New CT UWPs and Stats (FINAL!)

[EDG]

Wait. Were does that come from ?

Common sense? If a world has interstellar capability, why would it choose to go all the way to another star system (possibly a few parsecs away) to get stuff that it can get a lot more easily within its own star system (and do it on its own terms too, by establishing colonies on other worlds in the system or the local belt)?

I agree that Ni worlds may be markets, but they HAVE to have something to output - or else why trade with them ?

I'm figuring they'd sell things that are unique to them, possibly cultural (though with less than a million people that's a bit hard to do, but I guess there's plenty of room for art and songs and videos and stuff), possibly unique livestock, crops, curios, etc.

I think actually that PCs won't be on the trade runs between the In and Ag worlds - the big trade companies have that all sewn up. But the Ni worlds are probably ripe markets for the small PC trader because everyone bigger overlooks them.

The Ni worlds are also very good from a setting POV, because Traveller (and a lot of SF games) basically treats each planet like it's a single town - you don't really see a lot more detail. The higher pop worlds are certainly not single towns or cultures, but the Ni worlds are a lot more likely to consist of just a single settlement or close cluster of settlements.

So I think the Ni worlds are prime territory for PC trade and adventure.

 

[captainjack23]

Wait. Were does that come from ?

Common sense? <snip>

Two problems, really:
Traveller is about travel, and interstellar travel, so I'll assume that many raw materials are very unevenly distributed and don't simply represent elemental materials like iron ( very rare elements -transuranics, elemental compounds, biologicals, those weird stable megaatoms, etc etc) plus, stuff gets mined out. Even in a solar system - 3000+ years of industry at all tech levels is likely to both exhaust supply and change demand.

Finally, the whole class of organically derived raw materials may well be absent - and if not, certainly could be exhausted.

The other problem: common sense as an argument; I'm very smart, too, but if we disagree, what does that say ?
I'll admit that I'm uncommon, but not that I'm senseless.

I agree that Ni worlds may be markets, but they HAVE to have something to output - or else why trade with them ?

I'm figuring they'd sell things that are unique to them, possibly cultural (though with less than a million people that's a bit hard to do, but I guess there's plenty of room for art and songs and videos and stuff), possibly unique livestock, crops, curios, etc.

I think actually that PCs won't be on the trade runs between the In and Ag worlds - the big trade companies have that all sewn up. But the Ni worlds are probably ripe markets for the small PC trader because everyone bigger overlooks them.

The Ni worlds are also very good from a setting POV, because Traveller (and a lot of SF games) basically treats each planet like it's a single town - you don't really see a lot more detail. The higher pop worlds are certainly not single towns or cultures, but the Ni worlds are a lot more likely to consist of just a single settlement or close cluster of settlements.

So I think the Ni worlds are prime territory for PC trade and adventure.

Okay. I see what you're getting at. The exports of a Ni world would also include information (science, theory and observation;engineering techniques;designs), art, fashion, entertainment, as well, presumably. Which does imply that there has to be a pretty good return on such stuff, to even create a market.


And, yes, running a freighter from Ag to In does not sound much like adventure to me either.....until the blockade occurs, that is..... :wink:

 

[EDG]

Traveller is about travel, and interstellar travel, so I'll assume that many raw materials are very unevenly distributed and don't simply represent elemental materials like iron ( very rare elements -transuranics, elemental compounds, biologicals, those weird stable megaatoms, etc etc) plus, stuff gets mined out. Even in a solar system - 3000+ years of industry at all tech levels is likely to both exhaust supply and change demand.

Not even remotely - you're sorely underestimating the amount of raw materials present in your average solar system (with the possible exception of biological stuff, but once you get high enough tech to be able to produce all that in vats and chemical factories you don't really need to worry about wiping out the biosphere).

