> > Onno offered a TL8 designed/built sailing ship facing Nelson - ergo in a > > set TL5 world. So those world rules apply to the ship > > - which was the point I was making. > > That wasn't the point I was trying to make.
We fall into another specific to counter and specific about a generality. I think we go at slightly cross routes to the same destination. > If both sides decide to ignore a technology option, there is a > level playing field, and vehicles which would be inefficient a > more reasonable universe can still win. That Nelson remark was > to say they're a substantial improvement over earlier TLs, too. It is argued that the Royal Navy be at the French Imperial Navy with worse ships and better crews. After all, they captured French ships to use for preference over home built ones. :) Tactics dictates technology dictates tactics... :) > Imagine people had looked at early turbojet engines and said > "no way those Rube Goldberg contraptions will ever work". We > might have seen TL7 wars fought with increasingly efficient > prop fighters, which are viable designs as long as both sides > have the same mental blinders. A supersonic jet might be able > to outrun them with ease, but there are no supersonic jets > because nobody bothers to build them. Props are an existing > tech, after all, and TL7/8 prop fighters beat those old WWII > clunkers with ease, so obviously there is still room for > progress. (There might be a nice vehicle concept or two > lurking somewhere, BTW ...) :) Porco Rosso's sea plane fighter for a start. > That situation would be analogous to your proposal of a world > where civilian Mecha fit the civilian market and nobody tries > tracks in military applications -- after all, there are Mecha > factories all over the place, but no tank factories. > > It could be that the real world has similar blind spots where > it comes to plentiful free energy and easy space travel. By > definition, we can't know. We do known that tracks are viable > for ground vehicles, so I want Mecha which can be justified > in an universe with tracked vehicles. The justification > doesn't have to be watertight or universally applicable, > just enough to convince a couple of generals and congressmen > to put some poor GIs into walking AFVs. > > US WWII tank destroyers sounded good on paper, too :-) I agree - the history of war is the history of technology - strewn with bad ideas. I see from your next mail you have a solution. _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
