How to address the problem of the numbers

[salochin999]

Onward trade perhaps - there may be a buyer that was only prepared to travel as far as the low-tech world, perhaps the end of a long or expensive logistics chain. Or maybe someone is setting up a clandestine hi-tech base in the system, with no public access.

That would be a great way to explain results that made no sense, not necessarily straight away - or maybe if you thought of it straight away - but if you didn't and just made a note and then use it later. "You remember that weird sale where you got a huge profit off some computers..."

 

[rancke]

I dunno. My habit in games is to change rules and rejig things to suit myself and that will probably remain the case but trying to make sense of Traveller die rolls is an interesting exercise.

It's not the trying to make sense, I object to. I think that making something make sense is a wonderful thing. It's the straining the bounds of plausibility past the breaking point in an effort to find sense where none is to be found, or, even worse, insisting that there must be a way to make it make sense even if you¹ can't come up with one yourself so don't you dare try to change anything!

¹ Generic 'you', not you personally.​

Well that's the thing... can the "why" create an interesting hook or bit of flavor.

That's the question. Can it? If it can, great! It's when it can't that I advocate changing things until one that can is found.

For example in Rhylanor there's

2613 Fulacin A674210-D Lo An

Company planet, few hundred people and a star port that would probably need more people than that just to run the star port.

As an aside, Fulacin was "explained" in the adventure Twilight's Peak. But as the quotation marks imply, the explanation wasn't (IMO) very good, so don't let that stop you.

So...

planet houses some kind of plant that only fruits once a year and although there are facilities for the tens of thousands who get hired to harvest the crop when it's ripe the only people there permanently are a skeleton maintenance crew and security guards. The quality of the star port is so they can handle the huge quantity of fruit gathered during the harvest as it has to be done quickly before it rots.

For that purpose you need a lot of warehousing, a supply of refined fuel, and some repair capability. In other words, a Class C+ starport (the '+' is for the refined fuel). You don't need to be able to perform annual maintenance, you don't need to build spacecraft, and you don't need to build starships.

As the planet has an ancients site possibly some genetic engineering involved - maybe the fruit has or is believed to have medicinal properties or something.

edit: I just noticed the tainted atmosphere - perhaps spores from all the genetically modified killer plants.

Heavy metal dust, according to canon.

It doesn't entirely make sense but it's close.

I don't wan't to be a wet blanket, but it isn't. It really isn't.

Fulacin is on the J2 route from Porozlo to Inthe, so there would be a bit of through traffic, but the passenger trade, at least, would probably go by J3 ships through Risek.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

Gonna toss a tidbit into the mix, for what it's worth. It's a JTAS news item (JTAS 8), so it's not worth much, but it does give a vague picture of the volume of trade in at least one small part of the Marches, as seen by whoever wrote the piece, and presumably as accepted by the editor at the time.

"Reports over the course of the last several weeks of a marked increase in piracy in the coreward reaches of the subsector have been substantiated by Navy officials in a routine press release. In today's weekly press briefing, a naval spokesman confirmed that an unusually large amount of shipping had failed to make scheduled planet-fall, and that no communications from the Kinorb Cluster had been received for over two months.

"When questioned further. Public Relations Officer Lieutenant Commander Vanderheydt hault-Josephson pointed out that fewer than ten ships had been scheduled to make the little-used Kinorb-Pixie run in that period, ..."

Pixie is our problem child: Class A starport on a world with 90 sapients. Only real benefit to the place vis-a-vis the Kinorb cluster is as a waypoint to Yres, assuming you'd rather do a jump-3 and then trans-ship to a jump-1 freighter rather than have a jump-4 freighter run a direct route. Otherwise, Boughene is the more likely candidate for a run to Kinorb. (And, why is there now an X beside Pixie on TravellerMap?)

Be that as it may, the news item suggests "fewer than ten ships" were expected from the Kinorb cluster over a 2 month period and implied that the numbers were low enough that an interruption, while noteworthy, was not yet a cause for alarm.

GURPS, at least as calculated in the Wiki, puts no significant traffic between Kinorb and Pixie but does put a green "intermediate" route between Kinorb and Boughene, implying an average ten ships per day entering or leaving port. One presumes "no communication" means ships haven't been appearing at Boughene either, and one also presumes that if more ships were failing to appear at Boughene, that would be the news instead. So, the news item at least is suggesting a level of traffic about 2% of what GURPS offers for that J-3 run. Based on my very (very, very, very) speculative math here:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=33575&page=6

it's in the ballpark with my estimate - about twice what I'd estimate for that J-3 route, but workable.

It's a long stretch - I don't believe for a moment anyone tried to guesstimate the traffic levels in the Marches before tossing those numbers into the news item - but it's a clue that the original view was for rather light traffic between the worlds.

Given the X on Pixie and the naval base I'd make the population be marooned prisoners on the planet and the A class star port a big naval space station with a small civilian section for traders.

That whole mid section along the Vargr border looks like it would have been preyed on by Vargr corsairs for centuries hence the fairly backward TLs so that seems like something to hang some flavor on.

In my current model Efate would be the local hub and I'm working on the basis that a hub's hinterland can only extend c. six parsecs or so before it gets too uneconomic (and necessary J-2 or J-3 jumps make that distance less economic) then planets with good star ports further than that either shouldn't exist or should produce something of high value so in that case the good star ports in maybe Heya and definitely Lablon shouldn't exist.

Combining that with the Vargr border idea I'd make it military spending that is boosting the star ports higher than they should be (according to my current model) i.e. Imperium funded facilities to support system defense boats and orbital stations in some or all of Yres, Kinorb, Heya and Lablon.

If that was the case then given Efate was the hub then any actual trade ought to go Efate - Boughene - Kinorb so Pixie-Kinorb might be specifically to do with the naval base - civilian ships contracted to bring supplies or take naval personnel back and forth maybe - something like that.

There are numerous holes in this but I like the basic idea for this section of the map so I'd probably go with it and change whatever was needed to make it work.

 

[salochin999]

That's the question. Can it? If it can, great! It's when it can't that I advocate changing things until one that can is found.

For that purpose you need a lot of warehousing, a supply of refined fuel, and some repair capability. In other words, a Class C+ starport (the '+' is for the refined fuel). You don't need to be able to perform annual maintenance, you don't need to build spacecraft, and you don't need to build starships.

