Trade Classifications & Remarks

[Gruffty the Hiver]

.....and yea, the Hiver delivereth

OK, here are the canon Traveller Trade Classifications, from here on called TCs (I've examined this subject before - can you tell? ):

TC  Sp   Sz         At   Hy   Pp  Gv  Lw  TL   References

Ag   -    -        4-9  4-8  5-7   -   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7 & MT
As   -    0          0    0    -   -   -   -   LBB 6, 7 & MT
Ba   -    -          -    -    0   0   0   -   LBB 7 & MT
De   -    -         2+    0    -   -   -   -   LBB 6, 7 & MT
Fl   -    -         A+   1+    -   -   -   -   LBB 7 & MT
Hi   -    -          -    -   9+   -   -   -   LBB 7 & MT
Ic   -    -        0-1   1+    -   -   -   -   LBB 6, 7 & MT
In*  -    -  0-2,4,7,9    -   9+   -   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7
In*  -    -    2-4,7,9    -   9+   -   -   -   MT
Lo   -    -          -    -   3-   -   -   -   LBB 2 & MT
Na   -    -        0-3  0-3   6+   -   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7 & MT
Ni   -    -          -    -  0-6   -   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7 & MT
Po   -    -        2-5  0-3    -   -   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7 & MT
Ri   -    -        6,8    -  6-8 4-9   -   -   LBB 2, 6, 7 & MT
Va   -    -          0    -    -   -   -   -   LBB 6, 7 & MT
Wa   -    -          -    A    -   -   -   -   LBB 6, 7 & MT

*: Note the change in the Atmosphere parameters between LBBs 2/6/7 and MT. This table is based on the Trade Classifications table from p. 50, MegaTraveller Referee's Manual (dead tree copy).

References
LBB 2 = Classic Traveller Book 2: Starships (from the trade system);
LBB 6 = Classic Traveller Book 6: Scouts (from the world generation system);
LBB 7 = Classic Traveller Book 7: Merchant Prince (from the trade system);
MT = MegaTraveller Referee's Manual (from both the world generation system - closely related to LBB 6 - and the MT trade system - TCs are closely related to LBBs 6 & 7).

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Now with added Traveller by Mongoose goodness!

TC  Sp   Sz        At   Hy   Pp  Gv  Lw   TL   Z   P   B   G
------------------------------------------------------------
Ag   -    -       4-9  4-8  5-7   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
As   -    0         0    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ba*  -    -         -    -    0   0   0    -   -   0   -   -
De   -    -        2+    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Fl   -    -        A+   1+    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ga*  -   5+       4-9  4-8    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Hi   -    -         -    -   9+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ht*  -    -         -    -    -   -   -   C+   -   -   -   -
Ic   -    -       0-1   1+    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
In   -    -   2-4,7,9    -   9+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Lo   -    -         -    -   3-   -   -    -   -  1+   -   -
Lt*  -    -         -    -    -   -   -   5-   -   -   -   -
Na   -    -       0-3  0-3   6+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ni   -    -         -    -  0-6   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Op*  -    -         -    -    -   -   A+   -   -   -   -   -
Po   -    -       2-5  0-3    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ri   -    -       6,8    -  6-8 4-9   -    -   -   -   -   -
Va   -    -         0    -    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Wa   -    -         -    A    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -

*: These TCs have been added (i.e. the Ga, Ht, Lt and Op TCs) or tweaked (Ba, to include the 0 PBG code).

[EDIT: Added the missing Oppressive TC.]

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

TC  Sp   Sz        At   Hy   Pp  Gv  Lw   TL   Z   P   B   G
------------------------------------------------------------
Ag   -    -       4-9  4-8  5-7   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
As   -    0         0    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ba   -    -         -    -    0   0   0    -   -   0   -   -
De   -    -        2+    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Fl   -    -       A-C  1-9    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ga   -   5+       4-9  4-8    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Hi   -    -         -    -   9+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ht   -    -         -    -    -   -   -   C+   -   -   -   -
Ic   -    -       0-1   1+    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
In   -    -   2-4,7,9    -   9+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Lo   -    -         -    -   3-   -   -    -   -  1+   -   -
Lt   -    -         -    -    -   -   -   5-   -   -   -   -
Na   -    -       0-3  0-3   6+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ni   -    -         -    -  0-6   -   -    -   -  1+   -   -
Po   -    -       2-5  0-3    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ri   -    -       6,8    -  6-8 4-9   -    -   -   -   -   -
Va   -   1+         0    -    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Wa   -    -   4-9,D,E    A    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -

Thought: I'm not sure about the bottom end of the Atmosphere types for the Wa TC. I think it should be more like 3-9 or 4-9.

