far-trader said:There is ample canonical >2 parsec big conglomerate trade that manages to make credits on volume and rapid turnover.
Not out amongst small pop frontier systems. Face it, RAW econ is as broken as a one wheeled bicycle.
far-trader said:There is ample canonical >2 parsec big conglomerate trade that manages to make credits on volume and rapid turnover.
DFW said:far-trader said:There is ample canonical >2 parsec big conglomerate trade that manages to make credits on volume and rapid turnover.
Not out amongst small pop frontier systems. Face it, RAW econ is as broken as a one wheeled bicycle.
Well, any trade system which uses randomized prices and freight andDFW said:Face it, RAW econ is as broken as a one wheeled bicycle.
far-trader said:Also, don't get hung up on the "single" Starport issue. It can be huge, sprawling, even a full city in itself covering a large island or half a continent... and still be a "single" Starport. One doesn't have to create several Starports to handle the traffic of a bustling system, just make it bigger.
far-trader said:Also, don't get hung up on the "single" Starport issue. It can be huge, sprawling, even a full city in itself covering a large island or half a continent... and still be a "single" Starport. One doesn't have to create several Starports to handle the traffic of a bustling system, just make it bigger.
This would be the typical early colony settlement pattern, with the portGypsyComet said:That said, if the population distribution on a world was very centered ...
BFalcon said:I'd suggest that most ports would be only small craft ports or larger-non-jump craft. Given how large ships need specialist facilities (landing pads under 1 degree off totally flat is mentioned in the Starports book)
DFW said:BFalcon said:I'd suggest that most ports would be only small craft ports or larger-non-jump craft. Given how large ships need specialist facilities (landing pads under 1 degree off totally flat is mentioned in the Starports book)
How large are they talking?
BFalcon said:How large are they talking?
BFalcon said:The 1 degree precision was for any "engineered pad" to give a +2DM to landings (presumably the author was thinking of vectored thrust principles at the time, where a slanted takeoff creates a sideways drift which would need to be corrected - not good in high winds.
This is why I did not mention fuel at all in my post ^^.BFalcon said:But rust, you were one of those who said that the cost of unrefined fuel was nothing (just go and help yourself), weren't you? So the cost would be practically zero...
So starships landing "in the wilds" now have an automatic -2 DM ? :shock:BFalcon said:A "rudimentary" pad is less well engineered, but gives a -2DM to landings as a result.
Only if your pilot works for free.BFalcon said:Rust: Ah... but fuel would be most of the cost of the secondary cargo run, would it not?![]()