There's a huge interview between Linehan and Marc Miller on the same site. I think they discuss the issue somewhere.
Starports, the book
- Thread starter Garyius2003
- Start date
There's a huge interview between Linehan and Marc Miller on the same site. I think they discuss the issue somewhere.
I think the big difference between E and X is that word "expected". For my money, this suggests current Earth a type-X, at least until first contact... ;-)
Anyway, it makes you think of all the fun you can have as a referee^k^k^k^k -- *ahem*, I mean, imagine all the sophisticated roleplaying opportunities you can present to the players, entangling their PC's with an ignorant and fearful population that is not expecting them (again, imagine a free trader encountering today's Earth).
I would go so far as to say separate fuel as well ... so one can refer to Triple A ports!
Aramis & BytePro, I have a really old memory that someone suggested this back when HIWG was young... anyone else's memory get pinged?
Last edited:
Naw - there are several VERY obvious places for a space trader to set down. He might get escorted in by the military...
Chicago-O'Hare, JFK, LAX, Sea-Tac, Dulles, London, Moscow, Paris, Cairo, Beijing, Tokyo.
The amount of loading and unloading at these airports would be coupled to the traffic to go "This is a likely place for trade"... (In all irony - they're LOUSY for finding trade... but they will get instant notice and have enough witnesses to prevent effective coverups.)
I wouldn't know - I didn't hear of HIWG until MT was out, and didn't pay much mind to it until after it was essentially shut down....
Last edited:
You wrong me. I would be perfectly willing to apply these concepts if I was able to. Indeed, nothing would please me more than to get some ideas that could explain some of my problem worlds.
It's one thing to speak glibly about using one's imagination. It's quite another to come up with a solid, self-consistent, workable setup. Don't for a moment think you're the first to be sure that it would be easy, yet never actually getting around to doing it.
Take the two examples you toss off so effortlessly. I bet it didn't take you longer to come up with them than it took you to type it. But I immediately wonder how come an abandoned shipyard is still building ships and providing annual maintenance and major repairs. Not to mention who is staffing the TAS facility and providing brokerage services. And then I wonder who is paying the fares for the short-term or commuting personnel and why a world with hundreds or thousands of shipyard workes only generate as much trade as the half dozen people who own the world[*]. And in both cases I wonder who is paying for the system defenses that deter pirates and player characters from raiding the shipyard and stealing these highly portable chunks of concentrated wealth the shipyards are building and what sort of advantages would outweigh that kind of expenses.
[*] And why the Imperium is willing to accept half a dozen people as the sovereign population of an entire world. I mean, talk about benevolent disinterest!
It's too bad you don't want to try your hand at turning one of these examples into a starport writeup. You might change your mind about how easy it is.
Or better yet, you might succeed. In which case I'd be most happy to use your idea to solve one of my problem worlds.
EDIT: And then I forgot the main point: All these efforts to prove that it is possible to have class A and B starports on low-population worlds are completely besides the point, because they don't address my argument at all: That it would be less likely to see high-quality statrports on low-population worlds and less likely to have frontier quality starports on high-population worlds. Not (necessarily) impossible, but less likely. Which would cause a correlation between population and starport quality. Not a direct correlation, just a correlation. How strong a correlation is perhaps not possible to figure out for sure. But Traveller world generation has no correlation at all. And that, my friends, is a bona fide flaw in the system.
Hans
Last edited:
No intention of wronging you - otherwise I would have stated unable to grasp what I call a simple concept - which I did not. If you are choosing to interpret something as a personal slight, that is wronging to me as I have quite respectfully not made any such assertions regarding your own responses.Ranke2 said:
I believe you are quite able to grasp simple (and complex) concepts - just unwilling to accept the ones presented as a solution to stated issues. That is your choice. I can't make you change it, but I respect it.
CT rules (that I have, at least) make no explicit statements that Startport Type facilities are active. Only that the facilities are present.Ranke2 said:
If one chooses to interpret them as implying such, and further assumes such to be an absolute, then obviously abandoned doesn't work. It was but one of several 'solutions' posted.
Agreed.Ranke2 said:
Check the results - do the math - the rules do generate low probabilities for both your examples.
What they don't do is directly address this by generating type based on population. They don't need to - they don't evolve a world. Defining a world based on a few digits and some 1D6/2D6 rolls is a high level abstraction. The second paragraph of the rules on Starport Type in CT book 3 very explicitly states you can and should change their 'distribution'. The net result of the rules is that neither of your scenarios have a high probability of occurring.