[EDIT: I just checked a previous discussion I had with EDG on another board about this subject, and have tweaked the Wa parameters to those he suggested on the other board.]

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

A quick note on the Asteroid and Vacuum TCs in relation to atmosphere (or lack thereof):

Canonically, an asteroid belt that is the system mainworld has the As TC in its UWP string; it does not require/need to show the Vacuum TC, as this is assumed automatically. (ref.: p25, MegaTraveller Referee's Manual, but this rule was reflected in canon UWPs prior to MT whilst not being explicitly stated in canon texts).

However, a Size 1+ world with no atmosphere (i.e. that has Atmosphere code 0) does require/need to show the Vacuum TC in its UWP string. Hence my inclusion of the Size 1+ parameter for the Va TC in the table above.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Fluid vs Water TCs:

Would it be outside the realms of possibility to have a world that is covered entirely with *non-water* oceans? i.e. Atmosphere A-C, Hydrographics A?

 

[AKAramis]

Fluid vs Water TCs:

Would it be outside the realms of possibility to have a world that is covered entirely with *non-water* oceans? i.e. Atmosphere A-C, Hydrographics A?

Methane, Ammonia, or other such cheicals have been proposed in various "science" shows.

 

[EDG]

The question is whether you can get enough of it to completely cover the planet. Ammonia and Methane/ethane are only stable as liquids in cryogenic environments (i.e. in the Outer zone - Titan has a few small ethane lakes at its poles). Though bear in mind you have a DM-4 for hydrographics for A-C atmospheres anyway, so you shouldn't ever get 100% non-water coverage.

Type A atmospheres in the habitable zone are most likely to have liquid water hydrographics, so they could be entirely covered with water (but as I suggested in my thread on this topic, those worlds shouldn't be classed as Fl anyway).

 

[EDG]

This is what my tweaked TC table merged with the official one would look like, for comparison.

TC  Sp   Sz        At   Hy   Pp  Gv  Lw   TL   Z   P   B   G
------------------------------------------------------------
Ag   -    -        4-9  4-8  5-7  -   -    -   -   -   -   -
As   -    0         0    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ba   -    -         -    -    0   0   0    -   -   0   -   -
De   -    -        2+    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Fl   -    -        B,C  1+    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Hi   -    -         -    -   9+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ht   -    -         -    -    -   -   -   C+   -   -   -   -
Ic   -    -        0,1  1+    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
In   -    -  4-,7,9,A-C  -   7+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Lo   -    -         -    -   0-3  -   -    -   -  1+   -   -
Lt   -    -         -    -    -   -   -   5-   -   -   -   -
Na   -    -      3-,A-C 0-3  7+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ni   -    -         -    -   0-6  -   -    -   -  1+   -   -
Op   -    -         -    -    -   -   A+   -   -   -   -   -
Po   -   1-4     3-,A-C  -   5-   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ri   -    7+       4-9   -   8+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Va   -   1+         0    -    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Wa   -    -      4-9,D+  A    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -

Observations:
Ag is basically the same as Ga (especially given that you can't get breathable atmospheres below size 5 anyway), which makes Ga redundant.

Most of the low population rockball/inhospitable worlds are going to be Poor by this definition. I think that makes sense - they're not on resource rich worlds and don't have a lot of people.

 

[captainjack23]

TC  Sp   Sz        At   Hy   Pp  Gv  Lw   TL   Z   P   B   G
------------------------------------------------------------
Ag   -    -       4-9  4-8  5-7   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
As   -    0         0    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ba   -    -         -    -    0   0   0    -   -   0   -   -
De   -    -        2+    0    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Fl   -    -       A-C  1-9    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ga   -   5+       4-9  4-8    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Hi   -    -         -    -   9+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ht   -    -         -    -    -   -   -   C+   -   -   -   -
Ic   -    -       0-1   1+    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
In   -    -   2-4,7,9    -   9+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Lo   -    -         -    -   3-   -   -    -   -  1+   -   -
Lt   -    -         -    -    -   -   -   5-   -   -   -   -
Na   -    -       0-3  0-3   6+   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ni   -    -         -    -  0-6   -   -    -   -  1+   -   -
Po   -    -       2-5  0-3    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Ri   -    -       6,8    -  6-8 4-9   -    -   -   -   -   -
Va   -   1+         0    -    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -
Wa   -    -   4-9,D,E    A    -   -   -    -   -   -   -   -

Thought: I'm not sure about the bottom end of the Atmosphere types for the Wa TC. I think it should be more like 3-9 or 4-9.

