FreeTrav
SOC-14 1K
For your consideration: Extending the UWP: Starports
Starports, the book
- Thread starter Garyius2003
- Start date
You didRanke2 said:
Since starport type is one digit and I was responding to:
It is quite plausible that starport type, dealing only in quality and in the isolation that is worldgen, has nothing to do with population.Ranke2 said:
As I stated, trade and trade routes should be factored in - which should include population in such. But just pop and tech, no.
Quite agree - and adding separate quantity related metrics would be best... a corollary of what I posted.Ranke2 said:
Agreed - at least I would consider it an important aspect (though it could still be useful without such). But, starport type doesn't need to be pulling double duty to do so.Ranke2 said:
If population was defined as a parameter of the local economy - sure. As a count of non-transient population - no.Ranke2 said:
One doesn't count U.S. military personnel in a foreign port as part of that country's population - in a general definition. Which is all the UWP is.
For trade rules - well, I think low populations shouldn't be dealt with in the same general rules as large populations, but if one is going to, there should be an extended population profile to deal with that... and since the personnel on visiting starships could exceed the local population - that should be accounted for to, if one is going to that level.
Yes and no.Ranke2 said:
What of hi-pop worlds that are not on interstellar trade routes? What of worlds whose law level and government types would tend to suppress interstellar trade? What of high pop worlds with high TL that are self-sufficient - are goods shipped across space more likely to be cheaper than those made on planet? What if they are they are the same TL as their neighbors - why trade?
There are plenty of reasons the quality of a starport may be poor, despite population and even being on a trade route - and the rules don't reasonably accommodate believable trade nor starport quality based on any of these factors, IMO.
Population and TL alone is not enough to satisfactorily answer the question of starport quality... lots of other aspects should factor in, including trade and trade routes. The approaches generally taken leave a lot to be desired. I suspect we are agreed on that.
Very nice Jeff - lots of good stuff there!
A generation system would be really round that out, but probably require a lot of work!
(Personally, I don't think any gen system that doesn't account for nearby systems can satisfactorily address this type of stuff - and the complexity level there exceeds reasonable pen and paper design.)
No, it is not. A low population world would be much less likely to have a high-quality starport and a high-population world would be extremely unlikely to have a low-quality starport.
Not JUST pop and tech. But pop and tech should be taken into account. The higher the population, the more trade to and from that particular world. Stellar technology would make it cheaper to support a starport than if the technology to do so has to be imported from offworld. Hence you don't need as big a population to support one with Stellar tech than with less than Stellar tech.
If population was defined as a parameter of the local economy - sure. As a count of non-transient population - no.Rancke2 said:
The rules don't actually say whether the population figure includes transients or not. However, all economic rules in any version of Traveller are based on the population figure; there is no asjustment for transients. Hence a world with a steady population of steady transients would (or at least should) have the impact of a world with the same permanent population.
One doesn't count U.S. military personnel in a foreign port as part of that country's population - in a general definition. Which is all the UWP is.
One does if one is talking about how many people actually live in that foreign port. Which evidently is what the UWP population figure is unless one desperately needs to handwave unlikely UWP combinations.
(Above I was going to say "What makes you think the population figure doesn't include transients?", but I realized that there are a number of examples of worlds whose populations have been explained as not including transients. These explanations are, IMO, uniformly flawed for the reason I mention above -- all economic rules assume that they are.)
I refer you to the system of Macene, whose population according to BtC is compose entirely of transients, and any low-population world that is explained as an outpost.
I agree that at a higher level of detail, visiting starships should indeed be accounted for in some fashion. But personnel on visiting starships do not have to buy their supplies on low-population worlds (where said supplies would presumably be a lot more expensive, since they would have to be imported). Also, visiting starship crew is the very definition of unsteady transient population. Hence ignoring them but not ignoring steady transients makes sense on the level of detail that the UWP addresses. (Especially since lots of low-population worlds (i.e. all outposts) would be nothing but transients. Indeed, I'm tempted to argue that practically all low-population worlds would be nothing but transients, low populations not being terribly good at sustaining themselves)).
A high-population world would be on an interstellar trade route -- the one that its own trade created. That was the point I was trying to make. People creates trade, trade requires starships, starships will pay for service, hence enough starships means a decent starport.
Those would be among the rare and extremely economy-distorting social factors I mentioned.
