pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
This is crazy. How do we keep up with this whacky mathematics without a scorecard?
What does a RU mean
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
This is crazy. How do we keep up with this whacky mathematics without a scorecard?
Heh heh heh.
This really is pretty low on my list of concerns. RU is (right now) nothing more than a bald number to be used somehow when we get to do strategic wargames with them. Marc figured that all the numbers were there for calculating it, so taking that last step to calculate the number is worth putting in the core book. But, fixing its formula before its use is nailed down seemed a bit silly to me. But, here we are.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Some of us don't see it as just something for a wargame. Some of us see a use for dynamic descriptions of a system's economy and therefore how it would be used to upgrade a system's economy.
Very much something within the sphere of what a system's nobles (or other oligarch) would want to do is improve the economy of his/her holdings.
Very much something within the sphere of what a system's nobles (or other oligarch) would want to do is improve the economy of his/her holdings.
One observation from Civil Engineering and Land Planning (in which I am not an expert, but I play one at work 
) ...
If Ru represents the ability of a place (world in this case) to invest in infrastructure improvements, then how would you handle something like a highway or electricity or a post office in a rural area where outside support is need to fund the infrastructure?
Could Negative RU represent a world that receives an external subsidy to maintain its infrastructure?
Would RU spent just exceed RU generated in that case?
Dubai comes to mind as a place that has the wealth to rent imported resources for construction projects.
) ...If Ru represents the ability of a place (world in this case) to invest in infrastructure improvements, then how would you handle something like a highway or electricity or a post office in a rural area where outside support is need to fund the infrastructure?
Could Negative RU represent a world that receives an external subsidy to maintain its infrastructure?
Would RU spent just exceed RU generated in that case?
Dubai comes to mind as a place that has the wealth to rent imported resources for construction projects.
Look, Hans convinced me on the negative RU issue, and Marc and I had a long discussion about what he intends to do with RU, and related items.
However, I jammed my foot in my mouth on this one, and insisted that Marc focus on personal combat, so I can't slide WorldGen items in front of him at the moment.
Actually, maybe there's a way around that. Keep this discussion, I'll catch up.
However, I jammed my foot in my mouth on this one, and insisted that Marc focus on personal combat, so I can't slide WorldGen items in front of him at the moment.
Actually, maybe there's a way around that. Keep this discussion, I'll catch up.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Hey, there it was...RU...T5...as you state, pretty well unexplained...You KNEW us curious types were going NOTICE it and then...well "here we are."
I like this approach, and see it quite more logical
Just formula would be Resource Units = R * L * I * (100+(E*10))% (if I understood it right, off course)
Even in this case, RU will be positive, thought the need to pay for infrastructure maintence could maile the balance negative, and I guess this could not be kept this way for longtime.
In most cases like this, the same country/planet/system pays this imported ressources in other ressources (again goods or services), even if they are first valued as cash...
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Yes, but you need all of the addenda to make that formula work properly. Without the addenda, E could be negative making the whole thing negative.
And the question then comes up: what does negative efficiency represent?
And the question then comes up: what does negative efficiency represent?
I guess that depends on where do you put the reference point...
My guess is that the reference point (0) means the expected or average efficiency, while positive means above average efficiency and negative means it si below average.
BTW, see that with this change, this note loses its meaning, and efficiency 0 is not the same than eficiency +1
IIRC only the negative flux numbers are fractions. 0 and 1 = 1 and 2-5 = 2-5.
I had suggested 1 + <flux>/10, but Don and Marc only went for that for the negative numbers. Which, admittedly is the important part, but I still find it hard to believe that one population can be five time more efficient than the average. I find it barely plausible that some individuals might be that much more efficient than the average1, but entire populations2?
1 And I'm sure someone with a Guinnes Book of Records will supply me with examples of people like that.
2 Everything else being equal, that is. I don't doubt that based on resources, technology, and infrastructure some populations can be far more productive than others.
2 Everything else being equal, that is. I don't doubt that based on resources, technology, and infrastructure some populations can be far more productive than others.
Hans
Last edited:
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
My point was we can no longer just list the equation, we now need a list of exactly what each thing is, especially now that negative efficiency isn't negative but a fraction.
Able Baker
SOC-10
Hi guys, long time no see!
My old players begged me into starting a fresh campaign. As I was starting my planning, I came across the wonderful Second Survey Data as presented in the Traveller Map website. I went back to my T5 copy to start understand the current incarnation of the economic and cultural extensions.
RUs seemed weird, so I came to this thread...
From this half-informed position it seems to me that there are 2 possibilities:
1)current formula is just an error: population should be a multiplier, (not the pop level) to yield a credit-compatible proper GWP incarnation.
What was wrong with the TCS/Pocket Empires/Far Trader versions, though?
Hans?
2) something with a logarithmic relation to pop is being modelled. What COULD that be?