[EDIT: I just checked a previous discussion I had with EDG on another board about this subject, and have tweaked the Wa parameters to those he suggested on the other board.]

which set was this derived from ?

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

which set was this derived from ?

Do you mean rules set? If so, check out the list of references in the first post of this thread.

 

[captainjack23]

which set was this derived from ?

Do you mean rules set? If so, check out the list of references in the first post of this thread.

No - actually, its just that it doesn't match the first two, is all. I'm just curious - you present the first two -CT and then mongoose...then the third with out an attribution - or am I misunderstanding ?

 

[captainjack23]

Okay, I see that there are ideas that the trade codes should be modified - and, not with intent to start a fight, the question I have is, to what goal ?

Even putting aside the main issue that EDG and I disagree upon, they'll need to be modified with reference to the trade rules which they are part and parcel of. And given the games mercantile orientation, this could have sme very profound effects.

One quick example about one effecting the other; looking at the passenger rules, its obvious that one wants to run a liner from In worlds to Ga worlds, which should be a fairly rare pairing, particularly in unexploited state; increasing the frequency of In worlds will make this much more likely to be found, and thus a really good gimmick, rather than a challenge.

Also, one might note that the difference between the Ga and the Ag worlds is found in the effects of their trade codes, not in the uWp that produces it.
More people want to move to, and few people want to leave a Ga world, whereas an Ag world tends to be reversed.

Some thoughts to consider before we generate a vast number of trade charts and classifications (and associated verbiage) based on pure uWp variance. Not to squelch discussion , but rather to suggest broadening the scope of the discussion.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

No - actually, its just that it doesn't match the first two, is all. I'm just curious - you present the first two -CT and then mongoose...then the third with out an attribution - or am I misunderstanding ?

Ah, I understand what you mean now.

The third table is: CT+Mongoose+some *minor* tweaks from me.

So, OK, I'll run through the TCs in my third table, and identify what has changed and why.

Ag: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
As: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
Ba: I added the need for a "0" population multiplier in the PBG part of the UWP string. This modification has been echoed on other boards by others so that the Ba TC makes sense. To achieve a truly Barren world (i.e. absolutely no-one living there, at all) a Pop 0 world needs a pop multiplier of 0 (any number from 1 to 10*0 = 0, whereas Pop code 1*PBG of 1 = 1 to 10);
De: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
Fl: I changed the Atmosphere code parameter to reflect to the kind of atmospheres that would produce "fluid" (i.e. non-water) on the surface of the world. However, EDG has pointed out both in this thread and elsewhere, that Atmosphere A worlds can have water on the surface and this is backed up by canon text (in LBB 6/MT, I think - although I'll check). My table doesn't reflect that ('cos I forgot about it until EDG mentioned it again here) but EDG's table does;
Ga: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose. However, I agree with EDG: this TC is superflous and mimics the obscure-and-definitely-not-canon Terra Prime ("Tp") and Terra Norm ("Tn") TCs that are used in some UWPs on the web;
Hi: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
Ht: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
Ic: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
In: I changed the lower limit of the Atmosphere types that CT used to those used in MT - I haven't checked if Mongoose have used the CT or MT lower Atmosphere parameters for this TC;
Lo: I added the requirement for a population multiplier in the PBG of 1+, to avoid hundreds of Ba Lo worlds;
Na: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
Ni: I added the requirement for a population multiplier in the PBG of 1+, to avoid hundreds of Ba Ni worlds;
Po: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
Ri: No change from CT/MT/Mongoose;
Va: I added the minimum world size reuqirement of size 1+ to avoid loads of As Va systems. As I said in my post above, canonically As worlds don't show the Va TC in the UWP string, as it is automatically assumed that asteroids don't have atmospheres, whereas, canonically, worlds of Size 1+ do use the Va TC if they have no atmosphere. So really, all I've done is included a rule from the canon text into the actual table itself - technically, no change to canon there;
Wa: In CT/MT, there was no link between a world covered in water and the type of atmopshere it has (except for the Fl TC). I've always felt that it is implausible for a world with very little in the way of atmosphere to be a Water world. I adjusted the Atmosphere parameter of the Wa TC to a) ensure that worlds have thick enough atmospheres to actually produce water oceans and b) to prevent Fl Wa worlds occurring.

I also forgot to include the Op TC from Mongoose .

HTH

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Okay, I see that there are ideas that the trade codes should be modified - and, not with intent to start a fight,

Point taken

the question I have is, to what goal ?

Goals: Clarification of the parameters of the basic TCs, inclusion of previous canon text rules that were never actually reflected by the TC tables in CT/MT, introducing some common sense and adding just a little touch of realism .

