Real pirates.

[Blue Ghost]

Piracy as I see it;

Typically shots are fired, then a smash and grab boarding action depending on the outcome of starship combat. Starships would not be taken wholesale unless in the border/frontier regions, where the pirates can dispose of the ship to a foreign government or private party that is extra-territorial.

No pirate in his right mind is going to haul in a yacht that's got registration throughout the Imperium (or government of your choice) hoping to sell it at the next port of call. Someone's going to catch on. It's just too big and conspicuous, but of course it will depend on the member world, and also on how blind an eye anyone wants to turn.

The goods on the other hand, are a little easier to disguise and dispose of. Ever buy a stereo or cordless phone at a flea market? Ever wonder how some of those consumer electronics got there? Well, it's not always legitimate.

Sidebar; a business instructor at the local JC ran a very successful chain of women's discount clothing stores. Heck, my mom used to shop there. One of the men he hired as an assistant manager was a ordained into the priesthood, but decided to give real life a try first. He had impeccable credentials and references. But, wouldn't you know it, he was, in fact, form and essence, pirating the goods, selling them at a discount and pocketing the profit. He moved across the country before he was caught, opened up his own chain of clothing stores, then sent my teacher a cheque for all of merchandise he stole as a reimbursement for start up costs.

Now that's inventive piracy. The moral of the story; piracy isn't all about stealing ships to sell and/or operate. It's about taking what you can get away with. Killing the crew and spacing them may not be the best option, ditto with stealing their ship.

It's late, and I have to get up in three hours.

 

[rancke]

The fundamental differences between shipping via wet merchant and via space merchant, in a nutshell:

1. A wet vessel whose engines conk out can replenish LS
2. A wet vessel can expect to be found near where it was last seen when not under power; a space vessel can be expected to have continued to drift at course and speed
3. A wet vessel having a hull failure can result in survivors who can last weeks; a space vessel will expect survivors to last mere hours (as airtanks run out)
4. A wet ship without power is merely at the mercy of the local ambient, a narrow range of temperatures, mostly within survivable; A space ship without power is subject to blackbody cooling, and unless significantly inside the optimal hab zone of the star will cool to hazardous within hours, lethal in a couple weeks.
5. Wet ships' fuel is mildly toxic, but easily handled and even immersion can be tolerated; Space ship's fuel is highly flammable, almost non-toxic, but is cryogenic and thus very hard to handle. An onboard fuel leak into compartments thus is very different; wet ships, one evacuates the survivors of a flooded compartment, while space, one thaws their remains.
6. Relative costs of fuel are several orders of magnitude higher for space over wet. Even when wet and space use the same fusion plants. This has much to do with the requisite distances involved, as well as changing potential energy states.
7. quality and quantity of LS equipment required is considerably lower for wet traffic than for space traffic.
8. Comm times for wet traffic are measured in hours to seconds for modern (the only data sets robust enough to model comm effects are all telegraph era and later), while for Jump-travel, they are in weeks
9. Wet Ship sensors are limited by world curvature, signal strength, and receiver sensitivity; Space sensors are limited only by signal strength and receiver sensitivity
10. Wet rescue is only "often too late", space rescue will be "usually too late"

And what makes any of these differences fundamental? That is how do they change the nature of trade to make the size of the populations involved and the distances between trading partners irrelevant to the volume of trade?


Hans

 

[Omnivore]

That is how do they change the nature of trade to make the size of the populations involved and the distances between trading partners irrelevant to the volume of trade?

Do you not see that this question highlights the flaw in both your argument and Gurps: Far Trader's economic model?

There are far more factors involved than merely the size of the populations and physical distances. This view downplays the difference in TL to a mere manufacturing detail. What trade can there be between a culture of today and a stone age culture? Practically none. Historic examples abound!

It neglects the effects of stagnant growth, of increasing automation, of the effects of severe communications lag on banking systems. In fact it neglects every single fact that could and would likely make trade in a widespread interstellar civilization different than today's Earth, and then only today's Earth as seen through a pair of glasses with a certain rose tint.

It also assumes a monoculture across the entire Imperium. Many of the cultures aren't human, even those that are technically human aren't Solomani, there are over 300,000 years of divergence. This should have a large impact on population movement and quite probably more than a minor one on trade. Differences in government type and law levels alone across the Imperium merely highlight the point.

