What does a RU mean

[rancke]

I am starting to think that RUs don't actually purchase anything but are a measure of economic power of a system. Instead of defining what RUs buy, I think that what is really needed is what types of infrastructure is expected at a certain level of RU; what amount of wealth, sophistication, and sustainable tech is represented by a certain level of RU.

Very well, let's look at an example then. Say you have a world with 100 million inhabitants and a whatever-it-is of 800 RUs. Say further that you have another world with a population of 9 billion an the exact same Resources, Infrastructure, and Flux. Such a world would have a whatever-it-is of 900 RUs. What does that difference signify?


Hans

 

[robject]

Very well, let's look at an example then. Say you have a world with 100 million inhabitants and a whatever-it-is of 800 RUs. Say further that you have another world with a population of 9 billion an the exact same Resources, Infrastructure, and Flux. Such a world would have a whatever-it-is of 900 RUs. What does that difference signify?


Hans

It seems to signify that System B is only slightly more (economically?) powerful than System A.

 

[pendragonman]

Well, we have from Rob's investigations, both likely have A starports.

I would expect that the one with 900 likely has a better health care system as it also has billions of inhabitants instead of 100's of millions. Likely a better food distribution network as well. Probably similar TL as we aren't talking about a large difference, just a hundred RU. I would expect a greater tonnage of shipping on average for the one with 900 as well. All of this is nice information for a GM. The extra shipping might relate to a wider range of cargo types available to PCs playing a merchant's game, or a greater chance for exotic equipment. Better healthcare might mean the 900 RU system has those nifty med beds from the movie "Elysium", while the other just has TL standard healthcare.

I have never seen Pocket Empires, so I have no predetermined idea that RUs MUST have purchase power. Perhaps releasing that idea and thinking about RU as a scale instead may make your frustration level with RUs lower.

 

[rancke]

It seems to signify that System B is only slightly more (economically?) powerful than System A.

System B has a GWP 90 times that of System A yet it is only 12.5% more powerful?


Hans

 

[rancke]

I would expect that the one with 900 likely has a better health care system as it also has billions of inhabitants instead of 100's of millions. Likely a better food distribution network as well. Probably similar TL as we aren't talking about a large difference, just a hundred RU. I would expect a greater tonnage of shipping on average for the one with 900 as well. All of this is nice information for a GM. The extra shipping might relate to a wider range of cargo types available to PCs playing a merchant's game, or a greater chance for exotic equipment. Better healthcare might mean the 900 RU system has those nifty med beds from the movie "Elysium", while the other just has TL standard healthcare.

The two systems has the exact same per capita income. Are you thinking about some economics of scale effect perhaps?

I have never seen Pocket Empires, so I have no predetermined idea that RUs MUST have purchase power. Perhaps releasing that idea and thinking about RU as a scale instead may make your frustration level with RUs lower.

I'm trying to set aside such preconceptions (although I would have found that easier if MM had come up with a different term than Resource Units for whatever-it-is; it's a bit difficult to think of Resource Units as not being units of resources). The trouble is that every suggestion you make (and every idea I get) have some sort of economic connotations.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

The two systems has the exact same per capita income. Are you thinking about some economics of scale effect perhaps?


I'm trying to set aside such preconceptions (although I would have found that easier if MM had come up with a different term than Resource Units for whatever-it-is; it's a bit difficult to think of Resource Units as not being units of resources). The trouble is that every suggestion you make (and every idea I get) have some sort of economic connotations.


Hans

Per capita income? Based on World Bank analysis, Germany and Norway have almost identical per capita income. Germany has a pop digit of 7, Norway has a 6. Which one has greater economic power?

Germany

Canada has a per capita that is also almost the same as Germany and a pop digit of 7. Which country has more economic power?

Germany

per capita isn't as much a factor in economic power of a nation, which is what I am suggesting that T5 RU represent.

 

[whulorigan]

I don't know. I've spent a few hours with T5 and can't find anything. If someone who can see better than I would provide a page number, or numbers, I'd love to take a close look.

T5 Core Rulebook, p.56:

Resource Units (RU or Aryu). The basic governmental form of money is the Resource Unit. The RU is a relative unit of value useful for comparison of different governments. The RU is also used in accounting by MegaCorporations. There is no direct correlation between Resource Units and Credits or MegaCredits.

