expected ship traffic
Timothy Collinson
(22 Aug 2014 16:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(22 Aug 2014 19:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(22 Aug 2014 19:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Bruce Johnson
(22 Aug 2014 20:11 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(22 Aug 2014 20:46 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(22 Aug 2014 20:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(22 Aug 2014 21:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(22 Aug 2014 21:34 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(22 Aug 2014 22:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(22 Aug 2014 23:18 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(23 Aug 2014 08:29 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic Phil Pugliese (24 Aug 2014 00:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(23 Aug 2014 02:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Joseph Hallare
(23 Aug 2014 06:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(23 Aug 2014 23:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(24 Aug 2014 00:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 14:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(24 Aug 2014 22:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(24 Aug 2014 22:49 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 23:16 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 22:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(25 Aug 2014 00:23 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 05:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(25 Aug 2014 03:16 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(25 Aug 2014 03:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(25 Aug 2014 04:03 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(25 Aug 2014 04:13 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(25 Aug 2014 04:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 05:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(25 Aug 2014 06:24 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 14:40 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(26 Aug 2014 00:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(26 Aug 2014 00:25 UTC)
|
RE: [TML] expected ship traffic
Anthony Jackson
(26 Aug 2014 21:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(26 Aug 2014 21:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(26 Aug 2014 04:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(26 Aug 2014 05:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(26 Aug 2014 13:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(26 Aug 2014 15:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(27 Aug 2014 04:25 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(27 Aug 2014 20:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Bruce Johnson
(25 Aug 2014 14:28 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 14:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Bruce Johnson
(25 Aug 2014 16:20 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(25 Aug 2014 16:42 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 19:22 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(25 Aug 2014 19:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 20:39 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Kelly St. Clair
(25 Aug 2014 19:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 20:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(25 Aug 2014 20:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 21:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Bruce Johnson
(25 Aug 2014 20:43 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 21:25 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(26 Aug 2014 00:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(26 Aug 2014 00:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(26 Aug 2014 00:29 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(26 Aug 2014 00:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(25 Aug 2014 16:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(25 Aug 2014 17:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
David Shaw
(25 Aug 2014 18:16 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Bruce Johnson
(25 Aug 2014 20:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 21:09 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(25 Aug 2014 21:27 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 21:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Kurt Feltenberger
(25 Aug 2014 21:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Kurt Feltenberger
(25 Aug 2014 21:55 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(26 Aug 2014 13:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
John Geoffrey
(26 Aug 2014 14:19 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(26 Aug 2014 14:31 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
John Geoffrey
(26 Aug 2014 14:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(27 Aug 2014 02:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Kurt Feltenberger
(27 Aug 2014 02:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(27 Aug 2014 13:03 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(27 Aug 2014 19:33 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(27 Aug 2014 20:18 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(27 Aug 2014 21:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(28 Aug 2014 13:06 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(28 Aug 2014 13:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(28 Aug 2014 14:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
John Geoffrey
(28 Aug 2014 14:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(28 Aug 2014 14:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(29 Aug 2014 07:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(28 Aug 2014 20:27 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Kelly St. Clair
(27 Aug 2014 05:18 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(27 Aug 2014 19:46 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Timothy Collinson
(29 Aug 2014 19:29 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 19:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
