Starship size

[rancke]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
Marc Miller 'solved' that argument by decanonizing Striker and Trillion Credit Squadron.

Are you certain about that? The only direct quotation from Mr. Miller I ever saw explicitly de-canonized Trillion Credit Squadron, but did not mention Striker at all.</font>[/QUOTE]That's how I remember it, but I don't mind admitting that I may be wrong. One reason why I think I'm right is that it's the "average military spending of Imperial worlds is 3%" that really matters. Decanonizing TCS doesn't tell us much about the Imperium, since TCS dealt with small pocket empires rather than the Imperium anyway.

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Actually, it costs 10% per year to maintain and operate a starship, including costs such as maintaining facilities;

That can't be true: the 10% "maintenance" cost is directly proportional to current fleet purchase price. If one builds additional ships, maintenace requirements go up, but not a single credit has been spent on additional infrastructure (as all shipbuilding costs are explicitly accounted). It is much more reasonable to believe that facilities costs are simply ignored, just as are planetary defenses. </font>[/QUOTE]It can be right if we assume that the cost of NEW facilities are ignored. Planetary defenses isn't being ignored in the sense that the part of the military budget that is actually spent on defenses are instead used to allow twice as many ships as the world would really have. It's being ignored in the sense that the part of the military budget that would go to defenses don't come into it at all.

TCS is certainly simplifying something. However, if one assumes that what it produces is at least a ballpark figure -- a figure that may not be completely 'right', but isn't wrong enough to affect force levels significantly -- then the simplification is much more likely to be that the additional cost of new infrastructure is what is being ignored.

Look at it this way: TCS says that a society with so big an economy can have 100 ships. If it is glossing over the cost of new infrastructure when that world gets the ability to build a dozen more ships, then it may allow 112 ships when 'in reality' the correct figure would only be 106. But if it is glossing over a significant infrastructure cost, then you'd wind up with TCS allowing 100 ships when the 'realistic' figure is only 50.

If we're to use TCS at all, then we should make the assumption that makes it as accurate as possible. And if we're to ignore TCS completely, then we're back to Anthony's analysis of Real World figures that concluded that 10% for the whole shebang is a pretty god estimate.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Cost of a man: based upon MT:

Social Standing x Cr250: The number of credits the character
must spend in a month on upkeep (food, clothing, lodging, and
incidentals).
MT PM p.30.

This leads to Joe Normal (Soc 7) being Cr1750/Mo, and thus KCr22.75 per 13 month year given a reasonable spending allowance of 10%, puts us canonically right on Hans' KCr25/year.

Considering crews tend to run (off the cuff) about 3-5% of tonnage + gunners + marines.

Except that LS costs are KCr26 per year. (Using the KCr2 per month figure from Bk2/Bk5/T20) Soo... add a reasonable salary of KCr0.5/mo for military (swagged average) and a uniforms allotment of KCr0.5/year, gives us another KCr7/year/man
At KCr33/year for ship crews, lets take a 10% off for bulk ordering of suppplies... That gives KCr30/year/man shipboard.

 

[parmasson]

^ Don’t forget servants! No baron polishes his own shoes!

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
One reason why I think I'm right is that it's the "average military spending of Imperial worlds is 3%" that really matters. Decanonizing TCS doesn't tell us much about the Imperium, since TCS dealt with small pocket empires rather than the Imperium anyway.

"Integration with Traveller
"Rule 73: Military Spending
"The following is a short description of incomes and expenses of planetary armies in Traveller...."

Striker, Book 2, p. 38.

That always seemed pretty explicit to me.</font>[/QUOTE]To me too. Which is why I think I'm remembering right when I say that Marc Miller decanonized it. I remember being annoyed precisely because Striker explicitly mentioned Traveller.

Trillion Credit Squadron makes no equivalent claim.

I consider the fact that the sample campaign setting was located in a part of the OTU to be an explicit enough 'claim' that it was applicable to the OTU.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It can be right if we assume that the cost of NEW facilities are ignored.