Comparative advantage means that there is always something to trade. And high populations means that you only need a small fraction of the population engaging in interstellar trade to warrant a decent starport. It really don't take much traffic to make the selling of refined fuel, repairs, and annual maintenance profitable. The only Class B facility that a high population wouldn't practically guarantee is spaceboat yards. For that you need an interplanetary population. (Which, incidentally, means that a lot of canonical Class B starports are stuffed on that account; no local customers for the boats its yards builds). By the same token, though, any interplanetary population of a decent magnitude almost guarantees the existence of boatyards, however lousy the interstellar trade may be.
No, there are very few reasons, all of them being basically the same: Extreme economy-distorting social bans.
Depends on what you mean. A high population alone OUGHT to automatically provide a decent starport, except in a few rare cases. (Stellar tech merely shifts the threshold). But since the world generation system ignores this correlation they cannot explain the resultant distorted results.
As I said above, high population tend to generate their own trade and thus trade routes. A trad route passing through a system can be grounds for having bigger and better than expected starports on worlds with smaller populations too.
The approaches generally taken leave a lot to be desired. I suspect we are agreed on that.
That we are.
Hans
Last edited:
In the RW a good many poor economies have very high populations. This is probably more the norm than not in the past century.
As they have poor economies - they tend to lack quality trade services, though they may have a large quantity of dirt road trading centers, primitive airstrips, ramshackle docks serving basic, low margin, trade.
Plenty of countries don't construct airplanes nor ships, yet have high populations and high tech.
American shipbuilding is a prime example - America builds virtually no commercial shipping vessels since the 1970s, yet has a fairly high population and tech.
In addition, a not at all insignificant number of the small population countries have some of the best quality establishments for docking/landing, construction and maintenance.
Traveller starport definitions are in line with these realities.
Expensive major trade projects are about where the money is and about government policies - and do not coincide in any simplistic, consistent, nor overriding fashion with population. A factor, sure, but one that is easily overridden by other, more dominant factors.
In Traveller - UWP generation of starport type tying in only with TL is very reasonable. Quantity of starship should be an extended detail. Settings should override that with trade volumes (coin and quantity), government types and any manner of other setting specific rationales.
As they have poor economies - they tend to lack quality trade services, though they may have a large quantity of dirt road trading centers, primitive airstrips, ramshackle docks serving basic, low margin, trade.
Plenty of countries don't construct airplanes nor ships, yet have high populations and high tech.
American shipbuilding is a prime example - America builds virtually no commercial shipping vessels since the 1970s, yet has a fairly high population and tech.
In addition, a not at all insignificant number of the small population countries have some of the best quality establishments for docking/landing, construction and maintenance.
Traveller starport definitions are in line with these realities.
Expensive major trade projects are about where the money is and about government policies - and do not coincide in any simplistic, consistent, nor overriding fashion with population. A factor, sure, but one that is easily overridden by other, more dominant factors.
In Traveller - UWP generation of starport type tying in only with TL is very reasonable. Quantity of starship should be an extended detail. Settings should override that with trade volumes (coin and quantity), government types and any manner of other setting specific rationales.
They still have some quality harbors. Or if they don't, they have neigbors with quality harbors. A solution not available to worlds, since the neighbors are a parsec or two away.
They do have service facilities, though. Denmark don't build cars, but it has lots of car repair shops. Pretty good harbors too, for that matter, despite a population level of only 6.
American shipbuilding is a prime example - America builds virtually no commercial shipping vessels since the 1970s, yet has a fairly high population and tech.
And some quality harbors.
Communsurate with the amount of trade going to and from those countries.
Debatable, but not what we're debating here. It's not the definitions I'm quarreling with (here), but the complete and total absence of any correlation with population size (and tech level).
Indeed not. If it did coincide in any such way the correlation would be direct.
Not to the point of having no correlation at all.
You keep repeating that and it keeps being not true.
Obviously, since a single digit is inadequate for the purposes of encompassing quantity. Which is why we were discussing the correlation of quality with population size.
True, but it would be nice if the rules supported that.
Hans
Hans, let's look at some shipping ports. Seward, Alaska, has a port with full repair facilities, fuel, a full service chandlery, and extensive small craft harborage, plus docks for two large vessels, including one with container cranes (the other is reserved for cruise ships). Drydock for up to about 180'. Class B port, wouldn't you say?
