Interstellar Shipping Question

Yes, because renting is paying for. It's not free? So the shipper has to 1) pay a megafreighter to ship their goods to the highport, then pay to store goods in the highport until they can be put on a cargo shuttle to the surface, then pay the shuttle to the downport. This has to compare favorably to shipping the goods on a smaller freighter that can go straight to the downport. IF the megafreighter costs enough less *to the shipper* than the streamlined freighter direct to the downport, this will work. That is not how trade rules work in Traveller, but those don't actually make any sense anyway. :D So the GM can make up a situation where that's true. But they can also make up a situation where that is not true. It will not be the same from system to system, because the relative costs of orbital vs ground based infrastructure will vary considerably based on what the planet is like.

Regarding Regina, I guess you just have a different map than I do. Regina has *two* class B starports within Jump 4 of it (not in the Regina subsector, btw :p). The coreward "top" of the subsector does have a decent number of A & B starports, but except for Efate, Alell (an amber zone), and Feri, they are all low population.

Uakye and Boughene are less populated than Luxembourg. Pixie might conceivably have fewer residents than a megafreighter has passengers & crew. Kinorb is about the population of Wisconsin. Yres and Heya actually have pops approaching the USA. A large jump 3 vessel operating from Efate probably has enough bilateral trade partners to be feasible. There's no practical way for Regina to do large freighter trade with those coreward worlds as there is a wasteland of D & E ports between them. If you decide that Roup's actually got a substantial high port despite being class C, an Amber Zone, and Tech 7, it is a bit more feasible.

The megafreighter thing assumes a level of infrastructure that the Traveller rules do not. A Class B starport per the rules only has an 8+ on 2d6 of having a significant high port. A class C is a 10+. You can (and maybe even should) ignore that. The fiction descriptions of Charted Space suggest a lot of space trade, but the mapped world data doesn't align with that. Personally, I'd fix the infrastructure to match the supposed high level of trade and/or use Jump Ferries to move non jump freighters around. But that's just what I would do. I am not under the impression that it is the one true way to do it.

Again, you can decide that interstellar shipping is so cost effective that even Planet Luxembourg is getting megafreighters' worth of cargo regularly.
You can decide that class C starports are equipped to handle megafreighters. Do what's fun for your game, obviously.
Okay, High Guard (2022) has a few examples of larger freighters, if you want numbers let's put them in Far Traders (53 MCr, 63 tons cargo).

The Galika Megula megafreighter was used by the 1st Imperium to run cargo to planets that couldn't be trusted with their own Jump drives. Even then they had Jump-2 drive so Far Traders are an apt comparison. It displaces 200,000 tons in total, costs 3.26 billion credits (616 x that of a Far Trader), but has 136,882.5 tons of cargo space (2,172 Far Traders). That's a savings of almost 1:4 right there. And it's designed to skim gas giants so you could take out the 1,000 ton fuel processor that costs as much as a Far Trader for even more space if you had highports at both ends of the route.
I'm not going to do the math of converting the spheroid hull to distributed.

While the Mk Mora Cargo Carrier is specifically designed for shipping between A and B ports in the Spinward Marches, has a Jump-4 drive, 1,100 tons of cargo space (17x a Far Trader) and costs 1011 MCr (19 Far Traders), a bit pricier than a fleet of Far Traders but it has a speed advantage and can cross larger gulfs.
 
Sure, like I said, you as the GM need to decide what end result you want (in your case, that appears to be megafreighters) and retroactively add the elements necessary to support it. Such as refueling stations and other orbital infrastructure in systems that technically don't have them. That's what I've been saying all a long.
 
Last edited:
Since Traveller tends to be based on no surprise technological disruptors, long term import/export contracts would likely prevail, speedbumped by protectionist policies.
 
