Proto-Traveller

[rancke]

You assume that if a world has a population in the billions it will have an A class starport. You have stated that if the rules state otherwise, the rules are "wrong."

Yes, but I'm ignoring that for the purposes of this discussion.

(And it's a world with a decent population and the requisite tech level would have either a Class A starport or a nearby world capable of providing it with all the starships it needs).

But here's the thing. The rules decouple the class of starport from the population. One can have a planet of billions of people and have D class world.

Yes, but one world in six will have a class A starport, which will average out to one pop 8+ world in 36.

That world with billions of people could be a horrible disaster. It might be poverty stricken. It might be torn apart by an endless religious war. it might have cultural beliefs the preclude it from wanting to trade with offworlders. Its starport might have been destroyed by ships from another interstellar government that didn't want a world of tens of billions of people having an A class starport.

That other interstellar government would have to have shipbuilding/shipbuying capability of its own, though.

I'm certain I could go on for a while.

No need, I get the point.

Now, none these ideas work within the context of the Third Imperium. Because I'm not trying to build the Third Imperium.

And I'm not basing this particular argument on the Third Imperium.

The implied setting of the first four years of Traveller material assume strife, violence, and danger. (The first few pages of Book 2 are only about the things that go WRONG in space travel)

From what I've read of your posts, you seem to assume that if things can work out well for stability, prosperity, and safety, they will. And, as far as I can tell, the folks who who built the Third Imperium along with you assumed the same.

No, I believe that the setting evolved into one where the Pax Imperium held sway. But since you're talking only about the first four years, I'm not talking about that.

You look at a world with a high population and high tech and ask, "How can it not have an A class starport?"

No, I look at a high-tech, high-population world with a class A starport and think, "How can it not have lots and lots of ships?"

And, of course, the inverse is true: Why are A class starports around worlds with low populations. You see a flaw. I see possibilities in a science fiction setting.

Well, yes, I do see a flaw there.

So, even though there will be high population worlds, and high tech worlds, and A class starports... the stars will only align to make these worlds starship production engines a fraction of the time. And when they do... well, that's where a lot of ships come from!

Precisely.

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for for looking at the game the way you do. (A courtesy, I will now point out, you don't allow other people.)

Wait, what?!? We're not having a friendly discussion between kindred spirits here?

The 'courtesy' I'm not extending is to keep quiet when someone makes a statement that I think is fallacious. As your statement that the early setting details are not self-contradictory.

Now, I may be wrong. Goodness knows that I've been wrong before. But I genuinely believe that your statement is fallacious. If you want to discuss that (in a friendly manner, of course), I'm ready to support my claims. If you don't want to discuss it, you might consider not discussing it.

But now, a question: If you could point me to the early JTAS articles you mentioned, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm very interested in tracking them down. I did a quick scan of the early issues earlier and am not seeing, I think, what you're seeing. But I am curious, honestly, to follow up on your point.

The one I had in mind was an article that showed a lobby in Regina Starport looking like a airport lobby.


Hans

 

[creativehum]

Really, I've already addressed the points you've brought up. I'm not sure what else there is to talk about. (I mean that literally. There may be points you can add. But I've already addressed your rejoinders in my previous post. So, I really don't know what else there is to be said.)

 

[creativehum]

Hey, Hans,

I just realized that last post will have come off as something aggressive -- which wasn't my point.

Let me be clear about a few things:

1. Building the Third Imperium is not my hobby.
2. Going too deep into the sustainability of an interstellar empire that is built on hand-waved technology is not my hobby
3. When it comes to my hobby time, I'm interested in Traveller as an RPG experience with friends. If I'm able to create enough "reality" to support the adventures for the players to enjoy themselves -- great! Because, see point 2. There really is no way of determining what is "real" for a Traveller setting.
4. You want more "real" than me. Awesome! But I'll tell you... I look at the Third Imperium, and I see a massively efficient interstellar empire that would put a Soviet Era planner's wet dreams to shame. I know you and many other people think it makes sense. It doesn't to me.
5. I'm not buying your points. What I mean by that is that they don't concern me. The World Generation system is there to do a lot of things (primarily to built an environment for RPG adventure). It was never built to provide a model for running an interstellar empire as if one were really running one. And I'm fine with that.
6. I'm a happy writer by trade. My creative time that is my hobby time is limited. You and I could spin for years about these points we've been discussing, but that's not the fun I want to be having -- because I'm not seeing the fun. Making up worlds in a resource stressed environment, with politics and intrigue and conflict for my Players to have adventures in and then seeing what the Players do in those environments? That sounds like fun!