Right, so use the odd rolls to come up with something cool and vaguely plausible and then change whatever is left over that needs to be changed. In this case all that needs changing is the shipyards part so it's A class where it needs to be: state of the art, high tech, lots of landing pads, shuttles, warehouses / processing, repair facilities, fuel, traffic control etc but not shipyards.

As an aside, Fulacin was "explained" in the adventure Twilight's Peak. But as the quotation marks imply, the explanation wasn't (IMO) very good, so don't let that stop you.

Heavy metal dust, according to canon.

That's okay I was just using it as an example and I'm quite pleased with the result as I don't think I would have thought of the seasonal population idea without trying to force myself to fit something to strange world stats.

edit: i remember it now - the one with the octagon.

 

[Carlobrand]

...The non-appearance of the sheduled X-boats isn't enough to cause concern? ...

Apparently it was enough to detach an escort - I mean, "battlecruiser" - on a reconnaissance. No news after that, which is the curious part. The next semi-related item is the start of the war 4 months later. They don't get news of the fall of Kinorb until 10 months later, which given the relative proximity of Kinorb and the aforementioned x-boat route suggests whatever was going on back in 054 - maybe Vargr light raiders testing the Imperial response - was at least briefly cleared up.

...And just how does a pirate go about intercepting an X-boat anyway? ...

Well, I could probably think of something if I put my mind to it, but it was a press briefing by a Navy public relations officer. You rather expect the press to be treated like mushrooms in something like that, and clearly he had a picked set of reporters who would throw him easy pitches or someone would have brought that up.

...It was also written back before anyone had realized how much shipping billions of people can support. Or even mere tens of millions, as in the case of Heya (the cluster is called the Kinorb Cluster, but the economic powerhouse of the cluster is Heya -- the traffic between Kinorb and the rest of the subsector would be an order of magnitude lower than the traffic between Heya and the rest of the subsector). ...

Heya? TL5 B-port Heya, with 70 million folk? With E-port Keng and D-port Beck's World 3 parsecs off, and the next closest trade partners outside of the cluster being a trio of C-ports 4 parsecs off? Boughene 5 parsecs off? I figured Heya did most of its trade with Kinorb - A-port, 6 million people, three tech levels higher. Not even GURPS puts any significant trade between Heya and points west or south outside of the cluster. (Oops, I mean spinward or rimward)

A problem is that we really haven't quantified the effect of jump distance on CT trade volume. No great shock there since we don't really have a handle on CT trade volume in the first place, just some educated guesses. GURPS has the only fully fleshed out trade system I have access to. If the basic structure is accepted as workable, it can be applied to CT if one assumes (contrary to my earlier opinion) that there is an order of magnitude reduction in trade volume at the one parsec range to account for the different cost structures.* At longer ranges it gets trickier, but over up to 3 parsecs it can still be used as a base. GURPS uses a system that implies roughly a half magnitude drop at two parsecs and a full magnitude drop at 3. That puts the trade between Boughene and the cluster at a couple or so ships a month.

We've got some basic data, thanks to Aramis, that tells us the jump-3 cargo trade base cost is about twice as much as Jump-1. Optimal jump-1 traffic's doing about a 40% profit margin. That suggests, if we apply the GURPS basic assumptions and assume the shipping company's looking for about the same profit margin, only a half order of magnitude drop at J3. That raises the Boughene - Kinorb traffic to around 6 to 8 ships a month.

That's not exactly an earth-shattering distance from the numbers pulled blindly out of thin air for the JTAS news piece.

Of course, nothing says we need to apply GURPS, but at that point we're re-inventing the wheel from scratch.

*The number was based on the observation that the cost for shipping one parsec in CT, as a percentage of the value of cargo, was about the same as the cost for shipping 3 to 5 parsecs in GURPS. Ergo, if the basic GURPS assumptions were accepted, the amount of cargo going 1 parsec in CT would be about the same as the amount of cargo going 3 to 5 parsecs in GURPS, because both would incur the same costs as a percentage of their value.

 

[rancke]

Apparently it was enough to detach an escort - I mean, "battlecruiser" - on a reconnaissance. No news after that, which is the curious part. The next semi-related item is the start of the war 4 months later. They don't get news of the fall of Kinorb until 10 months later, which given the relative proximity of Kinorb and the aforementioned x-boat route suggests whatever was going on back in 054 - maybe Vargr light raiders testing the Imperial response - was at least briefly cleared up.

Or that Kinorb held out against the Vargr for quite a while.

Heya? TL5 B-port Heya, with 70 million folk? With E-port Keng and D-port Beck's World 3 parsecs off, and the next closest trade partners outside of the cluster being a trio of C-ports 4 parsecs off? Boughene 5 parsecs off? I figured Heya did most of its trade with Kinorb - A-port, 6 million people, three tech levels higher. Not even GURPS puts any significant trade between Heya and points west or south outside of the cluster. (Oops, I mean spinward or rimward).

Heya hasd a WTN of 4. That givers it a BTN with Efate of 8 (5.5+4 -1.5 for distance), which give it 500-1000 dT of freight and 10-50 passengers every week. Assuming 400 and 600T freighters and liners, we're talking half a dozen ships per week. Now, it's quite likely that the ships that leave Heya only goes as far as Kinorb before turning back, but then that freight and those passengers have to get from Kinorb to Efate in addition to Kinorb's own freight and passengers.

In addition to that, GT:Star Mercs establishes that several mining outfits have mines on Heya's co-orbital world¹, Heya-minor.

¹ The co-orbital bit is not canon; Heya-minor is referred to as Heya's moon. But there are reasons why that doesn't fit with other parts of the text. ​

Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Or that Kinorb held out against the Vargr for quite a while. ...

...with word of the struggle not being released to the press even after the start of the war, up until its fall.

...Heya hasd a WTN of 4. That givers it a BTN with Efate of 8 (5.5+4 -1.5 for distance), which give it 500-1000 dT of freight and 10-50 passengers every week. ...

Whup, you're right. Efate has a high BTN with a lot of worlds in that area, basically the hub of a whole lotta spokes. Of course, that's 7 parsecs off, so Heya still has to go through some intermediary, which means a jump-2 to Kinorb and a jump-5 to Efate or a jump 5 to Boughene and a jump-2 to Efate - more likely Kinorb since it's both higher pop and closer than Boughene, so Heya already has more business heading that way. Which leaves us debating whether Kinorb connects straight to Efate or goes indirect via Boughene.

In GURPS.