Sure, like I said, you as the GM need to decide what end result you want (in your case, that appears to be megafreighters) and retroactively add the elements necessary to support it. Such as refueling stations and other orbital infrastructure in systems that technically don't have them. That's what I've been saying all a long.
The problem you guys and Myself are always having is with the system itself. Starports are broken down into Classes A through E or X and no Starport makes no sense in the way they are classified. (except Class X) There is no difference between a Class A and a Class B Starport, except for Starship Building Capabilities. What size they are, volume of traffic that they are expected to handle, the amount of warehouse space, the amount of living quarters, the general "Quality of Life" of that Starport. Until Mongoose's HG came out and set general limits on what is counted as minimums for each level of classification, I could build a 1,000 Dton space station that can build 1 - 100Dton Scout Ship every few years and now that is considered a "Class A Starport" (Yes I know that there are political calculations as well for what is and is not classified as a Starport and not a Spaceport).

It is My belief that the entire classification structure for Starports/Spaceports needs to be reworked into something actually useful to Traveller players and referees. The refined fuel/unrefined fuel availability is no longer ever really a thing. Buy unrefined and refine it on the way to the jump point. Almost every ship would have a refinery on board, especially since it can be used to purify water for drinking as well.

Back to My point, What is the difference between a Class-A and a Class-B Starport? Some guy in his garage (200 ton Constuction Bay) building custom ships or a 2GTon megafreighter shipyard? They both would be classified as Class-A.

Starport classifications need to have some nomenclature for trade volume, berthing space, max ship ship possible, station size, station TL, etc. This is by no means an exhaustive list of needed information, but it is a start.

I mean, We could keep it simple, as it is now, but to Me, that feels like having only 5 classifications of guns in the game; handgun ,long gun, crew-portable, vehicle weapon, and spaceship weapon. Imagine trying to play this game with those as your only choices with no differentiation between, slug throwers and energy weapons, between guided weapons and ballistic weapons, kinetic impact weapons or explosive weapons.

Any discussion of interstellar shipping, has to start with infrastructure and Traveller has not given Us the tools to describe the infrastructure in any actually meaningful and useful way. If Mongoose wants to fix this in a book primarily focused on Trade and Infrastructure, that would be great, but until then, this conversation is kind of like beating a dead horse., since there is no way for Us to gain the information that We need without each individual referee homebrewing everything. lol
 
Yup. The game is designed around what is necessary to make a backwater high adventure region for space opera rapscallions to kick around in. It doesn't put any effort into how the regular merchant spacer corps work, because players aren't expected to be following established trade routes with scheduled freight loads and all that. And the game's systems were all written with an ethos of "the referee will want to make the universe their own".

Obviously, Charted Space has expanded enormously from the days of The Imperial Fringe and one could easily argue that a lot of that fuzzy data should be locked down for that specific setting, the way such details are more focused in 2300, for example. But the game has always had a problem distinguishing between the general rules set (Traveller) and the specific setting (Charted Space).

I'm fine with the fact that the rules of Traveller don't explicitly spell out out all the details, because I like the flexibility to give different answers to questions without having to rewrite the rules. I enjoy discussions like this because I'm not looking for a 'one true way it works', but rather looking at
all the ways it could work and what parameters the GM should consider for different answers.

If you want huge freighters jumping from system to system, one should add certain kinds of infrastructure to allow it. On the other hand, if you like the relatively sparse space infrastructure implied by the prevalence of low end starports, you build your large tradeships differently. Something more like LASh or the merchant equivalent of battle riders.

Traveller doesn't even generally tell you how developed a star system is. Personally, I'm a fan of having secondary colonies, moon bases, and space stations all over the place. Traveller gives us the tools to do that, but doesn't actually create that by default. Your choice of answers to economic questions should be different if your system has substantial colonies in the Asteroid belt and on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn than if Earth is the only place "trade" happens (with just the equivalent of delivery trucks going to the small outposts, if any exist).

Some people like that vagueness, some people hate it, and some people don't even notice it because the missing details aren't relevant to how they play. Reminds me of a quote from early 80s Traveller books that mentioned that an fanzine reviewer commented that they wouldn't play in a game that didn't have a developed setting and the editor put in a parenthetical comment that they wouldn't play in one that did. :D
 
Yup. The game is designed around what is necessary to make a backwater high adventure region for space opera rapscallions to kick around in. It doesn't put any effort into how the regular merchant spacer corps work, because players aren't expected to be following established trade routes with scheduled freight loads and all that. And the game's systems were all written with an ethos of "the referee will want to make the universe their own".