T5 Core Rulebook, p.427:

Resource Units. The Economic Extension can be used to compute the Resource Units of a world (in effect, its world budget).

T5 Core Rulebook, p.427:

Resource Units = R * L * I * E

If any value = 0, use 1 (to avoid multiplying by zero). Resource units can be negative: a world can be a net drain for Resource Units.

Efficiencies. All economies have efficiencies and barriers to efficiency. As used in the Economic Extension, Efficiencies range from -5 to +5, with higher values (because of the structure of the formula) being preferable. In the RU formula, Efficiency at -1 or less turn the RUs available negative: the Inefficiencies are so destructive as to make the economy a net drain. Such barriers represent a welfare state; cultural influences which do not value wealth, even physical limitations. On the other hand, since some economies have positive efficiencies: positive multipliers increasing available RU. Note Efficiency-0 uses 1 to avoid multiplying by zero; Efficiency- 0 and Efficiency +1 are functionally equivalent.

The Golden World. The theoretical (possibly apochryphal) world with maximum values under the Economic Extension would not only have an immense RU value, it would have virtually no barriers to production. Its citizens would value work, production, efficiency, and even customer satisfaction above all else.

Comparative Budgets. RU Resource Units are relative values: they are best understood in comparison to other worlds. Assuming World Alpha produces RU= 100 and World Beta produces RU= 50, one can assume Alpha has an economy twice the size of Beta. Similarly, if Alpha has a naval budget for ship production, Beta probably has a budget equal to half of Alpha’s.

T5 Core Rulebook, p.435:

Resources = 2D (If TL 8+, + GG + Belts)
Labor = Pop- 1
Infrastructure = 2D + Importance (If Ba, Di, Lo, then = 0. If Ni, then 1D.)
Efficiency = Flux

The minimum value for Resources, Labor, and Infrastructure is 0. Efficiency may be negative. Resources are any materials available for processing and exploitation. They include natural resources, minerals, ores, metals, energy sources, biological assets, and any other materials of limited availability. Labor is the workforce available for the processing and exploitation of Resources. Infrastructure is the established technical structures that support exploitation of resources. Infrastructure includes roads, power grids, communications, and factories. Efficiency reflects the current economic system, and includes sensible legal procedures, appropriate tariffs, customs promoting a balanced work ethic, rewards for merit, and social structures which match ability and job. Negative Efficiency is worse.

 

[rancke]

Per capita income? Based on World Bank analysis, Germany and Norway have almost identical per capita income. Germany has a pop digit of 7, Norway has a 6. Which one has greater economic power?

Germany

Actuaqlly, Norway has a per capita income twice that of Germany. But anyway, the reason I brought up per capita income was that the examples you mentioned were things thaty would affect individuals, such as healt care and food distribution.

per capita isn't as much a factor in economic power of a nation, which is what I am suggesting that T5 RU represent.

But if you're talking economic power as in Germany compared to Norway and Canada, then you're talking about a much greater difference than the 17% you'd get in RUs by going from pop 6 to pop 7 or the 0% you'd get from going from pop 7 to pop 7. Germany's GNP is 7 times that of Norway (+600%) and twice that of Canada (+100%).


Hans

 

[McPerth]

[m;]Previous posts were copied here from This thread.

Please, if you feel any more post from the thread should be also copied here, tell me (in PM).[/m;]

 

[McPerth]

As someone that has not even read T5, some doubts come to my mind with all I've read here:

T5 Core Rulebook, p.56:

Resource Units (RU or Aryu). The basic governmental form of money is the Resource Unit. The RU is a relative unit of value useful for comparison of different governments. The RU is also used in accounting by MegaCorporations. There is no direct correlation between Resource Units and Credits or MegaCredits.

So it's the basic governmental form of money, but has no direct correlation to MCr ...

T5 Core Rulebook, p.427:

Resource Units = R * L * I * E

If any value = 0, use 1 (to avoid multiplying by zero). Resource units can be negative: a world can be a net drain for Resource Units.

