An astrographic "main" is called that because it's transversible by J1. There's no good reason to assume that astrographic mains and trade mains are related.
Piracy Redux
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
Except that most trade occurs over short distances which is why astrographic mains are important and relate to trade. Otherwise (other than for the study of historic interstellar exploration or low stellar tech level military history) why would anybody give a damn about astrographic mains? They are natural trade routes, easily usable with the minimum of interstellar technology.
Agreed. Lets get it back on track & relating to demonstrating whether Piracy works in the OTU.
I think this tangent discussion has achieved a concensus that J2 or greater ships can & often will avoid 'empty' systems whereas J1 ships cannot if the Captain wishes to reach a port on the other side. If J1 ships do enter 'empty' systems then there is potential Piracy opportunities/risk in these 'empty' systems.
Cheers!
Matt
Matt's Cyclical Theory of Piracy
This thread was started by 'Pro-pirate' posts vs 'Anti-pirate posts'. To demonstrate thier points, both have argued extremes (myself included). I feel however that the truth likely covers the entire spectrum & Piracy is in fact cyclical.
We have established that J1 ships can be vulnerable, quick to raid, lucrative (eg: ships safe, small craft, air-raft, Passenger valuables), they exist in relatively numerous numbers and they cannot avoid empty systems if they wish to travel to ports on the other side. Multi-jump ships can avoid empty systems and gain an acknowledged competitive advantage relating to cargo/passenger security (as well as speed).
For Pirate activity we have discussed (not an exclusive list) the '100D loiter', In-System Piracy/Raiding and the empty system Gas Giant ambush.
Counter Piracy measures are of course important. However they are only relevant if there is a percieved Piracy threat in the OTU. The Anti-piracy lobby believes there is no risk. The Pro-piracy lobby believes there is a serious but infrequent risk. When considering anti-Piracy measures both on a random basis (eg: Navy patrols) & permanent (eg: Gas Giant & out-going jump point pickets), you have to consider that it is an expensive use of resources if the threat wanes or you never believed in Piracy in the first place.
But both views (Anti & Pro) are possible and I believe likely in the OTU at differant times & in differant regions. Most likely is a period of rising Piracy in the face of local government denials & a lack of security resources, followed by investment in Counter Piracy which caps & eventually reduces Piracy activity, followed by recalling Counter Piracy assets for other duties because there is no longer a threat, followed by another rise in Piracy. This cycle could be years or decades long & influenced by good/bad relations with neighbours, large organised crime & state sponsored Privateers aiming to cause economic havoc (to name a few).
Evidence of this cyclical approach to spending on percieved threats is all around us today. Armies wax & wane during & after percieved threats. For example NZ is in such a comfort zone (no threats) that within the last decade we did away with the strike capability of our air force. Meantime the US has spent plenty of coin over the same period building up & fighting terror in Iraq/Afganistan.
Any thoughts for or against this Cyclical Theory of OTU Piracy?
Cheers!
Matt
This thread was started by 'Pro-pirate' posts vs 'Anti-pirate posts'. To demonstrate thier points, both have argued extremes (myself included). I feel however that the truth likely covers the entire spectrum & Piracy is in fact cyclical.
We have established that J1 ships can be vulnerable, quick to raid, lucrative (eg: ships safe, small craft, air-raft, Passenger valuables), they exist in relatively numerous numbers and they cannot avoid empty systems if they wish to travel to ports on the other side. Multi-jump ships can avoid empty systems and gain an acknowledged competitive advantage relating to cargo/passenger security (as well as speed).
For Pirate activity we have discussed (not an exclusive list) the '100D loiter', In-System Piracy/Raiding and the empty system Gas Giant ambush.
Counter Piracy measures are of course important. However they are only relevant if there is a percieved Piracy threat in the OTU. The Anti-piracy lobby believes there is no risk. The Pro-piracy lobby believes there is a serious but infrequent risk. When considering anti-Piracy measures both on a random basis (eg: Navy patrols) & permanent (eg: Gas Giant & out-going jump point pickets), you have to consider that it is an expensive use of resources if the threat wanes or you never believed in Piracy in the first place.