Obviously, Charted Space has expanded enormously from the days of The Imperial Fringe and one could easily argue that a lot of that fuzzy data should be locked down for that specific setting, the way such details are more focused in 2300, for example. But the game has always had a problem distinguishing between the general rules set (Traveller) and the specific setting (Charted Space).

I'm fine with the fact that the rules of Traveller don't explicitly spell out out all the details, because I like the flexibility to give different answers to questions without having to rewrite the rules. I enjoy discussions like this because I'm not looking for a 'one true way it works', but rather looking at
all the ways it could work and what parameters the GM should consider for different answers.

If you want huge freighters jumping from system to system, one should add certain kinds of infrastructure to allow it. On the other hand, if you like the relatively sparse space infrastructure implied by the prevalence of low end starports, you build your large tradeships differently. Something more like LASh or the merchant equivalent of battle riders.

Traveller doesn't even generally tell you how developed a star system is. Personally, I'm a fan of having secondary colonies, moon bases, and space stations all over the place. Traveller gives us the tools to do that, but doesn't actually create that by default. Your choice of answers to economic questions should be different if your system has substantial colonies in the Asteroid belt and on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn than if Earth is the only place "trade" happens (with just the equivalent of delivery trucks going to the small outposts, if any exist).

Some people like that vagueness, some people hate it, and some people don't even notice it because the missing details aren't relevant to how they play. Reminds me of a quote from early 80s Traveller books that mentioned that an fanzine reviewer commented that they wouldn't play in a game that didn't have a developed setting and the editor put in a parenthetical comment that they wouldn't play in one that did. :D
I am not talking about the setting in My answer. I am strictly discussing that the mechanic for describing a Starport currently is good for almost nothing. If the mechanic were there you could run and describe your game however your wished without having to create new rules. All the mechanic does is describe the Starport. It says nothing about the rest of the system, although, I think that We need a workable metric for that as well. To be able to have a quick rules system, like the Planetary Code to describe a system. (population, avg TL, inhabited worlds, and some other stuff I can't seem to think of at the moment.) This way as a Referee, I have a quick way to know which systems have what as far as general attributes go. This way IMTU, I can make whatever alterations that I need to in the setting, without having to write a new system of rules. I can also use this same "System Code" to create systems from scratch in a homebrew TU.
 
That's pretty much my view of the entire UWP. That's why there's an entire book just on making it less vague and barely helpful. I feel that TL is worse than Starport, personally. At least Starport tells you something concrete, even if inadequate.

There have been a few attempts at publishing a more comprehensive starport system. They are okay, but they don't answer the kinds of questions we've been talking about. They tend to be "what do the player characters see" type books.
 
 
Starports, from MgT 1e?

Haven’t looked at it in quite a while but it went into detail about facilities, wait times for refuelling and unloading, etc etc
I read it, what it didn't give Us is a new system of nomenclature to more accurately describe the Starport that is easy to simply glance at and have a rough idea of what the Starport is, like the UWP Code. What it did give Us was a bunch of random crap that doesn't interact in any meaningful way with any of the other books that Mongoose puts out. It is fine for what it is, a standalone book about what players may find in a Starport, but it is crap if you want to combine this information with any other Mongoose product. As an example, if you build a large mining/refining ship with High Guard, and then use it as a spaceport, none of the information in the Starports book can help you, because none of the stuff in Starports is compatible with any other rules. This is more of a headache for Me as a Referee doing worldbuilding than as a player.
 
So are you after a USA code - universal starport authority.

How many parameters?

Number of highports, number of downports, fuel available, spaceship construction, starship construction, maintenance, accommodation, shopping, medical facilities...
 
So are you after a USA code - universal starport authority.

How many parameters?

Number of highports, number of downports, fuel available, spaceship construction, starship construction, maintenance, accommodation, shopping, medical facilities...
Something exactly like that, yes. Something like the 7 digit UWP Code.
 