"Physical" materials (minerals, elements, stuff like that) are in fact very evenly distributed in the universe - though I guess the issue is being able to get at the stuff you need. An In world I imagine would have little difficulty accessing any physical raw material it needs, but an Ni world probably would have trouble. The biological and weird stuff that can only be produced in labs obviously aren't distributed evenly though, but I'd guess that most of the In worlds would have places on them or elsewhere in the system that produced that stuff.

The other problem: common sense as an argument; I'm very smart, too, but if we disagree, what does that say ?

I'd say you're just being argumentative - if we're all thinking things through fully to their logical conclusion then we should be in agreement. Yes, there are some specialised materials that In worlds may not have and want from Ni worlds. But the In worlds will certainly have all the common raw materials they need in their own system (and if they don't then I'd have to wonder why anyone thought to build industry there that required such expensive imports for its basic functions).

Okay. I see what you're getting at. The exports of a Ni world would also include information (science, theory and observation;engineering techniques;designs), art, fashion, entertainment, as well, presumably. Which does imply that there has to be a pretty good return on such stuff, to even create a market.

But again, the max population of a Ni world is 9,999,999 people. At the high levels that's enough to have a self-sustaining culture that may gain attention elsewhere, but when you only have a few tens or a few hundred people, is the information and culture that they produce really that valuable? I guess it could be, but I'd expect a greater number of artistic talents in a higher population...

 

[captainjack23]

Traveller is about travel, and interstellar travel, so I'll assume that many raw materials are very unevenly distributed and don't simply represent elemental materials like iron ( very rare elements -transuranics, elemental compounds, biologicals, those weird stable megaatoms, etc etc) plus, stuff gets mined out. Even in a solar system - 3000+ years of industry at all tech levels is likely to both exhaust supply and change demand.

Not even remotely - you're sorely underestimating the amount of raw materials present in your average solar system <snip>

Nah. I'm well aware of that, which is why I wrote "I'll assume". Not, "I assume." Read on.

The other problem: common sense as an argument; I'm very smart, too, but if we disagree, what does that say ?

I'd say you're just being argumentative

High praise from the king ! :wink:

- if we're all thinking things through fully to their logical conclusion then we should be in agreement.<snip.

Unless we're both wrong. In which case logic indicates a third conclusion or a synthesis for resolution. Do you have any metric to determine which of us is failing to think things through fully ? It would be helpful. NOTE: tautologies need not be applied

Please note I'm assuming, with your education, that you're making a joke by quoting logical positivism.

If I'm wrong, we need to talk about somthing else, anything else, please, before we get mired in epistemology.

Okay. I see what you're getting at. The exports of a Ni world would also include information (science, theory and <snip>

But again, the max population of a Ni world is 9,999,999 people. At the high levels that's enough to have a self-sustaining culture that may gain attention elsewhere, but when you only have a few tens or a few hundred people, is the information and culture that they produce really that valuable? I guess it could be, but I'd expect a greater number of artistic talents in a higher population...

[/quote]

To cut to the chase, and to be honest, the real problem I have with your arguments, is not the logic (which works for me) but that I don't like the conclusion as it applies to the RPG.

Your position seems to imply that there is vastly less reason for trade on an instellar scale. Which does make sense, but isn't traveller. What in the name of god would even justify a colony given that situation ? Possibly isolation or exile. Would biological uniques be truly unique to a world ? Or would Tech 15 be able to manufacture any biologic given the right data. Probably.
So. Isolation, exile, and research.

That's one campaign, I guess.

But then, consider this.....
I agree that a solar system has VAST resources, and that part of tech increase is in efficient use, and that any self supporting population will have or be able to provide anything they need to do most things at home. ....which makes a great single system campaign. And which moots most if not all of of the discssion of travel types, hyperpace and planet and star generation.

Plenty of good reasons for exploring and exploiting the system, even settling it. Trade works, as does a wide variety of societies and techs. Sounds a bit like firefly (ignoring the somewhat hard to explain world issues). Will tech 15 researrch obviate the need to study biologicals to find useful products ? Almost certainly. We can bail on lots of handwaves (FTL, possibly gravitics; but also aliens, although we can have geneerers and offshoots)

So....its a fun game, but does that look like traveller ?