As to correlations:
Starport capacity and trade (based significantly on population and other resources) should have a correlation. Starport Type does not in any way relate to capacity of a starport. So any correlation there would be indirect and essentially random.
CT Books 1-3 didn't base any trade mechanics on Starport Type.
Book 7's Trade System using Starport Type as a significant cost modifier - via direct & broker level - is broken, IMO. Its like using liquid ounces with dry goods - the wrong unit of measure. I suspect every trade system since has followed this fundamentally flawed implementation to some extent.
Directly defining Starport Size based solely on Starport Type - as reported of the MgT Starports book - is not a good idea. That has been my main point.
Peter Newman
SOC-12
Here you go Hans:
Revised CT World Generation (2d6, multiple rolls per below)
1) Generate Population, Government, and Law Level as usual
2) Generate Starport - Roll 2d6 TWICE and use the roll that is closest to your raw roll for population. (In case of ties use the higher roll in Core Areas and the lower roll in Frontier Areas, as defined by the Ref for the Subsector.)
Die Star
Roll Port
2 X
3 E
4 E
5 D
6 C
7 C
8 B
9 B
10 A
11 A
12 A
3) Generate the planets physical characteristics as follows.
a) Roll 2d6 for size using the standard method.
b) Roll 2d6 TWICE for atmosphere. Use the better (more habitable) atmosphere for worlds with a Pop of 7+. Use the worse (less habitable) roll for worlds with a Pop of 0-3. Pick randomly (or roll only once) for worlds with a POP of 4-6.
c) Roll 2d6 for hydrographics using the standard method
4) Determine Tech Level using the standard table. - Roll twice and take the higher number for planets with an A port or a POP of 9+.
5) Determine Bases, etc using the standard method.
Random Example
Mongo [1507 Generic Frontier Sector]
Rolling 2d6 for Pop we get an 8 (pop 6). Rolling 2d6-7+6 for Government we get a 7 (Balkanized), rolling 2d6 -7+7 for Law Level we get an 8.
Rolling 2d6 Twice for Starport we get a 6 and a 7. 7 is closer to 8 (our raw population roll) so we use it. Refering to the table we see that Mongo has a C port.
Rolling 2d6-2 for size we get a 5. (Size 5). Rolling 2d6 TWICE for atmosphere we get a 4 and a 10. With a Pop of 6 there is no preference for either so we randomly go with the 10. Modified for size our planet is atmosphere 8. Rolling 2d6-7+5 for Hydrographics we get a 6.
Rolling 1d6 +2 (Starport C) we get an 8 (TL 8). Rolling for bases we learn that Mongo has neither a Naval Base (impossible with Starport C) nor a Scout Base (roll failed) but that the system does have one or more Gas Giants (roll succeeded.)
Mongo C 586678-8
100% random but the dense atmosphere and moderate size would help explain how those Hawkmen fly....
Last edited:
No intention of wronging you - otherwise I would have stated unable to grasp what I call a simple concept - which I did not. If you are choosing to interpret something as a personal slight, that is wronging to me as I have quite respectfully not made any such assertions regarding your own responses.
I meant that you misjudged me, not that you had mortally insulted me and that I challenged you to a lifetime of bitter hatred. Have no fear on that score. You and I are perfectly OK.
I suppose that one could argue that I choose not to accept solutions that my logic tells me wouldn't work, but I think that would be stretching the definition of choice a bit. I am unwilling to accept solutions that I believe don't work, that's true enough.
But a defunct shipyard is not capable of building anything. It doesn't have a workforce, it doesn't have suppliers, and the machinery has either rusted or (more likely) been cannibalized.
Now, it might be argued that a mothballed shipyard is 'capable' of building ships. I think that would be a fallacy, but I'll grant it for purposes of argument. But that just shifts the need for explanations. Now we need an owner that pays for the mothballing and for the defenses needed to prevent scavengers from stealing everything that isn't nailed down. (I notice you blipped right over my argument about the need for defense forces. You can do that as long as you're speaking in generalities, but if you were to attempt to come up with an actual working example, you would have to account for the problem of thieves and scavengers as well.)
But a shipyard capable of building starships isn't the only requirement of a Class A starport. It also has to have, and I quote, "Refined fuel available. Annual maintenance overhaul available." (Emphasis mine). It doesn't actually say anything about repairs in the definitions of Class A and Class B starports, but unless you object, I'll take that as implied in the definition of Class C starports -- I really don't think a starport lacking any of the facilities available in a Class C starport would get an A or B rating.
