• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Trade maps take 2

tjoneslo

SOC-14 1K
Staff member
Admin Award
Administrator
Count
As a followup to the two threads(1 and 2) about trade in the Third Imperium. I decided to follow up on my own advice, and create a Book 7 commercial trade atlas bases upon the speculative trade system.

Book 7 uses an abstracted system to create a "cost of goods" for each world, and a "price of merchandise" based upon the source world trade codes and TL.

So for each pair of worlds where the cost of goods - the source price - transport expenses is > 0 represents a trade opportunity.

There are two maps where: One is for the Borderlands subsector of the Trojan Reach. This was included because it was the source of the discussion for the trade which prompted this.

Second is Regina subsector in the Spinward Marches because that's what everyone looks at. I can do other specific subsectors on request.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=2531 - Borderlands
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=2530 - Regina

How to read the maps:

Book 7 trade isn't symmetric: you can make a lot of money going from A to B, but not have any cargo going from B to A. The routes on the map go clockwise. The source world (A) is earlier in time than the market world (B).

The map only covers worlds within J2.

The colors represent profitability per ton of cargo. The colors follow a heat map progression: dark blue is cold, then green, then yellow, then orange, and red. Each step covers Cr1,000 increase in potential profit. So dark blue is < Cr1K per ton, light blue is Cr1k to Cr2k per ton, and so on.

The map does not include quantity of goods available. It does take into account the variability of the rolls on the price/cost table, nor the cost of a broker to improve those results.

I need to make a real key for this, it still an experiment. Feedback for usefulness and suggestions for improvements welcome.
 
That's really interesting. I was going to try a similar sort of thing using the T5 rules in Trade and Commerce.

Had you considered trying out the GT trade mapping from Far Trader?
 
The two threads I link to under the numbers in my first post contain a good summary of the arguments.
 

Let me try posting this not from my phone.

These two threads: Trade volume between the Aslan Hierate and the 3I and The Merchant Fleet in the Spinward Marches have the longer arguments about what trade in the 3I should be like.

The TL/DR is: GT:FT makes a number of assumptions about how trade (in general) worlds which are correct for our modern worlds but may not work for the limited communications speeds of the 3I. If you accept these assumptions, the results of GT:FT (as show in the example map, and other data presented), it reinforces the large ship universe that exists in High Guard. For example, there is a BTN 12 trade route that extends from Mora (in the Spinward Marches) to Vland, across two and a half sectors. And carrying on the order of 1 million dTons of cargo per week.

There are a few tweaks to this system, without altering the assumptions, you can make to adjust the numbers up or down. I've seen a number of other similar trade systems with the same underlying assumptions that produce different results.

There is a group of people (as seen in the threads) that feel the assumptions underlying the GT:FT trade system are wrong. Therefore the results produced are meaningless. I have a personal interest in producing trade maps which reflect the underlying economic realities. So this is map developed with a different trade system to see how the whole process works.
 
There is also the issue that many fans of CT, MT, and TNE don't buy into a lot of the elements GT itself introduced.
The following is an example of

Lets compare the corebook price for a Type A aka Beowulf of the price ratios of ship and passages, and the various passages to the cargo rate:
ItemCTGT
Ship PriceMCr37.8M$28.9
HP 1 PcCr10,000$3,500
MP 1 PcCr8,000$1,750
LP 1 PcCr1,000$175
1Td freight 1 PcCr1,000$650
HP 1 Pc
Ship
0.0002650.000121
MP 1 Pc
ship
0.000211 0.000061
LP 1 Pc
ship
0.000026 0.000006
1Td freight 1 Pc
Ship
0.0000260.0000225
HP 1 Pc
1 Td Cargo
105.38
MP 1 Pc
1 Td Cargo
8 2.69
LP 1 Pc
1 Td Cargo
1 0.269

As you can see, the fundamental assumptions are different - both in terms of relative cost to a ship, and relative costs of passage types to each other and cargo.

MT and TNE differ slightly in fraction of ship cost, but not in terms of relative values of passages.
 
The TL/DR is: GT:FT makes a number of assumptions about how trade (in general) worlds which are correct for our modern worlds but may not work for the limited communications speeds of the 3I

So how GT be tweaked to take in to account the limited communications?

It seems to me (perhaps) the problem with GT, in this context, is simply that there is "trade at all" between systems that are quite far away in terms of communications. So, maybe there should be not a BTN between systems 10 jumps apart.

From Wikipedia:
The first communications occurred August 16, 1858, reducing the communication time between North America and Europe from ten days – the time it took to deliver a message by ship – to only 17 hours.

Clearly that had a great impact on trade.

Because it seems that the GT model is reasonable in basis, that is, given a couple of trading partners (systems in this case), the simplified gravitational model exemplified by GT is sound.

It's just the scope of it that breaks down when you take in to account the distance and time lag involved. Because communications (nominally) is faster than trade. Comms go via X-Boat, rather than slow freighter, but clearly that doesn't work for neighboring systems, so there's limits even there.
 
So how GT be tweaked to take in to account the limited communications?

It seems to me (perhaps) the problem with GT, in this context, is simply that there is "trade at all" between systems that are quite far away in terms of communications. So, maybe there should be not a BTN between systems 10 jumps apart.

From Wikipedia:


Clearly that had a great impact on trade.

Because it seems that the GT model is reasonable in basis, that is, given a couple of trading partners (systems in this case), the simplified gravitational model exemplified by GT is sound.

It's just the scope of it that breaks down when you take in to account the distance and time lag involved. Because communications (nominally) is faster than trade. Comms go via X-Boat, rather than slow freighter, but clearly that doesn't work for neighboring systems, so there's limits even there.

When I was working at the Archives, I was able to look at microfilms of ship's logs and portbooks... before the Civil War, most shipping was shipper-owned - either the ship itself (as a company) or by the ship's owner. Most, not all.
After the telegraphs went in, almost all I was able to find (≥95%) was demand trade - stuff owned usually by the person being shipped to, or being shipped by the owner to a third party on a ship they didn't own.

Due to holes in the records at the branch I was at, I had very little civil war to 1870 to look at.

I miss that job.
 
When I was working at the Archives, I was able to look at microfilms of ship's logs and portbooks... before the Civil War, most shipping was shipper-owned - either the ship itself (as a company) or by the ship's owner. Most, not all.
After the telegraphs went in, almost all I was able to find (≥95%) was demand trade - stuff owned usually by the person being shipped to, or being shipped by the owner to a third party on a ship they didn't own.

Where the historical analogy begins to break down is the modern technology society underlying the Traveller universe.

I think the best historical reference may be the East India Company. Here was a company trading across several weeks of travel, including communications. But still was shipping company owned goods on company owned ships.
 
I'm not defending any particular trade scheme, but I will say that the nice thing about any of these systems is that they can be scaled downwards.

The not-nice thing about these systems is that some of them are harder to scale than others. Ideally authors (myself included) should recognize that talk about macroeconomics in Traveller is typically the tail wagging the dog.
 
Where the historical analogy begins to break down is the modern technology society underlying the Traveller universe.

I think the best historical reference may be the East India Company. Here was a company trading across several weeks of travel, including communications. But still was shipping company owned goods on company owned ships.

But the BEI company was primarily a shipper, buying goods at one end, selling them at the other. Corporate speculation. It started to verticalize... but then the crown took interest...
 
Back
Top