About Intediction Field related technology

[Fred]

My suggestion would be to hold off on making any technology dealing with interdiction fields and to instead go back to the interdiction fields themselves and revise them to: 1) better define the technology and its function because it remains mostly obscure; 2) adapt it to the new speed standards, seeing that the 5% of normal speed figure was more or less a stopgap solution that the GMs came up when I needed to figure out what to use until something better came up.

Maybe it's the time to go for that 'something better' now... though arguably, 1000c (5% of 20 000c) still works perfectly fine within the confines of a solar system. Perhaps the way this should be address would be to limit a ship to STL speeds, get rid of the possibility of making FTL jumps in favor of high STL jumps (a ship hitting turbo and going from 0.25c to 0.75c has much better chances to dodge even area attacks, though fulfilling the purpose of the FTL jump) and revise the mechanics for being able to access super-luminal speeds.

Seeing that ships are now going slower, slow enough to view the scenery, I believe - amongst other things - that we may try to enrich activities within the focal point of activity of all plotships: solar systems.

 

[Zack]

I think the interdiction tech is well enough described, the basics of how it works are understood and it has become a quite integrated part of the setting.

If any changes should be made I think we should put in a 1-10 system like the DR rating for interdiction and FTL to streamline things and add some consistency. The rating could easily be used to determine the effect on FTL speeds which would generally solve most of the problems we have with the system (aside from calculating power loss over distance for radial fields).

 

[Fred]

Ah ha, Zack, consider the ramifications of why we use interdiction field technology, the reason why multiple propulsion types exist on our starships and what we need to accomplish within the scope of this setting. There are great many blanks.

Here's what I think would be the conditions we'd need to follow for this to have the least bit of sense, according to our needs:


~ Ships must slow down to STL speed when approaching objects with significant gravity wells.

~ Ships, once they grow more distant from a gravity well, start getting gradual access to their secondary means of propulsion, the FTL drives. In turn, having the FTL drives start being useable allows a ship to gain more distance on the said gravity well, thus breaking free faster as they gain distance.

~ Once ships have escaped a gravity well (for a solar system, this would signify reaching its boundary), they can engage their fold drives and thus start transiting from one system to another. Once they reach another system, they must return to FTL and repeat the process in reverse if they wish to reach a planet.
*** NOT DOING SO SHOULD BE DANGEROUS OR NOT POSSIBLE ***


~ A starship with the proper equipment can simulate the gravity well usually generated by a planet within a certain degree or effectiveness to force other ships to slow down and thus be unable to escape, allowing the ship generating the effect or its allies to confront the vessel torn from its superluminal speed potential.

~ The reverse also true; a ship properly equipped could counter the effect of gravity wells to be able to mitigate the effect and so break free sooner.
*** THE TWO POINTS ABOVE SHOULD REQUIRE EXPENSE OF RESOURCES SEEING THIS IS VERY MUCH A TUG OF WAR TO THE SHIPS INVOLVED ***


Sublight Engines serve as the main means of propulsion when engaged in battle, and also serves for navigation close to stellar bodies such as asteroids, planetoids, plants and other bodies.

If you go with the average STL speed of 0.2c, it's going to take around 45 minutes to cross the distance between the Sun and Earth, and nearly 3 days of travel to go from the Sun and go 90 AU to reach the most distant recorded body in the solar system, Sedna.

Overall, sublight is underestimated because it isn't the speed of light or more... but sublight still remains pretty fast as soon as you start calculating it as c (like 0.1c). If you need to go anywhere within a star system and that you aren't in a great deal of hurry, STL works splendidly.

The question would be why in the first place ships would stoop to using sublight engines. Personally, I think I would go with blaming it on the effect of gravity well on the fields generated to form a subspace bubble that envelops the starship when they use their Superluminal Engines, distorting the local spacetime continuum and moving the starship at velocities that exceed the speed of light - you know... interfere with it and make it risky to control going to certain speeds without endangering the structural integrity of the ship or some such. Gravity wells could also make it impossible to use Hyperspace Fold Drive System while within them.

This has ships slow down to certain speed potentials within the range of the gravity generated by the objects - large objects like stars and the planet orbiting them (they wouldn't orbit stars if stars didn't have gravity of their own).