Anyway, someone is storing and selling refined fuel and someone is providing annual maintenance ('Available' doesn't mean 'Well, we could provide this service but we're not gonna"). Although I do believe that it's possible to provide annual maintenance without a shipyard, I think you'd need one hell of a story to explain a mothballed shipyard right next to a functioning annual overhaul facility. Or a starship repair facility if you'll allow the implied 'repairs available'.
You speak as if choosing to read a text as meaning what it says is a bad thing. As for absolutes, I make no such assumption. I do assume that if the Scouts choose to label a starport as being able to provide services that it does not, in fact, provide, there must be some extraordinary story behind; a story that I, with my evidently so very poor stunted imagination, is incapable of coming up with. Which is why I wish you would back up your claim that doing so is so easy by providing an example.
I'm afraid your knowledge of probability math is letting you down. The reason why there are fewer Pop 0 worlds with Class A starports and pop 10 worlds with Class E starports than pop 5 worlds with Class C starports is a manifestation of pure randomness. That's because with the two independent die rolls one provides fewer worlds with pop 0 and pop 10 than worlds with pop 5 and the other provides fewer Class A and Class E starports than Class C starports. Taken together, those two rolls makes the outliers much rarer than the <what's the opposite of outlier?>. BUT, once you've rolled up your starport, the population level is completely independent of that. Which is the very essence of a lack of correlation.
Dan has already dealt with this argument. The problem is that GDW didn't DO as you say (and I agree) the rules require. Which leaves us with the present day problem of expaining the unexplainable.
I've already addressed that argument. I'll repeat it. Please point out where my chain of logic breaks and explain why.
1: Trade volumes correlate to population size.
2: Lower trade means fewer ships and fewer potential customers for starport services. Higher trade means more ships and more potential customers for starport facilities.
3: Fewer potential customers means less incentive to provide starport facilities. More potential customers means more incentive to provide starport facilities.
4: Incentive to provide starport facilites correlates to starport facilites.
5: Starport facilities correlates (directly, in fact!) to starport class.
6: Therefore starport class correlates to population size.
Q.E.D.
See above.
Did I say it did? If so, I retract it. As I recall, I mentioned trade mechanics to refute the suggestion that steady transients were not meant to be included in the population figure. Since there are trade mechanics that is based on the population figure, a steady transient should affect those mechanics just the same as a local citizen. (I trust you recall what I mean by 'steady transient'? Someone who is replaced by another transient when he leaves. Like shipyard workers and mercenary defense forces and base personnel.)
You may be right. I carry no torch for Book 7 mechanics; I merely extract what setting details can be deduced from them.
Directly defining Starport Size based solely on Starport Type - as reported of the MgT Starports book - is not a good idea. That has been my main point.
I'm afraid I've failed to grasp your main point up till now. I agree that basing starport size solely on starport type (and vice versa) is wrong. One could do that only if there was a direct correlation between the two.
Hans
Last edited:
Taking Pop digit of 0 to mean 0-9 people: how many folks does it take to operate a pump or perform an overhaul?Ranke2 said:
A shipyard and refinery could be mothballed, but fuel tanks still have some refined fuel and the in-system beacon still advertises repairs and overhaul... still a Class A port by definition. At least at the time of the last data update (survey)!
I've seen plenty of abandoned and mothballed facilities - large and expensive ones that just didn't pan out. All the local marketing and reference material didn't just magically get updated. In fact, in many cases, the people who would update such are the ones no longer around or financially capable - or have a vested interest in the truth not being advertised. Just as I've seen material stating a facility existed that never was completed or staffed. I've travelled extensively through the U.S. Atlases provided information about gas and hotel facilities. But that information is not always correct - more than once we've pulled off highways only to find derelict structures. Highways also have signs indicating fuel and lodging at an exit - again, I have seen those be no longer true (if they ever were in the first place...).
An abandoned system is not necessarily going to have updated records - by definition nobody goes there anymore. At least nobody who cares about keeping others informed. In the OTU one has the Grand Survey's - which makes dated information even more likely. Bear in mind, UWPs appear intended for use as an in-game prop - as much, if not more, than a meta-game design mechanic.
As to defending an abandoned facility... Who is going to steal a whole shipyard? :devil: In an abandoned system - who is going to care? More saliently to the point - who is going to record the fact and how is that going to get into the hands of PCs?
