Illogical econ in High Guard

[DFW]

Although overall I think the book is very good there are some illogical parts. For instance, the table below is the drive cost table. The cost portion as laid out is exactly the opposite of what REALLY happens as technology matures. For instance, a J-4 drive (TL-13) would cost LESS at higher tech levels. By quite a bit. I have changed the cost table as follows: in red

TL –1 TL +0 TL +1 TL +2 TL+3
150% 100% 80% 70% 60%

TL –1 TL +0 TL +1 TL +2 TL+3
Tonnage 200% 100% 95% 90% 75%
Cost 150% 100% 110% 125% 200%

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Traveller costs have always been backward like that.

I THINK it is because they consider the Credit to be of fixed amount no matter what the Tech Level of the world or the economic condition of the world.

As such, if you think about a credit as being Fixed in value, then higher tech items will be more expensive than lower tech versions. However, at higher tech levels, the salaries and amount of expendable income of the citizens should go up even more, so that in RELATIVE terms, the price goes down.

Think of a car. In 1960 you could get one for a couple thousand dollars, now a very similar car (from a performance point of view) is several tens-of-thousands of dollars. But more people have them now due even higher wages and more disposable income than in 1960.

I'm not saying that I agree with how they did it, but that is the basic assumption from what I have been able to determine.

 

[DFW]

Traveller costs have always been backward like that.

Actually, if you factor in ACTUAL inflation, items that had cost X when the tech was just introduced in the 60's, cost MUCH less now. See info on the buying power of the $. Also, a HUGE part of auto price increase is due to gov regs for the overall car. My brother has been an engineer at a large auto company fr decades. Jet engines, computers, electronics, etc., ALL cost much less now (in real $) than when they were 1st put into mass use decades ago.

So, in the end, the rules go against econ as it would really unfold.

 

[captainjack23]

Its an interesting point, and a good one, but for purposes of shipbuilding, I think the idea of the table was not that one is building the exact same item at different levels, but rather the most compact version of the tech possible that has all the same output parameters and demand . What you get is not a TL9 drive produced by advanced techniques (which would be cheaper), but rather (say) a miniature TL9 drive produced by tech that wasn't available at TL9. Would this increase in cost overset the discounts due to production efficiencies(say) ? Not so clear, but the table says it does......

It's also not clear why this should be only based on tech, except that perhaps the items in HG are assumed to be highly optimized and standardized versions of the actual first version; in other words, the original TL 9 J drive is not really what one buys at a TL9 port -rather, its the final development version that can be maintained at a TL9 port, probably taking advantage of lots of higher tech input into production and theory.

Yeah, its jumping thru hoops to rationalize it , so the real reason, I suspect, is that its intent is to be part of a system to produce playable ship designs and give players lots of options without increasing complexity and munchkinism more than is necessary. And so, Economics will take lower predence than Game Design. Bad for a dissertation, or a business plan, but fine for a game (IMHO).

 

[far-trader]

Traveller costs have always been backward like that.

Actually, if you factor in ACTUAL inflation, items that had cost X when the tech was just introduced in the 60's, cost MUCH less now. See info on the buying power of the $. Also, a HUGE part of auto price increase is due to gov regs for the overall car. My brother has been an engineer at a large auto company fr decades. Jet engines, computers, electronics, etc., ALL cost much less now (in real $) than when they were 1st put into mass use decades ago.

So, in the end, the rules go against econ as it would really unfold.

The minor flaw in such comparisons is that the tech and economy of the Traveller universe is supposed in a frame of being millenia old and extremely stable.

Nothing is new bleeding edge hot out of R&D (except maybe some TL16+ stuff) so there is no comparative similar to 1960 vs 2010. It is more like comparing May 2010 to June 2010.

There is no inflation or any other huge swings in economics in interstellar commerce. Your credits have the same buying power no matter where in charted space or what the local TL is.

