Passages x distance: some thoughts on cost.

[Voodoo B Do]

"Train is faster for long range, but costs about the same and is more hassle. "
so all the trains have gone? No... because they were seen to be in the national interest. A strategic asset.

It is entirely possible to make the game mechanics fit together and look good. What for? If there is no rationale for the mechanics then the game loses credibility for realism.

Why does the tax payer in the "free" market have to keep bailing out sinking companies? It is of overall economic interest to someone somewhere that that happens.

Smallship buying subsidy subsidises smallshipbuilding. Passenger subsidy profits the whole Empire including the little man the middle man and the big boys. THAT is how an economy grows from the grass roots without reaching an entropic bust or steady stagnant state boom and bust. (Growth, Decay or Stagnation. in that order.) If the market gets too exclusive an unbridgable gap appears which impedes the movement of currency.

I know i keep pushing this rationale button but it does help to apply real world solutions to the game mechanics. (It is a fractal multiverse we are at the center of )

 

[Voodoo B Do]

"As to the "J1 Empire": In CT, MT, TNE, T4, and T20: the fleets of the navy are all J4-5... with a few at J6... but all the canon merchant designs are J1-J2. In General, speculation needs move no faster. And the last thing an empire wants is the public moving at comm speeds. "

Given that jump speed is the speed of comms the same as passenger speed. I dont see a problem any greater than the ones that face us all here and now real world. Risk is quantifiable, costed and budgeted for whether the business is an empire or a small shop. (The long arm of the law is generally cost effective even though 4 out of 5 serious crimes are gotten away with.) However the J1 Empire is like a Swiss cheese shot through with big holes of wilderness. A bit like an amalgamation of city states with lots of bandit country and harassed peasantry. In those days growth was nearly zero except for conquest which is just banditry on a larger scale. Not really modern Empire and certainly not that safe for Travellers to traverse.

:idea: I think small J3 traders are needed to avoid the Swiss cheese effect !

We got the j1 and J2 and J3 ships but not a reason for having them economically. The economic and security (logistics and tactics) integrity of the empire is a reason to have regular trade off the beaten track. Part of an early warning system too. Your diplomats are not there for you tourists oh no! They are there to facilitate business. Trade agreements of all manner and size. (And to spot nasty little sores developing)

 

[AKAramis]

"Train is faster for long range, but costs about the same and is more hassle. "
so all the trains have gone? No... because they were seen to be in the national interest. A strategic asset.

It is entirely possible to make the game mechanics fit together and look good. What for? If there is no rationale for the mechanics then the game loses credibility for realism.

Why does the tax payer in the "free" market have to keep bailing out sinking companies? It is of overall economic interest to someone somewhere that that happens.

Smallship buying subsidy subsidises smallshipbuilding. Passenger subsidy profits the whole Empire including the little man the middle man and the big boys. THAT is how an economy grows from the grass roots without reaching an entropic bust or steady stagnant state boom and bust. (Growth, Decay or Stagnation. in that order.) If the market gets too exclusive an unbridgable gap appears which impedes the movement of currency.

I know i keep pushing this rationale button but it does help to apply real world solutions to the game mechanics. (It is a fractal multiverse we are at the center of )

You keep pushing one that will be transparent to players (IE, won't matter in game). It solves no issue, since either it's already in the numbers (probably in the financing), and isn't a long-term viable deal.

Freight Trains in the US, except for the Alaska Railroad, are ALL operating on subsidies. AmTrak hasn't made a profit in 20 years. The ARR gets some capital funding, but generally operates in the black. Then again, it goes places trucks can't go in Alaska.

Likewise, trains are kept funded for several reasons: Defense use, large item shipping, and hazmat shipping. But we no longer see private trains for business use. And we are unlikely to see trains return until the energy crisis gets REALLY bad... but that's another reason to keep them.... 300 Ton-Miles per gallon instead of 50-100.

 

[Zowy]

"Train is faster for long range, but costs about the same and is more hassle. "
so all the trains have gone? No... because they were seen to be in the national interest. A strategic asset.

It is entirely possible to make the game mechanics fit together and look good. What for? If there is no rationale for the mechanics then the game loses credibility for realism.