Even if one assumes that somehow the gravity model of economics would still have some relevance in such a setting, the question then becomes which model?

This one:

Or:

Perhaps even:

Good grief! If the experts can't even agree on a formulaic expression of the theory in today's world, what hubris and blindness leads anyone to believe that the model for an entirely different situation would not require an entirely different or greatly modified formula?

However it seems that I am trying to convince a believer that there is an error in his religion's scripture. If that is the case, then the discussion is beyond hopeless.

PS: And the answer to your question regarding Aramis's list of differences is simple: Interstellar trade involves higher risk, higher costs, and orders of magnitude greater information lag. Perhaps any one of those in isolation may not be viewed as a fundamental difference, but the synergy of the combination definitely forms one.

Brian

 

[rancke]

Do you not see that this question highlights the flaw in both your argument and Gurps: Far Trader's economic model?

No. It highlights my inability to understand how any of the factors Wil mentions would nullify the effect of population size and distance. I'm quite on board with them affecting trade volume too, but I can't see how any of them would cause population size and distance to become irrelevant.

There are far more factors involved than merely the size of the populations and physical distances.

Of course there are. But unless all these other factors miraculously happen to cancel out the contribution of the size of the populations and physical distances, there is still going to be a very strong correlation. And your argument relies on them having absolutely no correlation at all.

This view downplays the difference in TL to a mere manufacturing detail. What trade can there be between a culture of today and a stone age culture? Practically none. Historic examples abound!

Historical examples of trade of manufactured goods for raw material abound, yes.

In any case, I don't see the relevance. You are trying to show that population size and distance do not affect the volume of trade worlds with a given starport class has, right? Where do stone age culture come into that? I can provide you with any number of worlds with Class C starports that do not have stone age cultures. (OTOH, I suspect I'd have great difficulty finding a world with a TL of 0 that has a Class C starport).

It neglects the effects of stagnant growth, of increasing automation, of the effects of severe communications lag on banking systems. In fact it neglects every single fact that could and would likely make trade in a widespread interstellar civilization different than today's Earth, and then only today's Earth as seen through a pair of glasses with a certain rose tint.

No, it assumes that none of these effects would cancel out the effect of population size and interstellar distance. The trade produced by a low-population world suffering from stagnant growth is going to be smaller than the trade produced by a high-population world suffering from stagnant growth. The trade between two worlds both suffering from stagnant growth will be lower the further apart they are. And so on for every other factor you can mention.

Sorry, make that any other factor I can think of and as far as I can judge every single one of the factors Wil listed.

It also assumes a monoculture across the entire Imperium. Many of the cultures aren't human, even those that are technically human aren't Solomani, there are over 300,000 years of divergence. This should have a large impact on population movement and quite probably more than a minor one on trade. Differences in government type and law levels alone across the Imperium merely highlight the point.

But can you explain why any of those differences would change the amount of goods produced by a given size population fundamentally, all other things being equal? Can you explain why the transportation cost of interstellar traffic does not affect trade volume the way transportation costs has affected trade throughout recorded history?

Even if one assumes that somehow the gravity model of economics would still have some relevance in such a setting, the question then becomes which model?

No, once population size and distance is considered relevant to interstellar trade, your argument that all worlds with Class C starports would have the same volume of trade is refuted. In that context the exact model used is irrelevant.

Incidentally, I don't use FT's model to produce numbers because I believe in it religiously. I use it because it's the only model around. You come up with a model that is easier to work with and produces more useful results and I'll use that.


Hans

 

[Omnivore]

Incidentally, I don't use FT's model to produce numbers because I believe in it religiously. I use it because it's the only model around. You come up with a model that is easier to work with and produces more useful results and I'll use that.

Personally, in over thirty years of Traveller, my groups and I have never had a problem with the simple model based on the assumption that the starport size is the primary indicator of traffic volume (all traffic including trade). All other factors were only relevant in the determination of the type of trade items and as clues as to why volume was higher or lower than might be otherwise assumed. It is/was the job of the GM to explain why.

Simple, and every bit as accurate in a fictional setting as anything based on the current real world. But then we took the following seriously:

"Traveller is necessarily a framework describing the barest of essentials for an infinite universe; obviously rules which could cover every aspect of every possible action would be far larger than these three booklets. A group involved in playing a scenario or campaign can make their adventures more elaborate, more detailed, more interesting, with the input of a great deal of imagination."