A very SMALL Class B. But high quality. Total population? 5.2K, half of that inside the actual city limits. Last I was there (two years ago, school field trip for the kiddo) there was exactly 1 stoplight.
Dutch Harbor has no container handling, but has more slips, more repair shops, and more chandlers. No major docks, but lots of midrange ones - she can handle a dozen 150' ships, and has major repair facilities. She has a light cargo dock, but isn't equipped for containerage. 4400 people on the entire island. Sounds like a small class B, as well.
Port of Anchorage: 3 large ship slips, two fitted for container, the third for bulk solids and bulk liquids; Small boat harborage is extensive, but on a different facility, and lacks repair yards. No repair, no construction. Need repairs? They tow you to Dutch, Seward, or Kodiak - and kodiak only if it's repair-on-board or a crane job. It's a C port. And has about 300K people. Almost 100 times the population of the higher quality ports.
A very SMALL Class B. But high quality. Total population? 5.2K, half of that inside the actual city limits. Last I was there (two years ago, school field trip for the kiddo) there was exactly 1 stoplight.
Dutch Harbor has no container handling, but has more slips, more repair shops, and more chandlers. No major docks, but lots of midrange ones - she can handle a dozen 150' ships, and has major repair facilities. She has a light cargo dock, but isn't equipped for containerage. 4400 people on the entire island. Sounds like a small class B, as well.
Port of Anchorage: 3 large ship slips, two fitted for container, the third for bulk solids and bulk liquids; Small boat harborage is extensive, but on a different facility, and lacks repair yards. No repair, no construction. Need repairs? They tow you to Dutch, Seward, or Kodiak - and kodiak only if it's repair-on-board or a crane job. It's a C port. And has about 300K people. Almost 100 times the population of the higher quality ports.
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood what 'correlation' means? How many ports with populations around 5000 do NOT have facilities like that? How many countries with populations in the hundreds of millions do not have ANY ports with facilities like that? If I tell you that a port has a population of 5000, what would you say were the odds that it has facilities like that? If I tell you a country has a population in the hundreds of millions, what would you say were the odds that some of its ports had facilities like that? Would you say there was absolutely no correlation between population and port quality in either case?
I sure wouldn't. And I sure would say that the correlation between the population of a world and the quality of its best starport would be analogous.
Hans
Which proves nothing at all about the correlation between port population and quality, because there are tens of thousands of other ports with different populations. If you really can't see that, I advise you not to throw any stones about being blind to what's right in front of you.
And the throughputs of starports are correlated with the populations of the worlds they serve. Lots of people generally means higher throughput than lower populations. That's what causes the correlation.
Hans
In response to Aramis:
On the other hand, do note that towing ships that need repaired to another port is an option. It isn't so much an option to jump ships to another system for repairs. Possible, yes, but extremely expensive. And keep in mind, Hans is saying that there will be a tendency to higher quality ports in higher population systems. How good the port is will be determined by the wealth and traffic flow of the system, both of which, all else being equal, would be increased by a higher population, right? And you're still classifying Anchorage as a class C port, which is a perfectly decent level. He may still be overestimating the effect of population, but I think he's still got a point.
On the other hand, do note that towing ships that need repaired to another port is an option. It isn't so much an option to jump ships to another system for repairs. Possible, yes, but extremely expensive. And keep in mind, Hans is saying that there will be a tendency to higher quality ports in higher population systems. How good the port is will be determined by the wealth and traffic flow of the system, both of which, all else being equal, would be increased by a higher population, right? And you're still classifying Anchorage as a class C port, which is a perfectly decent level. He may still be overestimating the effect of population, but I think he's still got a point.
He's drawing the wrong correlation. Port QUALITY is what is measured in CGen. Port SIZE is what correlations to economic throughput, which itself correlates to size of population and tech level, as well as a couple other factors. The crappy ports of many African cities are plenty big - but they aren't A nor B ports by any means.
And that's before accounting for the isolationism implied by higher law levels. (And in MGT, it's not implied, but blackletter rules.) And higher law is correlated strongly with higher pop in Traveller.
The quality of port not being tied to population isn't a broken issue. Now, size of port, which DOES correlate to economic power, and thus to population, quite strongly, is not measured in Traveller.