I know you have some invested interest in proving everyone wrong about lots of things. I don't get it. I also know no one owes you any explanation to justify their fun about an utterly fictional setting.

So when I say I don't know what there is to say at this point, it's not out of anger or anything. It's with a full awareness that there is nothing more to be said that could possibly be productive.

It's been enjoyable to discuss this. I've tweaked some things on the World Creation tables for my own setting because of things you've written. So thanks. But sometimes there comes a time where investment into a conversation doesn't match returns out. I think that time has come for me on this particular topic.

 

[rancke]

I just realized that last post will have come off as something aggressive -- which wasn't my point.

Don't worry about that part. I really do think of these discussions as friendly debates and try not to read any negativity into them.

As for the few things you got in under the wire just prior to ending the discussion, you're so wrong about me in so many ways. You must be absolutely exhausted after so much jumping to conclusions. I'd would like to refute the impression you've gotten of me, but since you've declared the discussion over, I shall refrain.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Absolutely. Limited resources and the striving for resources are, of course, sewn into the implied setting of Books 1-3. Characters running a Trader never have enough money for payments! Getting the right kind of fuel is a problem! And so on.

And, again, this is all good stuff. Limited resources means conflict, problems, adventure. This is the stuff that I expected when I first read the LBBs out of the boxed set years ago.

actually, under purebk 1-2-3, passengers and freightcan pay the bills.

 

[mike wightman]

Only if you get lucky with the dice rolls - a poor run of luck can lead to an awfully large debt after only a few jumps.

 

[aramis]

Only if you get lucky with the dice rolls - a poor run of luck can lead to an awfully large debt after only a few jumps.

If you've got the MCr seed money, and patience, you can roll that in to 50+.
In the long run, it's profitable.

The base profit margin in a full type A under Bks 1-3 ('81) is about Cr150 per ton per jump, and it's not unlikely to be full most of the time. The Type R is closer to Cr200/ton/jump, but is far less likely to be full.

The Type A, under pure basic box, is generally profitable, especially if you can speculate. The Type R would be were it not for almost never being full.

 

[Marchand]

The argument that "small ship universe = lots of ships" because of the economic size of interstellar tech level, pop 8+ worlds is compelling, but I think it downplays risk as a cost of business, and as others have argued, the world of Books 1-3 is a risky place.

One risk is piracy. The starship encounters table from Book 2 says you have an 8% chance of a pirate encounter on jumping into a system with a C class starport. If there's also a scout base, it actually gets more likely (because the +1 means you need to throw a 9 not a 10) - about 11% chance. Insuring that risk will be a significant addition to the cost of interstellar freight. Capital markets might not even be willing to provide that kind of insurance.

Clearly, the viability of these levels of piracy is itself subject to debate (to put it mildly!) .

There's business risk - your market info is always at least a week out of date even for the closest markets, during which time consumer tastes and business cycles are moving.

There's political risk - planets have revolutions. Does it say anywhere in Books 1-3 that planets have to practise free trade? They might turn protectionist and throw up actual tariff barriers.

World economic history shows us international trade volumes can fluctuate wildly depending on the political order. We had decades of proto-globalisation in the Victorian age up to WW1; then trade volumes collapsed in the chaotic interwar period; then they gradually recovered again post-WW2 under a new international hegemon.

 

[rancke]

The argument that "small ship universe = lots of ships" because of the economic size of interstellar tech level, pop 8+ worlds is compelling, but I think it downplays risk as a cost of business, and as others have argued, the world of Books 1-3 is a risky place.

I don't see the connection. If a handful of ships can make a profit in the world of Books 1-3, how is that same risk going to suppress a buttload of ships?

One risk is piracy. The starship encounters table from Book 2 says you have an 8% chance of a pirate encounter on jumping into a system with a C class starport.