That would certainly be an interesting discussion but still leaves us discussing the GURPS universe, and we've noted that shipping in the GURPS universe only costs a fraction of what it costs in the CT universe. Aramis' numbers show an 86 credit cost per ton for 1 parsec in GURPS and almost 600 credits cost per ton for 1 parsec in CT, and he thinks the CT cargo averages a lower value, perhaps half the value of the typical GURPS cargo of the same size. For the customer paying cargo fees, GURPS charges from 450 to 700 credits for a 1 parsec jump (with the lower figure going to those who can schedule ahead) with cargo having an average value of Cr10,000, while CT charges Cr1000 on cargo with an average value of Cr5000.

That means the GURPS business is paying about 5% of the value of its products in a 1 parsec shipping charge, while the CT business is paying 20%. The point at which the GURPS business and the CT business are paying the same percentage of value of cargo is when the GURPS business is shipping 4-5 parsecs. In other words, the point at which the CT and GURPS business are incurring the same percentage of overhead is when the CT is shipping 1 parsec and the GURPS is shipping 5 parsecs.

So let's look at Heya in the CT setting with respect to that great trade magnet, Efate. 7 parsecs off, no way to do it in one jump. The options are a 2/5 or 5/2 and a 2/3/2. From Aramis' Book 2 cost tables, best cost for a J2 is Cr794, for a J3 is Cr1142.4, for a J5 is Cr3351.9. Cheaper to do a J3 and a J2 than a J5, so we'll go 2/3/2: Cr2730.4. That's the cost, about 4.6 times the cost of a jump-1 trip. If we allow the fees to float (without which cargo doesn't go past 2 parsecs) and assume the captain is seeking the same profit margin, then the business is paying Cr4600 for the privilege of shipping to Efate. That's 92% of the value of an average Cr5000/dTon cargo - which is another way of saying only higher value cargoes are likely to be making the trip.

Question: at what range is a GURPS shipper paying a similar 92% charge? Answer: at about 23 parsecs range. In other words, a GURPS company is paying as much, as a percentage of the item's value, to ship 23 parsecs as it costs to get something from Heya to Efate in the CT setting. The equivalent BTN for Efate and Heya in the CT setting is therefore 7: 50-100 dT of freight and 1-5 passengers weekly, and that's assuming the best rates in the largest (and therefore most cost-effective) ships.

Kinorb has a WTN of 4 and is 2 parsecs off, so GURPS BTN of 7.5 with Heya. CT expense percentage are equivalent to what a GURPS shipper would incur for a 6+ parsec run, so the equivalent in the CT setting would be about a 6.5. Boughene likewise has a WTN of 4 and is 5 parsecs off: GURPS BTN of 7 boosted to 7.5 because Boughene is extreme and Heya's an agriworld. Equivalent costs in CT would be what a GURPS shipper would pay for 16 parsecs, so again down 1 to 6.5.

So, Heya ships out about 10-50 dTons weekly each to Kinorb and to Boughene by way of Kinorb, and 50-100 to Efate by way of Kinorb-Boughene.

Kinorb, a bit closer to Efate and with an Non-Industrial hook, likely does a bit more trade with Efate than Heya. I get a 9 there, drops to 8 in the CT setting, which is still considerable: 500 to 1000 dTons weekly. That's enough to make a profitable monthly circuit between Kinorb and Boughene for a J3 4000 dT freighter (again assuming we float the charges rather than stick to the Cr1000/dTon bit). Kinorb is a smaller world than Heya but has the higher tech level to boost WTN a bit, is closer, and is a non-industrial world to Efate's Industrial, all of which makes it the bigger target for Efati goods.

...Assuming 400 and 600T freighters and liners, ...

Aramis shows that the cost for a 400-600 dTonner for a J2/J3 trip can be 50% to 100% higher than the cost of a 4000 dTon Book-2 freighter. However, we'll assume for a moment the little boys are struggling to compete by matching fares with their bigger brothers, just eking by and taking a little speculative trade on the side. That still only puts about 10 little ships a month on the Boughene-Kinorb run, and most of that cargo is trade headed from Efate to Kinorb via Boughene, or vice versa. More likely is one big boy grabbing the lion's share and a couple or three little boys sneaking in between his rounds to fill their holds with the "absolutely has to be there next week" trade.

 

[rancke]

...with word of the struggle not being released to the press even after the start of the war, up until its fall.

No, with words of the struggle not included in the extremely small sample of newsbriefs featured in JTAS.

Whup, you're right. Efate has a high BTN with a lot of worlds in that area, basically the hub of a whole lotta spokes. Of course, that's 7 parsecs off, so Heya still has to go through some intermediary...

As I said. But that doesn't affect the amount of traffic leaving the cluster. Heya to Boughene via Kinorb results in the same number of ships as Heya to Kinorb, transship, Kinorb to Boughene.

...which means a jump-2 to Kinorb and a jump-5 to Efate or a jump 5 to Boughene and a jump-2 to Efate - more likely Kinorb since it's both higher pop and closer than Boughene, so Heya already has more business heading that way. Which leaves us debating whether Kinorb connects straight to Efate or goes indirect via Boughene.

Most likely is Heya to Kinorb, transship and either Kinorb to Boughene, transship (taking extra time), Boughene to Efate, or J3 from Kinorb to Boughene, jumping short from Boughene to Efate (saving time). Passenger liners are likelier to go for the saved time at a little extra cost.

In GURPS.

That would certainly be an interesting discussion but still leaves us discussing the GURPS universe, and we've noted that shipping in the GURPS universe only costs a fraction of what it costs in the CT universe.

But we don't want a GT universe and a CT universe. At least, I don't. I want one single universe that is a common frame of reference for us all, commonly referred to as the OTU, although I've begun to use 'The Third Imperium setting' as a less contentious term.

Assuming, then, that you're on board with the desire to share a common setting, I'll proceed:

Two different economic situations cannot both be true for the same universe. Either GT is right for the Third Imperium setting or CT is right. They can't both be. They can both be wrong, in different ways, though, and that's probably the best way to go.

Anyway, either there are 2 ships a week going from Heya to Efate or 30 or 100 or something in between. But it can't be one thing when we use one set of rules to run adventures in a setting and another when we use another set of rules to run adventures in the same setting.

We have to pick one and since GT is the only one that provides us with any clue to the volume of trade and passengers, I suggest we pick GT.

