OTU Only: T5SS Semi-Official Thread

[Nathan Brazil]

Perhaps it is possible to alter some of the values over time. Not RAW as there is nothing that mentions a specific mechanic, but....

Within the context of a wargame...

Resources might not change if I read what the value represents correctly, but if you have a high TL planet lose its TL 8+ status would that reduce its Resources value?

Labor could change over time if it is a simple computation of Pop-1. But what can destroy a population to reduce the UWP pop value by a factor of 1 or more? Hmmm.

Could Infrastructure and Efficiency be values which reduce as damage in a wargame situation?

 

[tjoneslo]

Has anyone compared RU in a one sector versus another? Is approximately, 30-50% of the Imperium in a negative RU status?

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Resource_Unit/summary

This is a sector by sector calculation of the RU values based upon the values in the current T5 Second Survey.

The Third Imperium has, overall a positive RU balance, even through, as you guessed 30%-50% of the worlds are negative RU balanced.

If you have suggestions for further statistical analysis, let me know, I can update the page in a few minutes.

 

[inexorabletash]

I should mention that the T5SS data from Marc and Don includes the computed RUs for each system, but I did not include it in the travellermap output since it wasn't listed as part of the data format described in the BBB. I can expose it easily enough.

 

[rancke]

Within the context of a wargame...

You know, that sentence made me realize that the whole mess that the T5 rules about RUs appear to be really shouldn't matter to me. RUs might be pertinent to wargames, but I'm not working on a wargame, I'm working on an RPG setting, so why care?

Sure, there would have potential uses for RUs for worldbuilding purposes if the rules weren't nonsensical, but I don't need the RUs to make sense in order to write up a world. When working on detailing a world, I can have a look at the official RUs and see if there's a logical way to account for it; if there is, so much the better. If there isn't, I can just ignore it. There may be a scattering of worlds with negative RUs of a magnitude that would fit with their population sizes and other characteristics, but I'm pretty sure most of them won't fit. The GIGO principle will ensure that.


Hans

 

[Drakon]

I should mention that the T5SS data from Marc and Don includes the computed RUs for each system, but I did not include it in the travellermap output since it wasn't listed as part of the data format described in the BBB. I can expose it easily enough.

That would be appreciated. You have the data for the computation already, how much harder would it be to include a computation?

It occurs to me that one big problems for this discussion about RUs is that the T5 version of Pocket Empires is not built yet. That a lot of the questions being asked would be answered by updating this T4 product.

Marc is quite busy and such a product will be far along down the road after several other items are created. So this could be a long wait, unless someone else steps up to write it.

I think that the new patent of nobility card has generated some interest in planetary economics. At present the T5 rule set has not addressed the subject to a sufficient detail. A new product is needed, and we have a previous edition to draw from.

 

[savage]

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Resource_Unit/summary

This is a sector by sector calculation of the RU values based upon the values in the current T5 Second Survey.

The Third Imperium has, overall a positive RU balance, even through, as you guessed 30%-50% of the worlds are negative RU balanced.

If you have suggestions for further statistical analysis, let me know, I can update the page in a few minutes.

I'll need to think on it. Thanks for such quick response. Frankly, I am stunned.

Core and Massillia should overwhelm everyone, but it's Solomani Rim that is impressive or perhaps incorrect. But why are there any negatives there? The Solomani Wars? I see a reasonable concern about the randomness, as we see it in central 3I sectors. We should see at least 5 very, strong sectors.

Perhaps a scatter chart? I'll think on it.

 

[DonM]

I can say that Marc has specifically stated that RUs should mean nothing for RPGs.

That being said, I can say that I think (from limited observation, I'm focused on some other elements) that both the positive and negative RUs need to be somewhat flattened.

And I can offer up that while some numbers are random in the T5SS, some are also shaped. We may need to do some more of that if analysis of the numbers doesn't match Marc's vision.

But that's the whole point in being public with the numbers.

 

[tjoneslo]

Core and Massillia should overwhelm everyone, but it's Solomani Rim that is impressive or perhaps incorrect. But why are there any negatives there? The Solomani Wars? I see a reasonable concern about the randomness, as we see it in central 3I sectors. We should see at least 5 very, strong sectors.

In my experience based upon other economic analysis, Solomani Rim, Old Expanses and Massilia are the three strongest sectors. It used to be more overwhelming until the TLs on many worlds got reduced.

Core sector has never been one of the stronger ones. And it it's another mystery to be explained.

 

[whulorigan]

Capital/Sylea

According to TravellerMap (T5SS), Capital is only Importance Ix=3. Should it not be a minimum of Ix=4 (if not 5 or 6 like some worlds)?

According to my calculation from T5, p.435, it ought to be Ix = 5 (Unless perhaps it deserves and additional special bonus of +1 for being capital of the Imperium, for Ix = 6) .

 

[tjoneslo]

Lemkhi/Iiradu (Dagudashaag 2908) -> the text of the description of this world in Signal GK #12 says the world has an amber zone (due to science experiments ongoing in the system), but no bases of any kind. The T5SS data for this world says it has a 'A' base (navy+scout), but no zone.

Typo or or deliberate change?

 

[DonM]

Deliberate. One of the experiments is the impact of heavy radiation on regular merchant activities. :file_21:

Sorry, it's been that sort of day. Noted for a fix.