That doesn't wash, either: the capture or loss of planetary facilities (bases, starports, shipyards) makes no difference to fleet maintenance costs, even though these elements have game effects (refueling, communications).</font>[/QUOTE]It makes no difference because its being ignored, not because it doesn't make a difference. And, incidentally, the extra cost of more infrastructure to support new ships is only ignored for a maximum of 364 days. Come the next New Year's Day you're paying 10% of the original cost for the new ship, even if it was commissioned the day before.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It's being ignored in the sense that the part of the military budget that would go to defenses don't come into it at all.

How is this not true of all base support functions in general?</font>[/QUOTE]Because you're paying 10% of original cost of all your ships every New Year's Day when half that would be enough for the ships alone. Hence I believe that you're paying for the infrastructure (including bases) too. OTOH, the Army's part of the military budget is ignored, as is the Army.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If we're to use TCS at all, then we should make the assumption that makes it as accurate as possible.

It is a perfectly reasonable estimate for the cost of running a fleet, without considering base support costs. This is the logical counterpart of the in-campaign construction rules, which likewise do not consider the cost of building anything except ships. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree with your estimate that 10% of original cost per year is a reasonable cost for the ships alone, but that wasn't really the main point of my argument. Let me try to elucidate:

TCS says that you get 500 credit per citizen for your navy. For that money you can get so many ships. If your assumption (that you're only paying for the maintenance of the ships) is correct, then either the world is actually spending twice as much money on its navy or it can only afford half as many ships as you though it could afford. The first possibility might be doable, but it sure increases the tax burden on the worlds considerably. The second is wildly inaccurate.


Hans

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

would using the Population Digit as the percantage on total military spending for a system serve? 0-10%?

It would stand to reason that larger populations would have more human and material resources available to them for defense.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
would using the Population Digit as the percantage on total military spending for a system serve? 0-10%?

It would stand to reason that larger populations would have more human and material resources available to them for defense.

If anything, the larger population would feel able to get along with a lesser percentage because the total, in absolute numbers, would still be much larger. For instance, if a world with a 100 million had a military budget of 4%, a world with a billion would have a navy five times bigger with only 2%.

And you're not going to get much navy out of whatever a world with a population level of 5 or less can spare for its military.


Hans

 

[robject]

Well... anyway...

I think the technical architecture shouldn't limit ship size at all.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

It would depend on how large of a M-drive/J-drive field you can ultimately produce. If you could produce a large enough one (robject: "I think the technical architecture shouldn't limit ship size at all.") you could move your planet. That would seem to be a bit beyond what you would want to enable in the basic game mechanics.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
It would depend on how large of a M-drive/J-drive field you can ultimately produce. If you could produce a large enough one (robject: "I think the technical architecture shouldn't limit ship size at all.") you could move your planet. That would seem to be a bit beyond what you would want to enable in the basic game mechanics.

Oh yes. However, the TL restraints are probably large. It could be an order of magnitude per TL, for example. Just playing around:

</font>

• TL 15 = 1mt</font>
• TL 16 = 10mt</font>
• TL 17 = 100mt</font>
• etc etc</font>

So by TL20, maybe Yaskoydray could have a Death Star. This plays right into the "Far Far Future" milieu.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Cost of a man: based upon MT:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Social Standing x Cr250: The number of credits the character
must spend in a month on upkeep (food, clothing, lodging, and
incidentals).
MT PM p.30.

</font>[/QUOTE]I think T5 is retaining this. It's a nice clean heuristic.

 

[robject]

Regarding TCS: the ensuing chaos that proceeded from the budget estimates are probably the reason Marc stays rather neutral on traffic, trade volume, taxes, etc.

Regarding economics, Marc says

RPGs try to deal with economics. But there aren't enough people in one situation to make a statistical model work. That's why we have trade tables. etc.