Why does the tax payer in the "free" market have to keep bailing out sinking companies? It is of overall economic interest to someone somewhere that that happens.

Smallship buying subsidy subsidises smallshipbuilding. Passenger subsidy profits the whole Empire including the little man the middle man and the big boys. THAT is how an economy grows from the grass roots without reaching an entropic bust or steady stagnant state boom and bust. (Growth, Decay or Stagnation. in that order.) If the market gets too exclusive an unbridgable gap appears which impedes the movement of currency.

I know i keep pushing this rationale button but it does help to apply real world solutions to the game mechanics. (It is a fractal multiverse we are at the center of )

I used to be a long haul truck driver in the US. At that time ~ 10 years ago, Trains where cheeper and most likely still are. It is the faster and cheeper airplains that have killed off most passenger train travel. In CT they would be the 5Kton cargo ships on the main trade routs, moveing bulk and container cargo.

 

[AKAramis]

"Train is faster for long range, but costs about the same and is more hassle. "
so all the trains have gone? No... because they were seen to be in the national interest. A strategic asset.

It is entirely possible to make the game mechanics fit together and look good. What for? If there is no rationale for the mechanics then the game loses credibility for realism.

Why does the tax payer in the "free" market have to keep bailing out sinking companies? It is of overall economic interest to someone somewhere that that happens.

Smallship buying subsidy subsidises smallshipbuilding. Passenger subsidy profits the whole Empire including the little man the middle man and the big boys. THAT is how an economy grows from the grass roots without reaching an entropic bust or steady stagnant state boom and bust. (Growth, Decay or Stagnation. in that order.) If the market gets too exclusive an unbridgable gap appears which impedes the movement of currency.

I know i keep pushing this rationale button but it does help to apply real world solutions to the game mechanics. (It is a fractal multiverse we are at the center of )

I used to be a long haul truck driver in the US. At that time ~ 10 years ago, Trains where cheeper and most likely still are. It is the faster and cheeper airplains that have killed off most passenger train travel. In CT they would be the 5Kton cargo ships on the main trade routs, moveing bulk and container cargo.

They are only cheaper because of rampant subsidies.

AmTrack operates at a net loss based upon revenues brought in.

So it may be cheaper, but that's not because its cheaper to operate.

 

[Zowy]

"Train is faster for long range, but costs about the same and is more hassle. "
so all the trains have gone? No... because they were seen to be in the national interest. A strategic asset.

It is entirely possible to make the game mechanics fit together and look good. What for? If there is no rationale for the mechanics then the game loses credibility for realism.

Why does the tax payer in the "free" market have to keep bailing out sinking companies? It is of overall economic interest to someone somewhere that that happens.

Smallship buying subsidy subsidises smallshipbuilding. Passenger subsidy profits the whole Empire including the little man the middle man and the big boys. THAT is how an economy grows from the grass roots without reaching an entropic bust or steady stagnant state boom and bust. (Growth, Decay or Stagnation. in that order.) If the market gets too exclusive an unbridgable gap appears which impedes the movement of currency.

I know i keep pushing this rationale button but it does help to apply real world solutions to the game mechanics. (It is a fractal multiverse we are at the center of )

I used to be a long haul truck driver in the US. At that time ~ 10 years ago, Trains where cheeper and most likely still are. It is the faster and cheeper airplains that have killed off most passenger train travel. In CT they would be the 5Kton cargo ships on the main trade routs, moveing bulk and container cargo.

They are only cheaper because of rampant subsidies.

AmTrack operates at a net loss based upon revenues brought in.

So it may be cheaper, but that's not because its cheaper to operate.

I am talking freight trains being a bit cheeper than truck freight, not AmTrack and passengers. My post was kinda muddled........

As for subsidies in general, the infrastrusture costs for truck freight is covered to a large extent by indirect methods. Federal / state road and bridge funds. The gas taxes that fall more heavely on non-comercial cars and not the trucking lines, that are doing the most of the damage to the ageing roads and bridges in the US. But then everyone is allways tring to shift the costs of doing bussiness to someone else :wink:

 

[rust]

Well, many railways outside of the US are doing well, both in the freight
business and the passenger business, and even without any subsidies.
Just remember that the US is only a small part of the world ...