Aramis' numbers show an 86 credit cost per ton for 1 parsec in GURPS and almost 600 credits cost per ton for 1 parsec in CT, and he thinks the CT cargo averages a lower value, perhaps half the value of the typical GURPS cargo of the same size. For the customer paying cargo fees, GURPS charges from 450 to 700 credits for a 1 parsec jump (with the lower figure going to those who can schedule ahead) with cargo having an average value of Cr10,000, while CT charges Cr1000 on cargo with an average value of Cr5000.

Pick one. It's simplified to the point of being extremely crude anyway.

That means the GURPS business is paying about 5% of the value of its products in a 1 parsec shipping charge, while the CT business is paying 20%. The point at which the GURPS business and the CT business are paying the same percentage of value of cargo is when the GURPS business is shipping 4-5 parsecs. In other words, the point at which the CT and GURPS business are incurring the same percentage of overhead is when the CT is shipping 1 parsec and the GURPS is shipping 5 parsecs.

Pick one. It's simplified to the point of being extremely crude anyway.

So let's look at Heya in the CT setting with respect to that great trade magnet, Efate.

I'd rather not. I prefer the GT numbers (for freight and passengers) to the CT numbers.

Mind you, special circumstances can supercede any results of generic rules. I have Kinorb as a major tourist goal (and Heya as a lesser one), which (IMTU at least) creates a highly inflated passenger traffic¹.

¹ Non-canon notes on Kinorb

Ca. 300,000 retirees.

Retirees live for average of 30 years on Kinorb. That's a replacement rate of
10,000/year or 200/week. Negligible compared to the tourist traffic.

Ca. 300,000 tourists. Each tourist spends an average of 3 months on Kinorb.
(If you spend the money for a return ticket to Kinorb, you're going to stay
long enough to get your money's worth, not leave again after just a week or
two).


That's 1,200,000 tourists per year or 24,000 per week.

Roughly a million tourists visit Kinorb each year and spend an average of
four months there. So at any given time there are about 330,000 tourits on
Kinorb. More than 90% of them come from Efate and almost 90% of the rest
from Regina. Almost all of them belong to the top 1 percent of their
respective societies. They're not used to problems that can't be fixed by
waving money at them.


An average of 4.5 passenger liners in the 1000 to 5000 T range arrive from
Boughene each day with a total of roughly 2,500 passengers from Efate and
Regina. One aditional ship per day (again, on the average) is either a jump-5
ship from Regina via Feri or a jump-5 ship directly from Efate. One or two
smaller liners from neighboring worlds may also show up.
​

Aramis shows that the cost for a 400-600 dTonner for a J2/J3 trip can be 50% to 100% higher than the cost of a 4000 dTon Book-2 freighter.

But that depends on the ship design rules chosen. Which one is closest to "reality" (if any)? They can't all be. Indeed, only one of them can be. It's perfectly possible that none of them are close, though.


Hans

 

[aramis]

...with word of the struggle not being released to the press even after the start of the war, up until its fall.



Whup, you're right. Efate has a high BTN with a lot of worlds in that area, basically the hub of a whole lotta spokes. Of course, that's 7 parsecs off, so Heya still has to go through some intermediary, which means a jump-2 to Kinorb and a jump-5 to Efate or a jump 5 to Boughene and a jump-2 to Efate - more likely Kinorb since it's both higher pop and closer than Boughene, so Heya already has more business heading that way. Which leaves us debating whether Kinorb connects straight to Efate or goes indirect via Boughene.

In GURPS.

That would certainly be an interesting discussion but still leaves us discussing the GURPS universe, and we've noted that shipping in the GURPS universe only costs a fraction of what it costs in the CT universe. Aramis' numbers show an 86 credit cost per ton for 1 parsec in GURPS and almost 600 credits cost per ton for 1 parsec in CT, and he thinks the CT cargo averages a lower value, perhaps half the value of the typical GURPS cargo of the same size. For the customer paying cargo fees, GURPS charges from 450 to 700 credits for a 1 parsec jump (with the lower figure going to those who can schedule ahead) with cargo having an average value of Cr10,000, while CT charges Cr1000 on cargo with an average value of Cr5000.

That means the GURPS business is paying about 5% of the value of its products in a 1 parsec shipping charge, while the CT business is paying 20%. The point at which the GURPS business and the CT business are paying the same percentage of value of cargo is when the GURPS business is shipping 4-5 parsecs. In other words, the point at which the CT and GURPS business are incurring the same percentage of overhead is when the CT is shipping 1 parsec and the GURPS is shipping 5 parsecs.

So let's look at Heya in the CT setting with respect to that great trade magnet, Efate. 7 parsecs off, no way to do it in one jump. The options are a 2/5 or 5/2 and a 2/3/2. From Aramis' Book 2 cost tables, best cost for a J2 is Cr794, for a J3 is Cr1142.4, for a J5 is Cr3351.9. Cheaper to do a J3 and a J2 than a J5, so we'll go 2/3/2: Cr2730.4. That's the cost, about 4.6 times the cost of a jump-1 trip. If we allow the fees to float (without which cargo doesn't go past 2 parsecs) and assume the captain is seeking the same profit margin, then the business is paying Cr4600 for the privilege of shipping to Efate. That's 92% of the value of an average Cr5000/dTon cargo - which is another way of saying only higher value cargoes are likely to be making the trip.

Question: at what range is a GURPS shipper paying a similar 92% charge? Answer: at about 23 parsecs range. In other words, a GURPS company is paying as much, as a percentage of the item's value, to ship 23 parsecs as it costs to get something from Heya to Efate in the CT setting. The equivalent BTN for Efate and Heya in the CT setting is therefore 7: 50-100 dT of freight and 1-5 passengers weekly, and that's assuming the best rates in the largest (and therefore most cost-effective) ships.

Kinorb has a WTN of 4 and is 2 parsecs off, so GURPS BTN of 7.5 with Heya. CT expense percentage are equivalent to what a GURPS shipper would incur for a 6+ parsec run, so the equivalent in the CT setting would be about a 6.5. Boughene likewise has a WTN of 4 and is 5 parsecs off: GURPS BTN of 7 boosted to 7.5 because Boughene is extreme and Heya's an agriworld. Equivalent costs in CT would be what a GURPS shipper would pay for 16 parsecs, so again down 1 to 6.5.

So, Heya ships out about 10-50 dTons weekly each to Kinorb and to Boughene by way of Kinorb, and 50-100 to Efate by way of Kinorb-Boughene.