 

[robject]

Hm, I've reformed my previous opinion: I suppose it should be possible to build something that's billions of tons and can do jump-1 at a relatively low TL.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
And, incidentally, the extra cost of more infrastructure to support new ships is only ignored for a maximum of 364 days. Come the next New Year's Day you're paying 10% of the original cost for the new ship, even if it was commissioned the day before.

Hans, we know where every bit of the budget spent on construction goes. You didn't use any of this year's budget to pay for new infrastructure -- not one credit. Where did that "more infrastructure to support new ships" come from, then?</font>[/QUOTE]The existing infrastructure stretched a bit to accomodate the new ships. After all, new construction will rarely be more than a fraction of the existing fleet. Now we begin spending twice as much each year as we need to maintain the ships alone. The rest goes to build up the new infrastructure. Of course, this assumes that you only need 5% to maintain the ships alone.

If I understand you, you're claiming that the cost of building, upgrading, or repairing infrastructure is ignored, and that the annual cost to maintain infrastructure depends only on the current size of the fleet -- not at all on the actual number, type, or condition of those facilities. It doesn't make sense to me.

It's ignored in the sense that the player doesn't have to bother with it. t's not ignored in the sense that the player gets to spend the money that 'really' goes to infrastructure on ships. Why doesn't it maker sense? There are no rules for building infrastructure, nor for calculating how much infrastructure that is needed. What's so nonsensical about assuming that this is subsumed in the cost of the ships? The alternative is to assume that the naval budget is actually twice as big. And that isn't reasonable.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Because you're paying 10% of original cost of all your ships every New Year's Day when half that would be enough for the ships alone.

You're begging the question: this latter is an unproven assumption on your part.</font>[/QUOTE]Unproven, maybe. Unsupported? Hardly: Cost of annual maintenance: 0.1% of original cost. Personnel cost: Cr100,000 per crew slot. Life support: Cr52,000 per crew slot (far too much, but I don't want to clutter up the argument with side issues). That comes to roughly 0.2% of a ship's cost for the crew. New construction: 2, maybe 2.5% per year. Everything else: More than 7%. Please fill in the blanks for me. How do you spend another 7% on the ships alone?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I disagree with your estimate that 10% of original cost per year is a reasonable cost for the ships alone

Since it is, in fact, pretty much exactly what the US Navy pays for operations and maintenance of its ships, the burden of showing that this is unreasonable in Traveller falls on you</font>[/QUOTE]You're making an unwarranted assumption of your own here, namely that the US Navy is a good analog of the Imperial Navy. Please prove it is. Because I don't see how it can be. The cost of ships relative to the number it takes to crew them is off by several orders of magnitude. IIRC personnel costs is a major fraction of the USN budget whereas it would be a minor part of the IN budget.

I've done my own estimate of naval operations costs in Traveller, and I don't see your point.

You disagree that ships costs several orders of magnitude more or you don't see what difference it makes?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />TCS says that you get 500 credit per citizen for your navy. For that money you can get so many ships. If your assumption (that you're only paying for the maintenance of the ships) is correct, then either the world is actually spending twice as much money on its navy or it can only afford half as many ships as you though it could afford. The first possibility might be doable, but it sure increases the tax burden on the worlds considerably.

I assert that it is the only valid inference from the rules. Whether it is reasonable or not on its merits is another matter.</font>[/QUOTE]It's a very important matter. To paraphrase an old saying, if it's valid, but doesn't make sense, then it isn't valid. (Not that I agree that it's valid. See below for more).

According to Book 3 and Striker (ibid.), the average world has an annual per capita GDP of Cr12,100 local credits. Even Cr500 per capita is more than 4%, and we agree that this does not include Army forces or planetary defenses.

Exactly my point. If you're right, then we're talking about a naval budget twice the size, right? That's more than 8%. According to Striker this would correspond to 60% of the naval budget (60% for the navy, 40% for the army). That makes the peacetime budget 13.3%. Some governments have a peacetime modifier of 1.2, making their peacetime budget 16%, more than Striker allows even after long time of conflict.

