Solomani Rim

[Whipsnade]

flykiller wrote about TCS' taxation and ship building rules being ruled out as canon for the OTU-3I:

"well then, is anything?"


Mr. Flykiller,

As far as MTU goes, no. If it doesn't fit IMTU, I don't care if it is canon or not. ForEx: I've been ignoring the 'canonical' low berth death rate rules since 1978. Low berth fares too.

"it's funny TCS should be deprecated. its tax rate is too low and its shipyard capacity is too high."

Which might be why TCS has been deprecated? And by none other than Mr. Miller himself?

"in spite of this, when TCS rules are applied to the spinward marches (where half the taxpaying imperial population does not live on a planet with any meaningful shipyard capacity) it becomes apparent that the full naval budget allocation is very much greater than can possibly be spent in the available shipyards."

Read Mr. Rancke-Madsen's post again. The civilian starport rating listed for a system has no relationship at all to the purely military building capacity that system may have. Check out the 5th FW boardgame too; there's a desert world on the map with a class 'E' port whose SDB total may surprise you.

Of course, none of these need apply to YTU and YTU is the only one that really matters to you, just as MTU is the only that really matter to me. In the end, it's what *we* do with the materials that matters.

"I can only wonder what the intended replacement for TCS, if any, could be."

No replacement for TCS 'in toto', just taxation and building rules more suited for the 3I rather than a squabbling, eight-power, two-subsector, middle-of-the-Rift stellar cluster.

"above the level of an RPG, traveller will always have inconsistencies and logic holes big enough to pass a squadron of happy fun balls."

Very, very true.

"fixing them would require a perfect understanding of politics, economics, technology, and human nature, not to mention space aliens and the future, which of course will never happen. I say, just play the game."

And perfect knowledge is something we will never have about any subject.

As you wisely point out, just play the game.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

flykiller wrote about TCS' taxation and ship building rules being ruled out as canon for the OTU-3I:

"well then, is anything?"


Mr. Flykiller,

As far as MTU goes, no. If it doesn't fit IMTU, I don't care if it is canon or not. ForEx: I've been ignoring the 'canonical' low berth death rate rules since 1978. Low berth fares too.

"it's funny TCS should be deprecated. its tax rate is too low and its shipyard capacity is too high."

Which might be why TCS has been deprecated? And by none other than Mr. Miller himself?

"in spite of this, when TCS rules are applied to the spinward marches (where half the taxpaying imperial population does not live on a planet with any meaningful shipyard capacity) it becomes apparent that the full naval budget allocation is very much greater than can possibly be spent in the available shipyards."

Read Mr. Rancke-Madsen's post again. The civilian starport rating listed for a system has no relationship at all to the purely military building capacity that system may have. Check out the 5th FW boardgame too; there's a desert world on the map with a class 'E' port whose SDB total may surprise you.

Of course, none of these need apply to YTU and YTU is the only one that really matters to you, just as MTU is the only that really matter to me. In the end, it's what *we* do with the materials that matters.

"I can only wonder what the intended replacement for TCS, if any, could be."

No replacement for TCS 'in toto', just taxation and building rules more suited for the 3I rather than a squabbling, eight-power, two-subsector, middle-of-the-Rift stellar cluster.

"above the level of an RPG, traveller will always have inconsistencies and logic holes big enough to pass a squadron of happy fun balls."

Very, very true.

"fixing them would require a perfect understanding of politics, economics, technology, and human nature, not to mention space aliens and the future, which of course will never happen. I say, just play the game."

And perfect knowledge is something we will never have about any subject.

As you wisely point out, just play the game.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I assume you mean a pop-A, tech-F world, right?

yep.

the usual traveller maps look impressive, but when you sit down and run the numbers, what is where and what can be built, then it becomes clear that most systems are insignificant economically and militarily. classifying the few significant worlds by population and tech level just seems natural at the macro level. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I quite agree. I tend to "ignore" worlds with populations less than 8 and tech levels less than 9 when focusing on "interstellar" matters.

