Comments And Analysis

Technology is life. You cannot afford to fall significantly behind other races in technology. A race should take every opportunity to advance its technology. At the beginning of a campaign, part of the Other Fund may be used to start research for Technology Level 2, thus giving things a kick start. As soon as a race achieves a new Technology Level, it should start researching the technologies associated with that Technology Level. And as soon as they have the minimum number of technologies (25% of those available), they should start researching the next Technology Level.

At each level you can easily determine the average time it should require to advance. A D10 has an average roll of 5.5. Divide the R&D Points required to advance (see Imperial Starfire, table 15.07.03, page 26) by 5.5. The result is the number of turns, of average D10 rolls, that it will take to complete that technology level. For example, to reach Technology Level 2 it is 50 points, or, on average, 9 turns. Individual Systems, requiring 25 points each, should be completed in 4 to 5 turns. Assuming more than one System is started as soon as they are available for research, 4 turns should be required (this also assumes that Alkelda Dawn systems are not being used, if they are, add 1 to each System development time). Note that this does not mean all of the Systems are completed in this time, only that enough have been finished to allow research towards the next Technology Level to begin. The table also assumes all research is done at the standard rate (i.e., no Crash, Perceived Threat, or other accelerated form of research occurs).

Research Activity	Expected Turns	Cumulative Turns
Tech Level 2	9	9
Systems	4	13
Tech Level 3	11	24
Systems	4	28
Tech Level 4	14	42
Systems	4	46
Tech Level 5	14	60
Systems	4	64
Tech Level 6	15	79
Systems	4	93
Tech Level 7	15	108
Systems	4	112
Tech Level 8	16	128
Systems	4	132

The Starfire Assistant program reports advancements in research with nine descriptive names. With just a small amount of obvious math, these names can be broken down into the values which they represent at each level. The following table lists these values. Note that all of the following is based solely on the observation of the behavior of the program, not on any knowledge of its programming.

Reported Term	Working Toward Economic / Technical Level
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12-12+
Abysmal	1-10	1-5	1-6	1-8	1-8	1-8	1-9	1-9	1-9	1-10	1-11	1-12
Very Poor	11-20	6-10	7-12	9-15	9-15	9-16	10-17	10-18	10-18	11-20	12-22	13-23
Poor	21-30	11-15	13-18	16-23	16-23	17-24	18-26	19-27	19-27	21-30	23-33	24-35
Below Average	31-40	16-20	19-24	24-30	24-30	25-32	27-34	28-36	28-36	31-40	34-44	36-46
Average	41-60	21-30	25-36	31-45	31-45	33-48	35-51	37-54	37-54	41-60	45-66	47-69
Above Average	61-70	31-35	37-42	46-53	46-53	49-56	52-60	55-63	55-63	61-70	67-77	70-81
Good	71-80	36-40	43-48	54-60	54-60	57-64	61-68	64-72	64-72	71-80	78-88	82-92
Very Good	81-90	41-45	49-54	61-68	61-68	65-72	69-77	73-81	73-81	81-90	89-99	93-104
Excellent	91-99	46-49	55-59	69-74	69-74	73-79	78-84	82-89	82-89	91-99	100-109	105-114
Complete	100	50	60	75	75	80	85	90	90	100	110	115

To Play Comments

Updated 19 September 2000.