Passages x distance: some thoughts on cost.

[captainjack23]

I generally agree about the issue of spec vs freight. Not sure how extreme the difference should be, though. Lots of the features of the OTU and the implied universe suggest that a significant amount of planned (ie not spec) trading has to occur.

Though, from the players perspective, they will be less involved in this planned/contract trade (unless they get good steady safe jobs with a shipping line......how likely is that :wink: ?) . So, they will have more of the spec side in front of them - and the cargo that's available for that (and freight) the is most likely to be excess or last minute loads not accounted for by regular shipping.

So, having argued myself back to the original premise regarding spec vs freight, I'll will suggest suggest that the freight lots only have to be considered a fraction of what would likely exist; and the spec lots similarly considered -but with more available than freight.

So, yes, a hi pop industrial tech 15 planet may only have a few tons available - for the players. O this planet, for this week, the merchant marine is very efficient, and the brokers too -this is what missed the boat (the boat being the .5 gigaton freighter that just left).

And yes, I'd have the available lots change every week for this reason. A sudden giant surplus (great roll, blazingly good effect) could be because a ship is late, and brokers have no interest in waiting to get the synthicaf bean harvest moving...., and the captain knows a guy (who knows a guy, who has this dude who owes him a favor in charge of the ministry of trade...)

One thing. I read the spec trading rules.....am I correct that there is no limit to any of the spec lots available ? It looks like once a proce has been determined, the trader can just start shovelling until his hold is full ?

Thats gotta be changed.

That said, I'm thinking that the limits should be similar to the freight lots (perhaps d6 x100;d6x10; d6 x 1)xtons; which size per lot either randomly determined, or effected by the effect roll of the trader seeking lots.


I'm not sure how much it is needed to try and balance the lots by type - given that these are the spot loads, they may represent partial lots that overfilled the regular freight hull or lots that came up too short (profit or space) to be worthwhile for the megafreighters to lift.

So, there are probably d6x1000 and 10000 dTon lots - they just aren't available or practical for character traders.

Additionally, looking at the available cargo (freight and spec) can allow less worry about destination/source interactions....a smaller sample of the cargos will be much less reflective of the actual trade - so, as long as theres lots of variance in what the players may get, balancing isn't as much of an issue (particulalry using a basic model for the basic version of te game)



Some lots perhaps should be small - do we want 600 tons of diamonds or scifi gem equiv ? So, they'd use the above ranges (d6x100,d6x10,etc) but in cubic meters instead of dtons ;perhaps even Kg for lots that will never fill even one container or subcontainer

Most of the small lots seem to specialty goods in any case -limited to specific trade codes, so probably just having some as size S and the rest unchanged should do without stretching credulity too much ("you bought six-hundred displacement tons of TL15 micro cpu chips....and then sold them ? all as one lot ?...thats it, I quit ")

Speaking of which, standard containers: from several campaigns, and my own , this seems to work well with the basic freight and mail lot sizes, which one assumes are sealed and point to point shipping.

Bulk =100dton
Standard =5ton
Small = 1ton
subcontainer = 1/10 dton (1.4 cubic meters) (the mid passage allowance for luggage, I believe)

 

[captainjack23]

So, I'm thinking hat the best places to alter the spec rules are modifying the availablilty, and limiting the lots.

One possibility is to go to 2d-7 for number of lots, and add the TI as a modifier.

Limiting the sizes of the lots is still a bit vague in my head, but I'm thinking of somthing like:


For each lot, roll 2d6-7 + TI

2-6 1d6 x1dT
7-9 1d6x 10dT
10-13 1d6x100dT
14+ 1d6x1000dT

which means that the upper level TI values will mostly be in 100 &1000dT lots...not sure if that works. The lower end makes sense, cavemen may make tradable goods (art) but not in industrial lots. Possibly shifting the table up a bit ?


An alternative would be to use 2d6 -7 + TL/2 for lots and the 2d6 table above with POP/2 as the mod.

(High tech produces a greater variety, pop contiributes to how much - the last is odd, but its how military levels are figured, so why not..)

Thoughts ?

Obviously I need to test the results against the ship sizes to see if its still possible to fill a hold with platinum on spec.....

Thoughts ?

 

[captainjack23]

Another version after a days mulling over the speculative trade rules:

make it more consistent with the freight table.