Now, I'm not even remotely suggesting this is the case for every Pop 0/Starport A. But it easily explains one or two per sector. We are talking about a game that officially has gravitics, FTL transport, and twice the number of pages devoted to Psionics as to Trade in the original rules (not to mention uplifted cat and dog style aliens in its official setting). Compared to handwaving away those - this doesn't even bend a pinky.
Have no fears regarding my math skills!Ranke2 said:
'Taken together, those two rolls makes the outliers much rarer than the '.. rest of the data set. Which is what you were arguing the results should look like.
Now, if you had stated that a higher population should have a higher percentage of Class A starports - that would not be supported by the probability built into the rules which we all know give equal odds of having a particular set of facilities at any given Starport regardless of any other factors.
I think we agree correlating population directly to Starport type is unsupportable. Making an indirect correlation work within the simplistic style of the rules and the limits of the UWP - I haven't seen a believable example.
Since nothing about the capacity of the Starport is mentioned - those facilities can amount to 1 ship serviced per year or even, well, none. Which works quite well in terms of the game and 'explaining' otherwise inexplicable results of the mechanics. The UWP is simply recording existence and supposed availability of facilities - for which a random number is a good choice at the fidelity of the data being given. If one takes into account capacity - then trade and and all the things that factor into that should be taken into account.
Taking Starport Type for what it is - not how it has been abused by Trade Systems that were tacked onto the game nearly ten years later... consider:
- All systems are designed to have a higher probability of offering repairs and some fuel (A-B-C).
- Not shipyards required for construction and annual maint. - since these are not directly related to trade.
- The mechanics make such available elsewhere.
- Original trade rules did not factor in Starport Type.
Note, I wrote: 'Starport Type does not in any way relate to capacity of a starport.' I stated what was, not what should be in a perfect system that factored in all related data elements. The fundamental problem with your 'proof' is that you presumed a given that does not exist. There are no Trade volumes in the original design.Ranke2 said:
Further, Trade only demands capacity. Sure it provides a services for starships market potential, but there are a lot of other factors especially considering that potential exists as a non-local phenomena. One has to get to the ports along one or more connected routes where the odds of needing the facilities and services exist equally well. (I.e. a match for the probabilities used in the mechanics.) Sure, one could argue that the high volume one in the nexus of several routes would be the more likely to have facilities. But that argument falls flat when other factors are considered - such as another nearby system already having a shipyard. Factor in the fact that a high population world may exist in a system that simply does not have the other resources desirable for creating and maintaining a shipyard. Not just metals, but financial capital as large trading volumes does not equate to profit margins nor being rich, just like a high population does not correlate to financial wealth. One needs Trade Volumes in Ships/Tonnage and Credits to address this part properly. This is not the purpose of the UWP, so this is not available at the time of World generation - and the game has to focus and start somewhere.
Some key economics points that are being glossed over:
- Fuel and a few weeks time is nothing compared to the cost of starship construction.
- Such cost is nothing compared to the investment in a shipyard.
- Shipyards are required for annual maintenance (which also is not cheap).
- Shipyards require resources other than just people - all the people in a system are useless if the metals, etc. are not available.
I don't see the original rules as broken, so much as the follow on expansions to be faulty due to a misapplication of a defined data element. I'm not speaking about the OTU - I don't use it. It doesn't exist as a unified design, rather a hacked together conglomeration of various authors conceptions with its UWPs based on known flawed BASIC programming and historically poor data handling - which, to my knowledge, didn't have any consideration initially paid to trade volumes, trade routes, nor even explanation of any UWPs.
I understand your desire to see correlations, but existence of facilities is not readily quantifiable, even if Trade volumes were known. Given the data set and probabilities to work with, I can't see any working correlations that would be any more believable. The best solution I see is to fix the later broken trade rules and vary the size of starports to accommodate trade volumes (hence correlating to population).
If you have a better solution within the context of single world generation - love to see it.
(As to me writing up unusual Starports, if I stop responding to forum posts maybe I'll have the time...
)A couple of points: First, while the UWP could easily be simply what it was when the Scouts came through, that means the population digit should match that as well, and I can't see a largely abandoned type A starport still getting rated as an A, personally. Even if just because the shipyard will be pretty much the first thing to go. (Although I'm inclined to think that shipyards never should have been a part of starport class.)