 

[Voodoo B Do]

Most interesting. These examples of real economics show if its broke fix it rationally. I think the old broke system of Trav planets was fun if only for finding some wild reasons for the obscure demographics. I think rationalising the Fictional economic circumstances is more likely to bring an easier fix to the game mechanics by using reality as the model. Fun exploring that model too.
Numbers is not my forté. Though forgotten now i did find differential calculus interesting. Mathematicians have been using different dimensions for a long time.

So what about my utterly intuitive guess of 0.5 to 1k credits per passenger taking x amount of time to be banked? How would that work out?

 

[EDG]

There's a lot of things that could be made more realistic (or at least "more like what a real futuristic economy would be like, not one that's based on the Age of Sail for the heck of it").

Problem is, the Traveller community is irrevocably divided - a significant part of it wants these things to be fixed and changes to be made, and a significant part of it (including, it seems, Marc Miller) don't want these things to be changed.

 

[Voodoo B Do]

I think planetside cargo transport is more likely to be sailing ship and airship for ecological reasons especially on high pop industrial worlds. Otherwise some planets would not have lasted as long as they have in the present Traveller Universe and the Empire would have collapsed far earlier. Expensive airports are not necessary as the airships can float right up to the docking mast at the depo.

 

[Voodoo B Do]

Hello EDG. that last input went in the wrong thread and was not meant as a reply to yours.

The spirit of the game way back when was invent it if you like and that was seen as o.k. by players and presenters alike. Publishers need to get back the idea of an addendum especially when the people who buy these interactive games find a better and easier way for the narrative to develop without stretching credibility too far.

Economic and ecological awareness are growing. Missing these nuts and bolts in the game is going to become more obvious as time goes by.

 

[EDG]

The spirit of the game way back when was invent it if you like and that was seen as o.k. by players and presenters alike. Publishers need to get back the idea of an addendum especially when the people who buy these interactive games find a better and easier way for the narrative to develop without stretching credibility too far.

Economic and ecological awareness are growing. Missing these nuts and bolts in the game is going to become more obvious as time goes by.

While that's true, they're certainly not the only "nuts and bolts" missing (or improperly implemented by modern standards).

But again, it seems that while the desire for change is coming from a significant portion of the fans, Marc Miller doesn't appear to be listening to them. For example, a recent poll on CotI about whether or not the Spinward Marches UWPs should be updated resulted in 2/3rds of the respondents wanting them updated, yet Marc has put his foot down and insists that they remain the same (without even bothering to hear what the changes would be). And this is on the site whose fans tend to be more reactionary and conservative! If the fans can't get through to him on something like that, then the odds are poor that he is going to listen to suggestions to change more fundamental aspects of the game like the economics.

 

[rust]

Frankly, I do not care at all what Marc Miller wants to change or not to
change.

I have spent quite a lot of time and effort to develop my own "realistic"
(as far as SF can be realistic) setting, and if necessary I will once again
modify the Traveller rules until they fit my preferred setting.

In my opinion the rules have to adapt (or be adapted) to the setting, I
do not consider it a useful idea to taylor the setting according to the ru-
les - especially when these rules are less than convincing.

Therefore I see the new Traveller as a kind of "toolbox", where I will
use only the tools I like, and ignore the rest - including an economic mo-
del that (at least in the current version) does, from my point of view,
make no sense at all.

 

[Voodoo B Do]

My view is seeing a rules set as a doctrine is futile. That kind of knuckle whitening grip on a games operating system is a bit silly AND it's a shame to spoil the ship for a ha'p'eth worth of tar.
I wont be buying anymore game systems that are in cloud cuckoo land. Until all the holes in this Swiss cheese are filled with the rationale of what we (our specie) knows better the game will remain on the shelf unbought a waste of paper and pertinently a waste of a far more usefull tree.

I say it again because it is worth saying...

The best science fiction is timeless because it is about the here and now.

Think i'll go back to carwars at least that was funny. :shock: