Beefing up the Trade Classifications?

[Malenfant]

I've always been a bit bemused by the trade classifications in Traveller. One thing that's got me scratching my head lately is this: why does a world have to have a population of billions to be considered "Industrial"?

Clearly, the trade classifications are split between net producers/exporters (Ag and In) and net consumers/importers (Na and Ni). But are the Na and Ni worlds completely incapable of producing their own food or goods at all (which seems a bit odd to me), or is it just that they can't produce any to export?

That said, looking at the Na classification, it seems that the logic here is that if the population is low enough (i.e. 5 or less) then they grow enough food and aren't considered non-agricultural, but if it's in the millions or more then they have to import their food.

The Rich/Poor axis confuses me too - it seems a very odd distinction that is actually nothing to do with money or resources. Instead, it seems to be "earthlike" vs "not earthlike". The funny thing is that pre-20th century Earth would be considered a "Rich" world in the existing scheme -after all, it had atm 6, population between 6 and 8, and was balkanised (gov 7). And surely TL and placement on a trade route should also determine whether a world is "Rich" or not.

Furthermore, the Rich definition for some reason includes population, whereas the Poor definition does not. A low pop world strikes me as being much more likely to be a backwater than a hi-pop one. And I don't really follow why a world with atm 0 or 1 can't be considered 'Poor'. I think Population and maybe also TL should be included in the Poor definition for it to be meaningful as an "undeveloped and marginal backwater".

I'm just rambling here... but it seems to me that these classifications could do with some tweaking and a few extra terms in them in order to be more meaningful.

 

[Malenfant]

Economies of scale, probably -- that, and why else would billions of people live on an inhospitable world?

Well, I figured that they'd put the heavy industry on inhospitable worlds so they'd not have to worry about destroying the ecosystem and environment.

Quite why billions of people would be required to make an Industrial world - especially in a TL A+ society where things can be automatically and robotically extracted/processed/mass-produced/assembled - is beyond me though. IMTU I tweak it to pop 8+ instead of 9+, but even that's probably too much.

Exactly. Since Traveller world generation does not reliably distinguish between habitable and hostile worlds, the Rich classification catches those that are most hospitable (and therefore highest productivity); Poor worlds are marginally habitable, without any other significant resources to draw a larger population.

well, IMO either both need to have population considered in their definitions or neither of them should. I'd get rid of the pop definitions myself - to me, a Rich world should be one that potentially has lots of resources (indigenous life, habitable atmosphere to live in and water being three big ones). A poor one should be one that potentially has none of those IMO.

The whole system could make a lot more sense if the underlying planetology were fixed first [hint, hint].

Believe it or not, I'm working on it .

 

[Malenfant]

Something that might be interesting/insightful: What examples among the nations on earth would be classed as In, Ag, Na, Ni, Ri, or Po?

I'm no economist, but I wonder if much of the western world would actually be classed as Na or Ni (maybe "Ag Ni"?) since they seem to import a lot of goods from other countries (or at least a lot of goods (esp. clothing) is produced elsewhere). Japan and some of the other tech producing countries in the far east are possibly "In Na". I guess much of Africa is probably "Poor", and South America and Canada would probably be "Rich" from an environmental perspective.

That's all guesswork on my part, of course.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I've always been a bit bemused by the trade classifications in Traveller. One thing that's got me scratching my head lately is this: why does a world have to have a population of billions to be considered "Industrial"?
-------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Hi-Population seems to have been arbitrarily used for that. Nations with populations less than billions that here on earth are certainly "Industrialized": Russia, UK, Germany, USA, Japan to name a few, while the two nations with billions, China & India are still heavily agrarian dependent themselves.
-------------------------------------------------

Clearly, the trade classifications are split between net producers/exporters (Ag and In) and net consumers/importers (Na and Ni). But are the Na and Ni worlds completely incapable of producing their own food or goods at all (which seems a bit odd to me), or is it just that they can't produce any to export?
-------------------------------------------------
True enough. JTAS covered that orbital habitats for such things as farming, etc to feed a world could be produced by worlds with C-class SY/ports, populations of 5+, and TL-8 at a minimum.
-------------------------------------------------
That said, looking at the Na classification, it seems that the logic here is that if the population is low enough (i.e. 5 or less) then they grow enough food and aren't considered non-agricultural, but if it's in the millions or more then they have to import their food.
------------------------------------------------
Personally, I see that as skewed in obverse. A Small mining company world [pop4 or less] usually has food brought in. In larger populations do you have the ability to divert work force to food production/independence.
------------------------------------------------
The Rich/Poor axis confuses me too - it seems a very odd distinction that is actually nothing to do with money or resources. Instead, it seems to be "earthlike" vs "not earthlike". The funny thing is that pre-20th century Earth would be considered a "Rich" world in the existing scheme -after all, it had atm 6, population between 6 and 8, and was balkanised (gov 7). And surely TL and placement on a trade route should also determine whether a world is "Rich" or not.