But both views (Anti & Pro) are possible and I believe likely in the OTU at differant times & in differant regions. Most likely is a period of rising Piracy in the face of local government denials & a lack of security resources, followed by investment in Counter Piracy which caps & eventually reduces Piracy activity, followed by recalling Counter Piracy assets for other duties because there is no longer a threat, followed by another rise in Piracy. This cycle could be years or decades long & influenced by good/bad relations with neighbours, large organised crime & state sponsored Privateers aiming to cause economic havoc (to name a few).
Evidence of this cyclical approach to spending on percieved threats is all around us today. Armies wax & wane during & after percieved threats. For example NZ is in such a comfort zone (no threats) that within the last decade we did away with the strike capability of our air force. Meantime the US has spent plenty of coin over the same period building up & fighting terror in Iraq/Afganistan.
Any thoughts for or against this Cyclical Theory of OTU Piracy?
Cheers!
Matt
This is what is technically known as a discrepancy. You're quite right when you ask why people would give a damn about mains (once they'd invented jump-2). They wouldn't. Yet canon mentions the importance of mains in several places. So jump-1 must be better than jump-2 for trading along mains. Only, if the ship-building rules even remotely reflect the realities of the Traveller Universe, jump-1 is not, in fact, better than jump-2 and jump-3 for trading along a main.
There are two ways to resolve this discrepancy: a) Say that mains aren't important, although people may well believe that they are (your basic urban legend) or, b) Say that the ship-building rules are completely and totally stuffed up.
Generally I prefer sticking to the background over rules if I can, but in this case I think that option a) causes far less disruption of canon than option b).
Hans
Last edited:
How many times do we have to explain to you that although J1 ship are, indeed, cheaper and have more capacity, they are not enough cheaper to make them able to compete against J2 and J3 ships along any route longer than one parsec?
No one disputes that. What we dispute is the notion that any route longer than one parsec is a suitable J1 route.
The fallacy is that you're equating J1 ships with tramp ships. This is not true. Most J1 ships will be regular ships jumping back and forth between worlds one parsec apart. A few will be cheap, obsolete tramp ships. Just as most J2 ships will be regular ships traveling along two parsec routes. And four parsec routes. And eight parsec routes. And ten parsec routes. Etc. etc. A few will be cheap, obsolete tramp ships. And most J3 ships will be regular ships traveling along three parsec routes. And six parsec route. And nine parsec routes. Etc. etc. A few will be cheap, obsolete tramp ships.
And the thing is, J1 tramp ships will out-compete J2 and J3 tramp ships along one parsec routes. But J2 and J3 tramp ships will out-compete J1 tramps along any other route.
Hans
The thing is, if armed merchant ships are common, you don't even need Q-ships. Unlike the Golden Age of Piracy where a ship with lots of men and cannons was far superior in combat ability to a merchant ship with a small crew and a few canon, the difference in combat ability between a 400 T Traveller merchant and a 400 T Traveller pirate is... that both of them have four turrets.
Even a 200 T ship has a fighting chance against a 400 T ship. And as I pointed out in a previous post, if it didn't, what's the fun of letting a PC ship encounter a pirate? That's the basic paradox of Traveller pirates. If a pirate is a suitable encounter for a PC ship, there wouldn't really be any pirates around to encounter.
Hans
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Now, if there were only a rule in ship design/building that made weapons systems take up waaay more that 1 dton of space for the turret, or a modification (reduction) of the number of potential hardpoints available on a freighter. Then we really could apply our "Golden Age of Sail" analogy more correctly.
Much of the Imperium lies uncomfortably close to a semi-hostile border. The cold-war like tensions and buildup in the Marches (note the 5 frontier wars) would make it a bad place for piracy. How much real world piracy/smuggling happens along the north/south Korea border? Or along the US and USSR coasts during the Cold War?
Piracy flourishes when the central government is inneffective or otherwise occupied.
With respect to cyclic piracy, ships take years to build so it would need to be a long cycle or a migratory 'cat and mouse' type of situation.
I like the Golden Age of Sail version of Piracy because it is more easily Hollywood-ized for use in a game. Future Piracy could also be cut from a far darker cloth:
Imagine modern Gangs and Drug Syndicates expanded across space. The Real World bad-guys have vast funding resources and access to any personal military weapons that they might want.
The Imperial Navy could send a Cruiser Squadron to punish local piracy, but the local pirate-Gang can retaliate with a tactical nuclear strike on the starport or the scout base. Anti-piracy could get very expensive for the Imperium and become very unpopular for the local citizens.
Imagine that pirates operating along a lucrative trade route demand that ships drop the occasional small craft (say 5% of all merchants will be 'attacked' per year). Once the Navy shows up, the Pirates change to a punitive philosophy of destroying passenger liners on sight - no attempt to collect cargo.
At what point is anti-piracy counterproductive to the local economy and the Mega-Corporate bottom line?
If you think that you have a solution, then tell me your plan for eliminating the Crypts/Bloods from US cities, breaking their ties with Mexican Organized Crime, and disarming the Russian Mob .... without turning the world into a Gaza, Somalia or Iraq.
All this scenario requires is a minority of the imperial citizens living very well at TL 14-15 and a majority living at TL 0-9 with no access to the ‘good life’. Imported Tech for the elite of a world would make this even more ‘in your face’ – like pre-revolution France, Vietnam or Cuba.
Corruption, bribes and smuggling are where the money is at. Outright piracy is a direct threat to the 3I "rule of the spacelanes" and would have to be countered even if the IN have crush a few world governments to do it. Local rule is a big thing in the 3I ... as long as you don't mess to much with the MegaCorps profits or get in the way of sector wide power games. Piracy will get you hunted down. Remember prize money makes hunting down pirates worth the time and money and shows the power of the 3I.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Actually until doomsday since I don't take it. I might agree if
a) The TARGETS are almost always more than one parsek away
b) There is a steady source for J2+ ships and repairs/supply
If there is a string of J1 worlds (aka a main) with only an occasional "empty system" (NOT empty hex) I still can't see the benefit of a J2 ship. Most of the time both will be using J1 so there is no benefit for having bigger drives. And depending on the rules system this might not only result in wasted tonnage but also wasted fuel
So wether or not a J2 ship IS more economically depends on the exact region of space. And this includes the smaller liners like Tukies "Hercules" a 5000dton/J1 hauler.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
I can't see small scale pirats as a threat to the 3I. The fleet is too busy looking out for the "evil Zhos" and "democratic Sollies" and similar threats, not to mention keeping the worlds in line. If you play your cards right, DON't go for Tukki, Oberlindes etc. and choose your ambush sights you'll likely remain below the Fleets radar.
Add in that there won't be much of a price left from a pirat after even a light fleet unit engages it and prize money isn't that big a motivation either.
What part of "it is cheaper to move goods two parsecs by jump-2 ship than by jump-1 ship" don't you get? Don't you believe that it is true, or don't you understand the economic advantage of being cheaper than the competition?
How do you figure that jump-2 ships will be doing one-parsec jumps except on rare occasions?
Please elucidate. What does the rules system have to do with it?
Sure, in any region of space that consists of two systems lying one parsec apart and at least three parsecs away from any other systems, jump-1 ships will beat jump-2 ships hands down. Apart from that, no, it does not depend on the exact region of space. Please show me any route in Charted Space more than one parsec long where jump-1 ships are cheaper than jump-2 ships of the same age and financing.
Hans
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
If I have a group of interesting systems one jump apart (the main) and a J1 ship goes down that Main trading at each spot WHERE is the J2 craft more economical? Examples are the Mains in Pashadaru/Khavlev Sektor as Detailed in Hard Times (and existing before that) with a useful port in almost EVERY System
Last edited:
If you have a group of worlds with decent populations on every one of them, a jump-1 tramp can, indeed, wander down that main. But that's because (we assume that) he can get a cargo for the next world one parsec away every time, not because he can get a cargo for the world two parsecs away every other time. The jump-2 tramp is still more economical than the jump-1 tramp for trade between any two worlds on that main that is more than one parsec away (well, not the ones that are three parsecs apart, but jump-3 tramps will pick up that trade).