Just in the same way, starships with the interdiction field-like technology (this is so Starwars though - I wish we'd have another name for this) would be able to use some of their power to generate a gravity field and thus trap other ships into going to FTL speeds or STL speeds instead of fold speeds, depending on the distance and such. Personally, I believe this should come as a sacrifice (power used for the field means the ship ought to have diminished performance elsewhere - or at least until we figure out a better way to manage ships power systems in regard to weapons, shielding, sensors, environmental control and engines).

In the same fashion, the defending/fleeing ship could try countering this gravity field, though my feeling is that it should be somewhat harder for the defender (seeing the other ship would have inertial superiority at the time and that countering it would be a slow, tedious process).

From there, we can follow on Zack's idea and use a scale to know just what kind of gravity field a ship would be able to generate, at what cost... and we could cross reference this with the gravity that a ship would be exposed to within a star system.

 

[Zack]

Interdiction was originally developed to counter the FTL advantages the NDI had over the Jaaq’tah. It then proliferated down to other factions. Yamatai then developed anti-interdiction as a means to help fight the Jaaq’tah.

Ramification wise the interdiction/anti-interdiction is a tug of war of power output, generally revolving around what tech on a ship deserves what amounts of power and ect. This tug of war provides a dynamic and interesting aspect to ship combat. It allows us to move things along quickly when we need to and slow things down when we need to depending on its deployment by factions in the setting.

Tech wise Interdiction works by ‘reinforcing’ space by projecting gravity and anti-interdiction works by ‘weakening’ space through projection of anti-gravity making it harder or easier to manipulate space in order to fold, distort or otherwise screw around with FTL effects.

In terms of STL, Point to Point, and CDD, each has its own benefits and pitfalls. STL is the only propulsion that can’t be countered. CDD is the middle ground drive, allowing some movement in an interdiction field and decent FTL capacity. Point to point provides fast FTL movement at the cost of destroying ships outright should they try and exit inside a sufficiently strong interdiction field. Balancing between these three systems is key in combat.

I think that interdiction tech is one of the better explained techs on the site. Right now it just suffers from being in the same sort of position as weapons used to be. Lots of interdiction and anti-interdiction tech is out there and in a fleet battle all of it would overlap. Right now there are no number based guidelines to provide the consistency like the DR system does for weapons and I think that is the only thing that needs to be added. Right now FTL engines are capable of out-powering a planet’s gravitational field and I think that is perfectly alright. Naturally planets, blackholes, and what not should get their own DR style ratings and a simple calculation should be put in place to represent the power lost for a sphere field (Perhaps a close, medium, and end rating representing the strength of the field close to the ship, away from the ship, and how far the field extends before it is negligible).

I don’t see why we should re-write the entire setting just so we can use more STL engines. Compared to all of the other work that can be done to improve things it does seem like a waste of time. If you personally want to put a more ‘starwars’ feel into your plots you can easily mention interdiction tech more and make it more prevalient in the ships you come up against as well as understate the use of anti-interdiction tech at least until a 1-10 DR system comes out. At which point you should probably be designing ships that are high in interdiction and low in anti-interdiction. This way everyone can have the style of RP they want show through not only in their plots but also in their ship design.


Edit: I should also be a bit more clear about what I had in mind for the DResque interdiction system. Because of the tug of war nature of interdiction it can't be 1-10 like I said but should be more like -10 through 10. Interdiction could be represented by negative numbers and anti-interdiction and FTL engine strength represented by positive numbers. A positive total value would allow use of fold drives while a negative total value would quickly build up massive speed penalties to conventional drive and eventually nullify conventional drive altogether.

 

[Fred]

I get the feeling that you disagree but sort of agree at the same time. You seem to be very keen on the warfare aspect of it, whereas I seem to actually point out that environment should also play a role in the way engines are used.

Personally, the reason I point this out would be because it helps a player relate more to the environment and also identify more to the equipment a starship uses for navigation. I also think there has to be a darned good reason why battles need to be fought in sublight speed.

Let's address your point of view. Interdiction drives are mainly to fight. But then, most of the time you are going to wish to engage another ship in battle... you'll be dealing with ranges most commonly between 1 to 10 light seconds.