Kinorb, a bit closer to Efate and with an Non-Industrial hook, likely does a bit more trade with Efate than Heya. I get a 9 there, drops to 8 in the CT setting, which is still considerable: 500 to 1000 dTons weekly. That's enough to make a profitable monthly circuit between Kinorb and Boughene for a J3 4000 dT freighter (again assuming we float the charges rather than stick to the Cr1000/dTon bit). Kinorb is a smaller world than Heya but has the higher tech level to boost WTN a bit, is closer, and is a non-industrial world to Efate's Industrial, all of which makes it the bigger target for Efati goods.



Aramis shows that the cost for a 400-600 dTonner for a J2/J3 trip can be 50% to 100% higher than the cost of a 4000 dTon Book-2 freighter. However, we'll assume for a moment the little boys are struggling to compete by matching fares with their bigger brothers, just eking by and taking a little speculative trade on the side. That still only puts about 10 little ships a month on the Boughene-Kinorb run, and most of that cargo is trade headed from Efate to Kinorb via Boughene, or vice versa. More likely is one big boy grabbing the lion's share and a couple or three little boys sneaking in between his rounds to fill their holds with the "absolutely has to be there next week" trade.

Interesting interpretation of the comparative data; I don't disagree with the conclusions. I'm actually a bit surprised by the comparative distances. I knew the differences, but hadn't worked out the magnitude of their impact.

 

[Carlobrand]

...But we don't want a GT universe and a CT universe. At least, I don't. I want one single universe that is a common frame of reference for us all, commonly referred to as the OTU, although I've begun to use 'The Third Imperium setting' as a less contentious term. ...

But that's not what we've been given. What we want and what we've been given are two very different beasts. It's hard to say there's one single universe when their economies are so fundamentally different. Shipping at 5% of your product's cost paints a very different trade picture than shipping at 20% of your product's costs. It means some products just don't compete. It means others, costing more, will find smaller markets and therefore sell fewer units.

...Two different economic situations cannot both be true for the same universe. Either GT is right for the Third Imperium setting or CT is right. They can't both be. They can both be wrong, in different ways, though, and that's probably the best way to go. ...

Except that it invalidates both models and leaves us scratching our heads wondering what's actually being charged. Is it 400 or 1000? And, I don't see Marc or Steve scrapping their systems so we can craft a compromise that bridges the two milieus, so any such compromise is by its nature a non-canon creation.

...We have to pick one and since GT is the only one that provides us with any clue to the volume of trade and passengers, I suggest we pick GT. ...

Not without making fundamental changes to the CT model. Otherwise we're basically arbitrarily grabbing a model that suits us and imposing it regardless of data that says different.

How many different CT issues can we resolve by simply ignoring the problem and saying we'll do what suits us? Jump shadows: ignore it. The problem with Sword World ships being utterly incapable of being a threat to - and utterly incapable of defending themselves from - the IN: ignore it. The bizarre case of Pixie and other tiny little worlds attracting so much business and being able to build and repair ships and such: ignore it.

Everyone has their own buttons, their own "belief suspender" issues. This is mine: the economy needs to work. Same way you get habitable worlds in habitable orbits, you should have an economy that behaves like real people are doing real business - which means if goods are being marked up 20% for a 1-parsec hop and 50% for a 3-parsec hop, your trade activity should reflect that. I'm still bugged by the gravity flow thing and the way it leaves us trying to figure out where the folk at the bottom of the hill are getting the money for all that stuff.

...I'd rather not. I prefer the GT numbers (for freight and passengers) to the CT numbers. ...

As you wish. No one stops anyone from taking whatever numbers suit them for their own universe. For me, it's just a different kind of Pixie - we're saying we're magically getting the same trade volume whether the business is adding 5% in transport fees to its product's cost or 20%. It's supposedly one common frame of reference, but the business at the foundation of it all ends up getting very different financial results and trying to behave as if they were the same.

About the only solution I can see to bring the two milieus together is to forget Merchant Prince and assume the typical cargo is worth about 4 times what that book suggests. However, that gives us similar trade volumes by implying that somehow the CT universe, with its more expensive ships, has a lot more valuable stuff to ship around than the GURPS universe does.

 

[rancke]

But that's not what we've been given. What we want and what we've been given are two very different beasts. It's hard to say there's one single universe when their economies are so fundamentally different. Shipping at 5% of your product's cost paints a very different trade picture than shipping at 20% of your product's costs. It means some products just don't compete. It means others, costing more, will find smaller markets and therefore sell fewer units.

I suggest assuming that there are factors that are not being addressed with one model and ignore it. Or assume that there are factors being ignored by both systems and figure out a compromise.

Except that it invalidates both models and leaves us scratching our heads wondering what's actually being charged. Is it 400 or 1000? And, I don't see Marc or Steve scrapping their systems so we can craft a compromise that bridges the two milieus, so any such compromise is by its nature a non-canon creation.

The CT picture is much less filled in than the GT picture. GT is the only one that gives any way to figure out traffic volumes. So I suggest using that.

Not without making fundamental changes to the CT model. Otherwise we're basically arbitrarily grabbing a model that suits us and imposing it regardless of data that says different.

Well, CT hasn't been developed for 25 years. Why not ignore 25 year old data that doesn't fit with more recent data?

How many different CT issues can we resolve by simply ignoring the problem and saying we'll do what suits us? Jump shadows: ignore it.

CT setting builders do ignore it. I plan on including it in my writeup of Heya, if I ever finish it. I did include it in one adventure published on JTAS Online. I also include the 14 hour trip from Regina to Assiniboia's jump limit in my campaigns. (I have also looked into using jump masking, but turns out that requires a massive amount of prep work).

The problem with Sword World ships being utterly incapable of being a threat to - and utterly incapable of defending themselves from - the IN: ignore it.

Amend the rules that makes them incapable of defending themselves. It's not like CT ship combat doesn't have other problems.

The bizarre case of Pixie and other tiny little worlds attracting so much business and being able to build and repair ships and such: ignore it.

No, that's setting material. I don't really know enough about space battle to say that TL12 ships will always and inevitable get reamed by TL15 ships. But I do know low-population worlds can't afford humongous trade.

Everyone has their own buttons, their own "belief suspender" issues. This is mine: the economy needs to work.

That would be nice, yes. But it also has to create the results that make for a fun roleplaying environment.