Many of the writeups for worlds in the Spinward Marches are outright comical when you realize that the "politcal turmoil" a planet is going through only applies to 4000 people (or somesuch).

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I assume you mean a pop-A, tech-F world, right?

yep.

the usual traveller maps look impressive, but when you sit down and run the numbers, what is where and what can be built, then it becomes clear that most systems are insignificant economically and militarily. classifying the few significant worlds by population and tech level just seems natural at the macro level. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I quite agree. I tend to "ignore" worlds with populations less than 8 and tech levels less than 9 when focusing on "interstellar" matters.

Many of the writeups for worlds in the Spinward Marches are outright comical when you realize that the "politcal turmoil" a planet is going through only applies to 4000 people (or somesuch).

 

[flykiller]

Read Mr. Rancke-Madsen's post again. The civilian starport rating listed for a system has no relationship at all to the purely military building capacity that system may have.

I could accept that with no problem (though I don't), but I would insist that population and tech level do have such a relationship. traveller shipyards cannot be plopped down in the middle of a wilderness and just function on their own. presumably they require a resource infrastructure and an educated population. no people or resources, then no yard.

If it doesn't fit IMTU, then I don't care if it is canon or not.

personally I would prefer to see a strong canon. I'm pretty good, but I'm not good enough to do it alone the way it should be done. but, since there isn't one, we'll just have to make do.

 

[flykiller]

Read Mr. Rancke-Madsen's post again. The civilian starport rating listed for a system has no relationship at all to the purely military building capacity that system may have.

I could accept that with no problem (though I don't), but I would insist that population and tech level do have such a relationship. traveller shipyards cannot be plopped down in the middle of a wilderness and just function on their own. presumably they require a resource infrastructure and an educated population. no people or resources, then no yard.

If it doesn't fit IMTU, then I don't care if it is canon or not.

personally I would prefer to see a strong canon. I'm pretty good, but I'm not good enough to do it alone the way it should be done. but, since there isn't one, we'll just have to make do.

 

[flykiller]

Many of the writeups for worlds in the Spinward Marches are outright comical when you realize that the "politcal turmoil" a planet is going through only applies to 4000 people (or somesuch).

yeah. but then again, politics is perception. if the turmoil involves the local duke's mother-in-law, or a famous rock band, or the undesired revelation of a secret ancient site, or some admiral's intended retirement villa funded by expropriated naval funds, then it could indeed be or be made to be significant.

 

[flykiller]

Many of the writeups for worlds in the Spinward Marches are outright comical when you realize that the "politcal turmoil" a planet is going through only applies to 4000 people (or somesuch).

yeah. but then again, politics is perception. if the turmoil involves the local duke's mother-in-law, or a famous rock band, or the undesired revelation of a secret ancient site, or some admiral's intended retirement villa funded by expropriated naval funds, then it could indeed be or be made to be significant.

 

[Whipsnade]

flykiller wrote:

"... but I would insist that population and tech level do have such a relationship. traveller shipyards cannot be plopped down in the middle of a wilderness and just function on their own. presumably they require a resource infrastructure and an educated population. no people or resources, then no yard."


Mr. Flykiller,

I cannot agree with you more strongly. Yards *must* be supported by people, skills, and resources, yet Traveller's rules for determining which ports are located where take no account of those facters. As Mr. Rancke-Madsen would tell you, Tenalphi is the most famous example of this disconnect.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

flykiller wrote:

"... but I would insist that population and tech level do have such a relationship. traveller shipyards cannot be plopped down in the middle of a wilderness and just function on their own. presumably they require a resource infrastructure and an educated population. no people or resources, then no yard."


Mr. Flykiller,

I cannot agree with you more strongly. Yards *must* be supported by people, skills, and resources, yet Traveller's rules for determining which ports are located where take no account of those facters. As Mr. Rancke-Madsen would tell you, Tenalphi is the most famous example of this disconnect.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[daryen]

I always thought Fulacin was the best example of this. I mean they spent a whole adventure (Twilight's Peak) around trying to explain how an A starport could exist with only 800 people on the planet.

