Is there a rule of thumb somewhere to estimate shipyard output? I'm thinking something like "a Pop A world with a Class A starport could produce XX CruRons over YY Years."
Shipyard Production
- Thread starter Garnfellow
- Start date
There is in TCS, but it's not canonical for the OTU.
The one section of rules that comes to my mind exists within Trillion Credit Squadron from classic Traveller. There may be other rule sets that you might prefer over that one.
For what it is worth, a heretical stance on strapped productivity SHOULD Include not only hull production, but also repairs and even maintenance. It all depends on how you see it. Myself? A lot depends upon supply and demand. Just because you can manufacture fifty 100 dton hulls doesn't mean a thing if you can only sell 2 such hulls a year.
What would be nice from a simulationist's point of view is knowing how many dtons of commercial hulls are required to maintain a given region ad worlds at full trade capacity, know how many hulls "die off" so that the demand for new commercial hulls can be estimated. Factor in repairs, maintenance etc, and you know what is happening for any given strapped activity.
For what it is worth, a heretical stance on strapped productivity SHOULD Include not only hull production, but also repairs and even maintenance. It all depends on how you see it. Myself? A lot depends upon supply and demand. Just because you can manufacture fifty 100 dton hulls doesn't mean a thing if you can only sell 2 such hulls a year.
What would be nice from a simulationist's point of view is knowing how many dtons of commercial hulls are required to maintain a given region ad worlds at full trade capacity, know how many hulls "die off" so that the demand for new commercial hulls can be estimated. Factor in repairs, maintenance etc, and you know what is happening for any given strapped activity.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Sorry for my ignorance, but why is it not canonical?
TSC is listed as canonical here?
http://www.farfuture.net/Contents%20CDROM%20Classic%20Traveller.pdf
Because it's there primarily to enable wargaming, and produces results which are not a fit to the 3I.
The comparable for ground forces in Striker is also non canonical.
the FFW boardgame has a squadrons of SDB's by pop and tech, which is essentially canonical.
MT and Invasion Earth have Regiments by Pop and TL, and is also canonical.
Note that the canonical tables are guidelines - what to expect, but can be off by quite a bit.
Part of the reason it isn't canonical is because it produces results that are at variance with what is supposed to be historical of sorts.
When people tried to use the Gross Domestic Product for worlds as presented in Striker, it led to an expectation that one could be vast fleets of ships - fleets in excess of the sizes suggested in FIFTH FRONTEIR WAR, as well as other sources (I'm guessing INVASION EARTH and other such sources).
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So, TCS is not canonical because it is too much like a wargame, but the actual wargames are canonical? The logic is not obvious.
Should I conclude that Pocket Empires and MgT TCS are also apocrypha?
Just because someone could spent more on the military doesn't mean that they must, or actually do.
As far as I have understood, canon is in the end whatever MWM says it is. Are there any publicly available pronouncements from him on this subject?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The non-canonical TCS gives this estimate:
C = P * GM / 1000,
where C is yard capacity in dT, P is the worlds population, and GM is a modifier between 0.5 and 1.5 basically depending on how warlike the government currently is, low for peaceful democracies and high for aggressive dictatorships.
This is total military yard capacity to cover building, repairing, and refitting warships.
It does not give any idea of what the civilian capacity is, except that the GM could go from 0.5 to 1.5, thereby expanding military yard capacity, from one day to the next.
Pocket Empires is currently canonical, last I heard, but superseded by T5.09 for the base formulae.
Recently, Only via Don and Robject. And Marc has confirmed (before Don's death) that Don was the keeper of the list of canonical vs non canonical.
During T4, Marc made it clear in the writer's notes that TCS was canonical for ship design materials, but not for budgets. During T4, PE came out and superseded that portion anyway.
During T20, Hunter was clear that Marc had forbidden including those econ tables from Striker & TCS.
Marc has said T5 supersedes all prior materials when conflicts occur, except when Marc has made a mistake. (There have been a few that have been corrected.)
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Thanks, that seems pretty direct.
So, I guess that part of MgT TCS with similar formulas to CT TCS must also be considered apocrypha.
(I have never seen any problem with a small centralised polity, such as a system, extracting a much larger part of the economy in tax, than a massive decentralised entity like the Imperium.)
So, I guess that part of MgT TCS with similar formulas to CT TCS must also be considered apocrypha.
(I have never seen any problem with a small centralised polity, such as a system, extracting a much larger part of the economy in tax, than a massive decentralised entity like the Imperium.)
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Let's test the Striker budget on a real world example, e.g. Sweden.
TL8, Pop=9.5 million, let's say Industrial.
GDPSt = 8000 * 1.4 * 9.5E6 ≈ GCr100
In reality:
GDP ≈ $45000 [PPP] * 9.5E6 ≈ G$430 ≈ GCrImp200 (roughly)
Or the US:
TL8, Pop=320E6, let's say Rich.
