We're gonna have to rethink the TLs

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

Water power defined, as it is used in the OP, as waterwheels.

Which totally overlooks the amount of human power available with fresh water and sewage.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by shawnhcorey

Which totally overlooks the amount of human power available with fresh water and sewage.

I don't think it's overlooking, it's just classifying separately.

Water supply and water powered mills are really quite distinct, even if both involve water and can involve varying amounts of labor.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by shawnhcorey

Which totally overlooks the amount of human power available with fresh water and sewage.

That's not what anyone uses "water power" to mean in ordinary, everyday English. There's wind power, water power, tidal power, steam power, nuclear energy, solar energy or power. . . .

The Low-Tech series isn't a treatise on engineering. It's written in informal English, not in technical engineering language or equations.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Arcanjo7Sagi

The problem with a "flat TL" is that it doen't cover all existing technology variations within a certain time or civilization. Because of that I prefer to analyze every technological aspect separately, creating a separate TL for each aspect.

But how many aspects do you use?

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Different issues arise with applied technology like grain mills, of course.

Yes, I'm thinking about applied technology. I'm positing that it might (I'm not sure) be better to define TL according to what is available to to fairly common people (or to "reference common people") rather than what is actually available but is to difficult to get hold of that only freakin' god-kings can actually get to enjoy it.

Also, it is important to keep in mind that the whole concept of Tech Level arose, and AFAIK in Classic Traveller, as a shorthand for GMs to convey what kinds of gear (primarily weapon and armour) they could purchase on any given planet.

Both as a convenience for the GM, not having to micro-manage each individual piece of gear ("anything that is TL X is available, and anything that is TL X-1 is available at 1/3 price"), and as an empowerment of the players, because in those cases where the GM might want to micromanage it becomes about an order of amgnitude more difficult for him to do so.

[Arcanjo7Sagi]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

But how many aspects do you use?

Well, sometimes I use something similar of those fields in B512: Transportation, Weapons and Armor, Power, Biotech/Medicine. Sometimes I add Information to this. Depends on the need. Sometimes I specify a specific TL for specific skills.

I usually follow the following guidelines questions:

1 - How many fields I will need?

2 - Is there any need to highlight certain skills?

More questions may arise, but I think these are the most important.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Yes, I'm thinking about applied technology. I'm positing that it might (I'm not sure) be better to define TL according to what is available to to fairly common people (or to "reference common people") rather than what is actually available but is to difficult to get hold of that only freakin' god-kings can actually get to enjoy it.

That's exactly the standard definition of TL. Something that an advanced research can demonstrate in the lab, or a highly skilled engineer can make a prototype of, often with a lot of bugs, isn't the measure of what's "available" at a given TL.

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think it's overlooking, it's just classifying separately.

Water supply and water powered mills are really quite distinct, even if both involve water and can involve varying amounts of labor.

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's not what anyone uses "water power" to mean in ordinary, everyday English. There's wind power, water power, tidal power, steam power, nuclear energy, solar energy or power. . . .

The Low-Tech series isn't a treatise on engineering. It's written in informal English, not in technical engineering language or equations.

Considering that the Roman economy ran on slavery, I don't think anything that would keep them health can be easily discarded when it comes to power.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by shawnhcorey

Considering that the Roman economy ran on slavery, I don't think anything that would keep them health can be easily discarded when it comes to power.

Keeping an internal combustion engine running requires things like lubrication and the services of a mechanic, but we don't call lubricating oil "fuel" or "power"; we call it "lubrication" or, more broadly, "maintenance" or "overhead costs."

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

It was 12 boots and not just 4. It would have been 14 if Apollo 13 hadn't had its' problem and more than that if multiple missions had not been trimmed off the back end of the program.

Well, in 1969, it was eight boots (Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad, and Bean, who wore two boots each). Four boots failed to land in 1970, and sixteen more were landed in 1971 and 1972.