Assume that both spec and freight are the spot market - mainly leftovers and late arrivals. Works if the system is explicitly identified as being aimed at characters as small opportunistic carriers. (classic tramp freight)

Use the TI table from Aramis (above): for any planet TI = (Sqrt(pop * Tech) + 1d6-3)

[The variable dice (1d6-3) for initial TI allows for some variance due to planets being more or less productive, diversified, and /or unusually resource rich. I'd also optionally suggest that it not be rolled till the players get there (the base pop*Tech is in the traders guide book) which allows for assumption of cyclic production, trade booms and failures & screwing with players heads and pocketbooks. you'll get some oddities, the TI 1 planet suddenly jumping to 4, for instance, but write those off to an oil strike/dotcom boom or some such ]

use 1d6 -3 +TI for total lots available.
[Don't want too many lots, but also some variability -plus, only the worst planets should have the potential for no lots.]

Important: as with freight, available lots work as in freight & can't be broken up for purchase. Unlike freight, they have no set destination, and can be broken up for sale at the new owners discretion.

assumption: these are the lots of commodities on the quayside, or in brokers warehouses -they are containerized and ready to go -generally terms are as delivered to docking bay; cost includes container, which are owner openable.
Stuff, in custom lots, probably requiring transport and packing, seem more of a event-driven roleplaying issue.

determine the actual contents of the lots as in MGT 3.2 (d66);
one change needed:allow repeat rolls to stay - but roll lot size separately for each.

use the following tables for the size determinant (remember - we are dealing only with player size loads):

some goods will be defined as small lots: -3 to size. any result below 0 is in lots of d6 x1/10 dTon (1.4 cubic Meters).

roll 1d6
0-    = d6 x 1/10dTon
1,2,3 = d6x1 ton
4,5    = d6x10 ton
6-7    = d6x100 ton
8+     = d6x1000 ton

+2 if TI 12+
+1 if TI 9-11
-1 if TI  3-5
-2 if TI  2-
-3 if designated as small lot

I'm tempted to add bulk lots (+5) , but anything at all in the 1000dTon range is likely out of range for the players hold space. To some extent, I included that as a booby prize for hight TI worlds -their leftovers are pretty damn big, often as not.

For the mods to the size table break points are vaguely: high stellar+(TI 12+) space using (TI 9-11), basically not industrialized (TI 3-5) and primitive (TI 0-2)
Assumptions: primitives(TI 0-2) have either very little, or very small hand made lots of interest. not industrialized planets (not necc the trade code rather TI 3-5) , seldom produce big lots of much anything due too either small population, or low tech.
Space using planets (TI 9-11)are integrated into the imperial economy and standardized trade habits, and high stellar + (TI 12+) just plain has easy mass production of anything. (note that for a TI of 12, the minimum is 10 pop, 14 tech; for a 13, the minimums are 16 tech, 10 pop.)

The non modified TI range (6-8 ) represents the backwaters that don't produce much for trade, or are just starting to get integrated into the economy.


determine final price per lot as in spec trade rules in MGT 3.2

-keeping in mind that the amounts are not open ended.

Find yerself a sucker.

 

[AKAramis]

To be honest, I was presuming that the trade flows are almost exclusively spot market kind of trade, as that's the age of sail model... and that's the closest historical fit to the commo lag issues of the OTU.

 

[rancke]

I know this is very last minute, but how about an event-driven trade system?

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and here are a slightly more specific suggestion.

Start by describing the difference between most freight and passenger traffic (= regular traffic) and the traffic PCs are engaged in (free traders). Regular traffic are done by companies who buy ships from new and run them back and forth on specific routes, with factors on various worlds lining up passengers and cargo beforehand. This means that their ships can start loading and embarking as soon as they've unloaded and disembarked and be on their way again. Such ships can manage a jump every ten days or so, on the average AND jump with most of their capacity utilized (I usually calculate with 90% utilization). Obviously being able to do 35 jumps per year improves their profitability.

Free traders fly about in 40+ year old ships worth 25% of original cost or less. Thus their bank loans are smaller and their monthly payments smaller. However, they have other problems. Not having a factor to line up cargo and passengers, they have to spend more time at each stop to scrounge up something to carry (5-6 days is the traditional figure). And a lot of the traffic a world generates is being sucked up by the factors who work for the regular companies. So free traders live on the 'crumbs' that fall between the cracks in the system.