That should be geared to world population (or rather, GWP). An outpost with a class C (or B or A) starport couldn't afford system defenses. A mainworld with a class C starport (or D or E) could.

If there's also a scout base, it actually gets more likely (because the +1 means you need to throw a 9 not a 10) - about 11% chance.

And bang goes my resolution to accept the rules as written for the purpose of this discussion.

Insuring that risk will be a significant addition to the cost of interstellar freight. Capital markets might not even be willing to provide that kind of insurance.

Piracy is a byproduct of trade. If the trade is hamstrung by pirates, it falls away (moves somewhere else, most likely) and the piracy with it, until eventually it becomes profitable to trade there again.

(I'm ignoring the very likely possibility that a neighboring world could put in a few warships to protect its trade, since the rules tend to ignore the effect of neighboring worlds).

Clearly, the viability of these levels of piracy is itself subject to debate (to put it mildly!) .

Yeah, let's not go down that road.

There's business risk - your market info is always at least a week out of date even for the closest markets, during which time consumer tastes and business cycles are moving.

History shows us that that's not enough of a problem to deter trade.

There's political risk - planets have revolutions. Does it say anywhere in Books 1-3 that planets have to practise free trade? They might turn protectionist and throw up actual tariff barriers.

Absent an Imperium or a treaty organisation I'm sure there will be tariff barriers. As we've had historically without getting rid of trade.

The thing is, if you make trade unprofitable, you won't have any. Which means no traders to tax. So trade tariffs are self-adjusting.

World economic history shows us international trade volumes can fluctuate wildly depending on the political order. We had decades of proto-globalisation in the Victorian age up to WW1; then trade volumes collapsed in the chaotic interwar period; then they gradually recovered again post-WW2 under a new international hegemon.

 

[Marchand]

I don't see the connection. If a handful of ships can make a profit in the world of Books 1-3, how is that same risk going to suppress a buttload of ships?

Because piracy raises the cost of providing interstellar freight so there will be less of it for a given level of demand. That equation might well shake out with just a handful of desperadoes willing to take the risk for the huge profits to be made, if they survive.

That should be geared to world population (or rather, GWP). An outpost with a class C (or B or A) starport couldn't afford system defenses. A mainworld with a class C starport (or D or E) could.

But the people who built the A/B/C starport in the outpost might be able to afford system defences. Meanwhile, the C/D/E mainworld might have 100 reasons for not investing in them - don't like foreigners turning up anyway, hamstrung by civil war / poverty... probably the same reason they only have a C, D or E starport.

Piracy is a byproduct of trade. If the trade is hamstrung by pirates, it falls away (moves somewhere else, most likely) and the piracy with it, until eventually it becomes profitable to trade there again.

(I'm ignoring the very likely possibility that a neighboring world could put in a few warships to protect its trade, since the rules tend to ignore the effect of neighboring worlds).

I think the specific channels trade flows along is a level of detail beyond what we need. The dynamic might well work as you describe but the overall level of trade down a main or across a subsector will be depressed by the propensity for piracy, which judging by the starship encounters table is high.

History shows us that that's not enough of a problem to deter trade.

I have a different read of history perhaps. I was struck by an argument I read recently that the degree of trade globally accelerated once the UK had established naval superiority. Before that, when the English, Dutch, Portuguese etc. were all jostling each other, the costs of protecting your trade ate up too much of the profit and volumes were lower. (I can name the book if you're interested.)

Absent an Imperium or a treaty organisation I'm sure there will be tariff barriers. As we've had historically without getting rid of trade.

The thing is, if you make trade unprofitable, you won't have any. Which means no traders to tax. So trade tariffs are self-adjusting.

Again, I disagree. Trade tariffs could stay high for long periods if the government are not concerned with maximising their people's welfare, for whatever reason. They could be totalitarians, or just captured by domestic producer interests who don't want competition. The latter has been very common throughout history. With agriculture, it is basically still the case.

The 1920s and 1930s saw the rise of tariff barriers globally and a collapse in global trade volumes vs the 1870s-1910s. It's not a binary case of either you have trade or you don't. Tariffs, like piracy and a hundred other factors, will affect the volumes.

The general point is that just because a hi-pop TLA+ world CAN build lots of ships, it doesn't mean they WILL. They might prefer to build schools, hospitals or giant pyramids instead.