Adding complexity past the essential for the setting subtracts from the gaming experience. [A lesson I'm relearning at each and every stage in the development of my latest ATU ]

Brian

 

[rancke]

Personally, in over thirty years of Traveller, my groups and I have never had a problem with the simple model based on the assumption that the starport size is the primary indicator of traffic volume (all traffic including trade). All other factors were only relevant in the determination of the type of trade items and as clues as to why volume was higher or lower than might be otherwise assumed. It is/was the job of the GM to explain why.

Simple, and every bit as accurate in a fictional setting as anything based on the current real world. But then we took the following seriously:

"Traveller is necessarily a framework describing the barest of essentials for an infinite universe; obviously rules which could cover every aspect of every possible action would be far larger than these three booklets. A group involved in playing a scenario or campaign can make their adventures more elaborate, more detailed, more interesting, with the input of a great deal of imagination."

Adding complexity past the essential for the setting subtracts from the gaming experience. [A lesson I'm relearning at each and every stage in the development of my latest ATU ]

I could reply to the points you make here, but I won't, because none of them have any relevance to the current argument. We were talking about how realistic certain game rules were. Now you're switching to whether it is a good idea to examine how realistic the game rules are. If you want to start an entirely new argument, feel free, but it would probably be simpler if you did it in a new thread.

I mean, this is already a tangent to the original thread, but there's still a faint prospect that we might get back to it eventually. Going out along a tangent to the tangent is a bit much.

If you feel that you are beating a dead horse then I have to ask, why are you beating a dead horse?


Hans

 

[Omnivore]

We've had numerous pirate threads on the BBS, nearly all of which harken back to the classic days of sail. But, pirates existed before that time, and continue to this day as a deadly aberrant. We can romanticize about them all we want, and it's fun to do so, but in the end, real pirates are just criminals out to steal property that people have worked for, even if it means doing away with whoever's in the way.
<snip>
I just wanted people here to get some insight into real life examples of piracy, and how they might include that in their gaming sessions, because, to be brutally honest, that's where that stuff belongs; in the imagination.

(1) This thread began with the author suggesting real life examples could serve as inspiration for portrayal of piracy in Traveller.

(2) Trade and piracy are interlinked.

Now...
You were claiming the CT/OTU trade rules are unrealistic, in other words you have some model in your head that CT/OTU doesn't match and therefore claim CT/OTU to be wrong and unrealistic.

I'm simply saying that CT/OTU rules are realistic in the setting and if the model in your head doesn't match the problem isn't in CT/OTU.

And beating a dead horse means I already know where this is headed because I and others in this thread have said exactly the same thing in different ways before and you continue to choose to ignore it.

Please reply if you want the satisfaction of the last word, but I'm done here.
Brian

 

[rancke]

You were claiming the CT/OTU trade rules are unrealistic, in other words you have some model in your head that CT/OTU doesn't match and therefore claim CT/OTU to be wrong and unrealistic.

I'm claiming that the CT trade rules are unrealistic, right enough, but not because I have another model in my head. I'm claiming they are unrealistic because treating them as realistic leads to highly unrealistic conclusions. And also, incidentally, to contradictions with other parts of canon.

I'm simply saying that CT/OTU rules are realistic in the setting and if the model in your head doesn't match the problem isn't in CT/OTU.

No, you said that to begin with, but when you couldn't substantiate that, you switched to arguing that you found them eminently gamable. Which I have no intention of disputing. I've found them quite gamable myself.

And beating a dead horse means I already know where this is headed because I and others in this thread have said exactly the same thing in different ways before and you continue to choose to ignore it.

No, I remain unconvinced. I most certainly do not ignore what you and others have said before. But a fallacy does not become true if more than one person embrace it or if someone says it three times.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans:

Several increase costs directly.
Several increase risks radically, (also increasing costs.)
Anything which increases costs and/or risks reduces the benefits of performing that shipping.

Local production reduces risks - both from response time and from shipping time and availability costs.


Now, larger markets tend to also have more local production. At least, in terms of non-agricultural production. And tend to draw more food from a wider area. Only as comm lags drop do the industrial centers start to consolidate. The US, for example, in the last 50 years, has cut the number of factories by 50% or more... while quintupling production. Just In Time ordering systems, and constant inventory shopping.