The other good one is Pixie with its A starport supported by a whopping population of 90 people. Pixie also has the added advantage of being a totally extraneous X-boat stop, too. (I give Pixie special note as it is in the first of all subsectors: Regina.)

 

[daryen]

I always thought Fulacin was the best example of this. I mean they spent a whole adventure (Twilight's Peak) around trying to explain how an A starport could exist with only 800 people on the planet.

The other good one is Pixie with its A starport supported by a whopping population of 90 people. Pixie also has the added advantage of being a totally extraneous X-boat stop, too. (I give Pixie special note as it is in the first of all subsectors: Regina.)

 

[Whipsnade]

Daryen,

Yup, they're good examples too. Fulacin has 800 people and Pixie has 90. Tenalphi has less than *ten*.

If it took one adventure book to explain Fulacin, it would take eighty adventure books to explain Pixie. Ouch!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Daryen,

Yup, they're good examples too. Fulacin has 800 people and Pixie has 90. Tenalphi has less than *ten*.

If it took one adventure book to explain Fulacin, it would take eighty adventure books to explain Pixie. Ouch!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[chrisr]

i've always thought that the population digit on the UWP represented the PERMANENT population of the world. i.e not including transients or military staff on temporary postings.
This can then give rise to large prison complexes, military bases, megacorp facilites etc. that only rely on a relatively small local population for support.

 

[chrisr]

i've always thought that the population digit on the UWP represented the PERMANENT population of the world. i.e not including transients or military staff on temporary postings.
This can then give rise to large prison complexes, military bases, megacorp facilites etc. that only rely on a relatively small local population for support.

 

[Whipsnade]

ChrisR wrote:

"i've always thought that the population digit on the UWP represented the PERMANENT population of the world. i.e not including transients or military staff on temporary postings."


Sir,

It's an artful handwave and one that has been proposed before. I use it to explain Grote, inflating the 40K sophonts there to a level that (may) be able to support a Class-A, TL-B, starport.

"This can then give rise to large prison complexes, military bases, megacorp facilites etc. that only rely on a relatively small local population for support."

Sadly, this handwave, however good and like so many others, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Look at your last sentence, especially the 'rely of a relatively small local popualtion for support' part, and apply that to Tenalphi. Just what kind of 'support' can fewer than 10 permanent inhabitants 'supply' to a Class-A starport staffed by 10K?, 100K?, transients? Do they brew tea for everyones' afternoon cuppa?

Some canonical starports simply cannot be explained, all they can do is be swallowed. There are lots of bits in Traveller like this, the number of shirtsleeve inhabitable planets the size of small moons orbiting dwarf stars is another.

Yet, despite it all, we still love to play and play with Our Olde Game.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

ChrisR wrote:

"i've always thought that the population digit on the UWP represented the PERMANENT population of the world. i.e not including transients or military staff on temporary postings."


Sir,

It's an artful handwave and one that has been proposed before. I use it to explain Grote, inflating the 40K sophonts there to a level that (may) be able to support a Class-A, TL-B, starport.

"This can then give rise to large prison complexes, military bases, megacorp facilites etc. that only rely on a relatively small local population for support."

Sadly, this handwave, however good and like so many others, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Look at your last sentence, especially the 'rely of a relatively small local popualtion for support' part, and apply that to Tenalphi. Just what kind of 'support' can fewer than 10 permanent inhabitants 'supply' to a Class-A starport staffed by 10K?, 100K?, transients? Do they brew tea for everyones' afternoon cuppa?

Some canonical starports simply cannot be explained, all they can do is be swallowed. There are lots of bits in Traveller like this, the number of shirtsleeve inhabitable planets the size of small moons orbiting dwarf stars is another.

Yet, despite it all, we still love to play and play with Our Olde Game.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[mike wightman]

Could low pop worlds not be explained by having sub-sentient slave races or extensive use of robots and androids, none of which would be included in the UWP.

 

[mike wightman]

Could low pop worlds not be explained by having sub-sentient slave races or extensive use of robots and androids, none of which would be included in the UWP.