 

[EDG]

Unless we're both wrong. In which case logic indicates a third conclusion or a synthesis for resolution. Do you have any metric to determine which of us is failing to think things through fully ? It would be helpful. NOTE: tautologies need not be applied

Please note I'm assuming, with your education, that you're making a joke by quoting logical positivism.

If I'm wrong, we need to talk about somthing else, anything else, please, before we get mired in epistemology.

You may as well have been talking japanese here, for all I understood of that (and no, I don't have any interest in what it actually means). Yes, we may both be wrong, but as I've pointed out before, I'm not interested in just giving up and saying "oh well, we can't know the answer so there's no point in trying to figure out what could happen". Sure, I'm making assumptions, and my assumptions may or may not be better than the ones you or anyone else makes, but as long as they're followed through logically and consistently they can still be used to make a case for something.

Your position seems to imply that there is vastly less reason for trade on an instellar scale. Which does make sense, but isn't traveller.

Newsflash for you - Traveller doesn't make sense, and it never has (at least not until GURPS Traveller came along, and even then that was like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole). The trade rules in GT:Far Trader are realistic and sensible (given that they're actually written by someone with an economic background) but they go against pretty much everything that previous versions of the game stated - but that's the only way to get it to work.

I'm also quite sure that Marc never made anywhere near as rigorous an analysis of the probabilities of world generation and their implications as I've spent the past week doing here. Partly that's undoubtedly because he didn't have access to the computing power we have to day, but it's still caused the game to suffer from nonsensical rules since then.

What in the name of god would even justify a colony given that situation ? Possibly isolation or exile.

Ideological freedom is the biggest reason I think. People just want to get away from their existing societies so they can practise their own morals and ethics without anyone else getting in the way. They may be fleeing persecution, exiled, or just sick of intolerance.

Would biological uniques be truly unique to a world ? Or would Tech 15 be able to manufacture any biologic given the right data. Probably.

Quite probably, yes. But in some cases, maybe the real deal is desirable (why have faux meat when you can have REAL meat?).

But then, consider this.....
I agree that a solar system has VAST resources, and that part of tech increase is in efficient use, and that any self supporting population will have or be able to provide anything they need to do most things at home. ....which makes a great single system campaign. And which moots most if not all of of the discssion of travel types, hyperpace and planet and star generation.

Plenty of good reasons for exploring and exploiting the system, even settling it. Trade works, as does a wide variety of societies and techs. Sounds a bit like firefly (ignoring the somewhat hard to explain world issues). Will tech 15 researrch obviate the need to study biologicals to find useful products ? Almost certainly. We can bail on lots of handwaves (FTL, possibly gravitics; but also aliens, although we can have geneerers and offshoots)

So....its a fun game, but does that look like traveller ?

The problem is that Traveller's never been interested in the rest of the system. And Marc clearly never considered the influence of the other worlds there either. It's true that if STL in-system travel time is longer than a week then you may as well just use a jump drive, and in that case you may as well just use it to get to a different system - but then why not spend a little longer insystem and go to a market on a colony world where you KNOW what they're buying and selling and thus don't have to do any of the speculative stuff that may just end up killing you financially?

But... that's not Traveller. Because Traveller doesn't make sense like that. For better or worse, the assumption is that for some reason people just ignore all the resources they have in their own system and choose to get it elsewhere. You can justify that in the trade rules I guess by setting things up so that it is always cheaper to buy from another system than it is to buy within your own, but then that's clearly a contrivance that doesn't make much sense.

Welcome to Traveller .

 

[captainjack23]

Unless we're both wrong.
<snippedy snip snip>
Please note I'm assuming, with your education, that you're making a joke by quoting logical positivism.

If I'm wrong, we need to talk about somthing else, anything else, please, before we get mired in epistemology.