William Ewing
(27 Aug 2014 20:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(27 Aug 2014 20:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Jeffrey Schwartz
(27 Aug 2014 20:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(27 Aug 2014 20:28 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Timothy Collinson
(29 Aug 2014 19:51 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Andrew Long
(27 Aug 2014 20:52 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(27 Aug 2014 21:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(25 Aug 2014 06:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Richard Aiken
(24 Aug 2014 06:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(24 Aug 2014 06:51 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Richard Aiken
(01 Sep 2014 00:29 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(01 Sep 2014 02:23 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Richard Aiken
(02 Sep 2014 00:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(02 Sep 2014 00:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(24 Aug 2014 07:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(24 Aug 2014 08:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(24 Aug 2014 08:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 15:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
William Ewing
(27 Aug 2014 19:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 22:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(24 Aug 2014 22:51 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 23:05 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Thomas Jones-Low
(22 Aug 2014 20:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Greg Chalik
(22 Aug 2014 21:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Thomas Jones-Low
(22 Aug 2014 21:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Timothy Collinson
(22 Aug 2014 21:33 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 00:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(24 Aug 2014 15:06 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(23 Aug 2014 07:36 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Timothy Collinson
(23 Aug 2014 08:57 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Kelly St. Clair
(23 Aug 2014 09:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Kelly St. Clair
(23 Aug 2014 09:23 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Timothy Collinson
(23 Aug 2014 11:19 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Tim
(23 Aug 2014 11:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(23 Aug 2014 23:49 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Phil Pugliese
(23 Aug 2014 23:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Freelance Traveller
(27 Aug 2014 22:31 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Ian Whitchurch
(27 Aug 2014 23:11 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Craig Berry
(27 Aug 2014 23:43 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
John Geoffrey
(28 Aug 2014 12:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] expected ship traffic
Richard Aiken
(29 Aug 2014 13:30 UTC)
|
I wholeheartedly agree about the 'rule of cool'. In fact I imagine that's why CT 'High Guard' introduced SW's 'StarDestroyer' analogs. And why DGP introduced their bulk carrier behemoths. However, such a rule is inherently subjective in nature & thus subject to individual whims & fancies. Still, many folks, incl those who created the various Trav products, have almost always tended to try to present 'hard' facts & figures to support their positions. While this does help with 'suspension of disbelief' (after it's not supposed to be a (D&D in outer space, where 'Magicks' can explain anything & everything, is it?), it will also, inevitably lead to prolonged debates. -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 8/22/14, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] expected ship traffic To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com Date: Friday, August 22, 2014, 3:21 PM Yes; by the 57th Century (heck, by the 22nd Century) we should be able to create anything we want "magically" (3d printing, nanites, or whatever). Trade in anything other than information makes no sense in such a world. It would also lack free traders (and indeed, capitalism as we know it), rendering Traveller (and likely, humanity itself) unrecognizable. Traveller has always been about the "rule of cool" -- something that doesn't make sense but makes the setting more interesting is allowed to be handwaved into the game. Traveller is hard SF at the micro scale, exceedingly silly at all other scales. So if you handwave in the idea that a society with millennia of scientific progress beyond ours and the resources of ten thousand worlds still has a scarcity-based economy, all the usual rules of economics follow. One of these is the principle of comparative advantage, which explains why specialization occurs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage . Anyone trying to design realistic Traveller economics needs to be familiar with that principle. It should be noted that polities will often use regulatory methods to push back against this principle. Even if world A makes really cheap farm machinery and nearby world B grows really cheap food, A will probably want to have significant farmland, and B some local industrial capacity. This is insurance against the unexpected -- e.g. A and B end up on different sides in a civil war, or pirates start intercepting a lot of the local merchant traffic, or whatever. See e.g. Japan's rice-growing subsidies for a real-world example. On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Ian Whitchurch <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: Edit on the grav tank. Should be 30 parsecs, not 300. Typos :) On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Ian Whitchurch <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: "DGP apparently never understood that the TU had always used the 17th century as a template instead of the, at that time current, 1980's. Hence there was a dichotomy. If Tim's calculations are correct (I don't have T5) then it appears that DGP's template has been abandoned & the original CT has been put back in place. I, for one, welcome that development as I never could buy into the idea that such a large volume of cargo could continue to be shipped indefinitely w/o eventually being supplanted by in-system (not necessarily on-planet) production." You are just showing you dont understand either the 17thC or economics. OK, lets deal with the 17thC. Lets see how much glass was made in Venice alone, as an example. Or look at the trade in wine or brandy, and the fact it was actually specialised. Now, lets deal with economics. Lets take, I dunno, a grav tank. Call it 10 dtons and worth MCr3. At Cr750/parsec, for a 10% cheaper grav tank from mass producing it in Gravtankograd, we can move it ... 