The "Poor" trade code

[Golan2072]

I'm having a problem with the Poor trade code, as you could get high-pop, high-tech Industrial-trade-code worlds which are also classified as Poor because of their atmosphere and hydrographics, such as the UWPs B5339DC-C and A433A87-E. At first I thought that "Poor" means "a low standard of living", but the book clearly states:

Poor worlds lack resources, viable land or sufficient population to be anything other than marginal colonies.

(my emphasis).

So are B5339DC-C and A433A87-E "marginal colonies"?

EDIT: On a similar note, Garden worlds are too common: IMHO worlds with tainted atmospheres shouldn't be classified as "garden".

 

[EDG]

I did propose a change in the definitions for Rich and Poor during the playtest (basically, define both Rich and Poor by size, atm, and pop only (for physical, biochemical, and cultural resources respectively), but I guess they didn't get accepted.

Also, the problem with the existing MGT definition is that the text specifies population but the UWP requirements just specify atm and hydro.

 

[CosmicGamer]

"marginal colonies"

Just suggesting a way to look at it so that you don't have to go rewriting the book.

Synonym for Marginal = replaceable
Synonym for Colony = settlement

A world that was colonized and industrialized but has run out of raw materials. They are barely surviving by importing raw materials and exporting finished products(possibly high tech) for little profit after costs. Just rebuild the factories elsewhere and this settled world would be replaced.

I notice that the description for Rich worlds says "stable government" but there are no government requirements on the table.

Now where did you get B5339DC-C and A433A87-E?
I have not generated any worlds yet but from what i skimmed through on world generation I don't believe a B5339DC world can get to Tech C. Roll 1d6 +4(starport) +0(size) +1(Atmo) +0(Hydro) +1(Pop) -2(Gov) = 1d6 +4 = Max of A for tech?

 

[CosmicGamer]

Also, the problem with the existing MGT definition is that the text specifies population but the UWP requirements just specify atm and hydro.

It says "or" so it would not need to be a requirement IMO.

See my previous post about rich worlds.

I would like to point out that the book says these are definitions of Trade codes for "indicating" the type of goods "likely to be found there". However you want to interpret that... Possibly a world has plenty of Industry and technology for local needs just not enough to export? So poor could indicate that they are just bad trade partners and not that they are living in mud huts starving.

 

[Golan2072]

Now where did you get B5339DC-C and A433A87-E?
I have not generated any worlds yet but from what i skimmed through on world generation I don't believe a B5339DC world can get to Tech C. Roll 1d6 +4(starport) +0(size) +1(Atmo) +0(Hydro) +1(Pop) -2(Gov) = 1d6 +4 = Max of A for tech?

They are part of the Canopus Sector generated in the Galactic program (which uses CT/MT formulae) by Rupert Boleyn. With his permission, I'm modifying this data for submission to Stellar Reaches in a 1248 version. These are part of the 1105 baseline; tech levels are going to be much, much lower in the 1248 version, of course...

What I'm doing is converting the trade codes to the MGT ones, fixing any glaring problems (such as worlds with TLs too low to support life in their environment or worlds with zero population but government, law and starport above zero), and making a few subtle changes. The bulk of the data would remain quite the same for the baseline version; of course, once I apply the collapse&recovery rules, things would change quite a bit.

EDIT: What I have in mind for fixing the trade-code problem is to change "to be anything other than marginal colonies" to "to provide a decent quality of life to the bulk of their population". So industries might flourish, but it won't be a very comfortable place to live in for most residents as food and water would be expensive and/or rationed and habitats - if pressurized ones are needed - would be crowded.

Of course, this raises the question of why an atmosphere-3, hydrographics-3 world is Poor while an atmosphere-0 hydrographics-0 rockball isn't...

 

[CosmicGamer]

Of course, this raises the question of why an atmosphere-3, hydrographics-3 world is Poor while an atmosphere-0 hydrographics-0 rockball isn't...

Maybe because people wouldn't populate a ball of rock unless there was something really valuable to mine? The belters may be raking it in hand over fist (where do those sayings come from?).