Even putting aside the main issue that EDG and I disagree upon, they'll need to be modified with reference to the trade rules which they are part and parcel of.

Or, the trade rules could be modified to support the TCs...

And given the games mercantile orientation, this could have sme very profound effects.

Agreed, if the trade rules are not changed to reflect the interactions of the different TCs we're discussing.

One quick example about one effecting the other; looking at the passenger rules, its obvious that one wants to run a liner from In worlds to Ga worlds, which should be a fairly rare pairing, particularly in unexploited state; increasing the frequency of In worlds will make this much more likely to be found, and thus a really good gimmick, rather than a challenge.

Again, the trade rules could be modified to take account of your example and "restore the balance", as it were.

Also, one might note that the difference between the Ga and the Ag worlds is found in the effects of their trade codes, not in the uWp that produces it.

True again, but again, the trade rules could be modified to reflect this.

More people want to move to, and few people want to leave a Ga world, whereas an Ag world tends to be reversed.

Personally, whilst I understand where you're coming from with your points, I've never been one for "accounting in space" games. I think the trade rules should reflect the TCs, not the other way round. But remember, that's just IMO.

Some thoughts to consider before we generate a vast number of trade charts and classifications (and associated verbiage) based on pure uWp variance.

TBH, I have no intention of introducing any *new* TCs here with the goal of getting them into Traveller by Mongoose. There are quite a few more TCs knocking about on the web in fan-generated UWPs (such as the Tp and Tn TCs) and a whole shedload of canon TCs for the alien races that are not included in the basic TCs for CT/MT/Mongoose (e.g. the canon Hiver TC Fascinating). I'm more concerned with getting some of the wackier-parametered TCs from CT/MT TCs to actually work within the game and to make sense, which IMO, some of them don't as they are in CT/MT.

Not to squelch discussion , but rather to suggest broadening the scope of the discussion.

Indeed, and I agree.

 

[EDG]

Okay, I see that there are ideas that the trade codes should be modified - and, not with intent to start a fight, the question I have is, to what goal ?

With the intent to have trade classifications that make more sense?

The trade codes are derived from the UWPs - the trade codes are referenced against trade and passenger tables etc to produce DMs to those things.

None of the modifications suggested so far changes any of that - they just widen some of the definitions a little to remove the head-scratching omissions. One example of this is there's absolutely no reason why Na worlds should just have atm 0-3 - if the point is that they're Na because they're not habitable then that should include atm A-C as well.

As for Industrial, the definition in MGT 3.2 is sorely lacking - "the world is dominated by factories and cities" is vague to say the least - and by implication, a high population world is going to be dominated by factories and cities anyway just by dint of having a lot of people on it.

The original definition from CT book 7 Merchant Prince says:

Industrial: The world is heavily industrialized and is a producer of many types of goods. Industrial goods sell well on most other worlds, and Industrial worlds are good markets for most goods.

You clearly don't need a population of billions to be "heavily industrialised". If you really get down to it, the only thing you really need is an appropriate tech level (oddly this is lacking in the definition). The critical mass for being an industrial producer has got to be way lower than "billions of people" - I'd say it's probably around the millions or tens of millions myself (pop 6 or 7).

As it stands the UWP trade code implies that "heavily industrialised" means that the society has either polluted its environment in the process or deliberately sets up on marginally or non-habitable worlds specifically to build industry. In the first case this is daft because Fusion and more advanced technologies aren't inherently polluting, and I seriously doubt even that less advanced technologies are that polluting - even if you're a TL 6 society burning fossil fuels like no tomorrow, there must surely be enough expertise from more advanced societies to make those power stations environmentally friendly. But while it's a silly definition as it stands, there's probably no way around that in Traveller - for better or worse the assumption is that lots of industry is polluting.

Also, one might note that the difference between the Ga and the Ag worlds is found in the effects of their trade codes, not in the uWp that produces it. More people want to move to, and few people want to leave a Ga world, whereas an Ag world tends to be reversed.

Then I'd suggest that's a flaw in the passenger table. If I understand it correctly, it seems that people are more likely to want to go to and leave Garden worlds more frequently than Agricultural worlds (both columns are +2 for Ga worlds, but the Ag worlds have no modifiers to their passenger rolls) - even though the only real difference is the size of their populations (Ag is pop 5-7, Ga can be any pop).

Ag and Ga worlds are basically the same (with the exception of the population). All Ag worlds are automatically going to be Ga, and it's only the high and low population Ga worlds that aren't going to be Ag (OK, so I guess Ga isn't entirely redundant then).