Wes also seems to keenly wish to interpret torpedoes as weapons whom have a delay-to-impact because when those are coming, he wants to see them come and he wants a chance to shoot them down... and we are talking about a delay-to-impact which needs to happen probably in the 5 to 10 light second range for someone to see them coming and react to the threat. The primary reason I was able to destroy the Plumeria is because I capitalized on the complete inability Hanako had to react to an attack and thus benefit from weapons whom, thanks to their nearly-nonexistant delay-to-impact with their mini-CDD that allowed them to go to 17000c (even the AS-5's 2500c OR 500c would have had done the trick).

If FTL torpedoes are to be used in scale to this, their speed will likely need to be reduced to something around 3c to make them more accurate than beams in hitting their targets, but still give some time to react to them... even if 3c makes it very hard to intercept it with a beam-based point-defense-weapon.

So, what I'm getting at is that a large part of the idea behind interdiction field these days is to also keep another ship within effective weapon range... and this is the sort of scale we are dealing with. That sort of scale is only pretty much used well in tandem with STL engines and mixing FTL to that makes for a pretty awkward situation when it comes to justifying it, or having ships oppose and counter a counter of a counter of an anti-FTL field - not to mention FTL jumps as used previously are... sort of cheap to be honest. I have players whom need to understand and picture those kind of things, so, that's why taking measure to help players identify better to those systems would be, in my mind, worthwhile.

 

[Toshiro]

While I see Fred's comments as logical, there is one issue I would like to bring up...

Under your system, tactical FTL or Folding would be impossible in a lot of battle as most combat occurs, believe it or not, within solar systems.

Because of this, I recommend that an alternate way to explain Interdiction be found.

As for slowing down to check out solar systems, perhaps this would be common sense more than combat, for vessels designated to explore. However, a ship en route to a battle has better things to do than sight-see, and will likely just steer around the system, eliminating your entire concept's purpose.

As for the interdiction rating system...Interdiction Device power could easily be rated not by DR, but by AU range. As for defeating the interdiction field with anti-interdiction, perhaps a ship needs an anti interdiction field generation capacity of 50% to break away? That indicates an Interdiction Field of equivalent power.

 

[Wes]

I'm really impressed by the arguments and ideas put forth in this thread thus far. Everyone who's posted so far deserves a pat on the back for being so civil and thoughtful about what could be a really hot issue, and kudos to Fred for bringing it up. I'm really proud of you all.

As for the interdiction rating system...Interdiction Device power could easily be rated not by DR, but by AU range. As for defeating the interdiction field with anti-interdiction, perhaps a ship needs an anti interdiction field generation capacity of 50% to break away? That indicates an Interdiction Field of equivalent power.

Makes sense.

If FTL torpedoes are to be used in scale to this, their speed will likely need to be reduced to something around 3c to make them more accurate than beams in hitting their targets, but still give some time to react to them... even if 3c makes it very hard to intercept it with a beam-based point-defense-weapon.

Let's make this change.

 

[Fred]

Under your system, tactical FTL or Folding would be impossible in a lot of battle as most combat occurs, believe it or not, within solar systems.

Let me precise. Tactical FTL was a concept originally brought up by me to try to somehow include the notion that MEGAMI computers were made to handle 'what Star Army vessels do best: superluminal attack maneuvers'. It also provided a way to escape the area effects of area effect weapons like the Sakura-class gunship's aetheric array on spread mode.

The problem with FTL tactical jumps was that it reduces battles to whack-a-mole contests. For the purposes of evading attacks, hitting high speed with a STL unit (say, going from 0.2c to 0.6c) should be amply sufficient most of the time... especially if you no longer have to deal with superluminal torpedoes and that like.

Fold systems should not be used in combat. I'm actually vehemently opposed to it. Using hyperspace folds inside a star system is much like using a cannonball to kill a fly. For each 500c you devote from your standard superluminal drive, you cross 1 AU under one second and many combat capable vessels are actually capable of reaching 5000c+ speeds. Effectively, this makes the vessel exist in one position for a moment and suddenly *POP* you're 5 AUs away and the crew inside barely had the time to blink. You do not need to fold in a battle and anyone doing so is pretty much being very wasteful about their resources.

Why wasteful? Because fold drives aren't meant to be used in the SARP in split-second maneuvers. The Hyperspace Fold Drive systems, in the best of circumstances, requires that a starship devote most of its onboard resources whole a whole minute to folding.