Second: trade volume should have an impact on starport class. Yes, the primary effect is on the size, but the greater the volume of trade, the more ships there are to service, and the more money that's going to be around, right? Now, it may not bump it to be a class A, or even B, but a class C (with refined fuel as well) would be entirely services that would profit from the greater traffic flow, I think. How much of an effect is hard to say, but I do think it should be greater. And class A starports should be more likely to be on planets with enough of a workforce, I think, even with the possible robots explanation. Especially since you'd want buyers, too.
Second: trade volume should have an impact on starport class. Yes, the primary effect is on the size, but the greater the volume of trade, the more ships there are to service, and the more money that's going to be around, right? Now, it may not bump it to be a class A, or even B, but a class C (with refined fuel as well) would be entirely services that would profit from the greater traffic flow, I think. How much of an effect is hard to say, but I do think it should be greater. And class A starports should be more likely to be on planets with enough of a workforce, I think, even with the possible robots explanation. Especially since you'd want buyers, too.
Starport Type is explicitly defined. Scouts are government employees - why would they ignore definitions because of a lack of population and not record a 'fact' as they are given it?
Who says the scouts did not pass through a system with a starport who are not building a ship at the time - with their workers coming primarily being belters (who ferry raw material, say) and from other bodies in the system. Or what of the starport with the shipyard that just got built - and no one is staffing it yet. (With the often flawed, 'build it and they will come', mentality that happens in the RW).
The population of a system is not expressed by the main world population.
A Class C starport doesn't mean a poor one - just one that doesn't offer shipyard construction, and therefore overhauls and related services - and has no reason to offer refined fuel. Which, in a high tonnage trade volume is just as likely to be serviced by mega-corp ships who get their fuel from their own refineries - planetside, or in their own ships. Free-traders are left to their own devices.
Starport facilities are expressed in the UWP because much more applicable to PCs than the size of a starport. Unfortunately, IMO, Starport Type is described in relationship to 'quality' in the original books. That notion is probably what contributed to the much later Trade Systems being conceptually screwed up by effectively factoring in shipyards as a significant impact on trade. They aren't in any RW analogy - how many airports, trucking terminals or shipping ports have construction facilities? At least in America - where the game originated - this is not even remotely the case.
Ships travel - they can be made and overhauled anywhere they can reasonably get to.
Nicely habitable systems (now habitability and population relationships are an entirely different set of problems ) are just as arguably less likely to have shipyards .. shipyards would be better off in systems with heavy metals, fewer folks to be concerned about their environmental and safety impacts, and where resources all around may be cheaper due to lower competition and less government influence. These factors are extremely important in any RW analogies.
Sorry - the simplistic logic presented so far, without any RW analogies in substantiation, to tie population with shipyard and refineries just doesn't have any more believably quantifiable basis than a purely random number and even chances.
Who says the scouts did not pass through a system with a starport who are not building a ship at the time - with their workers coming primarily being belters (who ferry raw material, say) and from other bodies in the system. Or what of the starport with the shipyard that just got built - and no one is staffing it yet. (With the often flawed, 'build it and they will come', mentality that happens in the RW).
The population of a system is not expressed by the main world population.
A Class C starport doesn't mean a poor one - just one that doesn't offer shipyard construction, and therefore overhauls and related services - and has no reason to offer refined fuel. Which, in a high tonnage trade volume is just as likely to be serviced by mega-corp ships who get their fuel from their own refineries - planetside, or in their own ships. Free-traders are left to their own devices.
Starport facilities are expressed in the UWP because much more applicable to PCs than the size of a starport. Unfortunately, IMO, Starport Type is described in relationship to 'quality' in the original books. That notion is probably what contributed to the much later Trade Systems being conceptually screwed up by effectively factoring in shipyards as a significant impact on trade. They aren't in any RW analogy - how many airports, trucking terminals or shipping ports have construction facilities? At least in America - where the game originated - this is not even remotely the case.
Ships travel - they can be made and overhauled anywhere they can reasonably get to.
Nicely habitable systems (now habitability and population relationships are an entirely different set of problems
) are just as arguably less likely to have shipyards .. shipyards would be better off in systems with heavy metals, fewer folks to be concerned about their environmental and safety impacts, and where resources all around may be cheaper due to lower competition and less government influence. These factors are extremely important in any RW analogies.Sorry - the simplistic logic presented so far, without any RW analogies in substantiation, to tie population with shipyard and refineries just doesn't have any more believably quantifiable basis than a purely random number and even chances.
