnoth, he gets a good slice of their GPP too ;-)


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir

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

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