The only thing local TL limits you to is ready availability. A TL15 world can make that TL5 dohickey, no problem, but also no different in cost or form than the TL5 built dohickey. A TL5 world however can't make you a TL15 whatyacallit no matter how many credits you offer.

Possible? Of course it is. Realistic? That's debatable. Required? Not at all, create any econ shift or form adjustment you want if it makes the game more interesting for your group. But out of the box simplicity is good for most and avoids all the pitfalls one opens up in attempting to apply an ad hoc system.

 

[rust]

I THINK it is because they consider the Credit to be of fixed amount no matter what the Tech Level of the world or the economic condition of the world.

If I remember it right, several Traveller versions had tables for the con-
version of "high-tech" Credits and "low-tech" Credits. I think the first one
I did see was in Trillion Credit Squadron, used to calculate the value of
taxes from planets with different technology levels, but there is also one
in Traveller New Era.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Yes, but actually what those tables did (they were all copies of the TCS table) was to figure out how much less you got from low tech or poor quality starports. You got a multiplier to convert everything to TL15, Class-A starport credits.

Far Trader... Your assumptions about the setting to not apply to MGT, they have separated the Third Imperium from the Rules (like early CT did).

I'm not saying that I agree with what MGT did on the price/size tables, in my opinion BOTH should go down as TL increases, but if you did that, everyone would fly around in TL15 ships and there would be no down-side to high technology.

I agree with DFW and CaptainJack... it is something done for game balance more than realism.

If you don't like it, change it for your game.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, but actually what those tables did (they were all copies of the TCS table) was to figure out how much less you got from low tech or poor quality starports. You got a multiplier to convert everything to TL15, Class-A starport credits.

a quick and dirty way to figure exchange rates and global outputs for taxes, etc.
Not the best way, but very quick.

Simply applying such exchange rates to costs should handle the problem nicely.
The downside is that you have to know something about the world you're building your ship on and something about the world where you are ordering parts from.

 

[DFW]

Agreed. It was done for someones idea of "balance" not, anything to do with reality.

 

[far-trader]

Far Trader... Your assumptions about the setting to not apply to MGT, they have separated the Third Imperium from the Rules (like early CT did).

We'll have to disagree on this point then

IMO the default core rules, of CT and MGT are the ones that suggest a non-inflationary single credit value and long established TL range of production by the very nature of standard basic world generation and equipment lists etc.

Any rules added to introduce a variable value credit by TL and/or cheaper/smaller manufacture of low TL items at higher TL is to me introducing a background element specific to a certain socio-political genre.

 

[AndrewW]

Imperial credits are no good out here. I need something more real.

 

[captainjack23]

Imperial credits are no good out here. I need something more real.

These credits will do fine <waves hand>.......

 

[alex_greene]

Agreed. It was done for someones idea of "balance" not, anything to do with reality.

Exactly. They didn't want player character ship's crews all coming from the Bilstein Yards of Glisten, with uprated Fast Traders with drives the size of shoeboxes putting out 6G and Jump-6 and operating for 300 years on a fuel tank the size of a glass of water, and costing less than a novelist's paycheque to run, basically.
The prices are just a minmaxing munchkin deterrent - which just goes to show how little the designers understood the power of the Broker skill, or the determination of munchkins.

 

[DFW]

which just goes to show how little the designers understood the power of the Broker skill, or the determination of munchkins.

Yep, it could be tricky in CT (spec trading), Broker made it even broker (pun intended) if the GM isn't sharp.

 

[justacaveman]

A possible solution would be to have 2 different tables.

Higher Tech = Lower Cost or Smaller Size.

You would need to have some way of identifying which method you used to construct the ship component though.

 

[AndrewW]

You would need to have some way of identifying which method you used to construct the ship component though.

That's done now, if a higher TL component is used it's noted in the specifications.

 

[justacaveman]

I was more concerned with which method of higher tech you chose, smaller component or cheaper production etc..

You would need a seperate designator for that. If a standard method was decided upon, it would allow the designers to share their designs with less confusion.