I'd argue that people are going to be attracted to worlds that are habitable and are going to want to stay there. So I'd argue that Ag should have at least -1 on the Current World and +1 on the Destination World columns. If Ga is kept, the problem is that the modifiers on the Ga columns will stack on this, so I'd say lower the Ga modifiers to -1/+1 as well. So under this system a world that is "Ag Ga" has a net modifier of -2/+2 while a world that is Ga only has a modifier of -1/+1.

If you look at In and Hi, you'll see that according to the 3.2 (and CT) rules any In worlds are automatically Hi as well since both have pop 9+. Look at the passenger tables and you'll see that if you have an "In Hi" world, then you have a net modifier of +5/+2. So apparently, people really want to get off In Hi worlds but people are still keen to migrate to them (positive DM in both cases). If (as I suggest) you widen the pop range of the In worlds to pop 7+ then In worlds suddenly aren't necessarily Hi as well - now an In world has a modifier of +2/+1, which means there isn't such a massive exodus away from them.

That does raise a point - unless the natural population grown can counter migration, over time the In worlds should depopulate since they have a lot of people leaving and less arriving (and by implication, the people are leaving for good, since they're clearly not coming back in the same numbers). And if I'm right then the population of Ag worlds would tend to grow over time if people migrate to them and are less likely to leave too - eventually they'll stop being Ag becuase their pop will rise to greater than 7. So we have to be careful about these passenger DMs.

Some thoughts to consider before we generate a vast number of trade charts and classifications (and associated verbiage) based on pure uWp variance. Not to squelch discussion , but rather to suggest broadening the scope of the discussion.

Again, I think you're seeing a problem where none exists. I think we can and should define the trade codes by the UWPs, while also looking at the effects they have on the tables. That's presumably how Gar defined them in the first place, and that is certainly how they're defined in previous versions of Traveller.

 

[captainjack23]

Okay, I see that there are ideas that the trade codes should be modified - and, not with intent to start a fight, the question I have is, to what goal ?

With the intent to have trade classifications that make more sense?

Well, sense is very much subjective, so yes, I agree with that goal, but given that we are both intelligent, educated, science types, the fact that we still seem on opposite sides suggests that that may be too vague a goal. (but see below).

Again, lets avoid defending what are ultimately opinons as facts.

Some thoughts to consider before we generate a vast number of trade charts and classifications (and associated verbiage) based on pure uWp variance. Not to squelch discussion , but rather to suggest broadening the scope of the discussion.

Again, I think you're seeing a problem where none exists. I think we can and should define the trade codes by the UWPs, while also looking at the effects they have on the tables. That's presumably how Gar defined them in the first place, and that is certainly how they're defined in previous versions of Traveller.

You are confused as to my intent, and thus misinterpreting my points. I'm not arguing that the the codes need to be derived from anything other than the uWp. I'm not sure how I would propose to do that, and I know I've never said "we need to consider x outside of the uWp".

What I'm trying to say is this: I'm not sanguine that updating the codes based on a purely descriptive model is at all needful, neccessary, or a good idea. I'm advocating mostly leaving the trade codes as they are already defined by the uWp. Not wanting to change does not equal wanting to change using somthing else.

So, let's start there, and move on.

I'm suggesting that the rationale behind the codes has a logic and consistency that is being partially overlooked; and that fixes need to better address that paradigm, than not.

The paradigm I see is this: they are trade codes, not world codes. The uWp is a world descriptor, and one derived from the viewpoint of (not to start an argument) planetology which has as its backing actual verifiable data.

As trade codes, they are about trade -what sells where, and....iffy at best. They are a pure game artifact, to support the trade rules. This is not an argument for the inviolability of canon, but rather an acknowlegement that while one of us may have strong and very well thought-out opinions, they have no gold standard to be judged by - except that of the rules and its function in the game.

I understand that the In classification makes no sense to you - but it does to me. Who is right ? Answer: which definition makes the trade rules work better, not just which one has been passed thru a sieve based on a possibly idiosyncratic idea of what makes sense (and I'm including myself in this) .

No, I don't think that eliminating the 0 pop worlds from a variety of codes will matter at all, but I do think the change for the sake of percieved non-trade-descriptive failings is uneccessary for the trade clasifications.

I do consider that some of the changes are very counter to the trade orientation of the codes: "what sells well here?"
An example is the Fluid ocean code. Yes, a type A ATM world may well have water as its ocean component; but would you want to drink it ? I understand that it is water, but would the A make it taste crappy ? Or be unhealthy ? Are there dissolved salts in the water that makes it unplesant or undrinkable ? Are any of these issues more likely on a type A world than lesser ATM planets ?
Just because I cannot drink methane, doesn't mean that I can drink seawater, or that I want to drink water with massive amounts of CO2 or nitrogen dissolved in it, or that tases like uhhhh....hookah water.