Efficiencies. All economies have efficiencies and barriers to efficiency. As used in the Economic Extension, Efficiencies range from -5 to +5, with higher values (because of the structure of the formula) being preferable. In the RU formula, Efficiency at -1 or less turn the RUs available negative: the Inefficiencies are so destructive as to make the economy a net drain. Such barriers represent a welfare state; cultural influences which do not value wealth, even physical limitations. On the other hand, since some economies have positive efficiencies: positive multipliers increasing available RU. Note Efficiency-0 uses 1 to avoid multiplying by zero; Efficiency- 0 and Efficiency +1 are functionally equivalent.

T5 Core Rulebook, p.435:

Resources = 2D (If TL 8+, + GG + Belts)
Labor = Pop- 1
Infrastructure = 2D + Importance (If Ba, Di, Lo, then = 0. If Ni, then 1D.)
Efficiency = Flux

The minimum value for Resources, Labor, and Infrastructure is 0. Efficiency may be negative. Resources are any materials available for processing and exploitation. They include natural resources, minerals, ores, metals, energy sources, biological assets, and any other materials of limited availability. Labor is the workforce available for the processing and exploitation of Resources. Infrastructure is the established technical structures that support exploitation of resources. Infrastructure includes roads, power grids, communications, and factories. Efficiency reflects the current economic system, and includes sensible legal procedures, appropriate tariffs, customs promoting a balanced work ethic, rewards for merit, and social structures which match ability and job. Negative Efficiency is worse.

So the fact of a planet's RU being positive or negative is purely random, as efficiency is the only factor that can be negative?

Do infrastructures (starport, etc, not infrastructure level) nor ressources have no influence on it?

A world with high levels of pop, infrastructure and ressources can become very deficitary just because the influence (flux) roll was bad?

That does not agree with this post:

Well, I have done some preliminary basic analysis, just looking at starport and RU in comparison for a sector's worth of worlds, and have these observations:

OBSERVATIONS

Classes D and E appear to live nearly entirely in the negative RU ranges. It could be that my dataset is bogus.

Class C is all over the place, but in the set I have rarely (four times in a sector-sized area) climbs above 600 RU.

Classes A and B are also all over the place, but there appear to be NO Class A's with negative RU, and few B's (eight times).

Regardless, from (say) 10 RU up through 9000 RU, there seems to be a more or less equivalent distribution of Class A and B starports.


CONCLUSIONS

A Class E starport is trivial to build. A can of spray paint on a hunk of flat bedrock.

Similarly, a Class D only requires minimal infrastructure and effort, and probably takes under a year to create what passes for a Class D.

A Class C probably requires investment; I would say that the fact that a world is a Class C with a negative RU says more about the past of a world rather than its present. Looking at the median RU for Class C worlds, I would say a world needs RU 100 to build a Class C starport. I do not know how many years it would take to build it.

Now, taking the medians again, a Class B starport seems to require a world sustaining a RU 1000 economy for some number of years. This is backed up by the fact that most Class C starports are on worlds with economies below RU 600.

Finally, the Class A starport appears to require a world with RU 3000 (again, for some number of years). Having that high of an RU does not guarantee a class A starport: it merely suggests a point at which a world may consider directing those resources toward building one.

In fact, the presence of plenty of Class B worlds with exceedingly high RUs indicates that there are other long-term priorities in front of upgrading one's starport. That may suggest infrastructure, technology, trade war, inefficiency, market shifts, who knows what else.

In other words, get to Class B as soon as possible, but then many other things become more important.

Unfortunately there was a transmission error (or a deliberate change) that changed the labor component of the formula from a fraction of the total population to the population level.

According with the formula given by whulorigan (see above) labor is only a part of of population (about 10%, as he says Labor=pop-1)

 

[robject]

System B has a GWP 90 times that of System A yet it is only 12.5% more powerful?


Hans

How do we know the GWP of these worlds?

 

[tjoneslo]

One point then I'm into wild speculation mode.

There are no more negative RUs. Hans won that argument, and the minimum value for RUs is 0.

Based upon the implied cultural factors inherent in the RU calculation, there is a difference between spending money on luxury goods or trivial things and money spent on long term investment projects. Spending money on building out the infrastructure of a world has a economic impact that using RUs wants to capture. Which is different from general economic spending.

For example, Spending 1BCr on building an estate for the CEO of a corporation or a Noble has little or no feedback into the longer term economics of a world. Unlike, say, building a fusion power plant to light homes and run a factory.