To give an example of the effect of comm lag: Harry Potter novels.
Local store: walk-in, and I get it for $15 in trade paper. Today. I pay for my petrol to ship it to the house. Which, if I buy it en route to/from work or school, means the cost of parking, starting the engine, and getting back on the road.
Online: I get it for about $10, also trade paper. I get it in about a week. I pay shipping.
Scholastic Book Order (mail order): $7, again, trade paper. I get it in about a month. I still pay shipping.
School's book order (order through the school): $6, same format... I still get it in about a month, but I have TWO opportunities per year to do so, tho I don't pay shipping.
Same book - 3 different modes. And it gets sales in all three channels at those prices.

To give another example:
Wal*Mart. They keep prices down by virtue of controlling everything but the actual production of goods for their stores' supply chains. Wal*Mart stores keep unshelved inventory to a minimum - almost everything is on the shelves within 24 hours of arrival, with a few exceptions for high volume items that would look scary if all were shelved or are too easily stolen. When you buy a thing at WM, the store computer orders a replacement (be it same or different model). It's immediately cued for shipment from the RDC, and a replacement to the RDC is queued for shipment from the manufacturer. If a replacement in type is unavailable, a different product for the space is instead ordered. This process minimizes storage costs - but it won't work as well if the store is ordering with a two week lag. Especially if there's a shortage at the RDC, or a shortage at the manufacturer. It relies upon keeping stock moving, and upon not letting things go unfilled.

 

[rancke]

Wil,

What are you trying to prove or refute or explain and why does what you wrote prove or refute or explain it?

My guess is that you are attempting to explain why the ldifferences between seaborne trade and starship-borne trade that you listed make the size of the populations involved and the distances between trading partners irrelevant to the volume of trade, but I don't see how what you wrote does that.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

(1) This thread began with the author suggesting real life examples could serve as inspiration for portrayal of piracy in Traveller.

(2) Trade and piracy are interlinked.

Now...
You were claiming the CT/OTU trade rules are unrealistic, in other words you have some model in your head that CT/OTU doesn't match and therefore claim CT/OTU to be wrong and unrealistic.

I'm simply saying that CT/OTU rules are realistic in the setting and if the model in your head doesn't match the problem isn't in CT/OTU.

And beating a dead horse means I already know where this is headed because I and others in this thread have said exactly the same thing in different ways before and you continue to choose to ignore it.

Please reply if you want the satisfaction of the last word, but I'm done here.
Brian

I made no such claim.

 

[Omnivore]

I made no such claim.

Sorry the part beginning at Now... and continuing was directed at Ranke2. I meant to only attribute the sentence beginning at (1) to you.

Brian

 

[Carlobrand]

Geosync is well within range of local defenses. ...

A Patrol Cruiser is cheap enough that any world that gets enough traffic to make it worth lurking will have one. Or ten. ...

... There will always be places with no defenses. These places will also have no merchant traffic to speak of. ...

The Spinward Marches, ca. 1112:
Population ~382 billion among 439 systems, 153 of which are pop. value 4 or lower (10's of thousands). 169 Class A/B ports, 118 Class C, 152 Class D/E/X - unable to provide maintenance to spacecraft and therefore unlikely to maintain any sort of space-going force; 16 of those have pop values of 8 or better (hundreds of millions). 177 worlds of tech level 7 or lower - unable to maintain the 4g maneuver drive of a Type T patrol cruiser (though I'd guess an A/B/C port could manage some exceptions by importing parts).

Type T Patrol Cruiser: MCr 221.04 (Book-2), or MCr 44.2 up front, then MCR 11.052 annually for 40 years (Cr. 921 thousand per month, but most governments plan their budgets annually). Crew of 18, estimated payroll 33,000 monthly or 396 thousand annually. Factor in fuel and maintenance, basic budget's about MCr 12 annually.

(IMO: 5-6 fighters would be as effective for less money; increased agility offsets the weaker computer, and high speed means quick response. Maintenance remains a problem. Maybe a free trader could be reconfigured as a fighter tender, acting as a base for its brood when on assignment and jumping out for maintenance of itself and its brood when needed: Hrunting class police carrier!)

