Trimkhana-Brilliance stats wanted

[aramis]

I'm arguing the legal limit for commercial vessels is 1 per SR, per that "unnuanced game rule"... which I find VERY nuanced. Since passages are inherently commercial (unless you're nuancing english to something decidedly odd), passengers being one to a stateroom specifically excludes non-commercial service. (IE, in non-commercial service, people are not paying you for a passage, tho they might be renting the ship... a different thing.)

 

[rancke]

I'm arguing the legal limit for commercial vessels is 1 per SR, per that "unnuanced game rule"... which I find VERY nuanced. Since passages are inherently commercial (unless you're nuancing english to something decidedly odd), passengers being one to a stateroom specifically excludes non-commercial service. (IE, in non-commercial service, people are not paying you for a passage, tho they might be renting the ship... a different thing.)

I'm not saying you can't be right. I'm saying it's a perfectly unreasonable rule (I know, governments make unreasonable rules all the time) and that there's no solid proof that you're right. Evidence, yes, proof, no.

The "only two people per stateroom" rule is certainly well-documented (although I'd argue that it's actually a "no more people than the life support system is rated for" regulation that translates into said game rule). But the other rule can easily be interpreted differently. It may simply be a regulation that requires ships to provide a single stateroom in exchange for a Mid Passage voucher. Imperial organizations simply don't issue economy passage vouchers (because the enabling edict doesn't provide for it), so the rules don't mention it.

I admit that the fact that the passenger tables don't produce passengers showing up and offering to pay Cr6000 for a DO passage is evidence that no such people exist. But that may be interpreted as a game artifact to simplify game play. AFAIK there's no statement about the existence of such an Imperial regulation.

I've been thinking over my previous statement, and I've realized that I don't really object to the rules taking the 3rd Imperium as the assumed setting. What I dislike is that in far too many cases the assumption is unstated and probably even unconcious.

Take the "single occupancy for commercial ships" rule. What happens if the referee rolls up seven High/Middle passengers for a Free Trader and two PCs agree to double up and let the seventh passenger stay in the stateroom thus freed up?

1) Does the Great Bird of the Galaxy destroy the ship upon takeoff or the Mindbending Slynk strike everyone mad when they enter jumpspace?

2) Does the life support system conk out on day 7, turning the ship into a steel mausoleum?

3) Does the referee roll to see if any of the passengers is struck with space cafard? Or just the two crewmen? How do you calculate the odds?

4) Does the passenger who got put up in Crew Country whip out a concealed body pistol and hijack the ship?

5) Do Imperial officials become so outraged over this egregious affront to everything the Imperium stands for that when they inevitably hear about it after the fact, they relentlessly track down the ship and confiscate it?

6) Do the starport authorities at the destination port slap the ship with a fine? How big a fine? What if the next port is a Class E?

7) Do the customs inspectors accept a small bribe to ignore the excess passenger?

8) Or something else entirely?​

What happens if there are 12 passengers and everyone agrees to share staterooms?

What happens if there is a band of 18 mercenaries[*], so anxious to stay together that they'll pay a premium to be allowed to get on the ship as a group and the next port is a Class E? What if there are only 16 mercenaries?

[*] Making the total of crew and passengers 22 (two more than twice the number of staterooms) and the mercenaries doing triple occupancy.​

What happens if Imperial Baron hault-Snooty buys three staterooms for himself and two retainers and puts the retainers into one stateroom, using the other stateroom as a day cabin?

"Because that's what the rules say" is fine for boardgames and cardgames and the like, but they're really inadequate for roleplaying games.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans, that the rule is 1 per SR in commercial, yet 2 per SR otherwise, is proof of a regulation represented in game by a rule.

The absolute lack of reference to OTU economy passage (which, BTW, saves little, in exchange for quite a bit less space and privacy... unless you simply halve prices, in which case no sensible ship owner will offer them, as he'd be losing money), especially given Bk 5, Bk7, and Adv5 additions to ships is strong evidence of same. It is something of great importance to the setting, as it makes passage MUCH cheaper.

The 2/SR might not be a physical limit, but its certainly either a physical or regulatory limit, and quite probably both.

In re your hypothetical, they don't get permission to depart, and switch to smuggling themselves... they fail the customs inspection, may lose their commercial endoresement, and can no longer cash passage coupons for face value. But, by the same token, it's a patron event, since the tables do not generate groups, but individual passengers.