It may well be that the trade goods are more similiar to what one would take to an ATM b/c world, than any other, which is the whole point of the codes.

The question in addition to does this make sense is "and what effect does this change have on ther overall system". Perhaps including type A in the Fl definition increases trade opportunities by increasing the number of Fl planets; and perhaps this is more important than arguing what exactly counts as water, tainted, untainted, euteric or not.

Just for the record, I'm not arguing anti science, just that the actual criterea should not be purely observational; and I'm not arguing that code changes aren't needed when they break or impede the trade rules.

Okay, phew.

 

[captainjack23]

[

Also, one might note that the difference between the Ga and the Ag worlds is found in the effects of their trade codes, not in the uWp that produces it. More people want to move to, and few people want to leave a Ga world, whereas an Ag world tends to be reversed.

Then I'd suggest that's a flaw in the passenger table. If I understand it correctly, it seems that people are more likely to want to go to and leave Garden worlds more frequently than Agricultural worlds (both columns are +2 for Ga worlds, but the Ag worlds have no modifiers to their passenger rolls) - even though the only real difference is the size of their populations (Ag is pop 5-7, Ga can be any pop).

Actually, I looked at the table, and you are correct....this is probaly a typo/error. I misremembered, confabulated, or whatever. They are presented with the same values. They shouldn't be.

I'd argue that people are going to be attracted to worlds that are habitable and are going to want to stay there. So I'd argue that Ag should have at least -1 on the Current World and +1 on the Destination World columns. If Ga is kept, the problem is that the modifiers on the Ga columns will stack on this, so I'd say lower the Ga modifiers to -1/+1 as well. So under this system a world that is "Ag Ga" has a net modifier of -2/+2 while a world that is Ga only has a modifier of -1/+1.

You sir, have never lived in Fresno. habitable is one thing, habitable behind the ass end of a plow is another thing alltogether.
8)
Me, I'd give it about a +5 for current planet passengers based on the jobs alone.

It is a fond conceit in most fiction that the young sons of the yeomanry flee farming communities for the "bright center of the universe".

 

[EDG]

Well, sense is very much subjective, so yes, I agree with that goal, but given that we are both intelligent, educated, science types, the fact that we still seem on opposite sides suggests that that may be too vague a goal. (but see below).

That's the thing, I still don't get what your view is, even with your explanation here.

Again, lets avoid defending what are ultimately opinons as facts.

I think there's a lot of evidence (based on earth's history and societies at least) to support my definitions. So far your only retort has been "eh, well it's opinions".


[quoteYou are confused as to my intent, and thus misinterpreting my points. I'm not arguing that the the codes need to be derived from anything other than the uWp. I'm not sure how I would propose to do that, and I know I've never said "we need to consider x outside of the uWp".[/quote]

OK...

What I'm trying to say is this: I'm not sanguine that updating the codes based on a purely descriptive model is at all needful, neccessary, or a good idea. I'm advocating mostly leaving the trade codes as they are already defined by the uWp. Not wanting to change does not equal wanting to change using somthing else.

So, let's start there, and move on.

I'm suggesting that the rationale behind the codes has a logic and consistency that is being partially overlooked; and that fixes need to better address that paradigm, than not.

The paradigm I see is this: they are trade codes, not world codes. The uWp is a world descriptor, and one derived from the viewpoint of (not to start an argument) planetology which has as its backing actual verifiable data.

You keep saying that, but it's a meaningless statement to me. I'm saying they are trade codes too, but they are secondary codes that are defined using the UWPs, that fit within their text descriptions. I know they're about trade - I've never contradicted that - and I know they affect the trade rules in terms of freight and passengers.

As trade codes, they are about trade -what sells where, and....iffy at best. They are a pure game artifact, to support the trade rules. This is not an argument for the inviolability of canon, but rather an acknowlegement that while one of us may have strong and very well thought-out opinions, they have no gold standard to be judged by - except that of the rules and its function in the game.

To be honest, it seems to me that you're just saying "I disagree with your suggestions" and not coming up with anything better. I may have strong and well thought out opinions (thanks) but if you don't like my approach here then you need to come up with more convincing arguments for your own approach.

As far as I can see I'm doing exactly what you're saying - I'm coming up with suggestions to support the trade rules. Those suggestions require that some of the trade code UWP definitions change. That's all, so I'm still perplexed as to why you think you're on the opposite side of the argument.

I understand that the In classification makes no sense to you - but it does to me. Who is right ? Answer: which definition makes the trade rules work better, not just which one has been passed thru a sieve based on a possibly idiosyncratic idea of what makes sense (and I'm including myself in this) .