You may as well have been talking japanese here, for all I understood of that (and no, I don't have any interest in what it actually means). Yes, we may both be wrong, but as I've pointed out before, I'm not interested in just giving up and saying "oh well, we can't know the answer so there's no point in trying to figure out what could happen". Sure, I'm making assumptions, and my assumptions may or may not be better than the ones you or anyone else makes, but as long as they're followed through logically and consistently they can still be used to make a case for something.

Your position seems to imply that there is vastly less reason for trade on an instellar scale. Which does make sense, but isn't traveller.

Newsflash for you - Traveller doesn't make sense, and it never has
<<big snip to keep post shorter>

But... that's not Traveller. Because Traveller doesn't make sense like that. For better or worse, the assumption is that for some reason people just ignore all the resources they have in their own system and choose to get it elsewhere. You can justify that in the trade rules I guess by setting things up so that it is always cheaper to buy from another system than it is to buy within your own, but then that's clearly a contrivance that doesn't make much sense.

Welcome to Traveller .

Okay...so, then we agree ? YAY !

I mean my point was that the most logical argument typically pointed to no real trade, so an over reliance on that line of logic resulted in....well, not traveller. I never have said that traveller made sense, not in an ideal everything adds up 100% -nor do I think it should.

So, sure. Traveller has to make a different kind of sense, and have some base premises that have to be taken as "self evident". Those are fine assumptions to base a traveller system on. Interstellar trade being workable is one of them.

BTW, Sorry about the Japanese....I thought you were intentionally quoting something....a ....well, lets say,overly contentious and very pop philosophy...my mistake 8). And thank god for that..... :wink:

 

[EDG]

So, sure. Traveller has to make a different kind of sense, and have some base premises that have to be taken as "self evident". Those are fine assumptions to base a traveller system on. Interstellar trade being workable is one of them.

Unfortunately only one version of the game does make sense economically (GT: Far Trader), and that provokes hissy fits in grognards. Personally I say screw 'em and use the system that works...

But Traveller has plenty of these nonsensical assumptions in its core. Another thing that is essential to Traveller is the J1 main, and that also doesn't work. The fact is that if you have a bunch of worlds that are J1 apart it does not magically make each one of those worlds a viable trade market - and I've seen this proven in practice when I've made my own sectors. Those worlds have a chance of being crappy, resource-poor, and uninhabitable Na or Ni worlds as well as a chance of being verdant, resource-rich Ag or In worlds - even in the CT system you can roll up one world with pop 8 and the next one in the chain could be pop 1 or uninhabited. And if the next world in the J1 chain is uninhabited, then your J1 isn't going to get you far (and if it's not got a gas giant or anywhere to refuel you're a bit screwed).

But the J1 main is pretty much required (in CT's broken PC trade model), but more often than not you can't get a viable J1 trade Main in practice without manually changing all the UWPs (I've called this "the Myth of the Main").

 

[Zowy]

I think the Jump1 Main is a relic of the Vilani Imperium and the fact that they used mostly Jump 1 ships. If I remember right, it was contact and war with the Solomani that spurred development of higher jump drives.

 

[captainjack23]

Well, yes, but don't forget that the society has had a major reboot and higher drive development. It may have been a requirement for the vilanii, but it has been described as the lifeblood of modern (1116ish) traveller trade.

I have to say it one of those things I always let run in the background, as I have seldom been involved in either side of a merchanting campaign (based around established trade routes,).

I always had the idea in the back of my mind that there were some routes identified as main trade routes in genreated sectors; which suggested that there were mains and trade routes as seperate entities - mains spoke to travel, and trade routs spoke to profit....but I have the sneaking suspicion that I'm incorrect....

 

[pasuuli]

I never thought of it that way, but the Main relating to travel has a ring of truth. Seems to me that a Main relates to subsidized routes, and I guess that's your guarantee of the means of travel.

 

[-Daniel-]

Wow, now that was an interesting read.

Thank You

Daniel

 

[EDG]

Here's a breakdown of the tech and populations for high pop worlds in the CT run (i.e. how many worlds have pop 9 or A and each TL).

