Determining Trade Routes

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by thrash:
Huh? When did Aramis convince me of anything, except that there is no point in arguing with a zealot?

Chris,

You did write "Son of a bitch. Much as it pains me to admit it, I did the math and Aramis is correct." in THIS thread didn't you? Aramis showed that Al Morai worked as a company within a LBB:2 framework, something that the 'High Church' proponents of GT:FT had refused to even contemplate.

If you mean that Far Trader is based on sound economic assumptions and those that precede it were not, then of course I would have to agree -- but I don't think that was Aramis' thesis.

I not making judgements about which one is correct and which was isn't(1), that is beyond the scope of this thread. All I am saying is that the CT trade system and the GT:FT trade system are different and rely on different assumptions. Each work well enough when they are examined with only their specific assumptions in mind. Comparing the two against each other is just an endless round of apples and oranges.

LBB:2 may very well be irrational from an economic standpoint, but it is internally consistent within that irrationality. That is what I was trying to suggest to Mickazoid. Any trade routes she uses in her TU should have an underlying logic to them, whether the economic theory underpinning that logic is rational or not. Whether that logic 'works' in other situations is irrelevant. All that matters is that there be an internal consistency, that there be a 'method to the madness' that her players can count on and predict.

Using the table Sigg provided and using that table alone does not provide enough internal consistency. Mickazoid needs to add something more to the route determination process. You and others have been generous enough to suggest just what she should add to the process.

The choice is now her's because it is, after all, her Traveller universe we are discussing.


Have fun,
Bill

1 - I happen to believe that GT:FT is correct. However, that belief only applies to my Traveller universe need not apply to any others.

 

[inexorabletash]

Originally posted by mickazoid:
I like all of these ideas, folks!

And a mod of Joshua's pathfind program could be employed to generate routes as per Thrash's ideas... interesting... might be an interesing 'non-canon' option - since iI like the realistic nature of Dan's approach.

Indeedy. For border generation I need to brush up on Delaunay triangulations anyway...

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by thrash:
You are reading far too much into my response, however ... in very much the same manner that Aramis reads far too much into his observations. It's a very large step from "it can be made to work" to "it makes sense," and even larger to "it is supposed to be this way."

Chris,

Re-read what I've written. You're reading far too much into my posts.

I am only talking about "It can be made to work". The other two 'levels' you're bringing into this thread are irrelevent to the topic at hand.

All I did was caution Mickazoid that her trade routes would need an internally consistent basis. That's it. "It makes sense" and "It is supposed to be this way" are of no consequence. As much as it may seem idiotic to you, economically rational trade routes need not exist in anyone's personal Traveller universe. All that is required is that the system used to produce those trade routes is internally consistent so that the players can predict the routes' behavior and plan accordingly.

What I have not done in this thread is question the rationality of GT:FT or the economic logic underpinning it. I even added a footnote in my last post stating that I use GT:FT IMTU. This thread isn't about GT:FT or LBB:2 being 'better' or more 'rational'.

I mentioned Aramis' success in proving that Al Morai could work in LBB:2 in order to illustrate the fact that an economically irrational trade system need only be internally consistent in order to work.

The decision of which trade system to use in a personal TU is just that, personal. All that is required is that the system you use be internally consistent.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by thrash:
I'm sorry -- I thought the topic was "Determining Trade Routes"?

Chris,

Once again: An economically irrational trade system need only be internally consistent in order to be said to 'work'.

That's all I was writing about. You can drop all the other stuff.

Sigg posted the 1977 chart from CT that randomly produces trade routes. I cautioned that because the routes were devised randomly, players in a campaign that used such routes would not be able to predict the presence of routes and plan accordingly. I suggested that Mickazoid apply a few DMs and other mechanisms to provide that random system with an internal consistency.

I then tried to point out that a detailed knowledge of economics need not be applied to any trade system in order for it to 'work' within a setting. As long as the system was internally consistent, it would produce predictable results within it's specific framework. Whether those results are economically viable or not is irrelevent. I mentioned Aramis' work on Al Morai as an example of that.

I am not suggesting that LBB:2 is rational, logical, or even economically viable. I am only suggesting that it is internally consistent.

Your troubles with LBB:2 and your knee-jerk responses when anyone as much as looks cross-eyed at GT:FT are not the topics under discussion here. All Mickazoid wanted were suggestions on how she could determine trade routes.

I suggested that, whatever system she selected, she ensure that the system used was internally consistent. That's all. I did admit that LBB:2 is irrational and that I personally use GT:FT, but I did not pronounce one system 'better' or more 'economically viable' than the other. That is for Mickazoid to determine based on her needs.

Whatever system she chooses is her business and that choice will reflect her needs.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[mike wightman]

Bill,

I agree that the '77 table is too basic to give meaningful trade routes, which is why my next post suggested looking at a way to determine DMs based on population and relative trade types.

Dan then produced some nice ones for population and TL differences, so I'm looking again at relative world trade types - when I have something I think works I'll post it.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I agree that the '77 table is too basic to give meaningful trade routes, which is why my next post suggested looking at a way to determine DMs based on population and relative trade types.

Sigg,

Yes, those suggestions are interesting.

Dan then produced some nice ones for population and TL differences, so I'm looking again at relative world trade types - when I have something I think works I'll post it.

As usual, Dan had some good ideas too. If you do come up with something please don't hesitate to share it with us.

Lately mentioning trade systems has been like mentioning pirates, near-c rocks, or female Aslan in comfortable shoes. I now wish in my first post that I had thought of another example of an irrational system producing predictable results due to internal consistency. Dragging the LBB:2 vs. GT:FT nonsense into a thread, even by accident, is always a bad thing.

All I wanted to do was make a case for internal consistency...


Have fun,
Bill

 

[inexorabletash]

Originally posted by Joshua Bell:
Indeedy. For border generation I need to brush up on Delaunay triangulations anyway...

Okay, you got your Delaunay triangulation code,
written in Javascript so it should be easy to port to your language of choice.

http://www.travellermap.com/tmp/delaunay.js

Demo page at:

http://www.travellermap.com/tmp/delaunay.htm

(This uses the proposed CANVAS element to do client-side vector rendering from JavaScript. It works in Firefox 1.5+, Opera 9, Safari, and even IE6+ using a kludge c/o Google.)

 

[Mickazoid]

I've updated the 'Web-based Sector Generator' thread in 'Classic Traveller' with my latest doings.

There's a Perl snippet there (a mod I made to allygen.pl) that could use some improvement if anyone has the aptitude, interest and time.

Currently the code doesn't distinguish between port codes, and doesn't find neighbors off the '6 axes'.

Any help would be most appreciated!