The Pop 8, TL7 United States had the capacity to build fission-pulse vehicles suitable for the colonisation of the outer solar system (I'm thinking Project Orion). But they didn't. They had some cultural concerns (fallout from the bombs, arms control negotiations) and generally preferred to do other things with their money.

 

[rancke]

Because piracy raises the cost of providing interstellar freight so there will be less of it for a given level of demand.

And piracy is limited by the level of interstellar transport. Piracy is a byproduct of trade. You can't have piracy without trade, which means that you can't have piracy that makes trade unprofitable.

That equation might well shake out with just a handful of desperadoes willing to take the risk for the huge profits to be made, if they survive.

Desperadoes? Armed 200T free traders have a shot at fighting off pirates. What chance does a pirate have against an armed 1000T trader?

But the people who built the A/B/C starport in the outpost might be able to afford system defences. Meanwhile, the C/D/E mainworld might have 100 reasons for not investing in them - don't like foreigners turning up anyway, hamstrung by civil war / poverty... probably the same reason they only have a C, D or E starport.

Independent worlds tend to invest in system defenses. That's how they remain independent.

I think the specific channels trade flows along is a level of detail beyond what we need. The dynamic might well work as you describe but the overall level of trade down a main or across a subsector will be depressed by the propensity for piracy, which judging by the starship encounters table is high.

One simple way to circumvent piracy is to bypass worlds with class C starports.

I have a different read of history perhaps. I was struck by an argument I read recently that the degree of trade globally accelerated once the UK had established naval superiority. Before that, when the English, Dutch, Portuguese etc. were all jostling each other, the costs of protecting your trade ate up too much of the profit and volumes were lower. (I can name the book if you're interested.)

But you still had trade.

Again, I disagree. Trade tariffs could stay high for long periods if the government are not concerned with maximising their people's welfare, for whatever reason. They could be totalitarians, or just captured by domestic producer interests who don't want competition. The latter has been very common throughout history. With agriculture, it is basically still the case.

So bypass them and trade with the worlds that do want to trade.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

The argument that "small ship universe = lots of ships" because of the economic size of interstellar tech level, pop 8+ worlds is compelling, but I think it downplays risk as a cost of business, and as others have argued, the world of Books 1-3 is a risky place.

One risk is piracy. The starship encounters table from Book 2 says you have an 8% chance of a pirate encounter on jumping into a system with a C class starport. If there's also a scout base, it actually gets more likely (because the +1 means you need to throw a 9 not a 10) - about 11% chance. Insuring that risk will be a significant addition to the cost of interstellar freight. Capital markets might not even be willing to provide that kind of insurance.

Clearly, the viability of these levels of piracy is itself subject to debate (to put it mildly!) .

There's business risk - your market info is always at least a week out of date even for the closest markets, during which time consumer tastes and business cycles are moving.

There's political risk - planets have revolutions. Does it say anywhere in Books 1-3 that planets have to practise free trade? They might turn protectionist and throw up actual tariff barriers.

World economic history shows us international trade volumes can fluctuate wildly depending on the political order. We had decades of proto-globalisation in the Victorian age up to WW1; then trade volumes collapsed in the chaotic interwar period; then they gradually recovered again post-WW2 under a new international hegemon.

I think there's a simpler answer. Regardless of production capacity there's only going to be as many merchant ships as there is trade volume.

I think the key point here is the counter-intuitive one that systems with the highest likely demand - hipop, hitech systems - are also the most likely to be able to fully exploit their whole solar system which means they are also the most likely to be mostly self-sufficient so unlike modern earth the main producers of tech for export might not be importing lots of raw materials and food.

Also the high cost of shipping means it is only economic to ship low value goods short distances so even when an alpha system is importing common raw materials or food it will only do so from the closest systems.

Most planets will be scrabbling to buy the tech they want with whatever rare and luxury items they can produce instead.

That can still mean a lot of ships *inside* the alpha systems - IMTU I'm having thousands of non jump capable ships plying between all the moons and planets and orbital stations of systems like Lunion or Glisten - but outside those systems the number will be determined by the volume of trade rather than the ship building capacity and in many cases that volume of trade is low.