CT 250k tech/pop breakdown

Pop A+

0      4
1     14 
2     25 
3     40 
4     46   
5    138   
6    222   
7    389
8    554
9    708
A    831
B    843
C    857
D    713
E    588
F    410
G    274
H    143
J     74
K     11
L      1


Pop 9   

0     81 
1     67 
2     87 
3    266   
4    475   
5    809   
6   1121   
7   1352
8   1658
9   1694
A   1732
B   1397
C   1211
D    840
E    597
F    312
G    146
H     34
J      0
K      0
L      0

 

[rancke]

Unfortunately only one version of the game does make sense economically (GT: Far Trader), and that provokes hissy fits in grognards.

Certainly not in all grognards. I'm all in favor of economic sense. I remember telling Hunter that I was disappointed that he hadn't taken advantage of FT to fix CT's economies for T20. (He replied that the CT system worked. I thought that that was a very good answer. I think he is wrong about it working (I myself have personally helped break it in a long ago campaign), but the fact that he believed that it worked was a good reason for using it).

BTW, I haven't tried it out, but I believe the version in Interstellar Wars works much better. Certainly it has fixed the hole that we used to break the system (max profit on a speculative cargo is 140%, not 300). You may want to look into it.

Personally I say screw 'em and use the system that works...

Agreed.

But Traveller has plenty of these nonsensical assumptions in its core. Another thing that is essential to Traveller is the J1 main, and that also doesn't work. The fact is that if you have a bunch of worlds that are J1 apart it does not magically make each one of those worlds a viable trade market - and I've seen this proven in practice when I've made my own sectors. Those worlds have a chance of being crappy, resource-poor, and uninhabitable Na or Ni worlds as well as a chance of being verdant, resource-rich Ag or In worlds - even in the CT system you can roll up one world with pop 8 and the next one in the chain could be pop 1 or uninhabited. And if the next world in the J1 chain is uninhabited, then your J1 isn't going to get you far (and if it's not got a gas giant or anywhere to refuel you're a bit screwed).

Well, J1 mains don't work for regular trade. You know, the kind of trade established companies engage in. But if free traders jump around in old, obsolescent ships bought at old ship prices, they don't actually need to make a profit on every jump. They can show up on one world, accept cargo for the world two jumps down the chain, and spend two jumps on getting there, collecting less for their two jumps than a regular jump-2 ship would charge for one jump and still make enough money to cover their bank payments. Of course, if they do it too often, they'll only make enough money to scrape by, not enough to put something aside against the inevitable repairs when their jump drive conks out some day in the future.


Hans

 

[EDG]

(reproduced from elsewhere)

For the CT 250k run I've got:

Worlds with size 4-, atm 2-9 (impossible atmospheres): 67128 (26.85%)
Worlds with size 1 or 2, atm 1+ (impossible atmospheres): 23078 (9.23%)
Worlds with atm 0-3/A-C, pop 6+ (horrible atmospheres): 44207 (17.68%)

For starports, I got:

Worlds with Starport A, (Pop 6- and/or Tech 8- ): 31551 (12.62%)
Worlds with Starport B, (Pop 4- and/or Tech 6-): 29403 (11.76%)
Worlds with Starport C, (Pop 2- and/or Tech 3-): 14000 (5.6%)
Worlds with Starport D, (Pop 0 and/or Tech 3-): 5717 (2.29%)
Worlds with Starport X and Tech 9+ : 0 (0%)

So 32.27% of the CT worlds have starports that don't have enough population or technology to support them. Which is rather too many really.

 

[captainjack23]

So 32.27% of the CT worlds have starports that don't have enough population or technology to support them. Which is rather too many really.

I've noted elsewhere about the desirability of discussing this without directly critquing the edg worldgen system. Shall I try ?

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

So 32.27% of the CT worlds have starports that don't have enough population or technology to support them. Which is rather too many really.

I've noted elsewhere about the desirability of discussing this without directly critquing the edg worldgen system. Shall I try ?