There are two parts of an RU that separate it from pure cash money. The first is the idea of money spent over time. As an arbitrary value, an RU represents investment over a period of a decade.

So introducing a business term: "Return on Investment" (ROI) is a part of what an RU is. Specifically, the idea of "spending" an RU gets you some set of things with a value equal to or greater than your original investment. Like the original investment takes time, so does the return.

Out of this you can get the idea that no one hands you a check for an RU, instead they hand you a business plan, with completed contracts, Purchase authorizations, labor agreements, import authorizations, and any number of other business operational processes.

Now, how do you put an RU to use. The most obvious is the factors that go into the RU itself: access to resources, infrastructure, labor, and overall efficiency. Improving the world's Technology Level is another obvious one. Large scale items like terraforming or colonization projects. Interesting large scale, long term, projects like LongBow or Jonkereen project.

Starport upgrades is a trickier one. Upgrading ports from X -> E -> D -> C is largely just an investment of money. But the inherent difference between a C port, a B port, and an A port is the presence of a starship repair and construction industry. Creating a successful industry like that does require the expenditure of RU.

The RUs assigned to each world represent the potential for that world to invest in the large scale, long term projects that an RU represents. Access to resources, labor force not supply food and air to everyone else, government's willingness to allow such projects, and so on.

The idea of the RU as "investment spending" and "investment capability" probably comes from the Vilani, and the First Imperium. They really needed a system where they could define very rigorously the long term impacts of the changes they wanted to make. You can't have a long term stable empire if you don't understand impacts of the changes you make.

This is probably about as good a version of undoing the abstraction of the RU as I'm going to come up with for right now. Turing this into hard numbers requires a several hours with a spreadsheet.

 

[pendragonman]

If RU are not a unit of purchase power but a measure of growth/decay of a system's economy, of course we could have negative RU. Industries move, resources become exhausted and a negative RU would reflect that.

The problem with RU being a measure of growth/decay is we don't have a way of evolving them over time.

 

[tjoneslo]

If RU are not a unit of purchase power but a measure of growth/decay of a system's economy, of course we could have negative RU. Industries move, resources become exhausted and a negative RU would reflect that.

The problem with RU being a measure of growth/decay is we don't have a way of evolving them over time.

I do not think RU is measure of growth/decay of a system's economy. It is a measure of the system to support and invest in large scale, long term projects. How well can you put 1BCr into a decade long project? The answer can be none at all, but it can't be negative.

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

I do not think RU is measure of growth/decay of a system's economy. It is a measure of the system to support and invest in large scale, long term projects. How well can you put 1BCr into a decade long project? The answer can be none at all, but it can't be negative.

Pardon me for jumping in here, but why wouldn't a negative RU mean that the system is not just incapable of initiating any long-term projects on its own, but also incapable of independently maintaining those it already has? Surely there are examples of such places in real life, and as long as the TU isn't ludicrously riddled with such cases I don't see a problem with them there, either.

 

[McPerth]

Disclaimer: once again remember I only talk about what I've read in this board (and what I think could be logical), as I have not read T5, so I might well be ignoring parts of T5 that have not been commented (or I have not read) in this board.

I resist to think money is the true exchange means among countries/planets. The true exchange is in goods and services, money being just a means to measure its value, that can change with the time due to needs, availability, etc.

Even gold and gems are just a means to measure it, as its true value (seen as usesfulnees and need) is limited. A society may have easier life without them than (to give just some examples) without food, fuel, iron or aluminium.

Imagaine in a ressource deprived society with no high autority (think on a post disaster world, à la Mad Max). You have a T$ in money, I have just a million $ worth in food, fuel, medial supplies and weapons. Who is really richer? While you have a billion more money than me, you can as well starve while I am fed and healthy...

Starport upgrades is a trickier one. Upgrading ports from X -> E -> D -> C is largely just an investment of money. But the inherent difference between a C port, a B port, and an A port is the presence of a starship repair and construction industry. Creating a successful industry like that does require the expenditure of RU.

I disagree here. Maybe it's a different way to see what a straport means, but as I understand it, just the needed supporting infrastructure and industry means that more than money is needed (ressources, knowledge, etc), and all of this should be aart of the RUs.