 

[rancke]

Hans, that the rule is 1 per SR in commercial, yet 2 per SR otherwise, is proof of a regulation represented in game by a rule.

Or it could be a custom, represented by a rule. And the rule you quote don't mention passengers at all, just crew.

The absolute lack of reference to OTU economy passage [...], especially given Bk 5, Bk7, and Adv5 additions to ships is strong evidence of same.

Evidence, yes, proof, no. And, proof or not, it doesn't make commercial sense, so if the evidence is accepted as proof, I suggest a retcon would be in order, especially since double occupancy did show up in FT. Jim McLean once told me that he did it because exclusively single passage didn't make sense to him. Sadly, he didn't think of simply introducing economy passage in addition to high and middle passage, so FT's High Passage is (more or less) equivalent to Middle Passage in the other versions, the Middle Passage is equivalent to what I call economy passage, and there is no equivalent of High Passage.

...(which, BTW, saves little, in exchange for quite a bit less space and privacy... unless you simply halve prices, in which case no sensible ship owner will offer them, as he'd be losing money)...

...It is something of great importance to the setting, as it makes passage MUCH cheaper...

Which is it? Very little savings or much cheaper?

Going by your assumptions, the savings are Cr3000 (instead of getting 8000 and paying 2000 in life support for one passenger for a net income of Cr6000, you get Cr5000 twice and pay 4000 in life support, for the same net income of Cr6000). That's a saving for the passenger of a couple of months' pay -- or maybe 'only' one month's pay for someone from a TL15 world. Still a significant amount of money.

Yes, it does make a considerable difference to the setting, but in a good way. A lot of the interstellar plots I come up with tend to founder on the same objection; that the people involved in the plot couldn't reasonably be expected to be willing to pay for interstellar passage. You wan't someone to go down to that little village on the South Continent that the prospective son-in-law claims he hails from to check him out, and it'll maybe cost you 500 or 1000 (local) credits. You want someone to go to someplace on a neighboring world for any reason and you're out Cr16,000 for the return trip alone and three weeks' salary instead of three days' on top of that.

The 2/SR might not be a physical limit, but its certainly either a physical or regulatory limit, and quite probably both.

As I said, I think it's a regulation against exceeding the rated capacity of the life support system.

In re your hypothetical, they don't get permission to depart, and switch to smuggling themselves...

Even if they're leaving a Class E starport?

...they fail the customs inspection...

Automatically? No chance to attempt to bribe the customs inspector? What if there are no customs inspection (those pesky Class E starports again)?

...may lose their commercial endoresement, and can no longer cash passage coupons for face value.

What commercial endorsement? Does something like that even exist, how do you get one, who takes it away, how can you get it back?

But, by the same token, it's a patron event, since the tables do not generate groups, but individual passengers.

Exactly my point. The rules are inadequate to adjudicate any situation more complex than faceless individuals showing up with High and Middle Passage vouchers tucked in their breast pockets. That's not a feature.


Hans

 

[aramis]

GTFT is wrong.

TNE makes it explicit: the regency operates under old Imperial law, banning multiple passengers per stateroom. Page 219.

HP requires an entire stateroom for KCr10.
MP requires an entire stateroom for KCr8.
MP DO requires a stateroom per 2 for KCr 5 but is illegal in the regency.
Steerage allows 4 or even 8 per SR, but is illegal in the regency.

in both cases, the text (in a backhanded but explicit way) points out that the Regency hasn't changed the regs, so you need a stateroom per passenger.

 

[rancke]

GTFT is wrong.

It made some unnecsessary changes that should be removed again, true. But at least it was internally consistent, something none of the systems that use a flat fee regardless of length of jump is.

TNE makes it explicit: the regency operates under old Imperial law, banning multiple passengers per stateroom. Page 219.

Actually, what TNE makes explicit is that steerage passage was illegal under the old rules. It implies that double occupancy wasn't used commercially, but still doesn't give a reasonable explanation why. And it's just as inconsistent as CT. In addition it contradicts CT on at least one point (the existence of steerage passage outside the Regency implies that life support IS capable of dealing with more than two persons per stateroom. Up to four times more, which I beg leave to doubt is realistic.)

None of the various versions are flawless, although GT comes closest. I still say that there's no adequate explanation given for why double occupancy isn't used commercially in the Classic Era Imperium.


Hans

 

[aramis]

But it's pretty eplicit that it is forbidden. Why matters little.

Therefore, either the numbers are wrong, or it's specific to the GTU, or both. That said the only valid design would be done with GT.