 

[Golan2072]

Of course, this raises the question of why an atmosphere-3, hydrographics-3 world is Poor while an atmosphere-0 hydrographics-0 rockball isn't...

Maybe because people wouldn't populate a ball of rock unless there was something really valuable to mine?

Yes, but an atmosphere-3, hydrographic-3 world could also have something useful to mine...

 

[CosmicGamer]

Of course, this raises the question of why an atmosphere-3, hydrographics-3 world is Poor while an atmosphere-0 hydrographics-0 rockball isn't...

Maybe because people wouldn't populate a ball of rock unless there was something really valuable to mine?

Yes, but an atmosphere-3, hydrographic-3 world could also have something useful to mine...

"could" - You are correct.

 

[EDG]

It's also worth noting that the MGT tech level modifiers for population are different to CT. In MGT, pop 9 only gives you a +1 DM, and pop A gives you a +2 DM - in CT, pop 9 is +2, and pop A is +4. Thus, an MGT high population world will have a lower maximum TL than a CT high population world.

TBH I think you're better off regenerating all the UWPs using MGT anyway (preferably using both the Hard Science and Space Opera variations) .

 

[captainjack23]

I'm having a problem with the Poor trade code, as you could get high-pop, high-tech Industrial-trade-code worlds which are also classified as Poor because of their atmosphere and hydrographics, such as the UWPs B5339DC-C and A433A87-E. At first I thought that "Poor" means "a low standard of living", but the book clearly states:

Poor worlds lack resources, viable land or sufficient population to be anything other than marginal colonies.

(my emphasis).

So are B5339DC-C and A433A87-E "marginal colonies"?

EDIT: On a similar note, Garden worlds are too common: IMHO worlds with tainted atmospheres shouldn't be classified as "garden".

I suppose a smart ass answer would be that they obviously aren't marginal colonies -they are marginal mainworlds.

Possibly they used to be marginal ? Like the crappy settlements in the Virginia swamps or the carribean isles with sugar cane ? What they found was an export that kept them alive, possibly even an imported somcguffin they could produce, grow or assemble...made a very few people rich, but never raised the overall SOL above "crappy".

Hmmmm. Sounds like a hellhole of the OTU entry to me .....

 

[captainjack23]

Of course, this raises the question of why an atmosphere-3, hydrographics-3 world is Poor while an atmosphere-0 hydrographics-0 rockball isn't...

Atmospheres and oceans and concomittant ecosystems make slash and burn resource extraction (strip mining to the mantle) harder, and thus less profitable...thus given the frequency of rockballs, much less likely to be embarked upon.

 

[Golan2072]

Atmospheres and oceans and concomittant ecosystems make slash and burn resource extraction (strip mining to the mantle) harder, and thus less profitable...thus given the frequency of rockballs, much less likely to be embarked upon.

Now, that's a good answer. Thanks

I suppose a smart ass answer would be that they obviously aren't marginal colonies -they are marginal mainworlds.

The problem isn't that they're mainworlds per se, but that they are Industrial, high-pop, high-tech and high-starport: in other words, all indications but atmosphere/hydrosphere point towards a strong economy. My idea for a solution is to make them ultra-industrialized hellhole factory-worlds where life sucks for the majority of the locals (as the domes are crowded and food/water are rationed or expensive) but the local industry reeks in profits. It could also be a wild-west-type gold-rush boomtown where too many people flock into some remote piece of desert in hope of getting rich fast from gold-mining (and in the meanwhile live in squalor) while the local mogul makes the actual big money from mining (and owning the saloon, company store and brewery).

 

[captainjack23]

Atmospheres and oceans and concomittant ecosystems make slash and burn resource extraction (strip mining to the mantle) harder, and thus less profitable...thus given the frequency of rockballs, much less likely to be embarked upon.

Now, that's a good answer. Thanks

Yer welcome !

Looks like we ended up in the same area for describing the hi pop high tec poor worlds - did you check out my writeup for one of them ?

Las Vegas may be an excellent example from several angles if not the quality of life for locals.