Every game master has their own vision of the Traveller universe - including such things as how much merchant traffic there is, a key and unknowable point in a debate about the economics of piracy in the hinterworlds, since only GURPS gives us any real detail, and that with some flaws. On the one hand, the Marches are very much frontier - large numbers of lightly populated worlds that would have real difficulty coming up with a 44 million credit down payment, large numbers of worlds without the infrastructure to maintain a patrol cruiser (or any other spacecraft) even if they could afford one. On the other hand, one could establish a patrol of 400 tonners around every Imperial planet - rotating back to some rear base for rest and maintenance periodically with a relief rotating in - for the price of a couple of Imperial heavy cruisers. Same applies for Sword Worlds and Zhodani space - though life in the non-aligned region might be a bit harsh.

I think it really comes down to what you want in YOUR world. It's a game, after all; it exists so you can present your players with fun and challenging adventures. If your game's Imperium is very laissez faire - it's up to the individual worlds to sort their individual needs out, and the Imperial budget's only to defend against threats large enough to threaten the Imperial hold on a planet - then there's ample room for piracy among the hundreds of worlds without means or infrastructure to support an orbital defense force. There are many examples of empires in history that cared about nothing but their borders and their privileges. If your game's Imperium is more activist, then there is ample tax base from the wealthier worlds to support a force strong enough to deal with the typical 400-ton pirate in every single system (except maybe the nonaligned ones).

So, do whatever sings to you.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Sorry the part beginning at Now... and continuing was directed at Ranke2. I meant to only attribute the sentence beginning at (1) to you.

Brian

Ah, I get it. Yeah, I think I already expressed how I think piracy most likely manifest in Traveller.

 

[rancke]

The Spinward Marches, ca. 1112:
Population ~382 billion among 439 systems, 153 of which are pop. value 4 or lower (10's of thousands). 169 Class A/B ports, 118 Class C, 152 Class D/E/X - unable to provide maintenance to spacecraft and therefore unlikely to maintain any sort of space-going force; 16 of those have pop values of 8 or better (hundreds of millions).

Starport class is a civilian rating. It tells of the facilities a visiting civilian starship can avail itself of. Any world with the requisite tech level (and tax base, of course) can build warships of its own (explicitly allowed by HG). If they can build they can maintain.

177 worlds of tech level 7 or lower - unable to maintain the 4g maneuver drive of a Type T patrol cruiser (though I'd guess an A/B/C port could manage some exceptions by importing parts).

Class A and B starports can maintain any visiting starship regardless of relative tech level. It seems logical that any world can import parts and technicians to maintain its warships, regardless of starport class.

Type T Patrol Cruiser: MCr 221.04 (Book-2), or MCr 44.2 up front, then MCR 11.052 annually for 40 years (Cr. 921 thousand per month, but most governments plan their budgets annually). Crew of 18, estimated payroll 33,000 monthly or 396 thousand annually. Factor in fuel and maintenance, basic budget's about MCr 12 annually.

Or more. TCS figures would be MCr22 annually. Not that I don't think that TCS figures are grossly simplified.

Every game master has their own vision of the Traveller universe - including such things as how much merchant traffic there is, a key and unknowable point in a debate about the economics of piracy in the hinterworlds, since only GURPS gives us any real detail, and that with some flaws.

Yes, but only one vision can be true in any single universe. Just because no official product tells us how big Enope's system navy is and how it's organized, maintained and paid for doesn't mean that the answer isn't fixed for any single universe. If you want it to be no defenses at all in YTU, that's your business, and if I want it to be surrounded by hundreds of 50,000T monitors[*], that's my business. What it is in the OTU is Marc Miller's business[**] and when one of his minions writes up Enope one day, we'll get his answer.

But what some people seem to miss is that until that day, it's FUN to speculate on the answer. I don't engage in these discussions to force anyone to conform to my views. I do it to explore my own views[***]. If I have any motives in the direction of "forcing" anything on anybody, it would be to influence the hypothetical future writer of the Enope writeup to believe in my vision (because obviously a writeup that conforms to my vision would be a lot more useful to me than one that contradicted it), but considering how likely that is to come to pass, I think I'll stick to having entertaining discussions as my motive.

And people who feel that I'm beating a dead horse are welcome to refuse to watch and they're welcome to grab a mallet and see if it might turn out to be a pinata. But they're not welcome to tell me not to beat the horse; if it's dead there's no harm, and if it's a pinata it might even burst one day.

[*] I don't. I want it to have defenses that it can plausibly support given the logistical problems involved; I just haven't worked out what that might be.