An assumption that allows a world to maintain as many ships as TCS allows while having to pay 20% of original cost of the ships to run the whole navy is simply not reasonable. Even if the text stated flat out that it was so, it wouldn't be reasonable. But it doesn't. It simply ignores the subject completely.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by robject:
Hm, I've reformed my previous opinion: I suppose it should be possible to build something that's billions of tons and can do jump-1 at a relatively low TL.

The Loeskalth did.


Hans

 

[robject]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
Hm, I've reformed my previous opinion: I suppose it should be possible to build something that's billions of tons and can do jump-1 at a relatively low TL.

The Loeskalth did.

Hans </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly.


Hans, have you done any figuring with their craft? How much volume did their agricultural areas take up? The text says the farming areas were kilometers long... if they got too big, they'd take up the whole volume. Any thoughts?

For everyone else: at TL10 or so, it's theoretically possible to fit Jump-1, M-1 drives into an asteroid 10km x 7km x 6km... but those are truly amazing drives!

 

[parmasson]

By robject:

Hans, have you done any figuring with their craft? How much volume did their agricultural areas take up? The text says the farming areas were kilometers long... if they got too big, they'd take up the whole volume. Any thoughts?
For everyone else: at TL10 or so, it's theoretically possible to fit Jump-1, M-1 drives into an asteroid 10km x 7km x 6km... but those are truly amazing drives!

Is this using the new system or the FF&S rules, T4 . . .

I find this idea has caught my imagination and I have FF&S (TNE edition). Admittedly I have never really bothered to use it but for that kind of “ship” I might be willing to do the work.

 

[robject]

Not even close -- it's for CT!

Isn't it amazing that someone did a rough (very rough) explanation of a 50-odd billion ton jump-1 vessel for CT?

 

[parmasson]

I knew it! (not really)

CT for all your ship building needs.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
The existing infrastructure stretched a bit to accomodate the new ships. After all, new construction will rarely be more than a fraction of the existing fleet.

This is not a valid assumption: since the upgrade, construction, destruction, and repair of facilities are not covered at all in TCS, you have no idea how much they do or do not cost.</font>[/QUOTE]I have one very good pointer: It's not so much that a world with population X can't afford to maintain Y ships. That limits how much it can cost considerably.

Facilities construction costs (to meet the capabilities present in TCS and FFW, and as quantified in GT: Starports) are on the same rough order of magnitude as shipbuilding.

Since that is what I'm already assuming that doesn't dismay me.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There are no rules for building infrastructure, nor for calculating how much infrastructure that is needed. What's so nonsensical about assuming that this is subsumed in the cost of the ships?

Every credit spent on shipbuilding is already accounted for -- every one. There are no additional funds to account for this additional construction.</font>[/QUOTE]I apologize. I meant to write 'subsumed in the cost of maintaining the ships' not 'subsumed in the cost of the ships'.

That is why your claim is nonsensical, as I've pointed out several times.

What you tell me three times is true, eh? It's not nonsensical, but evidently you've misunderstood it. Let be try to elucidate my model:

You start a game with a budget of, say, BCr100 and a fleet worth BCr1000. To maintain that, you pay BCr100 per year. This money pays for maintaining your fleet and running your infrastructure. Let's call it BCr50 for the fleet and BCr50 for the infrastructure.

If you happen to get a boost to your budget of BCr20, you build BCr20 worth of ships. Youi now have a fleet worth BCr1020. This increases your yearly maintenance needs to BCr51 for the fleet and BHCr50 for the infrastructure. The next year you pay BCr102 for maintenance. That's 1 BCr more than you actually need. That extra BCr goes to pay for new infrastructure.

Sure, it's not totally accurate. It's a simplification. In 'reality' you might only have spent BCr15 on new ships and BCr5 on infrastructure. Or even split it down the middle. But it's a very small inaccuracy. Instead of having a fleet worth BCr1020 you'd actually only have one worth BCr1010. That's an inaccuracy of about 1%. Your model would have much bigger inaccuracies.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How do you spend another 7% on the ships alone?

