Non-Industrial trade code?

EDG

Mongoose
In every previous version of Traveller, the Non-Industrial trade code was applied to any world that had a population of 6- (true for CT, MT, (in TNE it was 1-6, because 0 pop was Barren), and T4) - but in MGT it's defined as pop 4-6 instead.

This changes things a bit, because in previous rules many worlds could be Lo Ni (Low pop = pop 3-) but now those world would just be Lo (but no longer have an actual Ag/In/Na/Ni trade code associated with them).

Is this a deliberate change? It's been like this since the playtest (where I first noticed it).
 
For reference (and discussion purposes only):

MGT: Population 4-6

CT Book 3: Population 6-
CT Scouts: Population 6-
CT Merchant Prince: Population 6-
CT TTB: Population 6-
MT:RM: Population 0-6
TNE: Population 1-6
T4: Population 6-
T20: Population 6-
 
Gruffty the Hiver said:
For reference (and discussion purposes only):

MGT: Population 4-6

CT Book 3: Population 6-
CT Scouts: Population 6-
CT Merchant Prince: Population 6-
CT TTB: Population 6-
MT:RM: Population 0-6
TNE: Population 1-6
T4: Population 6-
T20: Population 6-

It's possible that its one of the areas that changed with T5 & is in MGT for compatibility. I believe the change in the Ri code (no Gov component) is the same.
 
I've noticed a lot of the trade codes are sort of silly in their requirements. This one in particular. I think a non-industrial code would be more for population 1-4 systems, as at those levels the population usually is low enough where they are more concerned with just surviving than making big waves in the industrial markets.

On the other hand, I can see why worlds with type 1 and 2 populations may be considered industrial despite the tiny amount of inhabitants. At those levels it is still likely that a Government type 1 (Corporate/Company) would be present which could explain a population focused around some industry. Still, Govt. Type 1 isn't guaranteed and could just as likely come from population type 1 through 6 (as a population 7 would mean a +0 DM on government type, resulting in a 2 for possible lowest roll).

Has anyone done a more intuitive/upgraded trade code requirement list around here, or would anyone like to put heads together and come up with our own?
 
Woas said:
I've noticed a lot of the trade codes are sort of silly in their requirements.

So have I. Rich and Poor for example aren't even remotely compatible - one is partly defined by population, the other is just physical.


This one in particular. I think a non-industrial code would be more for population 1-4 systems, as at those levels the population usually is low enough where they are more concerned with just surviving than making big waves in the industrial markets.

Yeah, though the Ni/Lo split could actually make some degree of sense - being low pop doesn't necessarily mean that a world has to import all of its industrial goods, it might just be able to make enough to maintain its own needs but not trade any more out to anyone else - unless perhaps it's a colony deliberately supported by offworld donors. Though then quite why being pop 4-6 suddenly means it has to import industrial goods isn't clear, do its factories suddenly stop expanding to support the population??

Has anyone done a more intuitive/upgraded trade code requirement list around here, or would anyone like to put heads together and come up with our own?

Yeah, I proposed some changes in the playtest, that were evidently not used:

Code:
     Ba (Barren):           pop 0, gov 0, law 0, mult 0, tech 0.
     Fl (Fluid Oceans):     atm B,C, hyd 1+.
     In (Industrial):       atm 0-4/7/9/A, pop 8+.
     Na (Non-Agricultural): atm 0-3/A/B, hyd 0-3, pop 6+.
     Ni (Non-Industrial):   pop 1-6.
     Po (Poor):             siz 1-4, atm 0-3/A, pop 1-5.
     Ri (Rich):             siz 7+, atm 4-9, pop 8+
     Va (Vacuum World):     siz 1+, atm 0.
     Op (Oppressive):       law A+.

Ba: Barren needs to have Tech 0 if nobody's there.

Fl: Fluid Oceans must apply to atm B or C only - atm A can have liquid water (as was the early Earth), and D/E/F are breathable and so can have liquid water too.

In: Atm 3 is just as unbreathable as the other types, so why shouldn't it be Industrial too? Also, pop 8+ means we have more Industrial worlds, I don't see why you should need billions of people to qualify as such.

Na: Atm A/B is just as hostile as atm 0-3, so why not use them too?

Ni: Worlds with populations of < 10,000 can be nonindustrial too - most likely they'd be colonies supported by offworld donors.

Po: Poor worlds would now be those that lack physical resources (small worlds), biological resources (non-habitable worlds), and cultural/social resources (low population worlds).

Ri: Poor worlds would now be the opposite of Poor worlds - they have abundant physical resources (larger worlds), biological resources (habitable worlds), and cultural/social resources (high population worlds).

Va: Vacuum Worlds would be defined explicitly as size 1+, so Asteroid Belts wouldn't count as such (they'd still be vacuum by default, but they have their own As trade code).

Op: One I threw in, to warn Travellers that the law level was oppressive (A+). Higher law levels will be more likely to be Amber Zones.
 
Perhaps it makes some sort of sense...

The trade codes are about what that world needs, from a commerce perspective. A Non-Industrial world does not have the capacity to mass-produce various consumer goods and equipment and would need to import these things in quantity to meet demand.

However, if the population is low (1-3) then the demand is also low. Sure, the world would still need to buy their stuff, but not in the quantity that would generate a Ni trade code. Sort of like the Non Agricultural code; it only kicks in with Population 6+. A population 5 Atm 3 Hyd 3 world still isn't growing fields of grain, but the need for imported food isn't sufficient for the Na code.
 
Maedhros said:
The trade codes are about what that world needs, from a commerce perspective.
I think you are right. From a trade perspective, a world with few inhabi-
tants is unlikely to be a market for a shipload of the kind of industrial
goods a free trader would try to sell on a non-industrial world.
 
rust said:
Maedhros said:
The trade codes are about what that world needs, from a commerce perspective.
I think you are right. From a trade perspective, a world with few inhabi-
tants is unlikely to be a market for a shipload of the kind of industrial
goods a free trader would try to sell on a non-industrial world.

Keep in mind it is also a rating of what they don't need. Coals to newcastle and all that (and aphorisms to germany, it seems.:) ).

But, yes. I agree; trade codes are just that. Not planetary or social descriptors, which is often what they are criticised for not being. Still, changing them if you don't like them is always an option, but from experience with running quite a few numbers in the playtest (and before then, too -I'm a loser, I admit) make sure you feel you understand the descriptions and don' t be surprised about big changes coming from seemingly small modifications. As an example, moving the In code to include pop 8 actually doubles the number of In worlds -and look at the trade tables and see what that does especially if it creates to many In worlds near ideal trading partners.

Theres some pretty detailed and number crunched discussions specific to MGT on this board - about a year ago, during the playetest -search for "trade" or something like that.

Just my 2Cr, which, when used to buy industrial parts........
 
Some trade codes are economic descriptors (Na/Ni/Ag/In), some are physical descriptors (like As, Va, Wa, De), and some are social (Hi, Lo) - but all of those have some influence on the trade rules, even though not all of them are related to the world's economy.
 
Back
Top