300 parsecs ... before cost plus cost of shipping is getting close to the cost of the shorter production run. At KCr300 per dton, a grav tank is only call it KCr 30 per m3 (including packing space at 10 usable m3 per 14m3 dton). KCr30 per m3 is Cr30 per kilo, at 1000 kilos to a m3. Lets take some, possibly temporarily fashionable, meat - I can see hand-killed poni from some worldlet or other being worth Cr30 a kilo to sufficiently educated palates, especially if average income in a high tech world is KCr15 a year or so. Yeah, you can be eating something produced by technology and industry so much cheaper - but who would go to *that* dinner party ? Put those two things together, and you can easily justify a lot of long distance trade in the Imperium. Ian Whitchurch On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote: This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows: The 'large scheduled container ship' theorem came in w/ MT & DGP. A later development (later MT or early Virus) was the silly idea that just about all systems would hyper-specialize their production. (Bertil Jonell made the observation that it seems that most system's production is similar to a system that exclusively produces left-footed shoes & imports *everything* else! BTW, anyone have any contact info wrt Bertil?) DGP apparently never understood that the TU had always used the 17th century as a template instead of the, at that time current, 1980's. Hence there was a dichotomy. If Tim's calculations are correct (I don't have T5) then it appears that DGP's template has been abandoned & the original CT has been put back in place. I, for one, welcome that development as I never could buy into the idea that such a large volume of cargo could continue to be shipped indefinitely w/o eventually being supplanted by in-system (not necessarily on-planet) production. I believe that someone (Jeff?) posted some text on this subject a while back that allowed for such w/o endangering the 3I's revenue which was one the major arguments used to support MT-DGP's position. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 8/22/14, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] expected ship traffic To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com Date: Friday, August 22, 2014, 12:50 PM I've always thought that most interstellar shipping, like most shipping today, would be done by large, scheduled container ships. Small independents in their free/far/fat traders would fill in gaps -- whether that means visiting a system without regular freight service (for whatever reason), or getting an urgent cargo delivered ahead of the usual schedule, or carrying something the regulars won't touch for legal or other reasons. A free trader trying to compete head to head against the big guys is doomed; they can't beat the economies of scale. Nor will most honest business-sophonts do business with a shady tramp freighter's crew when the fully bonded, easily sued megacorp is an option. For shipping volume calculations, I recommend Far Trader ( http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/fartrader/ ); from what I recall, it produced very reasonable figures. (The worked example calculating the traffic between the two main Vegan worlds made my head spin.) On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote: This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows: -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 8/22/14, Timothy Collinson <xxxxxx@port.ac.uk> wrote: Subject: [TML] expected ship traffic To: "xxxxxx@simplelists.com" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> Date: Friday, August 22, 2014, 9:53 AM Hi there, Am I reading this correctly? page 435 of the T5 core rules give a figure for 'expected ship traffic' - the expected interstellar ship traffic for a starport. S = 10^Ix / H where:S = total ships per week Ix = Importance H = Average Cargo Hold Capacity = 100 for most worlds OK, so I'm looking at Neala in Ilelish Sector whose importance = 1 So I make that a total of 1 ship every 10 weeks. And a B class starport! Is that right or am I missing something? Nearby Gypsy has an Importance of 2 so it manages 1 ship per week. (And again a B class starport). Is traffic really this low? cheers tc ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If that's NOT a typo then it so long to MT's interpretation of what 'maritime' (post-container cargo 20th century Earth) means. However, even under the original CT definition (17th century Earth), it seems a little 'light'. BTW, how much cargo can the CT Free,Far, & 'Fat'Trader carry? p.s. I would argue that whether not not a world is on a J1 'Main' should also factor in as otherwise the ubiquitous FreeTrader can't go there. =================================================================================================== ----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=PltOdItWBSgOP4y0Q6abkGbDI1eus0lz -- Craig Berry (http://google.com/+CraigBerry) "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." - William Blake ----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a ----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=Qjs81DnfPhuRQ7Rw3I0XVltos3d36yjy ----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=PltOdItWBSgOP4y0Q6abkGbDI1eus0lz -- Craig Berry (http://google.com/+CraigBerry) "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." - William Blake ----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a