Furthermore, the Rich definition for some reason includes population, whereas the Poor definition does not. A low pop world strikes me as being much more likely to be a backwater than a hi-pop one. And I don't really follow why a world with atm 0 or 1 can't be considered 'Poor'. I think Population and maybe also TL should be included in the Poor definition for it to be meaningful as an "undeveloped and marginal backwater".
-------------------------------------------------
Again, I concur Mal. I only pause to add that IMO, Starport as well plays a role in this as well. Examples sem to show a planet with either highest population, but almost always Highest TL in a subsector becomes the subsector Capital for example. And that usually has an A-class or B-class SY/port of call.

I'm just rambling here... but it seems to me that these classifications could do with some tweaking and a few extra terms in them in order to be more meaningful.

-------------------------------------------------
I'm here to help you! [No, the government DID not send me--LOL]

 

[Hal]

You know, what would be really FUN to do is set up something where all the planetary systems are set up in advance. Worlds with mineral deposits are already generated (GURPS SPACE or GURPS FIRST IN would do this nicely enough). Other worlds that happen to be Earth Prime worlds would be generated according to known values, and earthlike worlds would be considered secondary real-estate. Setting up a colony on a marginal world requires dome construction and a survival roll yearly to avoid a blowout and massive population losses. Of course, whom ever is in charge of that world *could* build multiple domes to place maximum population losses based on Dome size

Just fun stuff like that. I bet the History of the third Imperium would change in a hurry (as would the second imperium!)

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Something that might be interesting/insightful: What examples among the nations on earth would be classed as In, Ag, Na, Ni, Ri, or Po?
--------------------------------------------------
Hmm I'll take a stab at this...
North African nations [Saharan States]-
Morrocco,Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Na Ni
Egypt Ag Ni
Chad Po Ag Ni
Sudan Po Ag Ni
Somalia Po Ag Ni

Equatorial Sub-Saharan States [West to east coast], Ag Ni;
The Congo, Ri, Ag Ni
South Africa- Ri Ag Ni


I'm no economist, but I wonder if much of the western world would actually be classed as Na or Ni (maybe "Ag Ni"?) since they seem to import a lot of goods from other countries (or at least a lot of goods (esp. clothing) is produced elsewhere). Japan and some of the other tech producing countries in the far east are possibly "In Na". I guess much of Africa is probably "Poor", and South America and Canada would probably be "Rich" from an environmental perspective.

That's all guesswork on my part, of course.

-------------------------------------------------
Bit of a tossup here Mal.
The USA is one of the most industrial states on earth, yet her agricultural produce feeds herself, and a third of the world elsewheres.
Ri Ag to be sure. State by State might be more accurate, as we do have our desert De Na regions in the Southwest.

 

[Malenfant]

Somalia an Ag nation? Isn't it one of those that keeps suffering from famine?

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Don't forget the psionic (PS) trade class!

Are there any POP-8 countries? (Roll 2D for 11+, DM +1 per level A+; optional DM -1 for POP-8).

IMTU such a country / world would be an Amber zone.

 

[Malenfant]

So... according to the entry in the CIA World factbook, the UK has 244,820 sq km of total area, atm 6, pop 60.27 million (so that's a pop digit of 7), don't have my books here to check gov and law level, but law isn't too restrictive (unless you squeal at the sight of CCTV cameras) and the government could probably be classed as an Impersonal Bureaucracy (gov 9?). I get the impression that the average rainfall for the UK would be about 1200 mm/year (I presume you mean divide by 250 mm, not cm). Haven't got a clue what the per capita GDP of the UK is in 1991 dollars - in 2003 it was $27,700.

I get a size of 49 for the UK - I suspect you meant divide by 1000 there, not 100? In which case the size = 4.9 (which I'd round up to 5).

atm = 6.

hyd = 2. seems awfully low to me - the UK tends to have relatively wet weather.

pop = 7

gov = 9?

law = A?

TL = 8?

So I think by your scheme we have a UWP for the UK of "56279A8". I think a few things need to be tweaked (the TL is way too overcomplicated. Just use whatever its technical capabilities are - I'd say the UK was TL 8).

Maybe you need an 'airport' digit at the start for airports, in which case the UK is probably an A or B.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
Don't forget the psionic (PS) trade class!

Are there any POP-8 countries? (Roll 2D for 11+, DM +1 per level A+; optional DM -1 for POP-8).

IMTU such a country / world would be an Amber zone.