GDPSt = 8000 * 1.6 * 320E6 ≈ GCr4000
In reality:
GDP ≈ $55000 [PPP] * 320E6 ≈ G$17600 ≈ GCrImp8000 (roughly)
So, the Striker formula seems pretty good, it is within a factor of two or three.
Let's compare military budget with TCS for Sweden:
(Striker Military) GCr100 * 1% = GCr1, half that for the Navy so GCr0.5
(TCS Naval) Cr = 500 * 0.5 * 9.5E6 ≈ GCr2
TCS presupposes an interstellar TL with a higher GDP/capita, and perhaps a bit higher military expenditure, so Striker and TCS is in the same ball park.
If we now try to apply the Striker formula on the Imperium:
Average TL12 giving a GDP/capita of kCr16.
Pop in the region of 100 trillion?
GDP = 16000 * 100E12 = 1.6E18 = ECr1.6
Assuming a default military budget of 1%, of which 30% is given to the Imperium we get ECr1.6 * 0.003 ≈ PCr5.
If we assume half of that goes to the Imperial Navy, and half of that on ships we get a budget for ships of about PCr1. According to TCS we can have 10 times that in build fleet, so we can have a fleet worth PCr10.
Assuming a BB cost of GCr200 and that a quarter of the navy is BBs we get around 10000 BBs or 1000 BatRons for ~300 fleets + ~300 reserve fleets. I would say we are within a factor of two or so...
Canon or not, I would say the budgets from Striker and TCS are good enough to use as an estimate.
TL8, Pop=9.5 million, let's say Industrial.
GDPSt = 8000 * 1.4 * 9.5E6 ≈ GCr100
In reality:
GDP ≈ $45000 [PPP] * 9.5E6 ≈ G$430 ≈ GCrImp200 (roughly)
Or the US:
TL8, Pop=320E6, let's say Rich.
GDPSt = 8000 * 1.6 * 320E6 ≈ GCr4000
In reality:
GDP ≈ $55000 [PPP] * 320E6 ≈ G$17600 ≈ GCrImp8000 (roughly)
So, the Striker formula seems pretty good, it is within a factor of two or three.
Let's compare military budget with TCS for Sweden:
(Striker Military) GCr100 * 1% = GCr1, half that for the Navy so GCr0.5
(TCS Naval) Cr = 500 * 0.5 * 9.5E6 ≈ GCr2
TCS presupposes an interstellar TL with a higher GDP/capita, and perhaps a bit higher military expenditure, so Striker and TCS is in the same ball park.
If we now try to apply the Striker formula on the Imperium:
Average TL12 giving a GDP/capita of kCr16.
Pop in the region of 100 trillion?
GDP = 16000 * 100E12 = 1.6E18 = ECr1.6
Assuming a default military budget of 1%, of which 30% is given to the Imperium we get ECr1.6 * 0.003 ≈ PCr5.
If we assume half of that goes to the Imperial Navy, and half of that on ships we get a budget for ships of about PCr1. According to TCS we can have 10 times that in build fleet, so we can have a fleet worth PCr10.
Assuming a BB cost of GCr200 and that a quarter of the navy is BBs we get around 10000 BBs or 1000 BatRons for ~300 fleets + ~300 reserve fleets. I would say we are within a factor of two or so...
Canon or not, I would say the budgets from Striker and TCS are good enough to use as an estimate.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
According to http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Third_Imperium
Pop: 18 trillion
GDP: PCr140
So my pop guesstimate was way off.
The GDP/capita of Striker about twice what it should be.
This makes the Imperial economy about as rich as flourishing economies like Venezuela or Greece today, which surprises me...
Pop: 18 trillion
GDP: PCr140
So my pop guesstimate was way off.
The GDP/capita of Striker about twice what it should be.
This makes the Imperial economy about as rich as flourishing economies like Venezuela or Greece today, which surprises me...
The Mongoose TCS refines this somewhat to account for TL:
T = P x (TL/10,000)
Which produces comparable results.
Where I'm going with this: I'm looking a hypothetical Daibei sector during the Rim War. Using the T20 Fighting Ship supplements I've got a reasonable handle on what the initial naval assets might have looked like. Assuming the borders stabilized around 993, I was curious how those naval assets, particularly capital ships, might have changed by the time the Imperium started to advance in 998.
CT High Guard states that "Ships of 5,000 tons or less can be completed in 36 months or less by any competent shipyard. Ships over 5,000 tons require from 24 to 60 months to complete, based on conditions, volume of orders, and the degree of haste desired by the ordering government."
Although there would have been great pressure to speed up production, I'm assuming conditions and volume work are working against this imperative, so I'm using 1 new capital ship per 200kt of capacity during this period.
The results are . . . a ridiculous amount of ships. Daibei has 3 pop A worlds that have or likely had Class A starports.
Even regressing pop and tech levels, Amandi on the Imperial side could have turned out 630 capital ships in those 5 years, while Kimel on the Confederation side could have turned out 520 capital ships.
That seems like an order of magnitude too high to me.
CT High Guard states that "Ships of 5,000 tons or less can be completed in 36 months or less by any competent shipyard. Ships over 5,000 tons require from 24 to 60 months to complete, based on conditions, volume of orders, and the degree of haste desired by the ordering government."