 

[rancke]

But it's pretty eplicit that it is forbidden.

I don't think 'explicit' means what you think it means, but never mind. I've been thinking about it and was about to back down on that part.

My claim has three different, though related, parts:

1) Nowhere does canon come right out and say that single passage is forbidden by the Imperium.

2) There's no good reason for the Imperium to have such a regulation.

3) Having such a regulation is detrimental to the game.
....3a) It is detrimental to world-building.
....3b) It is detrimental to roleplaying.

As to part one I admit that I'm on shaky ground, since it is implied, and it's just a question of how strongly one feels something needs to be implied to be an accepted fact. So I'll retract that part.

Why matters little.

Why is pretty important, albeit not crucial. Come up with a sensible reason why the Imperium would formulate a regulation that has no practical purpose, will prevent people (including several megacorporations) from making profits on the passenger trade, and require a massive bureaucracy to enforce, and part 2) of my claim goes away and part 3) is weakened.

Therefore, either the numbers are wrong, or it's specific to the GTU, or both. That said the only valid design would be done with GT.

Since the GTU and the OTU are almost identical, something as basic as ship design will be identical for them both in "reality". How well the ship design system of any of the Traveller versions match "reality" is another question. Realistically they'll all be off to some degree or another. Whether they're close enough for game purposes is the real question.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Except that page 219 of TNE refutes claim one.

NASA and USN Submarine Force research shows plenty of good reasons for such a regulation.

Such a regulation is GOOD for the game in that it puts a lot of questionable behavior into the realm of possible actions and plot without putting it into inherently risky behavior.

And I've been pointing out for years that the GTU is WAY more technically different from the OTU that the GT proponents, yourself included, realize, since GURPS has a very different tech paradigm. GURPS TL 12 is WAY better than TTL 15, and the only tech GURPS changed for GT was the drives and weapons... and even there, the GT ship system isn't HG compatible, just HG-similar.

 

[rancke]

Except that page 219 of TNE refutes claim one.

Well, as I said, I've given up on that part, but AAMOF it does not. It says that the Regency operates under the old Imperial travel regulations and that those regulations forbade steerage (Which, incidentally, means that steerage is technically feasible, giving the lie to the CT rule that says double occupancy is the maximum possible due to limitations on the life support system) . Everything else it says is explicitly about what is used inside and outside the the Regency in 1202. Not about what the old Imperial travel regulations said.

NASA and USN Submarine Force research shows plenty of good reasons for such a regulation.

I already refuted that claim, unless NASA and USN Submarine Force research shows the effect of eight days' close confinement to be a problem. If it was a problem, the regulations would likewise prohibit other civilian ships from double occupancy during several weeks travel.

(Incidentally, even if a small fraction of the population were prone to nervous breakdowns under such conditions, it's unlikely that the Imperium would allow that to impede a huge transport market, any more than some people being suceptible to seasickness has made any government prohibit ships from carrying passengers; just slip them a pill. It's not as if the passengers are going to be operating heavy equipment on the trip.)

Such a regulation is GOOD for the game in that it puts a lot of questionable behavior into the realm of possible actions and plot without putting it into inherently risky behavior.

That might be a point if the rules actually gave any help at all to adjudicate such actions.

And I've been pointing out for years that the GTU is WAY more technically different from the OTU that the GT proponents, yourself included, realize, since GURPS has a very different tech paradigm. GURPS TL 12 is WAY better than TTL 15, and the only tech GURPS changed for GT was the drives and weapons... and even there, the GT ship system isn't HG compatible, just HG-similar.

No, the GT rules are different from the CT rules. Just as the MT rules were different and the TNE rules were different and the T4 rules were different and the T20 rules were different and the MGT rules are different. Yet CT, MT, TNE, T4, T20, and MGT all supposedly apply to the OTU. So why would the GT rules being different prove anything about the GTU? Not because they're different universes; supposedly the GTU and the OTU are indistinguishable up until around 1114. So if you can distinguish between a CT rendering of a Type A Free Trader and a GT rendering of a Type A Free Trader (and I certainly agree that you can), then either one or the other or both are less than exact renderings of the "real" Type A Free Trader (It's both, of course; neither can possibly be detailed enough to be accurate).


Hans

 

[aramis]

It also states (towards top of the page) that mid passage requires a stateroom per passenger. It then state that, outside the regency, it is possible to put two people per stateroom if charging less.

It also states that outside the regency, high passage is seldom used, and that HP must have a large stateroom per passenger. (1st para of 219.)