So for me (big ship universe or small ship universe is the same here) the trade scenery is:

1) 1000s of ships of all sizes operating *within* each alpha system

2) 100s of 1K-5K ships operating between each alpha system and their local collection of hinterland systems (A or B class star ports within 4-6 hexes)

3) 10s of higrade 3K ships on the long distance runs between each pair of alpha systems

4) 100 or so free traders and type Rs and Ms per sub-sector covering the minor systems.

As supply and demand will be the main driver when it comes to trade then the biggest difference between a big ship universe and a small ship universe will be the navy imo.

#

edit

There is potentially a difference in merchant ship scenery between a bsu and ssu. Economies of scale would imply that the size of freighter on a particular route would gradually default to the largest size that could reasonably guarantee being full.

So in the above (1) and (4) would stay the same but (2) and (3) would change to

2) 100s of nK dton ships operating between each alpha system and their local collection of hinterland systems (A or B class star ports within 4-6 hexes) where n is the largest tonnage ship with a reasonable guarantee of being filled on that route.

3) 10s of hijump nK dton ships on the long distance runs between each pair of alpha systems where n is the largest tonnage ship with a reasonable guarantee of being filled on that route.

In many cases they might come to the same thing 1K to 5K but not always.

 

[rancke]

Something I forgot when Marchand brought this up was that my original argument was

a) Concerned with national ships, not civilian traffic and
b) Assumed everything else being equal.

That is to say, if a world would build so-and-so-many 500,000T battleships in a big ship universe, it would build correspondingly more 5000T battleships in a small ship universe.

The same argument could be extended to civilian ships: If there is trade and passengers enough for so-and-so-many 20,000T freighters in a big ship universe, you'd have four or five times as many 4,000 and 5,000T freighters in a small ship universe.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Something I forgot when Marchand brought this up was that my original argument was

a) Concerned with national ships, not civilian traffic and
b) Assumed everything else being equal.

That is to say, if a world would build so-and-so-many 500,000T battleships in a big ship universe, it would build correspondingly more 5000T battleships in a small ship universe.

The same argument could be extended to civilian ships: If there is trade and passengers enough for so-and-so-many 20,000T freighters in a small ship universe, you'd have four or five times as many 4,000 and 5,000T freighters in a small ship universe.


Hans

Depends... upon all the rest being equal.

Which, in comparing Bk 2 and Bk5, much of it isn't.

Also, you're coming at it with an attitude that everyone trades with everyone they can. That's a fallacy. A huge one, at that. If it were true, we'd never have stopped trading with Cuba, Russia, or the PRC. The capability was present - but thwarted by political will.

Further, the profit margins of trading in-system are potentially much higher - or at least, the costs of shipping lower. (A JD under Bk2 is 2.5% per parsec, plus 10% hull in fuel... plus a fraction to multiple engineers, depending upon size.)

So even a very busy system might have almost no external trade. It's only the "sole point of life in the system" worlds that are likely to rely upon external trade, with its higher risks and higher costs.

 

[rancke]

Also, you're coming at it with an attitude that everyone trades with everyone they can. That's a fallacy. A huge one, at that. If it were true, we'd never have stopped trading with Cuba, Russia, or the PRC. The capability was present - but thwarted by political will.

Why would the political will in a small ship universe differ from the political will of a big ship universe? 'Everyting else being equal' means the trade volumes being pretty much the same. And why shouldn't they be?

Further, the profit margins of trading in-system are potentially much higher - or at least, the costs of shipping lower. (A JD under Bk2 is 2.5% per parsec, plus 10% hull in fuel... plus a fraction to multiple engineers, depending upon size.)

You're comparing inland waterway trade with the spice trade. The two are not related at all. You'll have the in-system traffic that the in-system trade will bear and the foreign traffic that the foreign trade will bear, and the two are mostly unrelated.

So even a very busy system might have almost no external trade. It's only the "sole point of life in the system" worlds that are likely to rely upon external trade, with its higher risks and higher costs.

I'm not talking about relying on trade; I'm talking about making a profit from it. If you can make a profit by transporting stuff to another system, someone will do it. And if in our hypothetical big ship universe, there is a profit to be made, why should there not be a similar profit to be made in our hypothetical small ship universe?