 

[savage]

In my experience based upon other economic analysis, Solomani Rim, Old Expanses and Massilia are the three strongest sectors. It used to be more overwhelming until the TLs on many worlds got reduced.

Core sector has never been one of the stronger ones. And it it's another mystery to be explained.

We are reaching the roots of why 3I would fail during the Rebellion. The Core sector was no longer the powerhouse of trade. Now if Core was strong during the T20 era (100yrs earlier) that would be interesting.

 

[tjoneslo]

We are reaching the roots of why 3I would fail during the Rebellion. The Core sector was no longer the powerhouse of trade. Now if Core was strong during the T20 era (100yrs earlier) that would be interesting.

I would disagree. The Core sector hasn't been the center of the Imperial economy since the time of the first Civil war (early 600s). Once the civil war settled out and the immense population of these three sectors, plus Daibei and Alpha Crucis came online, the center of the Imperial economy shifted rimward pretty dramatically.

A symbol of that is the declaration of the Solomani Autonomous Region in 704. Once does not get the most powerful interstellar state to agree to cutting off most of 9 sectors without a fair amount to back it up.

It's also the incentive for the Solomani Rim War. With the Solomani attempting to economically cut off five of the top 10 sectors, there is a lot of incentive.

 

[savage]

I would disagree. The Core sector hasn't been the center of the Imperial economy since the time of the first Civil war (early 600s). Once the civil war settled out and the immense population of these three sectors, plus Daibei and Alpha Crucis came online, the center of the Imperial economy shifted rimward pretty dramatically.

A symbol of that is the declaration of the Solomani Autonomous Region in 704. Once does not get the most powerful interstellar state to agree to cutting off most of 9 sectors without a fair amount to back it up.

It's also the incentive for the Solomani Rim War. With the Solomani attempting to economically cut off five of the top 10 sectors, there is a lot of incentive.

Yes. Shifts should occur after 600 or so.
During the Frontier Wars we see a Grand Admiral move into the Emperor position. The Vargr Campaigns shift some power to Vland and Deneb. And the Solomani and Antares conflicts.

But the Core still should have remained powerful economically. Of course, the Emperor has the Navy, but certainly a massive industrial base is located in Core.

 

[Dagrill]

But the Core still should have remained powerful economically. Of course, the Emperor has the Navy, but certainly a massive industrial base is located in Core.

One would have thought tourism as well, even given Traveller's travel times,
the huge number of wealthy people not living at Core would want to visit and see the sights.

Regards

David

 

[rancke]

I wonder what a similar comparison of GWPs would show. Quite possibly the same, but with the way population level is used instead of population for RUs, possibly not.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

I can say that Marc has specifically stated that RUs should mean nothing for RPGs.

That being said, I can say that I think (from limited observation, I'm focused on some other elements) that both the positive and negative RUs need to be somewhat flattened.

And I can offer up that while some numbers are random in the T5SS, some are also shaped. We may need to do some more of that if analysis of the numbers doesn't match Marc's vision.

But that's the whole point in being public with the numbers.

Hi Don,

The main problem I have is that efficiency is a flux roll, it needs to be linked to government type and law level at the very least.

Kind Regards

David

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Not like that has not been done before. TCS tied naval budgets to government types....

 

[Drakon]

Hi Don,

The main problem I have is that efficiency is a flux roll, it needs to be linked to government type and law level at the very least.

Kind Regards

David

Not sure I agree with this statement. I think that almost any government form can be equally efficient or inefficient, depending on what principles the government is running on (as opposed to what principles the government professes to be based on.)

Also, the efficiency factor is not just government but also cultural and religious. Perhaps you have a planet that demands some drain on the public coffers, such as anti poverty programs, for whatever right and noble reason there may be. Projects that may be "do good" but still cost RUs and do not offer the monetary return that one would hope for.

Because I just got T4 Pocket Empires, I am starting to figure out how RUs and GWP worked in T4. Before, one had to figure out what the planetary demand was, and bounce that off resources available in system. GWP calculations were a bit complicated. I see what Marc was trying to do, trying to make the calculation simpler. Not sure if he succeeded, but I think that part of the problem here is that "T5 Pocket Empires" has not been fleshed out yet.

So, I don't think you can bounce efficiency off Law level or government type to give a decent model of a system's economy. Perhaps DMs for each, but there is more that goes into efficiency that the government alone is responsible for.

 

[rancke]

Not sure I agree with this statement. I think that almost any government form can be equally efficient or inefficient, depending on what principles the government is running on (as opposed to what principles the government professes to be based on.)

TCS has a rule for taking government type into account. I don't know how realistic it is, but it's there.

I have two problems with using flux for efficiency the way it is used. Firstly, there is for practical purposes no such thing as negative efficiency. The lowest efficiency you can have in practice might possibly be 0, which means nothing is produced at all. To get a negative efficiency, you have to have people running around destroying goods and infrastructure. Conceivable in rare cases, perhaps, but not in 15 out of 36 cases. Not that I believe in an efficiency of 0 either. People can always produce something. (And I believe the rule is to use 1 for all factors that are 0, right?)

Secondly, efficiency doesn't come in jumps of whole units. If Eff 1 is average efficiency then there is no such thing as effciency 5. Everything else being equal¹, people just don't produce twice as much as the average, except possibly in rare cases, much less three, four, or five times as much.

¹ Different resources can result in dratically different productions.​

My suggestion would be to vary efficiency by Flux * 5%, from 75% to 125%.


Hans