NASA notes that confinment issues start at 3 days. The USN noted confinement to quarters is punishment, and used to be limited to a week without transfer to brig. (LPM, ca 1982.)

You didn't refufte, you simply stated you were dismissing them. there is a HUGE difference between the two.

 

[rancke]

It also states (towards top of the page) that mid passage requires a stateroom per passenger. It then state that, outside the regency, it is possible to put two people per stateroom if charging less.

It also states that outside the regency, high passage is seldom used, and that HP must have a large stateroom per passenger. (1st para of 219.)

I know.

NASA notes that confinment issues start at 3 days. The USN noted confinement to quarters is punishment, and used to be limited to a week without transfer to brig. (LPM, ca 1982.)

Does NASA say that confinement issues arise when the cubage available is 13.5 cubic meters per subject but not when it's 27 per? And can you explain why the Imperium is fine with such issues when private individuals travel in their own ships but not when they travel commercially?

You didn't refufte, you simply stated you were dismissing them. there is a HUGE difference between the two.

"The evidence you presented does not show what you claim it shows" is not a refutation?


Hans

 

[aramis]

"The evidence you presented does not show what you claim it shows" is not a refutation?


Hans

No, it isn't. It at best raises question. A refutation requires PROOF to the contrary, not simply rejecting because you understand the source differently.

That canon explicitly states a requirement for 1 stateroom per person does refute your claim that canon doesn't state such. It specifies "within the Regency" for mid passage, and further specifies a type of passage unavailable with the regency. It categorically states in the section on steerage that the Regency is still under the old imperial regulations. It does so to explain why steerage is forbidden; the rules specify a number of other things as within the Regency, and while not explicit that they are regulation, that outside the regency they are different is so strongly implicit that it is a matter of regulation as to beg the question how one can see it any other way.

As for the NASA volumes, I'd have to check the specifics, which means finding the studies again. That said, that they noted problems at 3 days refutes your claim that NASA doesn't look at short term. Further, NASA has had missions under 8 days, both shuttle and Apollo, plus all Gemini and Mercury.

However, some interesting notes...
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/long-duration/long.htm notes that underactivity is highly detrimental to astronaut morale.

An on point issue:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-483/ch3-2.htm
confirms 11 cubic meters a minimum for space per person long term, and 1.5 cubic meters for 1-2 hours. this refers to open space; the machinery is not included.

While this is roughly one Td per person, that's also a minimum for persons with active duty schedules and at least ready motivation. In short, just about perfectly describing submariners and astronauts... but not passengers.

We can safely presume only a couple cubic meters of equipment; a stateroom represents all of these: a cabin, shared living space, life support equipment, food lockers, water storage, human waste handling, and minimal safety equipment (to wit, at least a bunk). the food locker for 21 meals is about 21 L... trivial... presuming dehydrated rations.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-483/ch3-4.htm

There are differences among individuals in their perceptions of crowding. Altman (1975) reports that self directed, high self esteem persons have lower spatial needs than individuals searching for identity, and laissez faire individuals have lower spatial needs than authoritarian individuals. Similarly, subjects who report an external locus of control perceive a greater degree of crowdedness than do internal locus of control subjects (Schopler and Walton, 1974).​

a 2:1 rate over crew would mirror the rough rates in commercial aircraft vs military fighterjets; those are, in fact, short term, but the other data appears to scale, so... commercial passengers generally have as much seat volume, half that much more as clearance, plus 1/3 that in aisle space, plus the shares of the freshers... and general principles would argue that the minimum be at least doubled for safety.

It also should be noted that 3 days is the transitional stress period; in confinement subjects, for the busy, it's a useful stress; for the bored, it can lead to anxiety and depression.

in short, the 2Td per person of HG's double occupancy rate is a reasonable military rate, 2x the NASA projected minimum for working crews, and not thoroughly dissimilar to current naval rates, when one considers all the relevant compartments allocated from Traveller stateroom space; most civilians would be unwilling to tolerate that volume for any length of time without tasks to distract them; passengers are almost by definition taskless... and bored humans are notorious for inventing "work" to the detriment of those around them. Which leads to the obvious comparison to prisoners.