Go on, give it a go. I for one would be interested in the results, as this is also one of my major gripes with CT planet generation.

 

[EDG]

I've noted elsewhere about the desirability of discussing this without directly critquing the edg worldgen system. Shall I try ?

Nothing's stopping you. But as I said, the EDG worldgen system is my take on solving the problems I see in CT. If you want to propose an alternative using a different approach then it's probably best to do it in its own thread.

 

[captainjack23]

I've noted elsewhere about the desirability of discussing this without directly critquing the edg worldgen system. Shall I try ?

Nothing's stopping you. But as I said, the EDG worldgen system is my take on solving the problems I see in CT. If you want to propose an alternative using a different approach then it's probably best to do it in its own thread.

Just thread locking, paradigm clashes, and general issues like that. Nothing much

I mention it here as you and I seem to have a very high liklihood of being in such a locked or derailed thread in the past. No fault implied to anyone, just want to avoid it happening more.

You do have what you feel is a finished system, and some very clear limits on what you'll want to hear about it; so I'll take it as obvious that you've launched your boat, and determined that it will sink or sail on its own merit at this point.
I propose a discussion of naval architecture in general, focusing on the SS MGT in particular.

But yes, it will be in its own thread. I'll see what happens.

 

[EDG]

Just thread locking, paradigm clashes, and general issues like that. Nothing much

Well I had nothing to do with the thread getting locked, I was just as surprised as you to see that. But I'm glad they did lock them because I didn't want to have to reply to the same issue over three different threads.

I propose a discussion of naval architecture in general, focusing on the SS MGT in particular.

But yes, it will be in its own thread. I'll see what happens.

Probably best to do that. For better or worse, my system isn't going to be radically changing on the level you want, so you're better off presenting your own alternative as a separate thing.

I'm still going to be tweaking the starports some more in my worldgen system over the next few days anyway.

 

[captainjack23]

Just thread locking, paradigm clashes, and general issues like that. Nothing much

Well I had nothing to do with the thread getting locked, I was just as surprised as you to see that. But I'm glad they did lock them because I didn't want to have to reply to the same issue over three different threads.

I know you didn't personally lock it, nor did I. But I'd bet real money we provided motivation for his decision.

I have decided that partial posts over several thread are a bad idea -an interrupted thread composed of partial posts isn't good either, I think. And I wasn't in aposition to make one huge post -which in any case often gets the TLR response (Too Long: Didn't read). I'll try your model -updating one primary post, then reposting in the future.

I propose a discussion of naval architecture in general, focusing on the SS MGT in particular.

But yes, it will be in its own thread. I'll see what happens.

Probably best to do that. For better or worse, my system isn't going to be radically changing on the level you want, so you're better off presenting your own alternative as a separate thing.

I'm still going to be tweaking the starports some more in my worldgen system over the next few days anyway.

Truth is, you overestimate what I don't like about your system. The tweaks you are providing are generally good (from my point of view, which I'm not suggeting is a priority). What I'm gathering that you didn't want to discuss was
1. high level discussions of the nature or existance of the problems you set out to change, and
2. the mechanisms you used to do that: by which I mean secondary tables, and DRMs.

Fact is, that does tend to be the order of how I critique things -first premise, then context and mechanisms, then actual hard data. Never got to the last part, and very little of the middle. Mostly my fault, as I let myself feel time pressured, and also got tied up in responding to interim issues. Perhaps I should have put more time into considering what you wanted...who knows. Point is, by that point, it became apparent that any more comment was just inflaming, and was no longer going to be useful as feedback.

BTW, this isn't an attempt to kick off a discussion of the nature of or appropriateness of types of feedback, by the way. As I've said, you've floated your boat, so there's not much basic criticism that you are going to use. I had quite a bunch of the prob analysis you said wanted - but I never got to it, because I didn't have time (it seemed) to proof it. Most of it is being recycled in my discussion of MGT anomalies, so not too much of a waste of time there (for me)