A starport UWP seems, to me at least, excessively limiting. I'm ok with the amorphous concept of a "Class A" starport and you'd expect top-notch facilities to be present - but not necessarily a shipyard (I think starports and shipyards should be decoupled). And you could have a relatively small Class A port that handles yachts, private shuttles, etc, and a Class A port that handles 500 liners a year.

The UWP puts a bit of a limit on things. I think ports are really more to be handled by some basic stats (MAYBE a UWP, but that's possibly going to be too constricting) and then text describing what that particular port is all about. This doesn't do well in the random rolls making up a port, but adventures really need more backstory data if the location in question is actually going to be a backdrop to the play. If your players are just passing through on to other adventures then Class A to Class X is meaningless.

So the questions really come down to what kind of statistics do you want to cover in a bare-bones description? The game map has Class A starports in places where they should not exist based upon the amount of passenger and freight traffic that could be routed through them - without all the necessary infrastructure to support such a place then a Class A shipbuilding port shouldn't exist, or else trying to explain why requires far too many mental gyrations and dodging of logic potholes to justify it.

Worlds that are high tech, hi-pop and industrialized are going to have many, many starports (and spaceports) down there. "Main" ports gets to be a silly statement because there isn't any one "main" that would logically make sense for basically all worlds. Sure, some are going to want to put them in the planetary capital to call it "main", but today you have many nations with ultra-busy airports that aren't in the capitals (and more than a few are). Earth would be a balkanized world so in those cases how would you classify any main port? If you took the US as a world, the DC airport is absolutely NOT the largest or fanciest one there is. If you took London Heathrow you could argue the opposite. Or places like Doha, or Qatar. It's all over the map for different reasons.

Complicated systems don't always help things out, but sometimes they do. (shrug)
 
A starport UWP seems, to me at least, excessively limiting. I'm ok with the amorphous concept of a "Class A" starport and you'd expect top-notch facilities to be present - but not necessarily a shipyard (I think starports and shipyards should be decoupled). And you could have a relatively small Class A port that handles yachts, private shuttles, etc, and a Class A port that handles 500 liners a year.

The UWP puts a bit of a limit on things. I think ports are really more to be handled by some basic stats (MAYBE a UWP, but that's possibly going to be too constricting) and then text describing what that particular port is all about. This doesn't do well in the random rolls making up a port, but adventures really need more backstory data if the location in question is actually going to be a backdrop to the play. If your players are just passing through on to other adventures then Class A to Class X is meaningless.

So the questions really come down to what kind of statistics do you want to cover in a bare-bones description? The game map has Class A starports in places where they should not exist based upon the amount of passenger and freight traffic that could be routed through them - without all the necessary infrastructure to support such a place then a Class A shipbuilding port shouldn't exist, or else trying to explain why requires far too many mental gyrations and dodging of logic potholes to justify it.

Worlds that are high tech, hi-pop and industrialized are going to have many, many starports (and spaceports) down there. "Main" ports gets to be a silly statement because there isn't any one "main" that would logically make sense for basically all worlds. Sure, some are going to want to put them in the planetary capital to call it "main", but today you have many nations with ultra-busy airports that aren't in the capitals (and more than a few are). Earth would be a balkanized world so in those cases how would you classify any main port? If you took the US as a world, the DC airport is absolutely NOT the largest or fanciest one there is. If you took London Heathrow you could argue the opposite. Or places like Doha, or Qatar. It's all over the map for different reasons.

Complicated systems don't always help things out, but sometimes they do.
This should probably over on the new thread for Starports... :p I have accidentally hijacked this thread enough.

Although I will say that, an amorphous description for a Starport is about as useful as an amorphous ship stat block

Also for the record, that is what a UWP is, a basic set of stats.
 
Lots of the question posed in this thread is covered in the World Builder Handbook. Which has a system for determining the level of trade a world get which in turn help with the size of both the StarPort and if present the Highport. It also points out that not every class A or B StarPort has a Highport. Another thing is if the system has an imperial Navy or Scout base they will be connected to the planets StarPort or Highport primary because that is imperial territory. If even points out the terrific’s are very uncommon in the imperium because one of the core components of the imperium is free trade.
 
Back
Top