So, if my onboard power is:

Weapons 30%
Shields 20%
Sensors 15%
Environmental 5%
Engines 30%

I'd likely need to change it to something like what is below when charging to make a hyperspace fold:

Weapons 0%
Shields 0%
Sensors 15%
Environmental 5%
Engines 80%

Whereas while inside a star system and requiring to use of a FTL drive, power usage is much lighter - the FTL drives probably take close to as much power as the STL drive, so it's really just a matter of shutting one down and activating the other. Of course, when it comes to using your FTL drive in a system, you end up being limited by the environment or the opponent hindering the use of your FTL drive... which is why you might have to sacrifice some power from shields or weapons or some such to gain access to low FTL speeds to make the FTL jump you wish to do.

But then, when I mean low FTL speed, I mean low FTL speeds. Like I mentioned before, being able to pop from one place to another isn't entirely fair or easy to image either. Heck, if you go as far as PvP it can easily become a game like cowboy and indians... you get two kids going powpow and eventually it becomes a matter of convincing the other kid that you shot him first and that he died.

What I'm getting at is that you should only be able to use FTL speeds in a transitory fashion to disminish the time taken for one ship to reach another to be able to put his weapons to bear. Battles being at a distance of 1 AU subject the participants to going both at 0.9c - high burn for two relatively fast ships going one toward another - and meeting in 4 minutes.

4 minutes is a long time when in a battle. Some room to maneuver and for talking in character is nice, but this is a little too much - less helps the battle feel more dynamic so speeding up things for player help here. So, being able to use low FTL speeds of 5c within 1 AU and have it gradually decrease until you get only 0.25 AU and only get STL allows for a much briefer timelag in the battle allowing FTL speed to be use to ease the positioning of the ships without going so far as the unfairness of the FTL tactical jump.

In my mind, the tactical jump shouldn't be done at all within an interdiction field. You should only be able to counter the interdiction field and try to break free and get farther out using low FTL. After all, the point of interdiction fields is to trap an opponent... to both deprive him of the option of escaping and reducing things to sublight range where ship weapons can be put to use. If you can't slow down the enemy ship to STL speed and that it keeps trying to flee at low FTL, odds are no weapon you have will be able to hit that fleeing opponent - which is why you need a decisive way to stop it.

 

[Doshii Jun]

Is this new idea about interdiction field tech and folding going to rely on the ship power-distribution theory you've been tinkering with on the Miharu?

 

[Fred]

Well, power sources need to be dealt with sooner or later and yes, I do think it should come into account eventually...

But on the other hand, I admit much of the inspiration for bringing this up was because of the activity currently going on in the 5th XF - one of the Asamoya's stunts had me go WTF, but then, the interpretation of interdiction fields and how propulsion systems are designed to be used is pretty much in the air so it's really no fault of Soresu rather than a flaw in how it is implemented.

The main reason is mainly help for the interpretation players (namely you, Jake, whom as pilot have to deal with this) in active plots.

Seeing that the engine speeds are being revised, addressing the interdiction fields in turn seemed to be the next logical step.

 

[Doshii Jun]

Ahh. *nod nod* Wasn't trying to knock the idea, but when I saw the power-distribution theory brought up, it made me wonder.

 

[Andrew]

I too have been watching this conversation...

I agree that something needs to be done in terms of Interdiction Field technology-and I agree with Fred;while we are revising speeds this should happen as well.

However, I will be the first to admit I have difficulty understanding the concept to begin with. Not to mention I have a fair amount on my plate right now.

I am honored that something in the 5th battle stirred up this conversation. Anyway I will keep watch over what is discussed here and am prepared support roll out in terms of changes to the current methods.

As for power sources/distribution...Why not start a separate discussion?

Oh and Fred, I do use fold sometimes in combat to make very sudden movements-like escape. So it is not all that bad. But yes, I agree it should have a power cost--> but that is a discussion for the power sources/distribution thread if you make one.

Note to 5th XF: We will not be making changes to the battle in progress in light of this conversation. If any changes come out of this they can be implemented afterwards so that we dont disrupt the flow.

 

[Zack]

This seems to be going in the direction of taking a lot of freedom away from players, trying to force them into a specific ship design role and into specific ways of using things in combat. I feel this goes against the free form nature of the RP and I know that most people cringe at the thought of having to deal with percentages in RP.