One thing that is often expressed implicitly in the TU is the division of labor effects on "progress". Namely that to grow beyond a certain TL, usually a certain division of labor is needed, and that can be construed as having a logarithmic growth function.
Now, the OTU has instances of Hi-TL societies with miniscule populations. Let's say the increasing specialization and division of labor is the Imperial Progress Model and there might be others.
If I was to interpret the current RU model, I would say RUs represent the "Potential Galactic Contribution to Imperial Division of Labor". This would also allow for negative impacts, and explain much better the grand differences. It would also be added value as the participation in the interstellar division of labor has not been modelled directly.
The other thing, that is known in development studies as HDI or somesuch, using normalized and partially logarithmic inputs is already covered by TL, I fear. So it can be ruled out. Per capita income and standard of living are also basically the same as TL, see 1).
So to me, if I was to salvage RUs, then as "Contribution to Interstellar Division of Labor". Maybe "realized" isntead of "potential", have to think about the Flux input into the formula some more.
My old players begged me into starting a fresh campaign. As I was starting my planning, I came across the wonderful Second Survey Data as presented in the Traveller Map website. I went back to my T5 copy to start understand the current incarnation of the economic and cultural extensions.
RUs seemed weird, so I came to this thread...
From this half-informed position it seems to me that there are 2 possibilities:
1)current formula is just an error: population should be a multiplier, (not the pop level) to yield a credit-compatible proper GWP incarnation.
What was wrong with the TCS/Pocket Empires/Far Trader versions, though?
Hans?
2) something with a logarithmic relation to pop is being modelled. What COULD that be?
One thing that is often expressed implicitly in the TU is the division of labor effects on "progress". Namely that to grow beyond a certain TL, usually a certain division of labor is needed, and that can be construed as having a logarithmic growth function.
Now, the OTU has instances of Hi-TL societies with miniscule populations. Let's say the increasing specialization and division of labor is the Imperial Progress Model and there might be others.
If I was to interpret the current RU model, I would say RUs represent the "Potential Galactic Contribution to Imperial Division of Labor". This would also allow for negative impacts, and explain much better the grand differences. It would also be added value as the participation in the interstellar division of labor has not been modelled directly.
The other thing, that is known in development studies as HDI or somesuch, using normalized and partially logarithmic inputs is already covered by TL, I fear. So it can be ruled out. Per capita income and standard of living are also basically the same as TL, see 1).
So to me, if I was to salvage RUs, then as "Contribution to Interstellar Division of Labor". Maybe "realized" isntead of "potential", have to think about the Flux input into the formula some more.
Able Baker
SOC-10
Some more thoughts abour the "Imperial Division of Labor".
The great limitation in a log-base measure would be specialized and trained experts. Talented people crop up following a Gaussian curve, so would be linearily related to growth.
But, as society becomes more complex, vocational specializations blossom. There is ample evidence of that in reality. So, to fill in all the specialized expert positions you need:
- a talented person (as specializations blossom, so do the different required talents; probably still linear relation but with growing coeeficient per TL)
- with the proper education
- and the proper personality for that expert life
- at the right time and place (interaction costs)
These four factors combined might be/conceivably are in a decadic logarithmic relation to base population.
Furthermore, innovation itself might underly a certain plateau of diminishing returns for a certain TL range that adds "plain luck" to the process of progress.
ADD in a nutshell: Assuming human knowledge grows geometrically, (as it does now) and life expectancy and education times for individials are constant, the number of vocational specializations should grow geometrically in a slightly delayed fashion. I am sure somebody already discovered that relation and has a nifty name for that, links appreciated.
The great limitation in a log-base measure would be specialized and trained experts. Talented people crop up following a Gaussian curve, so would be linearily related to growth.
But, as society becomes more complex, vocational specializations blossom. There is ample evidence of that in reality. So, to fill in all the specialized expert positions you need:
- a talented person (as specializations blossom, so do the different required talents; probably still linear relation but with growing coeeficient per TL)
- with the proper education
- and the proper personality for that expert life
- at the right time and place (interaction costs)
These four factors combined might be/conceivably are in a decadic logarithmic relation to base population.
Furthermore, innovation itself might underly a certain plateau of diminishing returns for a certain TL range that adds "plain luck" to the process of progress.
ADD in a nutshell: Assuming human knowledge grows geometrically, (as it does now) and life expectancy and education times for individials are constant, the number of vocational specializations should grow geometrically in a slightly delayed fashion. I am sure somebody already discovered that relation and has a nifty name for that, links appreciated.
That could also be used to explain a world like Binge where there is a first-class port facility but few people. If there was an extensive automated mining or resource extraction facility you could see considerable export via traffic at the port for a small population if there was the market demand and if the transport routes made it possible economically.
There were a few coulds and ifs there.