Still, because of the lower bank payments, the operating expenses of free traders would enable them to underbid the regular ships if it wasn't for one thing, namely the reason why 40 year old ships are only worth 25% of new price: The systems are old and worn and could break down any time. When that happens, free traders need money to pay for repairs and to tide them over while the repairs are being done (during which time they're obviously not making any money carrying freight and passengers).

Basically, a free trader is betting that he can make enough money to pay for repairs before something expensive breaks down. Those who win that bet retire in comfort or go on to found fledgling lines (and we all know what happens to nine out of ten fledgling lines, don't we? :wink: )

Then concentrate on the things that happen to the PCs while they're trying to make ends meet. If you want to include the Merchant Game, by all means do so, but if you're interested in roleplaying, you should emphasize the things that happens over and above the merchant bits. As I said earlier, +4 brokers who aren't, suppliers who try to palm off shoddy goods, customs officers who need to be bribed, adventures that happen while the ship is having something fixed, etc.

A side note about the Merchant Game: I suggest you use the one from Interstellar Wars (I trust there won't be any copyright problems (?)). While I haven't tried it out, it fixes at least one big hole (one I myself used to mess, very successfully, with one referee's campaign, long ago) and the goods you can roll up actually reflects the die modifiers you apply to the rolls (something the original CT version didn't).



Hans

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Regarding the use of the TI, that 1D-3 variation should also be modifiable (and mentioned in the text) based on the worlds' location within the subsector/sector/polity.

If the planet straddles the trade line between two excellent trading partners, it might get a +1 DM just due to all the stuff passing through it's port (think trade port). OR, you could give it a -1 DM due to the world being passed over by the big ships travelling between those two worlds.

If you are dealing with a small pocket empire, maybe the TI of all the worlds within it are given a +1, with a -1 DM on those worlds outside the borders.

Should the Trade Index be part of the UWP provided for each world? I realize it is a calculated number, so doesn't have to be, but for published subsectors/worlds, it would be nice to have all that kind of data done up for you.

 

[Zowy]

I know this is very last minute, but how about an event-driven trade system?

I've been thinking about this for a few days, and here are a slightly more specific suggestion.

Start by describing the difference between most freight and passenger traffic (= regular traffic) and the traffic PCs are engaged in (free traders). Regular traffic are done by companies who buy ships from new and run them back and forth on specific routes, with factors on various worlds lining up passengers and cargo beforehand. This means that their ships can start loading and embarking as soon as they've unloaded and disembarked and be on their way again. Such ships can manage a jump every ten days or so, on the average AND jump with most of their capacity utilized (I usually calculate with 90% utilization). Obviously being able to do 35 jumps per year improves their profitability.

Free traders fly about in 40+ year old ships worth 25% of original cost or less. Thus their bank loans are smaller and their monthly payments smaller. However, they have other problems. Not having a factor to line up cargo and passengers, they have to spend more time at each stop to scrounge up something to carry (5-6 days is the traditional figure). And a lot of the traffic a world generates is being sucked up by the factors who work for the regular companies. So free traders live on the 'crumbs' that fall between the cracks in the system.

Still, because of the lower bank payments, the operating expenses of free traders would enable them to underbid the regular ships if it wasn't for one thing, namely the reason why 40 year old ships are only worth 25% of new price: The systems are old and worn and could break down any time. When that happens, free traders need money to pay for repairs and to tide them over while the repairs are being done (during which time they're obviously not making any money carrying freight and passengers).

Basically, a free trader is betting that he can make enough money to pay for repairs before something expensive breaks down. Those who win that bet retire in comfort or go on to found fledgling lines (and we all know what happens to nine out of ten fledgling lines, don't we? :wink: )

Then concentrate on the things that happen to the PCs while they're trying to make ends meet. If you want to include the Merchant Game, by all means do so, but if you're interested in roleplaying, you should emphasize the things that happens over and above the merchant bits. As I said earlier, +4 brokers who aren't, suppliers who try to palm off shoddy goods, customs officers who need to be bribed, adventures that happen while the ship is having something fixed, etc.

A side note about the Merchant Game: I suggest you use the one from Interstellar Wars (I trust there won't be any copyright problems (?)). While I haven't tried it out, it fixes at least one big hole (one I myself used to mess, very successfully, with one referee's campaign, long ago) and the goods you can roll up actually reflects the die modifiers you apply to the rolls (something the original CT version didn't).