If the complaint is interpretation of how interdiction works is up in the air then lets just nail down a few key points and leave maximum flexibility in the rules. A few things like requiring a folding ship to remain in place in normal space for the entire time required to make the fold could be a good start at pushing folding to more transit only use as so many people seem to want. A simple 1-10 system (or -10 through 10) system would be easy to implement and retroactively apply to ships. This would solve any interpretation problems that we might have.

The best part about a simple addition like this is we don't have to do massive retcon or cause huge continuality issues by changing the entire structure of how ships operate in the RP. If anything the 5th XF plot has shown that the interdiction system is working just fine.

 

[Toshiro]

We're adding enough numbers to the mix as-is, I think.

Also, I am RPing that normal folding is not possible at ALL in Interdiction fields--I'm using the TDD for that goal, which is teleportation rather than travel.

If anything, I think our estimate of the Interdiction field's power over a folding system is pretty high.

Also, seeing as a ship has to charge TDD and its fold systems and has limited use per time, I think it adds a very specific element of interest and strategy to the RP--more like a specific move you can only use so often as part of a more elaborate plan, or to save yourself from a doomsday attack.

As for removing freedom from the players, this is trying to explain a tech which has fallen into dispute in its use. It has been shown, in Fred's example and in the recent battle in general, that it needs to be elaborated upon in more detail--enough to avoid confusion. Adding points systems will not solve the problem if no one knows exactly how it should be used.

 

[Zack]

I think the addition of a point system would perfectly solve this problem.

-Does FTL system A work where I am?
-Add up anti-interdiction and interdiction points where that ship is
-look at some sort of chart to interperate what kind of FTL is possible in that spot.

As for the tech and theory behind it, all of that has been explained quite well in the submissions I've read. A DR like page that explains the number system for interdiction like it does for weapons would easily be able to consolidate that information where players can get at it easily. In addition to this we would be using a system based on 10 that handles interdiction which is just like the system we have for DR. In a sense it isn't just consistency within interdiction but consistency between rules as well.

 

[Fred]

However, I will be the first to admit I have difficulty understanding the concept to begin with. Not to mention I have a fair amount on my plate right now.

I could illustrate to make it clear. Once you grasp the concept, it's actually easy to picture for people whom just want to interpret it on the fly... just as long as everyone is more or less on the same page. Sure, there are numbers if the people want to use them, but most of the time... people actually shouldn't have to as long as those concerned know what they have to keep track of.

As for power sources/distribution...Why not start a separate discussion?

I'm not ready to start that yet. We're opening a whole big can of worms if we go in power distribution because it involves power generators, the power usage behind ship system, how much power supplies a ship can have, how much systems those can power and the fuel consumed in certain cases.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'd rather change things bits by bits and adjust gradually so that the changes are easy to cope with for everyone. I feel it is enough for the purpose of this discussion to just have people accept that there is a healthy amount of give-or-take involved and that you can't just derive a favorable advantage without there being a cost for the benefit you're asking for.

Oh and Fred, I do use fold sometimes in combat to make very sudden movements-like escape. So it is not all that bad. But yes, I agree it should have a power cost--> but that is a discussion for the power sources/distribution thread if you make one.

Again, it's much more efficient to just use a brief use of the superluminal drive to get to somewhere else in an eyeblink without having to use something so cumbersome as the fold drive system. You know, what Toshiro calls the FTL tactical jump.

One problem this brings is the whack-a-mole syndrome I mentioned earlier.

Another problem this bring is that if it is so each to make high-c FTL jumps (in the several hundreds/thousands) then it makes it really easy for a ship to disengage from battle and escape. If every ship has this ability to shake off anti-FTL fields nearly at will, some of those would always be able to escape, never be truly commited to battle and such.

The high STL jump maneuver (when you triple your speed) solves the purpose of getting out of dodge quickly. The original concept of superluminal battles in the SARP is really cumbersome and I sincerely believe that it would be much more beneficial to use FTL speeds in battles to alleviate timelags rather than the ways we are using it now for convenient (maybe too convenient) escapes.

After all, if we want to really break off combat, we have cloaking devices too (CFS stealth), though CFS stealth in itself makes silent running sort of useless... and silent running is likely what we should use if we want to make intelligent flanking maneuvers and the like.

If anything the 5th XF plot has shown that the interdiction system is working just fine.