[**] But even Marc Miller can't make it 'none' on even days and 'multiple monitors' on odd days. Well, he can, but I for one wouldn't believe him.

[***] And sometimes, less creditably, to challenge people who state their opinions as fact. That tend to get right up my nose and provoke me to reply. I try to curb the urge and I'm getting more mellow (or care less) as time go by, but I still react more often than I should. But hey, if I can't sound off when I'm among friends, where can I sound off?
​

On the one hand, the Marches are very much frontier - large numbers of lightly populated worlds that would have real difficulty coming up with a 44 million credit down payment...

The crucial number is a tax base of around 1 billion credits, which ranges from a population of 50,000 (TL14) to 500,000 (TL5)[*], though a world with a borderline population size might well have a higher than average proportion of its taxes going to the military. (Actually, to get the nice round figures above I assunmed a military tax of 3.7% instead of the canon average of 3%.)

[*] More than that, actually, since there will be logistical problems that adds to the maintenance cost.​

I'd say that as a rule of thumb, any high-tech world with a population of one million and any not-too-low tech (not lower than TL5) world with a population of 10 million would have enough system defenses to deter pirates.

...large numbers of worlds without the infrastructure to maintain a patrol cruiser (or any other spacecraft) even if they could afford one.

See above.

On the other hand, one could establish a patrol of 400 tonners around every Imperial planet - rotating back to some rear base for rest and maintenance periodically with a relief rotating in - for the price of a couple of Imperial heavy cruisers. Same applies for Sword Worlds and Zhodani space - though life in the non-aligned region might be a bit harsh.

Evidently the Imperium doesn't do that for whatever reason. Lack of interest, perhaps. However, I think there are sufficient forces left over that do have the interest to take up the slack.

Mora's system navy apparently donated a 50,000T monitor to Rorise in 1104 (The text says that Rorise 'acquired' the monitor, but how much could 50 people afford to pay?. Rorise would need help just operating the thing (It would take 800% of their population to crew it) let alone maintain it). OK, that story is exceedingly hinky and in dire need of a retcon[*], but it shows one additional possibility: Help, financial or practical, from neighboring worlds or from the Imperium.

[*] IMTU the 50 citizens are all members of an exceedingly powerful merchant family that owns Rorise and use it as a retreat; the actual population is in the tens of thousands but are all counted as citizens of their home planet staying only temporarily. But there are various problems with using that explanation in the OTU.​

As I said in another post, governments have tended to invest in protecting their shipping. The problem they've usually had, here on Earth, is that there were more places to patrol than they had assests to patrol them, which I submit is not the case with the OTU. But there's another group of people who are definitely interested, and that is the shipping companies. The British East Imdia Company maintained a private navy (The Bombay Marine). So, it would seem, do companies in the OTU. Al Morai, a relatively small company, maintains four "route protectors", and I see no reason to suppose that a company like Tukera would not have a lot more than that of their own. These ships won't be stationed in backwater systems, but they will be stationed in systems that are part of a trade route and lack defenses of their own.

I think it really comes down to what you want in YOUR world.

What goes into anyone's TU always comes down to what he wants in his TU. Which is why I very seldom discuss what goes on in personal TUs, my own included.

I'm not even discussing whether there are pirates in the OTU. Not only do I think that it would be a fool's errand to try to prove that they couldn't possibly exist (I think they can; I just think they will be a lot rarer than implied by canon), but I want pirates in the OTU (and in my own). I'm only, ever, discussing if they actually make sense (as portrayed in the canon material), given the peculiarities of the jump drive.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Starport class is a civilian rating. It tells of the facilities a visiting civilian starship can avail itself of. Any world with the requisite tech level (and tax base, of course) can build warships of its own (explicitly allowed by HG). If they can build they can maintain.

You are correct.
High Guard: "Technological level is important in the design of a ship because it governs where the ship may be produced, and how well the crew can
operate and maintain it. The technological level of the building shipyard determines the technological level of the ship being constructed. ... A planetary navy may procure ships at any shipyard within the borders of its subsector; alternatively, a planetary navy may construct ships on its planet, using local resources, even if a shipyard is not present."

...It seems logical that any world can import parts and technicians to maintain its warships, regardless of starport class. ...