Missiles and other expendable ordnance, mostly: they are not accounted anywhere else. Unscheduled non-battle damage repairs, the kind that a GM imposes on PC's over and above annual maintenance. The rest is made up from logistics (shipping contracts to move the ordnance and supplies) and amortized R&D costs (prototyping). I could probably tag on an additional 20% of the total for bureaucratic inefficiency, but it isn't necessary.</font>[/QUOTE]I was hoping for something a bit more substantial. This is just as much an unsupported assertation as anything I've said. No, I don't think you can account for the remaining 7% with what you've mentioned. 2% would be closer to the mark.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You're making an unwarranted assumption of your own here, namely that the US Navy is a good analog of the Imperial Navy. Please prove it is.

Personnel costs are not part of operations and maintenance for the USN -- it's a separate budget item. You claimed that 10% of purchase price per year for O&M costs is an unreasonable figure per se; I submit that not only is it factual in at least one case and therefore reasonable to consider, but that the particular case in question was undoubtedly familiar to the authors of TCS.</font>[/QUOTE]That surprises me to hear. I remember Anthony doing an analysis of real world figures and concluding that 10% was reasonable for everything. I also remember thinking that he'd allowed personnel cost to weigh more heavily than I thought reasonable and that 8% would probably be closer to the mark.

Unfortunately I don't have those figures here. Anthony, can you help me out here?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />To paraphrase an old saying, if it's valid, but doesn't make sense, then it isn't valid.

Huh? Your interpretation of the rule is self-contradictory: it is logically invalid. The interpretation I've offered is the only logically consistent one available, regardless of how you feel about its implications.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know how to put it more clearly. The implications are important. If a string of impeccable logic leads to an obviously wrong conclusion, then there's something wrong with the axioms.

The actual proportion of Army spending (once you take atmosphere codes into account) is 34%, so the maximum peacetime total military budget is 15% of average GDP.

The actual proportion of Army spending averages 34%, but some worlds do have a breathable atmosphere, so some worlds do spend 40% on their armies.

This is high, but it is just as logical to infer that this is because the Cr500 per capita figure is too high (except for pocket empires with many clear and present dangers).

You're perfectly right. We could assume that the Cr500 per capita is wrong (It's obviously an average anyway). But assuming that would make the fleet sizes wrong. Assuming that infrastructure maintenance is included and cost of new infrastructure is ignored makes the fleet sizes right. I know which assumption I prefer.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />An assumption that allows a world to maintain as many ships as TCS allows while having to pay 20% of original cost of the ships to run the whole navy is simply not reasonable.

Straw man. I never specified what the maintenance of base support elements would cost, only that it was not included in the 10% figure for fleet maintenance. I explicitly said that it would not be tied to current fleet size or cost.</font>[/QUOTE]It's not a straw man. The implications of an assumption is crucial to evaluating that assumption.

We agree on the words. What I fail to understand is how you can assert that "it simply ignores the subject completely" means "the costs aren't represented anywhere" when it comes to Armies and planetary defenses, but "the costs represent half of the total fleet budget" when it comes to facilities and base support.

Because the army budget isn't used to pay for navy facilities and base support. The fleet budget, OTOH, is used to pay for navy facilities and base support. What's so difficult to understand about that?


Hans

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by rancke:
That surprises me to hear. I remember Anthony doing an analysis of real world figures and concluding that 10% was reasonable for everything. I also remember thinking that he'd allowed personnel cost to weigh more heavily than I thought reasonable and that 8% would probably be closer to the mark.

Unfortunately I don't have those figures here. Anthony, can you help me out here?

Don't recall doing that. Going back to the original issue:

If we assume that a world's defense budget does not shift dramatically with time, it's reasonable to figure that the budget for bases is more or less flat (it changes slightly as stuff happens). Calling the budget some part of the 10% maintenance cost for the peacetime military seems credible enough.