Sorry, but it looks to me like the way interdiction fields are seen right now is flawed. An Unfortunate Night is a blatant proof of people trying to use the information they have intelligently and there are despite that mismatches and excesses.

*pats Zack* Don't worry. I know you're conservative. But don't forget that I'm the one whom clarified things earlier last year about interdiction fields and FTL jumps.

And not that player freedom thing again >_< Let that argument go: it's never done you any good. People are still free to gloss over things as their plot permits if that's how their plots are, but having consistent details (I can't emphasize this enough) is the difference between me having to lead a player by the nose, a player trying to pull out something out of his arse and getting a hit or miss as to the result, or the player coming to his station and knowing what his job is.

There are different freedoms. The freedom to interpret things loosely, and the freedom to trust a player to have his character do his job when he is armed with the knowledge to properly do it. As a Game Master, I feel it is more important to put the power in a player's hand so that he may make more of a difference.

 

[Toshiro]

I mirror Fred's beliefs, though I find it hard to believe that a ship with FTL capacity simply won't use it to escape attacks if the opportunity arises.

And no, we do not need MORE numbers. We need a concise description of the technology which players can refer to. Using an AU rating and having to have an equal power Interdiction device to escape is PLENTY of number data to solve the problem. Most if not all Interdictors in the setting, save for the large Anti-Fleet one in the 5th's thread, are universally the same strength anyway. We just have to make sure there aren't too many different strength ones. Maybe just Ship size (1 AU volume) and Fleet Size (9 AU volume).


Also:

This seems to be going in the direction of taking a lot of freedom away from players, trying to force them into a specific ship design role and into specific ways of using things in combat. I feel this goes against the free form nature of the RP and I know that most people cringe at the thought of having to deal with percentages in RP.

You had said this in this thread about our idea, but your idea of a numerical scale hits even closer to the mark of percentages.

 

[Zack]

The ‘whack-a-mole’ problem would be entirely solved by a 1-10 esque system as ships could force confrontation by overlapping enough of their interdiction fields in one spot. A skilled enemy is able to keep an opponent from escaping and staying mobile is a key part of combat today as is. The changes you are suggesting seem more like a wish to change things more towards a battlefleet gothic (see: sail era battleships) type of combat instead of the sci-fi type combat we have now.

As for the 5th XF plots I’ve read, namely Andrews, things seem to be running well. Players are having fun and there is a high post rate.

And please Fred, stop trying to take credit for everything. This is me asking you nicely because it is really getting on my nerves.

If you want to talk about what things have worked well for me in the past, when I started running the NSS Alliance it quickly became one of the fastest and largest plotships on the site. Though I’m not allowed to run things anymore I think this illustrates quite well that I not only know my stuff but that I know my stuff well. I’ve been advocating consistent details, details consistent within themselves, consistent with other rules, and consistent within the terms of what has been done previously in the plot. Creating more inconsistency by changing the way devices are used in the setting does not seem like a way to create more consistency, especially when we have an easier and more consistent way of fixing things.


And the 1-10 system I suggested is just a suggestion to go on. It would use minimal numbers and it is already consistent with a familiar number set that players seem comfortable with. Yes we are adding numbers and I am generally against that but this is a point where we need to at least add something and the fewer numbers added the better.

 

[Toshiro]

Uso, having people not know how a technology works or how to use it in a setting creates inconsistency. The only way for consistency is to have everyone do the same thing, which means establishing the technology.

We already have an established rule, being that given equal interdiction abilities, one ship can make an interdiction field of half the volume of the other's interdiction field.


This means 2 anti-interdiction fields break an equal rating interdiction field (2 ships beat 1 ship).

The larger interdiction field needs 2 anti fleet or 18 ship size to break. (2 fleet beats 1 fleet, or 18 ships break 1 fleet)

That's all the elaboration we need. No additional numbers beyond what's posted here are needed as long as we keep Interdiction volumes standardized


Furthermore, you're unlikely to have just players controlling these fields beyond the ship size, which is universal. Getting into fleet size, it's likely to be a GM device. Meaning players just have to remember the first part.

 

[Zack]

Thats perfectly fine, it is just the kind of small system we need for keeping track of things.

If it is decided to go with that system (or any system for that matter) I still think we should have a wiki page that outlines the interdiction rules and consolidates a bit of information about what the tech is and does.