Hans

This is the type of Traveller games my group plays, most of the time. Old ships, that they spend way to much time and money keeping going. Doing all those non-tradeing things ( adventures ) to make the extra money needed. The big shipers leave very few "crumbs" for the little guys on the main trade routes and can spend the money to get a virtual monopoly on feeder routes. If there is enough high profit, rare trade goods to make it worth their time.

 

[captainjack23]

Regarding the use of the TI, that 1D-3 variation should also be modifiable (and mentioned in the text) based on the worlds' location within the subsector/sector/polity.

If the planet straddles the trade line between two excellent trading partners, it might get a +1 DM just due to all the stuff passing through it's port (think trade port). OR, you could give it a -1 DM due to the world being passed over by the big ships travelling between those two worlds.

If you are dealing with a small pocket empire, maybe the TI of all the worlds within it are given a +1, with a -1 DM on those worlds outside the borders.

Should the Trade Index be part of the UWP provided for each world? I realize it is a calculated number, so doesn't have to be, but for published subsectors/worlds, it would be nice to have all that kind of data done up for you.

Good stuff...


As to the Uwp, at this point, I'd say no. Its easy to calculate as needed, and since at least one worldbook would be guaranteed not to have it at this point (MJT Spinward) lets not start canon arguments before it exists..... :lol:

 

[captainjack23]

Its easy to calculate as needed,

I should note that unless aramis has any serious problems, I'm going to change the TI calculation to (TL+POP)/2 ....same result as the squared function, looks less scary, and it doesn't elim tech 0 worlds from trade.

Aramis ?

 

[captainjack23]

Okay, back to the cause of the topic: Passage costs.

Over the weekend I've decided on a two level approach to making it profitable and worthwhile to carry passengers over freight.

So, to begin.

Main problems with passenger travel as in 3.2 MGT
1. Its a loss compared to all other kinds of cargo and freight.
2. Typically passenger profit needs to have a substantially higher margin than cargo to be worth the extra trouble (cargo doesn't snore, sing, argue politics, practice the electocordian, talk back, demand better food, get sick, sue the captain, or hijack the ship)

So, the goal is to make it profitable both in terms of the basic freight costs, and then some.

I'm using freight largely as presented in 3.2, and the above CaptainJack/Aramis trade model for spec trades as profit comparison.


Suggestions for profitable pasengers:

Increase the passengers per steward.
I'd suggest at a minimum that a steward should be able to handle (level +1 )*2 high passage passengers. with a minimum of one level 1 steward on the crew. lev 0 stewards are basically porters, maid service and cabana boys. They need a manager & the ship needs a purser as a minimum.

Count Mid passengers as 1/4 a passanger each. (round up if needed - make those S/C work if they want to have passangers).
In most cases, stewards should double bunk.


Assuming a steward 2 supporting 6 passengers, we have income of 36000 Cr for 24 tons + 2 tons (steward will half bunk); ignoring overhead, a bit.

we get 36000 for 25 tons for 1.36 kCr per ton of passanger, which means 36% more profit than freight, and cash up front. See notes below about the luggage allowance.

increase and rescale the cost of a passage by range
Set the base HP cost for a J1 ticket at at 6000Cr
jump 1 and two passages are unchanged. They sell for 6Kcr and 12kcr respectively.

Above that, the trip becomes a premium ticket, as the time saving is substantial enough that carriers will charge for it; plus the profit numbers start to get tight at J3 for most ships.

Id suggest that a J-3 ticket cost 20Kcr sold as a "direct ticket";
J4 and 5 are sold as "express" tickets for 30K and 50kcr;
J6 is courier class, and heck- 75Kcr ? 100Kcr ?.

Note that a standard ticket can be purchased for any of the above routes - as multiples of a J-1 ticket. You get there slower, but cheaper.

Basic HP costs, by parsecs per Jump.

J1 6000Cr
J2 12000Cr
J3 20,000Cr
J4 30,000Cr
J5 50,000Cr
J6  market price, ask your server.

Mess up the elegence of HP/MP by restructuring types of passage.
I'd say making mid passage 4000 to make it work (as a loss reducer), and allow a special economy mid at 2500 allowing double occupancy.

Mid passage has less luggage allowance and messes like the rew.

Econ have rationed water, and either pay as you go or vended food or are expected to carry their own (bus model)

High passage has its own food and dining, at least the equiv of a good restaraunt.

Notes on luggage space.

Mid passage has (for convenience) a 1/10 dTon (1.4 cubic meters) luggage allowance included in the cabin.