Pardon me for jumping in here, but why wouldn't a negative RU mean that the system is not just incapable of initiating any long-term projects on its own, but also incapable of independently maintaining those it already has? Surely there are examples of such places in real life, and as long as the TU isn't ludicrously riddled with such cases I don't see a problem with them there, either.

Again I disagree here. A country (or planet/system in Traveller) may well be in the situation you talk about (unable to maintain its infrastructure/services), and so deficitary, but:

1. How long can it maintain this situation
2. Is its GDP (or GWP in Traveller) negative?

To question 1, I guess not for a longtime (surely not enough as being really counted as UWP) before falling into banckrupcy (sorry, any example would enter in RW politics).

As to question 2, no, its GDP will still be positive, as the country still produces goods and services. Another question is that what it produces is not enough to maintain its infrastructure/services/whatever it needs. I guess all those things also require RU to be maintained, and when the RU prodcued are not enough, the planet/system is in trouble, but its RU production should (IMHO) still be positive (while its balance can surely not be so).

T5 Core Rulebook, p.427:

Resource Units = R * L * I * E

If any value = 0, use 1 (to avoid multiplying by zero). Resource units can be negative: a world can be a net drain for Resource Units.

T5 Core Rulebook, p.435:

Resources = 2D (If TL 8+, + GG + Belts)
Labor = Pop- 1
Infrastructure = 2D + Importance (If Ba, Di, Lo, then = 0. If Ni, then 1D.)
Efficiency = Flux

As for those formulas, what is hard to swallow to me is that efficiency might be negative, so turning al lthe rest to negative too (and the higher the rest of the result is, the more negative is the result).

IMHO, a planet with higher pop (so lab), higher ressources and better infrastructure will be richer (have higher GDP, and so RU) than one with lower numbers, and lower efficiency migh reduce this difference, but cannot turn this higher nubmer into negative, while this balance can surely be so, if it has more things to maintain (e.g. armed forces that it cannot maintain). And with the same efficiency (if negative), the higher pop, etc. system will be in very
serious trouble, while the lower pop will be in less so. Efficiency can mean only a fraction of the RUs are really produced, but not, (again IMHO) that they are deficit instead of production (while if it tries to spend the same than a higher efficiency system, it will surely incurr in such deficit).

And this efficiency must be influenced by infrastructure, TL, Starport, perhaps gov, etc., not be just a random number.

 

[pendragonman]

The closest I can come to a (possibly) negative efficiency is active obstruction. Does active obstruction mean a world wide rebellion? Completely out of whack bureaucracy?

What's worse is even completely affective obstruction would be a zero net efficiency. How can you have more obstruction than production?

 

[Vladika]

I can't go for negative RU's either. Certainly a negative cash flow, but not negative resources. No resources is certainly a possibility, but negative? Not to my way of thinking.

I belief that a negative result should be modified to 0 short term. Consider: if Labor was the negative factor, that situation could radically change. (more labor imported, strike over, hunger modified work ethic, etc.).

Anywhere people have settled must have had, at some point, some resource. Even an airless, waterless, chunk of silica, marginally inside the habitable zone had some reason to be inhabited.

Maybe a subject for errata?

 

[whulorigan]

I can't go for negative RU's either. Certainly a negative cash flow, but not negative resources. No resources is certainly a possibility, but negative? Not to my way of thinking.
.
.
.
Maybe a subject for errata?

There are no more negative RUs. Hans won that argument, and the minimum value for RUs is 0.

I believe the calculation for RU's is being changed, and eliminates negative RU's by eliminating negative values of Efficiency, but its publication is awaiting the next update of the T5 Errata. But I am merely speculating based on various comments and posts I have read from different threads dealing with the subject.

But the person to ask would be DonM.

 

[tjoneslo]

As for those formulas, what is hard to swallow to me is that efficiency might be negative, so turning al lthe rest to negative too (and the higher the rest of the result is, the more negative is the result).

Hans and Don went over this several times a few months ago. The outcome of that was Don and Marc agreed the negative efficiency didn't turn the whole RU calculation to a negative number.

The official result of a negative efficiency is the multiplier is now a fraction. Specifically: -1 eff = multiplier of 0.9, -2 eff = 0.8, -3 eff = 0.7, -4 eff = 0.6, -5 eff = 0.5. These are the values used for the Trade Map data calculation of the RUs as shown in the wiki.

This is official errata from DonM and Marc.