Missed this curve the first time around: The world that Alaska is analogous to in your analogy would have a B classification because ship construction is available even if it isn't at the main downport (~Port of Anchorage). Dutch, Seward, and Kodiak would be secondary ports in the 'Alaska' system. And if they weren't there, the Port of Anchorage almost certainly would have repair facilities of its own. Seeing as there evidently is demand enough for them.
Hans
No, Wil. The BEST available facilities of the entire world is what is measured in World Gen.
And port quality ALSO correlates to economic throughput because more ships means more customers for services.
But there is no correlation between high law leve and port quality either.
Yes it is. More people tend to mean more trade. More trade means more ships. More ships tend to mean more demand for facilities.
Which is very likely the reason why the lack of correlation between the other social factors of the UWP and the starport quality wasn't caught in time.
Hans
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Jeff, nice additions.
As I'm doing some campaign-building right now, consider it snagged.
Elsewise:
My take on starports is that they represent the consolidated capabilities of the mainworld in a system. They are not necessarily co-located, but are all either at the mainworld or in its orbit (or in orbit around the same GG when the mainworld is a GG's satellite.)
I often have other worlds in the system with some facilities, as well. Typically I have their bread and butter being work as jobbers for the big houses on the mainworld, but there may also be a local market (as in a belter-type system where the belt isn't the mainworld). For example, the engine shop on the mainworld might be backed up for a month, but players might be able to jump the line if they go off to the jobber and make them a sweet deal.
-Mark
As I'm doing some campaign-building right now, consider it snagged.
Elsewise:
My take on starports is that they represent the consolidated capabilities of the mainworld in a system. They are not necessarily co-located, but are all either at the mainworld or in its orbit (or in orbit around the same GG when the mainworld is a GG's satellite.)
I often have other worlds in the system with some facilities, as well. Typically I have their bread and butter being work as jobbers for the big houses on the mainworld, but there may also be a local market (as in a belter-type system where the belt isn't the mainworld). For example, the engine shop on the mainworld might be backed up for a month, but players might be able to jump the line if they go off to the jobber and make them a sweet deal.
-Mark
The ability to provide starship construction and repair services is most directly dependent on TL - one can have billions of people, but without the TL construction and repair services are a no start. This is reflected by CT and MgT world gen.
The factor most related to population and trade is going to be the capacity (and size) of said starports. Hence, I stated such should not be tied to quality. They are two quite independent measurements.
Many of our world's real world construction facilities are intentionally and economically located well away from major population centers. Grew up near one - father worked at (though it stopped commercial construction and probably repair by the 80's). Ditto for refineries with friend's fathers working in them - again, I grew up near one (one of largest in the U.S.).
Given the inherent dangers to life and to environment, this should come as no surprise.
These are the only types of services starport quality refers to. It does not speak to any other services during standard world gen - and these services are, at best, only tangential to trade.
Further, smaller populations would be far more likely to need better quality starports to attract interstellar trade - because they may be more dependent on off-world goods than high pop worlds. If one merchant is screwed while hundreds or thousands are plying space lanes, well, why should the locals care. He can lose his ship (maybe to the local government for public auction) and it can be hauled by others to some distant system with facilities. No real trade barrier there. A high pop world with lots of trade is simply maximizing profits - since they have no capital investment in shipyards and infrastructure nor the dangers or pollutants, or other hassles of starship construction (or repair).
In the RW, ship builder's of ocean going commercial vessels almost universally required government sponsorship and subsidies (in addition to military purchases). U.S. commercial shipbuilding collapsed in the early 80's when the Reagan administration killed the CDS (Construction Differential Subsidy) program and "Section 615" waivers had U.S. shipbuilders buying overseas. Today, the margins for shipbuilders just are not enough to attract investors in the U.S., even with recent stimulus programs.
As for economics of interstellar trade - goods from off-world have jump-lag to account for and steep fuel, staffing, maintenance and capital requirements. Worlds with a high enough TL to make/repair starships have a high enough TL to ship goods on-planet in non-starships in far, far less and with less overhead and capital investment.
Volume of trade (in turn driven not insubstantially by population, to be sure) largely defining size of starports should be pretty self-evident. Its a very simple and fairly direct correlation.
The factor most related to population and trade is going to be the capacity (and size) of said starports. Hence, I stated such should not be tied to quality. They are two quite independent measurements.