Given that prisoners may have as little as 30 square feet (3.2 sq meters) each, in a 2.5m tall environment, why not use that as a basis? Because that volume is exclusively the room, and excludes the shower share, accessways (which add at least 50%), mess facilities, and gymnasium share, and because that minimal volume is intended to be a deterrent factor. In short, because it puts the occupant intentionally under stress. The actual volume per prisoner rapidly rises to nearly 250 cubic feet indoors, and another 250 in the yard... Further, studies have shown that confinements effects begin at 3-4 days in prisoners, with profound effects at longer durations. Lower stress prisons often have more than 4 times that space per prisoner; typically they also have lower violence, vandalism, and depression.

4 Td, roughly 2000 cubic feet, again looks to be a reasonable minimum for the passenger, tho for a highly motivated and busy crewman far less is adequate.

Me, I just happen to read TNEp219, and see that it's regulation within the regency, that regulation is specified as dating back to the 3I, and accepting that commercial ships have to have a stateroom per passenger, as is reiterated in MGT as well (sans explanation). Anything past that is into the realm of GM's whim.

 

[rancke]

No, it isn't. It at best raises question. A refutation requires PROOF to the contrary, not simply rejecting because you understand the source differently.

It would have required proof to the contrary if you had established that the source you referenced actually did apply to passengers spending 8 days in 2T of space instead of astronauts and submariners spending time under other conditions.

That canon explicitly states a requirement for 1 stateroom per person does refute your claim that canon doesn't state such.

I didn't say canon didn't state a requirement for 1 stateroom per person. I said it didn't explicitly state that the was an Imperial regulation to that effect. There are other possible reasons. There may not be any customers for double occupancy. The liners may not want to offer such passage for their own ineffable reasons. None of these explanations are very good, but neither is any explanation I've seen for having such a regulation compared to the reasons for not having them (i.e. the loss of profit opportunities for interstellar companies (Every single one of which pays part of its profits to the Emperor)).

As for the NASA volumes, I'd have to check the specifics, which means finding the studies again. That said, that they noted problems at 3 days refutes your claim that NASA doesn't look at short term. Further, NASA has had missions under 8 days, both shuttle and Apollo, plus all Gemini and Mercury.

Missions carrying passengers at 2T apiece?

While this is roughly one Td per person, that's also a minimum for persons with active duty schedules and at least ready motivation. In short, just about perfectly describing submariners and astronauts... but not passengers.

Exactly. Astronauts and submariners have to perform highly complex tasks. Passengers can just lounge in comfortable chairs and watch holodramas.

in short, the 2Td per person of HG's double occupancy rate is a reasonable military rate, 2x the NASA projected minimum for working crews, and not thoroughly dissimilar to current naval rates, when one considers all the relevant compartments allocated from Traveller stateroom space; most civilians would be unwilling to tolerate that volume for any length of time...

I guess that's why the only immigrants who went to America in the 19th Century were those who could afford something better than steerage.

If what you say was true for Traveller space travel, how come those same regulations allow private individuals to live under double occupancy for indefinite periods? Periods that has those 8 days as the minimum length of time?

...without tasks to distract them; passengers are almost by definition taskless... and bored humans are notorious for inventing "work" to the detriment of those around them.

Taskless <> bored. And a lot of people would be willing to suffer a bit to save CrImp3000. Why should the Imperium care enough to interfere with that trade? Now, only carefully selected, well-trained people under military discipline could stand life with only 2T apiece, you would have had a point. But the rules just as positively allow any old civilian to stuff himself into such conditions for weeks on end. Why the difference?. Anything you've offered so far apply just as much to private shipping as to commercial. And without the countervailing commercial interests in allowing double occupancy for passengers.

4 Td, roughly 2000 cubic feet, again looks to be a reasonable minimum for the passenger, tho for a highly motivated and busy crewman far less is adequate.

Which, I suppose, is why the regulations also specify single occupancy for commercial crew but not for private passengers and crew?

Let me repeat this: 1) If 4T actually was a reasonable minimum for anyone except highly motivated and busy crewmen, the regulations should also apply to private ships. Yet the rules clearly allows double occupancy for private civilian ships. Why the difference?


Hans

 

[aramis]

Why the difference?

Probably the same reason as the difference between small civil aviation safety requirements and commercial requirements... enforcability. The standards for commercial flights are in fact different in some countries (I've read them for the US and Russia) than for non-commercial flights. Commercial flights in/from the US are required to have flotation devices for all aboard; private flights are not. Likewise escape procedure briefings. If I charter a non-commercial Dehaviland, I can be lying on the floor at the captain's discretion; if I buy commercial passage, I must by law be buckled into a seat or bunk for at least take-off and landing, and whenever else the captain deems it needed, and the crew is required by law to enforce this.