Same way you get habitable worlds in habitable orbits, you should have an economy that behaves like real people are doing real business - which means if goods are being marked up 20% for a 1-parsec hop and 50% for a 3-parsec hop, your trade activity should reflect that. I'm still bugged by the gravity flow thing and the way it leaves us trying to figure out where the folk at the bottom of the hill are getting the money for all that stuff.

So why stick to that model?

As you wish. No one stops anyone from taking whatever numbers suit them for their own universe. For me, it's just a different kind of Pixie - we're saying we're magically getting the same trade volume whether the business is adding 5% in transport fees to its product's cost or 20%.

Sort of. We're saying that whatever the transport fees add to the product's cost, the result is that many ships. That's not quite the same thing.

It's supposedly one common frame of reference, but the business at the foundation of it all ends up getting very different financial results and trying to behave as if they were the same.

Finance is a humongously complicated subject. None of the models we have can come close to being realistic. The best we can hope for (and IMO all that we need) is to hit the ballpark.

About the only solution I can see to bring the two milieus together is to forget Merchant Prince and assume the typical cargo is worth about 4 times what that book suggests. However, that gives us similar trade volumes by implying that somehow the CT universe, with its more expensive ships, has a lot more valuable stuff to ship around than the GURPS universe does.

No, it suggests that either the CT rules undervalues the setting's cargoes or GT overvalues them or both. (Or the other way around). Also, it's the same setting; the ships cost the same because it's the same ships. One or the other set of rules (or both) is wrong.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

Heya has a WTN of 4. That givers it a BTN with Efate of 8 (5.5+4 -1.5 for distance)

I was wondering about that in my gradually evolving CT version.

Is the trade between say America and Sri Lanka determined by the size of America's economy or Sri Lanka's? I'd say it was determined by the size of the smallest economy in both directions i.e. if the smaller is only selling 1 unit of trade then it can only be buying 1 unit as well.

So wouldn't the trade between two planets relate to the size of the smallest and in each direction so in the case of Heya and Efate it would 2.5 each way (Heya's 4 minus 1.5 for distance).

Although passengers might factor into that as well.

#

(Even if there is the same number of units of trade in each direction the ratio of volume and value of the units might vary in each direction. If for example the value is taken as relative TL then the volume might be the inverse i.e. if trade between a TL15 and a TL10 has a value ratio of 3:2 then the volume ratio might be 2:3 i.e. 200 tons of higher average value in one direction and 300 tons of lower average value in the other but that's probably an unnecessary complication.)

#

Thinking more about star port classification. If you want to keep the original star port values - just cos - then lots of them won't make sense without some work. One way that will cover a few of those cases is to extend the star port class definition something like

Class A:
1) As per Book 2
or
2) various kinds of A- or B+ facility
a) ship repair but no shipyard (population 5-6)
b) only a shipyard (population 3-4)
c) as above but seasonal or skeleton crew (population 1-3)
d) B class star port enhanced by government or military presence and expenditure (population 6-7 plus capital or naval base)
e) combination of space station and planetary facilities (any)


#

@Carlobrand

it can be applied to CT if one assumes (contrary to my earlier opinion) that there is an order of magnitude reduction in trade volume at the one parsec range to account for the different cost structures.

The cost per parsec per ton data up thread determines if a particular ship can be profitable as a freighter at a cargo rate of 1000cr per ton. This determines the type of ships that will carry the cargo.

The owners of the cargo are effectively using the speculation trade rules with an overhead of 1000cr per ton per jump so for them the question is can they make a profit on that basis.

Examples:

Leaving aside skill DMs and just using the trade DMs from Book 2, p47.

Textiles have a base cost 3000 and best purchase DM-7 on Ag worlds so can be bought on average at 40% or 1200cr. Each jump they are shipped adds 1000cr to the cost so the cost per ton after one jump would be 2200cr and 3200cr after two jumps. The best resale DM+2 is on Rich worlds for an average resale of 120% or 3600cr so textiles could potentially make a profit up to two jumps away (with optimal DMs).

Body Armor, base value 50,000, best purchase DM-3, best resale DM+4, average purchase at 70% (35000/ton), average resale at 150% (75,000/ton), for an average difference of 40,000cr so body armor could be profitably sold up to 39 jumps away (with optimal DMs).

Skill DMs would adjust this.

So the limiting factor on trade distance is the the maximum difference in the purchase and resale DMs for a commodity applied to the base value of the commodity minus 1000cr per jump. Gems at a 1,000,000cr base value and maximum purchase and resale DMs of -8 and +8 could still make a profit at almost any distance.

#

So high base value goods can travel a long way and still make a profit but low value goods can't.

Goods with a large difference in purchase and resale DMs can be sold profitably at longer differences than those without. (This also means the profitable range varies with planet types.

#

If only higher value goods can be profitable at longer distances then the volume of trade may drop off faster than the value.

For example if value declines at 1 per parsec to a minimum of 1 while the volume halves per parsec to a minimum of 1 then the value/volume per parsec distance of a system with a trade value of 8 could be:
8/8
7/4
6/2
5/1
4/1
3/1
2/1
1/1

 

[rancke]

So wouldn't the trade between two planets relate to the size of the smallest and in each direction so in the case of Heya and Efate it would 2.5 each way (Heya's 4 minus 1.5 for distance).

I think that's it's a simplification. Real life countries have very varied trade figures. There's a correlation to population, of course, but other factors apply. All that is ignored.

(Even if there is the same number of units of trade in each direction the ratio of volume and value of the units might vary in each direction. If for example the value is taken as relative TL then the volume might be the inverse i.e. if trade between a TL15 and a TL10 has a value ratio of 3:2 then the volume ratio might be 2:3 i.e. 200 tons of higher average value in one direction and 300 tons of lower average value in the other but that's probably an unnecessary complication.)

If cargo space is filled in one direction and only half filled in the other, the ship will sell the excess space for less than the full cost or use the space for speculative cargo. This can involve goods that would ordinarily not be worth shipping.

The cost per parsec per ton data up thread determines if a particular ship can be profitable as a freighter at a cargo rate of 1000cr per ton. This determines the type of ships that will carry the cargo.

But any cargo ship can be profitable if it can find customers who are prepared to pay the true costs. Which can be Cr500 or Cr2000. The Cr1000 figure is just a game artifact to make it easier to run a free trader campaign (There are canonical examples of NPCs trying to get lower rates and offering higher).

The owners of the cargo are effectively using the speculation trade rules with an overhead of 1000cr per ton per jump so for them the question is can they make a profit on that basis.

But the speculative trade rules don't actually work for worldbuilding purposes, as they are flawed (And they require a canny referee to avoid a trade campaign going off the rails if the dice falls just so).

Leaving aside skill DMs and just using the trade DMs from Book 2, p47.

Textiles have a base cost 3000...

All textiles? Wool and cotton and silk and brocade and flexflax and emberweave and zilk? All of them have the same base cost?

...and best purchase DM-7 on Ag worlds so can be bought on average at 40% or 1200cr. Each jump they are shipped adds 1000cr to the cost so the cost per ton after one jump would be 2200cr and 3200cr after two jumps. The best resale DM+2 is on Rich worlds for an average resale of 120% or 3600cr so textiles could potentially make a profit up to two jumps away (with optimal DMs).

At what distance can emberweave (base cost Cr300,000) make a profit?

So the limiting factor on trade distance is the the maximum difference in the purchase and resale DMs for a commodity applied to the base value of the commodity minus 1000cr per jump. Gems at a 1,000,000cr base value and maximum purchase and resale DMs of -8 and +8 could still make a profit at almost any distance.

And cigars and wine from Terra should be able to make a profit on Regina.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

I suggest assuming that there are factors that are not being addressed with one model and ignore it. Or assume that there are factors being ignored by both systems and figure out a compromise. ...

I did figure out a compromise. It simply points in a direction you find unacceptable.

It's a game. It must embrace some simplifications in order to be manageable. I think we all understand that. It's a given that there'll be simplifications that won't fit the preferences or needs of some players, so it is also a given that folk are entitled to craft their own personal universes as they see fit, taking what elements work and changing what elements they don't like. The advice to ignore problems and do what suits you is a good one when dealing with one's own personal setting.

However, we come to this forum, among other reasons, to discuss those canon issues and get help on how to resolve them. The idea is that the shared universe is one that better reflects the game rules and assumptions, rather than the specific preferences of a few players, since when it comes down to it we all have different and often conflicting preferences.

... The CT picture is much less filled in than the GT picture. GT is the only one that gives any way to figure out traffic volumes. So I suggest using that. ...

And I suggest filling out the CT picture in a way that suits CT, rather than overlaying it with something that fits it poorly.

... Well, CT hasn't been developed for 25 years. Why not ignore 25 year old data that doesn't fit with more recent data?...

That is indeed one good solution. We could retire our CT materials, go buy GURPS, or go buy T5 and invest ourselves fully in those systems. Or, like many, we could craft our own personal CT variant that suits our preferences. However, for the shared CT universe, ignoring data is a good way to guarantee a conflict with someone else sharing that universe who does not want to ignore that data. When we share something, we understand that we can't have it all our own way.

... That would be nice, yes. But it also has to create the results that make for a fun roleplaying environment. ...

A fun shared roleplaying environment, yes. Or we craft our own personal universes and invite others into it - lots of good work on that front in the IMTU forum. But the only one who's really qualified to impose his personal preferences on the shared setting is Marc - and Steve, within the sandbox he's built for his version (or I guess that would devolve to Loren).

Bottom line is: if you accept the admittedly simplistic assumptions underlying the GURPS system and import them into CT, what I described is - as near as I can figure - what you get. However, nothing says you have to accept the GURPS basic assumptions unchanged. If you don't like the results, forget or revise the GURPS assumptions to create what you want. Fiddle with the population modifier or the tech level modifier until it creates the universe you like: add one to the GURPS pop modifier when applying it to the CT setting and you end with a CT setting that looks just like GURPS - it just assumes there is more trade "push" at any given world, and this neatly counters the negative impact on trade caused by the shipping cost structure. No divine pronouncement says the GURPS tables can't be changed when applied to a nun-GURPS setting, and there IS no science addressing interstellar export patterns that says a world of pop X is likely to export Y tons to another world at range Z, so you're pretty free on that front.

Just keep in mind when you're doing it that there is a body of material out there hinting at a much lighter pattern of trade. Just as there is no science preventing you from creating the numbers you want, so too is there no science preventing that material from being right. So, when you take your revised figures over to the shared setting, you might get some pushback from those who prefer to embrace that material.

 

[salochin999]

I think that's it's a simplification. Real life countries have very varied trade figures. There's a correlation to population, of course, but other factors apply. All that is ignored.

True enough but if you assign a trade value to systems and then experiment with different models it creates a very different "geography. A model where you add the larger system's trade value to the smaller system's trade value gives the smaller system relatively more weight whereas using the smaller trade value of any trading pair of planets (on the basis they can only buy the same value they can sell) then it gives more weight to the hubs. This is especially so when you add in distance effects.

So it depends what you want really. If you want dense trade then add the two trade values together If you prefer hub and spoke trade with a few Coruscants and lots of backwaters then use the smaller of the two in both directions.

(This tends to make the hub's total trade relatively much higher because it gets a piece from each planet in its hinterland.)

#

But any cargo ship can be profitable if it can find customers who are prepared to pay the true costs. Which can be Cr500 or Cr2000. The Cr1000 figure is just a game artifact to make it easier to run a free trader campaign (There are canonical examples of NPCs trying to get lower rates and offering higher).

Well that's the thing. I agree it's an artifact in reality however treating it as if there was a reason leads to interesting conclusions as the effect of a floor on cargo pricing given Aramis' data is an artificial subsidy for J3 ships over longer distances. So all you need is a reason for the Imperium to deliberately weight the rules in favor of J3 ships over long distances - and I can think of lots of those.

Not only could it make sense in terms of the Imperium (imo) but also if you treat the fixed cargo shipping fee as an artificial floor enforced by law then it creates scope for grey area criminality i.e. J1 ships offering below floor shipping prices to go the sneaky J1 route and being stopped and searched by patrol cruisers.

win-win

#

But the speculative trade rules don't actually work for worldbuilding purposes, as they are flawed (And they require a canny referee to avoid a trade campaign going off the rails if the dice falls just so).

I agree the trade rules as they are flawed but the main point stands that the people shipping cargo are effectively following the speculative trade rules with a 1000cr a jump overhead.

Looking at the prices and DMs on the trade table shows you how CT trade would work i.e. the distances particular commodities can be profitably transported are determined by a combination of base price and the purchase and resale DMs on the source and destination planets (and merchant skills) so I think the basic mechanism does work for world-building (even if some of the details need revising).