But that's just not true though. My suggestions aren't arbitrary opinion, you just seem to think that because real sociology is fuzzy that the codes in here have to be fuzzy too. They're not. Like you said, the codes are there to support the trade rules - as long as they do that, how 'fuzzy' the rationales behind them are isn't really relevant. I think my arguments for lowering the population for Industrial worlds are more convincing than keeping them in the billions "just because". Fact is, you don't need a population of billions to be an industrial society. We know that from the history of our species, and that should be enough to blow that idea away.

No, I don't think that eliminating the 0 pop worlds from a variety of codes will matter at all, but I do think the change for the sake of percieved non-trade-descriptive failings is uneccessary for the trade clasifications.

I can't even parse that sentence...! . But it's nonsense to suggest that a world with absolutely nobody on it should count as "Low population", or "Non-Industrial". Screw the trade effects, if nobody is actually there then you simply can't trade with them!

I do consider that some of the changes are very counter to the trade orientation of the codes: "what sells well here?"

I don't think it does at all.

An example is the Fluid ocean code. Yes, a type A ATM world may well have water as its ocean component; but would you want to drink it ? I understand that it is water, but would the A make it taste crappy ? Or be unhealthy ? Are there dissolved salts in the water that makes it unplesant or undrinkable ? Are any of these issues more likely on a type A world than lesser ATM planets ?
Just because I cannot drink methane, doesn't mean that I can drink seawater, or that I want to drink water with massive amounts of CO2 or nitrogen dissolved in it, or that tases like uhhhh....hookah water.

That's a nonsensical argument though. You can't drink seawater either, so that's a problem on every habitable world with oceans as well. Either way, it doesn't affect anything about the trade code.

It may well be that the trade goods are more similiar to what one would take to an ATM b/c world, than any other, which is the whole point of the codes.

So? If a world with a type A atm loses its Fl classification then it's not changing its passenger tables, and as far as I can see it loses two +1 modifiers on the trade tables. Not a very big deal.

The question in addition to does this make sense is "and what effect does this change have on ther overall system". Perhaps including type A in the Fl definition increases trade opportunities by increasing the number of Fl planets; and perhaps this is more important than arguing what exactly counts as water, tainted, untainted, euteric or not.

Right, but it doesn't. The Fl code simply isn't that important for trade. It gives a +1 Sale DM for Basic Consumables, and a +0 Purchase DM for Petrochemicals (why are the +0 codes even mentioned?!), and it doesn't affect Passengers. That's all it does. So the Traveller universe and trade system isn't going to collapse if type As don't have Fluid Oceans.

Just for the record, I'm not arguing anti science, just that the actual criterea should not be purely observational; and I'm not arguing that code changes aren't needed when they break or impede the trade rules.

Okay, phew.

And again, I don't know why you're disagreeing. I'm looking at the trade codes from the perspective of their how well they fit their descriptions and intent, and how they affect the trade and passenger rules. You seem to be claiming that looking at it "observationally" means that I'm not doing that, but I really am. (and you know, I've playtested a hell of a lot of stuff in my time - mostly SJG books, so I do know what I'm doing here and I do know to look at all the things that a change can affect!).

 

[captainjack23]

Well, sense is very much subjective, so yes, I agree with that goal, but given that we are both intelligent, educated, science types, the fact that we still seem on opposite sides suggests that that may be too vague a goal. (but see below).

That's the thing, I still don't get what your view is, even with your explanation here.

Again, lets avoid defending what are ultimately opinons as facts.

I think there's a lot of evidence (based on earth's history and societies at least) to support my definitions. So far your only retort has been "eh, well it's opinions".

<snip>

To be honest, it seems to me that you're just saying "I disagree with your suggestions" and not coming up with anything better. I may have strong and well thought out opinions (thanks) but if you don't like my approach here then you need to come up with more convincing arguments for your own approach.

As far as I can see I'm doing exactly what you're saying - I'm coming up with suggestions to support the trade rules. Those suggestions require that some of the trade code UWP definitions change. That's all, so I'm still perplexed as to why you think you're on the opposite side of the argument.

Okay, I can answer those.

1. I'm not simply disagreeing with your suggestions,(which I am doing, too) , I'm saying that your effort/approach is a bad idea and an uneccessary waste of time and effort; and may mess up the game more than it corrects.
My "better suggestion" is this: leave it alone, and don't fiddle for the sake of fiddling. Personal opinion.

2. The evidence that supports this discussion, in the socio and economic lit is non-existent or fundimentally irrelevent. Sociology in this case is not "fuzzy" it is uninformed. Big difference. There is no data on what it takes to be an industrialized world. Professional opinion.