Hans

 

[salochin999]

Something I forgot when Marchand brought this up was that my original argument was

a) Concerned with national ships, not civilian traffic and
b) Assumed everything else being equal.

That is to say, if a world would build so-and-so-many 500,000T battleships in a big ship universe, it would build correspondingly more 5000T battleships in a small ship universe.

The same argument could be extended to civilian ships: If there is trade and passengers enough for so-and-so-many 20,000T freighters in a small ship universe, you'd have four or five times as many 4,000 and 5,000T freighters in a small ship universe.


Hans

Yes, the sizes I mentioned above are based on Aramis' profitable ship size calcs. If someone is running a big ship universe a corporation or government ship could be much bigger if there was a specific non-freighter reason e.g. massive Imperium low berth colonist ships.

 

[Marchand]

Why would the political will in a small ship universe differ from the political will of a big ship universe? 'Everyting else being equal' means the trade volumes being pretty much the same. And why shouldn't they be?

I'd treat political will as an exogenous variable that we can tweak as we want. There's no inherent reason why it should be one or the other.

I'm not talking about relying on trade; I'm talking about making a profit from it. If you can make a profit by transporting stuff to another system, someone will do it. And if in our hypothetical big ship universe, there is a profit to be made, why should there not be a similar profit to be made in our hypothetical small ship universe?

Hans

Because the profit depends partly on the costs of providing transport relative to the price differentials for goods between words. There is a wide range of variables to be played with - government policies, social preferences, how well or badly capital and insurance markets function, etc. We can set the variables one way if we want a big ship universe, and another way if we want a small ship universe with relatively few ships.

T5 (if I may bring it in on this CT discussion) acknowledges this on page 435 in the section "expected ship traffic". where it suggests tweaking one of the variables in the formula depending whether you want a busy or a "rural" empire.

The argument "small ship universe = loads of small ships" depends on the assumption everyone wants as much trade as possible. Now I fully agree as much trade as possible would be economically optimal. But as the real world shows, political interests can get in the way of economic rationality.

 

[rancke]

I'd treat political will as an exogenous variable that we can tweak as we want. There's no inherent reason why it should be one or the other.

Except that was a part of my argument. Everything else being equal includes the political will.

Because the profit depends partly on the costs of providing transport relative to the price differentials for goods between words. There is a wide range of variables to be played with - government policies, social preferences, how well or badly capital and insurance markets function, etc. We can set the variables one way if we want a big ship universe, and another way if we want a small ship universe with relatively few ships.

Sure. And we can tweak the setting in a big ship universe to get predominantly small ships (The 'small budget universe'). So what's the point of comparing apples and raisins?

T5 (if I may bring it in on this CT discussion) acknowledges this on page 435 in the section "expected ship traffic". where it suggests tweaking one of the variables in the formula depending whether you want a busy or a "rural" empire.

And, once again, while that makes a difference, the difference has got nothing to do with maximum ship size.

The argument "small ship universe = loads of small ships" depends on the assumption everyone wants as much trade as possible. Now I fully agree as much trade as possible would be economically optimal. But as the real world shows, political interests can get in the way of economic rationality.

The argument was "small ship universe = lots of national ships".

Civilian traffic was something you added. I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it, but the same logic seems to apply: For a given volume of trade and passengers, you'd need more small ships than you'd need large ships.


Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

Maximum ship size actually does have a definite effect on total trade volume, though.

Economy of scale means that a large cargo vessel will always have a lower operating cost per ton of cargo than a small cargo vessel - meaning that the large ship will charge less per ton for cargo if there is competition for the load, so trade costs will drop, which will increase trade volume.

So identical subsectors will automatically see a larger volume of trade in the "large-ship universe" than in the "small-ship universe".

 

[mike wightman]

The number of ships you can build in a small ship LBB1-3 based universe has three limiting factors:

class A starport.

number of hulls per year a class A port can build.

availability of exotic materials to make the jump drive.

The proto-Traveller Imperium of the early adventures is most definitely a small ship universe, and one where the total number of ships is limited, probably due to the latter two points which are setting specific but never mentioned (there are no rules).

Note, this is not the OTU, it is not including HG2 or TCS rules, it is using the material from LBB1-3 and the setting from the early adventures.