Econ mids share it, so be nice !

I'd suggest that Hp bump econ mids before they bump standard mid passengers. The ticket brings in a bit less, but having only one passanger to support proably brings it to a puch. And one frugal passanger is likley less trouble athan 2 stinky crowder MRE eating passengers anyday.

The problem as ever is the HP luggage allowance -1dTon per. I'm loath to change it, so I wont. If one assumes the 1 ton luggage allowance for a HP is extra to the cabin space,the profit/ton hits 1.12. Which, with overhead might bring it down to somewhat less than 10% more profit than freight. This may not be enough to justify carrying High passangers., and I'm unwilling to raise the basic price much more.

one solution is to bury the extra dTon in the deckplan as part of the living space...not the best solution for a varietyu of reasons, but a solution that is quick and easy.

Another is to have a basic HP include 1/4dton seperate from the cabin with the option to upgarde to a full dTon for 500 extra credits. Any more is charged at standard freight.

6 Standard HP = 24 tons +1.5 tons +2 tons = 1.31Kcr/ton.
If they all upgrade , getting a break on freight costs , (essentially a 250cr discount over freight) we have 24 +2 +6 tons with 36000+ (.5*6) =39000Kcr for 32 tons =1.22Kcr/ton.

One additional bonus of passengers becomes apparent when the trade rules are considered. Since characters only have access to a limited numbeof lots of freight and spec (with the changes above), passangers allows a stacked revenue source - in short, one can't get more frieght once the lots are gone, and if you have no cabins, you 've topped out your profit/ton.



Thoughts on cost
I considered upping the ticket price more , but looking at the cost of living table, 5000 is a months expenses for a soc C(12) character. This suggest to me that high passage is indeed first class, and that there should be sufficient people to support it, if one assumes 1/36 of the population can dump one months rent and food and fun into a passage at will. One can probably save for more or less months and get a Mid passage if soc 8 & up, or less time for an econ.

My overall goal was to treat it less like an airplane or train, and more like a very early steamship or sail route: one does not commute or take quick jaunts ....its possible for most people to travel, eventually (say to colonize or just emmigrate), just not frequently. Thats for the rich, the important, and the people with buisness expenses accounts.

 

[AKAramis]

Its easy to calculate as needed,

I should note that unless aramis has any serious problems, I'm going to change the TI calculation to (TL+POP)/2 ....same result as the squared function, looks less scary, and it doesn't elim tech 0 worlds from trade.

Aramis ?

It's not the same effect. it actually results in some differences outside the main.

The reason for the square root of the product is to smooth out the distribution lower.

And I was intentionally limitint TL 0 or pop0 to a 0 base... it could still be modified.

Compare:

Squarroot(Tl*PopCd)
  0    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13
  1    1  1  1  2  2  2  2  2  3  3  3  3  3
  2    1  2  2  2  3  3  3  4  4  4  4  4  5
  3    1  2  3  3  3  4  4  4  5  5  5  6  6
  4    2  2  3  4  4  4  5  5  6  6  6  6  7
  5    2  3  3  4  5  5  5  6  6  7  7  7  8
  6    2  3  4  4  5  6  6  6  7  7  8  8  8
  7    2  3  4  5  5  6  7  7  7  8  8  9  9
  8    2  4  4  5  6  6  7  8  8  8  9  9 10
  9    3  4  5  6  6  7  7  8  9  9  9 10 10
 10    3  4  5  6  7  7  8  8  9 10 10 10 11
 11    3  4  5  6  7  8  8  9  9 10 11 11 11
 12    3  4  6  6  7  8  9  9 10 10 11 12 12
 13    3  5  6  7  8  8  9 10 10 11 11 12 13
 14    3  5  6  7  8  9  9 10 11 11 12 12 13
 15    3  5  6  7  8  9 10 10 11 12 12 13 13
 16    4  5  6  8  8  9 10 11 12 12 13 13 14
 17    4  5  7  8  9 10 10 11 12 13 13 14 14
 18    4  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 12 13 14 14 15
 19    4  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 15
 20    4  6  7  8 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16
  