Many of our world's real world construction facilities are intentionally and economically located well away from major population centers. Grew up near one - father worked at (though it stopped commercial construction and probably repair by the 80's). Ditto for refineries with friend's fathers working in them - again, I grew up near one (one of largest in the U.S.).
Given the inherent dangers to life and to environment, this should come as no surprise.
These are the only types of services starport quality refers to. It does not speak to any other services during standard world gen - and these services are, at best, only tangential to trade.
Further, smaller populations would be far more likely to need better quality starports to attract interstellar trade - because they may be more dependent on off-world goods than high pop worlds. If one merchant is screwed while hundreds or thousands are plying space lanes, well, why should the locals care. He can lose his ship (maybe to the local government for public auction) and it can be hauled by others to some distant system with facilities. No real trade barrier there. A high pop world with lots of trade is simply maximizing profits - since they have no capital investment in shipyards and infrastructure nor the dangers or pollutants, or other hassles of starship construction (or repair).
In the RW, ship builder's of ocean going commercial vessels almost universally required government sponsorship and subsidies (in addition to military purchases). U.S. commercial shipbuilding collapsed in the early 80's when the Reagan administration killed the CDS (Construction Differential Subsidy) program and "Section 615" waivers had U.S. shipbuilders buying overseas. Today, the margins for shipbuilders just are not enough to attract investors in the U.S., even with recent stimulus programs.
As for economics of interstellar trade - goods from off-world have jump-lag to account for and steep fuel, staffing, maintenance and capital requirements. Worlds with a high enough TL to make/repair starships have a high enough TL to ship goods on-planet in non-starships in far, far less and with less overhead and capital investment.
Volume of trade (in turn driven not insubstantially by population, to be sure) largely defining size of starports should be pretty self-evident. Its a very simple and fairly direct correlation.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Has anyone noticed that the trade rules as written for tramp traders do not give 10x the cargo as you go from population x to population x+1?
And another bugbear of mine - a high TL high pop world is going to be completely self sufficient.
I have a hard time imagining what 10 billion people actually do day to day on a high pop world of TL11+.
All the manufacturing and goods production will be automated, even more so at higher TLs.
So what exactly do they have to trade with other worlds for? Raw materials available in their own system?
I can see why lower TL worlds will want to buy their goods but not the other way around.
And another bugbear of mine - a high TL high pop world is going to be completely self sufficient.
I have a hard time imagining what 10 billion people actually do day to day on a high pop world of TL11+.
All the manufacturing and goods production will be automated, even more so at higher TLs.
So what exactly do they have to trade with other worlds for? Raw materials available in their own system?
I can see why lower TL worlds will want to buy their goods but not the other way around.
Untrue. It is possible to import the requisite technology. There are far too many worlds with lower-than-requisite tech level to support their Class A and Class B starports for that not to be the case. It does, as I've pointed out, logically change the threshhold since it has to be more expensive to maintain services in a system where the technology has to be imported.
Not so, as I've already pointed out. More trade means more ships and more ships means more potential customers.
In any case, it's not a dichotomy. Starport quality can have a correlation to population size even if statport size has a different correlation to population size.
No, but it will be quite a surprise if the facilities used by one world was to be located in a different system. The difference between major population centers and areas remote from them but on the same world and every population center in one system and places in neighboring systems is rather crucial and renders analogies between the two false.
I'm skipping your next arguments because I don't quite understand their relevance to the question of a correlation or lack thereof between population size and starport quality.
It is pretty self-evident, although the correlation is not direct. But note that World Generation provides NO correlation at all between starport class and population size. A world with a population of 1 has the exact same chance of having a Class A starport as one with a population of 10 billion. I am completely unable to understand how anyone can possibly believe that that is realistic.
Hans
Most of the increase is snapped up by regular traders. The die roll establishes what is left over for the free trader, not the total amount of goods produced for export.
There are luxury goods for one thing and comparative advantage for another. Note that even at the figures produced by Far Trader, interstellar trade is a drop in the ocean for the economies of high-population worlds. At the trade volumes inferred from CT canon by some people (though I'm not one of them), it's practically irrelevant (Except to the people involved in interstellar trade, of course).
Hans
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
So is this the source for the 10x higher shipping rate per population increase?
If a population 5 world has 1 ship visit per week a population 6 world has 10?
Seems reasonable enough.
Sooooo how do we come up with a % of GDP that is available for offworld trade?
