With discussions on how to rework the tech advancement process going around, I figure I'd throw my hat into the ring as well; depending on what kind of failure a given experimental system has, perhaps the option of refining/rerolling a single aspect of it (say, size or thrust in the case of the impulse thrusters) could crop up in ships as many as two or three designs down the line (or more, at Sayle's discretion). The choice could even be offered to do one or the other (do you try to make a smaller thruster with the same thrust work, or do you try to dial the thrust up to match the current size?).
It's a way to make daring and falling short with this class potentially lead into at least somewhat unique designs in the future for sub-systems.
My feelings are as follows:
1. Next-Generation Tech is always better.
2. Even rolling badly on Next-Generation tech is always better.
Therefore:
1. The current system trades immediate improvement/tech advancement for opportunity cost.
You
could get superior technology compared to canon, but you probably won't. You are actually more likely to get worse technology than canon. But since you still get access to the tech ahead-of-time, what it basically means is you get an immediate capability boost for the cost of
probably having inferior technology in the usual lifetime of the tech. So for the engines you'd get better engines than expected for 2220-2235, and worse engines for 2235-2265 or something.
So in that sense the whole 'roll for decrease/increase' performance is a bit deceptive. That's just a bit of wiggle on the process. The staging just means that the closer you get to the ordinary introduction date, the less worse the technology is meant to be.
Honestly just having a 'rush technology' mechanic would probably be a more transparent and immediately understandable version of the current system.
So what are alternative versions. The way I see it there are a couple of options.
1. Technology is introduced and goes from prototype (early)->standard->mature technology with incremental improvements over time. Maybe the incentive when you have a mature technology is that it's close-performance and notably cheaper than an early introduction of prototype Next-gen tech. Maybe for the Ambassador-class you want to use a super-charged Excelsior-class impulse engine because it's 50% the cost, even if one of those fancy new thrusters from Avidyne gives you +25% thrust and pushes you up the tech tree.
2. Like the current system you can gamble on technology early, and those rolls are set for the ship you build. Then with each new ship, the underlying tech is refined stage-by-stage. So you roll on the Type-3 and it's a giant fuckoff engine that underperforms. Well the Halley is stuck with that. But the
next ship has fixed the size issue down to a normal footprint, even if it's having issues with thrust still. Then the third ship is all smooth sailing. The catch for that will be that you don't get
positive bonuses anymore. All tech will eventually have zero penalties, but no extra bonuses.
I welcome more suggestions: I wouldn't have considered the incremental improvement model otherwise. As it stands the three in consideration are:
1. The current system, just more transparent/rushing technology framing.
2. Technology improves over its lifetime, with next-generation leaps being less potent and more expensive.
3. Current system, but no bonuses and components normalize over time.