(TL+PopCode)/2               
  0    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13
  1    1  1  2  2  3  3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7
  2    1  2  2  3  3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7  7
  3    2  2  3  3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8
  4    2  3  3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8
  5    3  3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8  9
  6    3  4  4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8  9  9
  7    4  4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8  9  9 10
  8    4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8  9  9 10 10
  9    5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8  9  9 10 10 11
 10    5  6  6  7  7  8  8  9  9 10 10 11 11
 11    6  6  7  7  8  8  9  9 10 10 11 11 12
 12    6  7  7  8  8  9  9 10 10 11 11 12 12
 13    7  7  8  8  9  9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13
 14    7  8  8  9  9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13
 15    8  8  9  9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14
 16    8  9  9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14
 17    9  9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15
 18    9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15
 19   10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16
 20   10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16
                 
|method a - method b|
   0    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13
  1    0  0  1  0  1  1  2  2  2  2  3  3  4
  2    0  0  0  1  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  3  2
  3    1  0  0  0  1  0  1  1  1  1  2  1  2
  4    0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  1  2  1
  5    1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  1  1
  6    1  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  1
  7    2  1  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1
  8    2  1  1  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0
  9    2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  1
 10    2  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  0
 11    3  2  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  1
 12    3  3  1  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0
 13    4  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0  1  0  0
 14    4  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0  1  0
 15    5  3  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0  1
 16    4  4  3  2  2  2  1  1  0  1  0  1  0
 17    5  4  3  2  2  1  2  1  1  0  1  0  1
 18    5  4  3  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1  0
 19    6  4  4  3  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0  1
 20    6  5  4  4  2  3  2  2  1  1  1  1  0

All truncated.

 

[EDG]

(A+B)/2
   |  1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12    13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1  |  1     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12
2  |  1     1     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11
3  |  2     1     1     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10
4  |  3     2     1     1     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9
5  |  4     3     2     1     1     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8
6  |  5     4     3     2     1     1     1     2     3     4     5     6     7
7  |  6     5     4     3     2     1     1     1     2     3     4     5     6
8  |  7     6     5     4     3     2     1     1     1     2     3     4     5
9  |  8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1     1     1     2     3     4
10 |  9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1     1     1     2     3
11 | 10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1     1     1     2
12 | 11    10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1     1     1
13 | 12    11    10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1     1
14 | 13    12    11    10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2     1
15 | 14    13    12    11    10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3     2
16 | 15    14    13    12    11    10     9     8     7     6     5     4     3
17 | 16    15    14    13    12    11    10     9     8     7     6     5     4
18 | 17    16    15    14    13    12    11    10     9     8     7     6     5
19 | 18    17    16    15    14    13    12    11    10     9     8     7     6
20 | 19    18    17    16    15    14    13    12    11    10     9     8     7

Erm, this really isn't (A+B)/2 (assuming A is the value on the X axis and B is the value on the Y axis). If both A and B are 10, then A+B/2 should be 10, not 1. If A=1, and B=10, then A+B/2 should be 5 or 6 (5.5), not 9.


Also, as a layout hint - the code tags don't like Tabs, which is why your tables are messed up. Replace the Tabs with five spaces, and then reformat them in a text editor like notepad (or in non-proportional fonts, like Courier), and then paste the tables into the message editor, and you get something like my version.

 

[AKAramis]

Erm, this really isn't (A+B)/2 (assuming A is the value on the X axis and B is the value on the Y axis). If both A and B are 10, then A+B/2 should be 10, not 1. If A=1, and B=10, then A+B/2 should be 5 or 6 (5.5), not 9.


Also, as a layout hint - the code tags don't like Tabs, which is why your tables are messed up. Replace the Tabs with five spaces, and then reformat them in a text editor like notepad (or in non-proportional fonts, like Courier), and then paste the tables into the message editor, and you get something like my version.

I was (almost literally) on my way out the door at the time. Tabs were good enough)

And Both are properly int(Z) where z is the listed. I forgot a $ in the formula...

Done with a spread sheet in under 5min.

THere does seem to be a glitch. I'll redone and reposted.

 

[captainjack23]

Erm, this really isn't (A+B)/2 (assuming A is the value on the X axis and B is the value on the Y axis). If both A and B are 10, then A+B/2 should be 10, not 1. If A=1, and B=10, then A+B/2 should be 5 or 6 (5.5), not 9.


Also, as a layout hint - the code tags don't like Tabs, which is why your tables are messed up. Replace the Tabs with five spaces, and then reformat them in a text editor like notepad (or in non-proportional fonts, like Courier), and then paste the tables into the message editor, and you get something like my version.

I was (almost literally) on my way out the door at the time. Tabs were good enough)

And Both are properly int(Z) where z is the listed. I forgot a $ in the formula...