The only exception is if the trade generated by those worlds is too low to support jump-2 and jump-3 tramps, but if that's the case, they won't be generating enough trade to support more than a small handful of jump-1 tramps.
And as I've said before, by their very nature, tramps are much rarer than regular ships. They exist by picking up the crumbs left over by regular ships. If you have a string of worlds lying one parsec apart and each generating freight for its neighbors, why would a regular jump-1 ship jump from one end of the line to the other, instead of some jump-1 ships jumping back and forth between the first pair of worlds, some other ships jumping back and forth between the next worlds, etc.? Again, this could happen if there's not enough J1 trade to support a single ship going back and forth between any two worlds every three weeks. In such cases a single jump-1 ship might service more worlds in order to survive. But in those cases, the number of jump-1 ships will be very small.
I'll have a look at them when I get home.
BTW, you only answered one of the four questions I posed you.
Hans
Last edited:
The only region I know of like that would be the Sword Worlds. In any case, what you're describing is multiple one-parsec routes, not a multi-parsec route. Even on a main like that, if you want to take cargo from world 1 to world 3, you're better off with a J2 ship.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
There are more than one of those routes.
Give each vessels type its due. If the cargo needs only go one parsec, then the J-1 trader has the edge.
On the other hand, should the cargo need to go farther than one parsec, the edge is clearly the j-2 boat.
Give each vessels type its due. If the cargo needs only go one parsec, then the J-1 trader has the edge.
On the other hand, should the cargo need to go farther than one parsec, the edge is clearly the j-2 boat.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Yes, IF I want to do that. There are reasons why you don't want that. Including that there is enough trade on EVERY world along that tour.
And/Or a local government might want to make sure all worlds get service. Or the local MegaCorps would like to retain/get control of all cargo flows in the region. That is actually why there are ships like the Typ R or the Hercules. They don't have to be cost effective per voyage, they have to offer regular service to every world along a certain route and be cost-neutral at years end if at all
Subbies are the equivalent to the Hurtigrouten Postal/Cargo Ships in Norway pre 1980s and similar ships serving St. Helena or the Siberian costal towns. They are there because governments want them to be there, not because every step in the chain is cost effective
Peter Schutze
SOC-12
>How much real world piracy/smuggling happens along the north/south Korea border?
NO ONE is stupid enough to regularly sneak across the most heavily militarised strip on earth. Their trade is by ship or air to ports except for the occassional stunt
>Or along the US and USSR coasts during the Cold War?
Almost as much as the inter-korea border because the military is looking for infiltration. Why do you think the 9-11 terrorists enter via Canada ?
>Piracy flourishes when the central government is inneffective
Absolutely, assuming it exists (somalia ?). this is about the only way piracy exists because there is a huge indirect economic cost for each loss. Its not the ship thats lost that is important but the 20 that are frightened away because the insurance goes up or convoying is instituted etc etc
This is the theory behind historical commerce raiding and blockading. The german commerce raiders in both world wars were not about the number of tons sunk (the uboats did that) but the total dislocation to trade knowing they were in the area caused
>or otherwise occupied.
only if that leads to ineffective eg active hostilities sucking the normal forces away from a border
NO ONE is stupid enough to regularly sneak across the most heavily militarised strip on earth. Their trade is by ship or air to ports except for the occassional stunt
>Or along the US and USSR coasts during the Cold War?
Almost as much as the inter-korea border because the military is looking for infiltration. Why do you think the 9-11 terrorists enter via Canada ?
>Piracy flourishes when the central government is inneffective
Absolutely, assuming it exists (somalia ?). this is about the only way piracy exists because there is a huge indirect economic cost for each loss. Its not the ship thats lost that is important but the 20 that are frightened away because the insurance goes up or convoying is instituted etc etc
This is the theory behind historical commerce raiding and blockading. The german commerce raiders in both world wars were not about the number of tons sunk (the uboats did that) but the total dislocation to trade knowing they were in the area caused
>or otherwise occupied.
only if that leads to ineffective eg active hostilities sucking the normal forces away from a border