Maybe, maybe not. We have the historical example of the Soviets helping any number of third world countries maintain military hardware far beyond their local abilities. On the other hand, I happen to know parts of this country where the state has so many isolated towns that they had to craft exemptions in law allowing registered nurses to do things doctors would ordinarily do and allowing licensed 2-year nurses to do things registered 4-year nurses would do - and the towns can't attract a hospital to save their lives, literally. Some low-tech Imperial backwaters are going to have a hard time persuading trained professionals to move there. So, I'd say that was situation-specific, and therefore the judgment of the game master.

... only one vision can be true in any single universe. Just because no official product tells us how big Enope's system navy is and how it's organized, maintained and paid for doesn't mean that the answer isn't fixed for any single universe. ...

Enope, per Fifth Frontier Wars, has no system navy worthy of the name. No SDBs. However, it might maintain a system navy NOT worthy of the name. - a squadron of 10-ton fighters would make life very short for the average pirate, but it would barely be worth noting in the log for a Zhodani destroyer. I'd mentioned a plan where a free trader could be bought and reconfigured as a light fighter tender, then jump out to a proper port when it or its brood needed maintenance. (I might introduce the ship over at Fleet.) Just about any system with cash could do something like that irrespective of the local tech level or starport, but it wouldn't show up in a strategic-level war simulation any more than a coast guard cutter would show up in a naval order of battle.

...If you want it to be no defenses at all in YTU, that's your business, and if I want it to be surrounded by hundreds of 50,000T monitors[*], that's my business. What it is in the OTU is Marc Miller's business[**] and when one of his minions writes up Enope one day, we'll get his answer. ...

Yup, that's what I said: "...it really comes down to what you want in YOUR world."

... what some people seem to miss is that until that day, it's FUN to speculate on the answer. I don't engage in these discussions to force anyone to conform to my views. I do it to explore my own views[***]. ... And people who feel that I'm beating a dead horse are welcome to refuse to watch and they're welcome to grab a mallet and see if it might turn out to be a pinata. But they're not welcome to tell me not to beat the horse; if it's dead there's no harm, and if it's a pinata it might even burst one day. ...

I find it fun too, but I get the impression people take these things too seriously sometimes. Me, I find that horse meat is best when it's well-tenderized by repeated blows. Trick there is to make sure one is hitting the horse and not accidentally hitting one of the other cooks - an easy mistake to stumble into. My own concept of piracy in the Marches has been evolving with these discussions - much more intricate and politically complex than it was back when I was playing this game in my college days.

...I think there are sufficient forces left over that do have the interest to take up the slack. ...

Definite agreement. Regina's going to invest in whatever's needed to make sure its trade routes are secure, as would Jewell, Efate, and so forth, and so forth. Whether that means a backwater off the trade routes gets any attention is another matter. In my own universe, there's enough traffic in the hinterworlds, and enough callous neglect on the part of the Imperial government, to make the effort worthwhile - provided the pirate is not foolish enough to camp out in one system, since disruption of even that trade will inevitably bring armed official attention.

...Mora's system navy apparently donated a 50,000T monitor to Rorise in 1104 ... OK, that story is exceedingly hinky and in dire need of a retcon[*], but it shows one additional possibility: Help, financial or practical, from neighboring worlds or from the Imperium. ...

Yet another good point in the complex pirate vs. government relationship - and help seldom comes without a few strings attached.

I'd long suspected there was a bit more to that monitor transaction - a 50 kt cruiser-size ship being traded for the system defense of an underpopulated hinterworld? I suspected Mora was quietly putting the kibosh to a pirate nest or a "Twilight's Peak" kind of plot.

I'm not even discussing whether there are pirates in the OTU. Not only do I think that it would be a fool's errand to try to prove that they couldn't possibly exist (I think they can; I just think they will be a lot rarer than implied by canon), but I want pirates in the OTU (and in my own). I'm only, ever, discussing if they actually make sense (as portrayed in the canon material), given the peculiarities of the jump drive. ...

Traveller as a game suffers from a number of internal conflicts. Pirates worked reasonably well in the original small-ship universe of Classic Traveller. They're a little harder to defend in a universe where the Imperium and Zhodani construct multi-trillion credit fleets to protect their interests; against that backdrop, it would seem that the pirate problem could be resolved entirely with a few crumbs from the Imperial table. Still, it's an interesting encounter type that's worth keeping if it can be managed.