Done with a spread sheet in under 5min.

THere does seem to be a glitch. I'll redone and reposted.

Don't sweat it - I'll use the original sqrt version..I finally got a chance to actually look at it , and I agree about the distribution. I'll just add a row for the TL 0 dudes. Thanks for the clarification, and effort.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Just looking at the two tables a bit and limiting my discussions to POP 10- and TL 15-, I could live with either table. At the ranges listed, the only real difference is going to be those low pop, high TL worlds. I could see them having a bit higher TI, but I could see it being pretty limited on the actual goods. THESE are the robotic factories and Nanite worlds that the Imperial citizen hates so much and won't allow on their world. But, some Megacorp is going to find a little hidy hole and use it to make all the shiny new Super Maria Sisters action figures (TM) that every kid in the Imperium wants for Star Day this year.

Either way, I would strongly recommend that it be presented in table format rather than as a formula. That way, if needed, you could modify the upper and lower corners by hand if we wanted to use a formula for the middle and hand-massage the edges.

As an Aerospace engineer, we have lots of formulas that work at only certain speed ranges and different formulas for others, with a bit of handwaving where they meet, so hand massaging the boundaries is not a problem for me.

 

[Voodoo B Do]

captainjack23 wrote:
people do take the Concorde , after all. I'm pretty sure its pricier per mile - but also WAY faster to cross the Atlantic.

EDG
Possibly not the best example to use, since Concorde was retired a few years ago, largely because it was never all that profitable. Which annoys me intensely, since in the 21st century we really should not be pottering around in crappy subsonic passenger planes (even if they are bigger than they were before) Sad

Concord was economically a white elephant. The tax paying public paid for the rich to asset strip them faster. Ecologically no better than the sad sorry mess flying with fossil fuels now.

Airships not sad. More knowledge and technology now = better airships now.

 

[EDG]

The tax paying public paid for the rich to asset strip them faster. Ecologically no better than the sad sorry mess flying with fossil fuels now.

Er, yeah, right. Can we leave the revolutionary kill-the-rich politics out of it please?

Airships not sad. More knowledge and technology now = better airships now.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'd kill to get from A to B in a nice comfy (helium filled) airship, I don't care that it'd take a week or more to do it. But being a essentially a floating hotel would probably make it about as expensive as a cruise liner, and also not many people nowadays are going to really want to take weeks to cross the oceans (or a continent) when you can do it in a few hours on a jet plane - and that alone is probably not going to make airships economically viable for the long haul trips.

 

[captainjack23]

The tax paying public paid for the rich to asset strip them faster. Ecologically no better than the sad sorry mess flying with fossil fuels now.

Er, yeah, right. Can we leave the revolutionary kill-the-rich politics out of it please?

Absolutely. Eat the rich.

 

[Voodoo B Do]

Voodoo B Do wrote:
The tax paying public paid for the rich to asset strip them faster. Ecologically no better than the sad sorry mess flying with fossil fuels now.


"Er, yeah, right. Can we leave the revolutionary kill-the-rich politics out of it please?"

The best science fiction is timeless which means it is about the here and now. Change is inevitable. Get therapy if you are change phobic. As for killing people thats your projection not mine. Concord was paid for by the tax payer for a few rich. The poor pay most of the tax and the higher percentage of income as tax. Fact. So why did Concorde get withdrawn?...

Quote:
Airships not sad. More knowledge and technology now = better airships now.


"Oh don't get me wrong, I'd kill to get from A to B in a nice comfy (helium filled) airship, I don't care that it'd take a week or more to do it. But being a essentially a floating hotel would probably make it about as expensive as a cruise liner, and also not many people nowadays are going to really want to take weeks to cross the oceans (or a continent) when you can do it in a few hours on a jet plane - and that alone is probably not going to make airships economically viable for the long haul trips."

A dead planet means nothing is economically viable. So airships WILL return. Your eco credits wont buy jet travel. Your carbon credit limit ran out using your fossil fueled auto sir! Continental travel ? Take the train. As capitalism squeezes as much as it can when it can everything will cost as much as it does already. The cargo and passenger sailing ships will take longer of course... and the world will become larger and travel much more of an adventue. Hey the eco revolution is fun!

 

[EDG]

Are you sure you're here to discuss Traveller, or are you just here to spout wacky anti-capitalist eco-maniac propaganda? Because this really is the wrong board for that sort of thing.