Although there would have been great pressure to speed up production, I'm assuming conditions and volume work are working against this imperative, so I'm using 1 new capital ship per 200kt of capacity during this period.
The results are . . . a ridiculous amount of ships. Daibei has 3 pop A worlds that have or likely had Class A starports.
Even regressing pop and tech levels, Amandi on the Imperial side could have turned out 630 capital ships in those 5 years, while Kimel on the Confederation side could have turned out 520 capital ships.
That seems like an order of magnitude too high to me.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Amdani is huge. It has at a guess 5 - 10% of the entire sectors capacity, more of the sectors TL15 capacity.
(TCS) C = 90E9 * 1.0 / 1000 = 90 000 000 dT
BUT, the yard capacity should also cover repairing damage. Most capital ships will be at least slightly damaged in each battle requiring a few weeks in the yard.
A battle involving 50 capital ships, where half 25 where hit by mesons (crits) will take 25 * 2 * 200 kT + 25 * 6 * 200 kT ≈ 6 600 000 dT for 6 weeks.
A sector has 16 fleets + 16 reserve fleets, with an average of 3 Bat or Cru-Ron per fleet that is about 1000 capital ships. Additional fleets will flow into a warzone, say 2000 capital ships during a war. If each ship is damaged every 4 months that is 2000 * 4 / 12 * 4 * 200 ≈ 500 MdTweeks of repairs taking 500 / 50 = 10 MdT yard capacity constantly.
Yes, OK the yard capacity is an order of magnitude too big.
(TCS) C = 90E9 * 1.0 / 1000 = 90 000 000 dT
BUT, the yard capacity should also cover repairing damage. Most capital ships will be at least slightly damaged in each battle requiring a few weeks in the yard.
A battle involving 50 capital ships, where half 25 where hit by mesons (crits) will take 25 * 2 * 200 kT + 25 * 6 * 200 kT ≈ 6 600 000 dT for 6 weeks.
A sector has 16 fleets + 16 reserve fleets, with an average of 3 Bat or Cru-Ron per fleet that is about 1000 capital ships. Additional fleets will flow into a warzone, say 2000 capital ships during a war. If each ship is damaged every 4 months that is 2000 * 4 / 12 * 4 * 200 ≈ 500 MdTweeks of repairs taking 500 / 50 = 10 MdT yard capacity constantly.
Yes, OK the yard capacity is an order of magnitude too big.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
With HG we can estimate that every time a Mes-J hits, there is a 5% chance of a Ship Vaporised result.
Every time you lose a battle, most disabled ships are lost.
If the enemy has ~1000 spinals in the sector and each spinal fires 10 times a year, they might hit something 3 times a year, that means 1000 * 3 * 5% ≈ 150 of our capital ships vaporised every year.
If every capital ship we have is involved in two battles every year, and we lose 1/4 of the battles and 1/4 of our ships are disabled in the losing battles, we lose 2 * 1000 * 1 / 4 / 4 = 125 capital ships every year.
So, in heavy fighting we lose a few hundred capital ships every year. Perhaps we need the yard capacity to keep up with losses?
Note that Amdani and Kimel is the nearly all top TL yard capacity in the sector (by 1105 data). These yards have to perform basically all the repairs and maintenance of warships in the sector, as well as building new warships.
Every time you lose a battle, most disabled ships are lost.
If the enemy has ~1000 spinals in the sector and each spinal fires 10 times a year, they might hit something 3 times a year, that means 1000 * 3 * 5% ≈ 150 of our capital ships vaporised every year.
If every capital ship we have is involved in two battles every year, and we lose 1/4 of the battles and 1/4 of our ships are disabled in the losing battles, we lose 2 * 1000 * 1 / 4 / 4 = 125 capital ships every year.
So, in heavy fighting we lose a few hundred capital ships every year. Perhaps we need the yard capacity to keep up with losses?
Note that Amdani and Kimel is the nearly all top TL yard capacity in the sector (by 1105 data). These yards have to perform basically all the repairs and maintenance of warships in the sector, as well as building new warships.
According to my data the top 10 port worlds in Daibei are:
The GDP calculations from the wiki are done according to the GT:Far Trader rules, not TCS. So they are "wrong" if you use TCS to replicate them.
- Uston (A100A98-E) : 103.5MdT
- Zhemi (C89AA8C-E) : 99MdT
- Amdani (A865AEA-F): 67.5MdT
- Corve (B572ABA-B): 66MdT
- Kimel (A555AEH-F): 60MdT
- Karukhi (C567AED-C): 52MdT
- Oifuerr (B310AD9-E) : 45MdT
- Duurmurze (B574A9A-E): 34.5MdT
- Narya (C877ADD-A): 22.5MdT
- Conda (A5969CD-E) : 10.8MdT
The GDP calculations from the wiki are done according to the GT:Far Trader rules, not TCS. So they are "wrong" if you use TCS to replicate them.