3. Given point 2, yes, these are opinions - well thought out and extrapolated from both game effects and a tiny bit of IPL literature, but opinions none the less. "Making sense" isnt proof either. Both are subjective. Treating them as facts doesn't make them facts. Personal opinion.

4. Howver, in the absense of 2, 3 is all we have, I admit. But, beware of the limits. We disagree about In, and Fl, and Ga, etc; and so what ? Intellectual honesty (at least) behooves me to " not present as facts that which is opinion" in the classical (non-perjorative sense) of the word .
Dogheaded opinion.

The rest pretty much is summed up by this part:

I don't think it does at all.

I think it does.

Okay, thats that. I don't think we need to inflict more of this on the list; I'd certainly like to avoid it.


PS

(and you know, I've playtested a hell of a lot of stuff in my time - mostly SJG books, so I do know what I'm doing here and I do know to look at all the things that a change can affect!).

Me too. Published, too. 'course creeks and crawdads is probably not a valid resume point.....

:mrgreen:

 

[EDG]

1. I'm not simply disagreeing with your suggestions,(which I am doing, too) , I'm saying that your effort/approach is a bad idea and an uneccessary waste of time and effort; and may mess up the game more than it corrects.
My "better suggestion" is this: leave it alone, and don't fiddle for the sake of fiddling. Personal opinion.

This is a playtest though - you can't just say "I don't think that'll work" and not suggest anything better. I firmly believe my suggestions will improve the trade classifications and will not mess up the game (at least no more than adding these passenger and trade rules that are untested and different to all the other editions of the game anyway).

And as I said, I'm not messing with anything, I'm changing the codes a little is all. I am well aware that they will affect the freight and passenger tables, but I'm not going to shirk from suggesting them for an unfounded fear of "messing up the game".

2. The evidence that supports this discussion, in the socio and economic lit is non-existent or fundimentally irrelevent. Sociology in this case is not "fuzzy" it is uninformed. Big difference. There is no data on what it takes to be an industrialized world. Professional opinion.

That's codswallop though. We know what it took for our own world to become industrialised, so that's a data point right there. If that's all we have to go on then we'll have to extrapolate and think about what sort of circumstances would make a world "industrial". When I wrote my part of SJG's "Transhuman Space: Under Pressure" I didn't just give up when faced with describing what an ocean under Europa's icesheet was like, I did some research and extrapolated from it and came up with something that (as far as I know) is still pretty damn realistic. Sure, some of it's based on assumption and opinion but that's better than sitting there going "uh, I don't know". You don't just give up and say "nobody knows so let's give up and not think about it".

We're not pulling random, baseless opinion out of our arses here, we're making informed decisions based on what we know so far. We have to be aware of the limitations and assumptions but that's the best we can do and we should be doing that.

3. Given point 2, yes, these are opinions - well thought out and extrapolated from both game effects and a tiny bit of IPL literature, but opinions none the less. "Making sense" isnt proof either. Both are subjective. Treating them as facts doesn't make them facts. Personal opinion.

It's all we've got though. As it stands, the current system doesn't make sense for reasons I've stated on this thread, and I've proposed ways to make them more rational and realistic. If you can't see why they don't make sense or why my efforts make them more realistic then I can't do much about it and I don't particularly want to keep trying to convince you.

4. Howver, in the absense of 2, 3 is all we have, I admit. But, beware of the limits. We disagree about In, and Fl, and Ga, etc; and so what ? Intellectual honesty (at least) behooves me to " not present as facts that which is opinion" in the classical (non-perjorative sense) of the word .Dogheaded opinion.

My goal here is to get a system that is less arbitrary and makes more sense (given what we know about these things and what we know about the assumptions of the game), and I think I have achieved that with my suggestions. If you want to convince me (and the audience) that I am wrong then you'll have to either propose an alternative or put forward a stronger argument for your case.

But just saying "I don't like it, I think you're messing things up" on its own without providing any convincing evidence to show that is the case isn't good enough. I don't think I am messing anything up at all, and if trade codes or effects need to be tweaks to make things work then I'll suggest tweaks for them.

Really, I don't think this discussion has really been helpful to anyone so far and I want to push it more into a useful, constructive direction. I think more discussion along the lines of the effects of the modifiers in the default system and in the tweaked system that I and anyone else proposes would be a lot more useful, as would actual testing of the effects of the current system and of the proposed changes (like what we were talking about with the passenger tables, for example). Ultimately this is about numbers and probabilities and those are what really counts here - looking at those will prove whether or not things are "messed up" or "fixed" more than anything else.