The model is there in the rules - more like age of sail trade where only high value goods are transported long distances - even if the details are rickety.

For example if a planet only sold meat, textiles and computers then the meat part of their total trade might drop off after one jump, the textile part after three jumps while the computer part carried on for much longer i.e. the cheaper goods drop off soonest hence the volume of trade dropping faster than the value.

(I'm actually starting to wonder if Traveller wasn't originally designed as an Age of Sail RPG.)

All textiles? Wool and cotton and silk and brocade and flexflax and emberweave and zilk? All of them have the same base cost?

Well with only 66 commodity slots there's bound to be some compression - but the slot on the trade goods table labeled "Textiles" has a base value of 3000cr.

At what distance can emberweave (base cost Cr300,000) make a profit?

Well if the rule of thumb for revising the trade table was to make the average purchase on a source planet 80% of base value and the average resale on a destination planet 120% of base value then the average profit on goods would be 40% of their base value so with a base value of 300,000 that would be 120,000cr per ton so with a shipping cost of 1000cr per jump the maximum profitable distance in jumps would be 119 jumps.

In reality that wouldn't happen because of opportunity cost and middle men etc but it illustrates the point that high value goods can travel a long way (in theory).

I appreciate the question was rhetorical but my point is the question can actually be answered.

And cigars and wine from Terra should be able to make a profit on Regina.

Totally agree. When I revise the trade table I'll add "planetary uniques" with a high base value and a high resale DM on Rich and High population planets.

(Planetary uniques could be another category of reason why some planets have higher grade star ports than makes sense.)

#

I do think the trade table needs to be revised to only give massive DMs where appropriate and keep it mostly within the DM-2, DM+2 range but the basic model is buried in there.

 

[Aramais]

FWIW, the value of Terran cigars and wine has to be based on the cost of transporting those items all the way from Terra to Regina. I don't want this to be TOO circular, but this requires an estimate of the number of jumps it will take along the trade routes leading from Terra to Regina. And this is likely to be true of ALL uniques.

This may require more than a table; it requires an understanding of the base cost on Terra, the distance it is moved, and any special costs of transportation and packing (which I would happily subsume in the general cost of transportation).

 

[Aramais]

As for rest of the argument over systems and such -- the systems are built on varying assumptions. We don't have to accept GURPS assumptions when we play or discuss CT, any more than we should use CT ship designs when we are playing MT, TNE or GURPS. We are not required to have Rebellion and Virus in GURPS Traveller, after all, as it is an ATU when it comes right down to things (as are, arguably, MT, TNE, T4, and T5, as ALL have some differing assumptions -- TNE couldn't even keep 1.5 meter deck plans).

Sure, it has to make sense. It has to make sense based on the built-in assumptions of the system being used. With any luck, this will result in sufficient dovetailing to be deemed "Close enough for jazz."

 

[Carlobrand]

...If cargo space is filled in one direction and only half filled in the other, the ship will sell the excess space for less than the full cost or use the space for speculative cargo. This can involve goods that would ordinarily not be worth shipping...

That's about the only way I see the gravity model working. A sells to B sells to C sells to D - where does D get the cash? There are going to be routes where there's money to be had shipping to D, but there's little market for D's stuff for the return trip. If that's a known pattern, the freighter most likely has to charge a premium for his service on one leg to cover his anticipated shortfall on the return leg, then either offers discounted space to get a little cash to cover the trip - which means D's goods get shipped at a lower cost and might have a better time finding a market - or he buys stuff he wouldn't ordinarily buy for its low profit margin but which he's certain can be sold to help offset the cost of the trip.

...And cigars and wine from Terra should be able to make a profit on Regina...

Assuming - in the case of the cigars - whether there's actually any interest in the Terran fad for sucking the smoke from burning plant matter into your lungs for its medicinal qualities, and assuming they get that far, yes. There are about 15 trillion people between Terra and Regina, which makes for a whole lotta bored rich people with money to waste. One wonders if Terra can push out enough product to get through that mass and reach Regina - or if much of what Regina gets as Terran champagne isn't in fact relabeled bubbly out of Vland made from rootstock imported from Terra for the purpose.

 

[salochin999]

As for rest of the argument over systems and such -- the systems are built on varying assumptions. We don't have to accept GURPS assumptions when we play or discuss CT, any more than we should use CT ship designs when we are playing MT, TNE or GURPS. We are not required to have Rebellion and Virus in GURPS Traveller, after all, as it is an ATU when it comes right down to things (as are, arguably, MT, TNE, T4, and T5, as ALL have some differing assumptions -- TNE couldn't even keep 1.5 meter deck plans).

Sure, it has to make sense. It has to make sense based on the built-in assumptions of the system being used. With any luck, this will result in sufficient dovetailing to be deemed "Close enough for jazz."

I think you can reasonably dovetail small-scale CT type assumptions along the J1 "mains" and in the short distance regional hub-hinterland part of trade with larger-scale assumptions (from whichever system) on the hub-hub part because if only high value trade is viable long distance then only large, relatively wealthy populations will be able to support it (so basically the Age of Sail model of sugar, spices, coffee etc for tech rather than the present day model of raw materials for tech). The hubs are the equivalent of Paris, London, Venice, Shanghai etc.

In this model the hubs support the fleets and everywhere else is mostly Firefly.

(Having said that the CT trade table probably does need some revising if you were running a trading campaign as extreme results are too easy to get but I think the idea behind the model works - even if the implementation is a bit iffy - so if you were just using the model for ideas e.g. short distance grain shipments, or collectors assassinating each other over a very valuable long distance Terran Whiskey shipment then it works imo.)

 

[salochin999]

That's about the only way I see the gravity model working.

That's why I think trade value between two systems should be the lower of the two values. A sells a B amount of stuff to B (and buys a B amount back), B sells a C amount of stuff to C (and buys a C amount back), C sells a D amount of stuff to D (and buys a D amount back)and D sells an E amount of stuff to E (and buys E amount back).

The mega trade is hub-hub because - if long-distance trade is limited to high value - only the hubs have the wealth to support long distance trade.

if much of what Regina gets as Terran champagne isn't in fact relabeled bubbly out of Vland made from rootstock imported from Terra for the purpose.

Lots of scope there for smuggling and trademark police. I can imagine most parties succumbing to the temptation of that and ending up doing a year on a prison planet