Well, one could argue that the US qualifies as an Amber Zone nowadays...

But yeah. The US has a population of about 293 million, which makes it Pop 8. India and China have pop 9 since their populations are over a billion.

 

[Malenfant]

In fact... I recall seeing trade classifications and UWPs for countries in the 2320AD playtest. I'll have to check the files...

 

[Malenfant]

I dunno, widespread computer use, a large amount of the population connected to the internet, most people have a mobile phone... sounds like TL 8 to me. (TL 7 is "still thinks digital watches are rather cool" )

You may be right on the law level, I was guessing at that. I'll throw the civil liberties mob a bone and say that one could argue for bumping it up if you consider those issues too.

hell, we're clearly 1 TL higher than the US because we can have Debit cards that double as Visas too .

 

[SanDragon]

Oh, really? I have a Visa debit card, thank you very much. So much for that claim.

 

[Malenfant]

Really? Last time I was there (about... 4 years ago?) they didn't have the two put together - ie. you couldn't pay for things online using your debit card, because it didn't have a Visa or Mastercard symbol on it.

Up here in Canada we seem to have separate cards. I have a debit card that I can basically use to pay for things at a suitably equipped counter or take money out of an ATM. I can't use it for anything that requires an actual credit card (like paying for things online) though.

In the UK I know they're merged - I can pay for things with the Visa on my debit card and the money will come out of my bank account. I was quite surprised to find that Canada (which I presume uses a similar system to the US) didn't have that.

Anyway, this is getting a bit OT

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Somalia an Ag nation? Isn't it one of those that keeps suffering from famine?

------------------------------------------------

Yes, as a matter of fact. You see how this can be skewed? Somalia has virtually no industry hence Ni; It is in the sub saharan Horn of Africa, and thus dry 0-3; but the main cause of employment is farming. Its NOT GREAT farming, not with wars fought over it/ and poor [ no relation to the dryness here] agricultural techniques [rotation of crops for example to replenish minerals nutrients back into soil]. The low rainfall there and lack of rivers also hampers irrigation.
So Ag can be used for the primary means of employment.

 

[Liam Devlin]

So my version of Somalia would be:
E263600-3 Ag Ni Po [red zone]-etc. etal.

personally, if a planet or nation has In, and an A-class SY/port, but the world modifier for Po, I feel this is a disservice to the Trade modifiers.

Some GDW OTU examples, taken from Promise [L] / Diaspora Sector. [first UWP is 1120, second is 1201].


Promise 2827 A542999-F Po Hi In Cp 602 LI M1V
C5427T6-9 Po 502 Wi

+++Note, Promise is Hi In, and the Capital! All that commerce, industry, etc. ONLY After Virus, does she lose In, and Hi, and Cp. THAT is when I'd apply the world modifier Po to her.


Exeter 2729 A769895-F Ri 524 LI K3V M9D
X7698R6-8 B824 Wi
+++ AGain, pre Virus/ Final War & afterwards. The planet's population has increased, the government has changed [as well as TNE-balkanized], and the starport lost. Yet TL-8 isn't the stone ages, and the planet's Habitability [Atmos/Hydrospheres] haven't changed, yet it loses Ri.


530-053 3027 X443201-7 Po Ni Lo R822 LI K3V M4D
X4432N2-5 Po Ni Lo 422 Wi

+++In this example, a world that shunned off world contact STILL lost two steps of TL [ridiculous I think], and her population has decreased. Yet no change in Trade status.


Ijiwa 3224 B300864-F Va Na 202 LI M2V M6D
X300000-0 Va Ba 002 Wi

+++ Ijiwa had a B-class SY/Port, an 8 pop digit [sme 200 millions, maybe slightly under US current pop], and TL-F, and a Military/ captive-colony Govt. Na & Va. Okay, no problem there, shouldn't it have also been In? Or is that covered in her Na status?

I'll let ya'll come up with some of yer own now...

 

[Anton]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Somalia an Ag nation? Isn't it one of those that keeps suffering from famine?

Well, it's relative, isn't it. Ethiopia is another country that keeps suffering from famine, yet during the worst of the famine in the mid- to late-80's, parts of the country were still growing and exporting cash crops. I've heard it said that as the food aid bought by LiveAid was bought on the open world market, some of the aid shipped there was actually originally grown there, shipped to the UK, and then shipped back!

Same happened in Ireland - we had a 'Great Famine' around 1847, where there was really only a failure of the potato crop - Ireland was still exporting grain at the time.

Anton

 

[Straybow]

"Poor" says atm 2-5 and hydro 0-3, in other words, a world where one can survive without advanced tech but can't build a dry land agrarian economy beyond subsistence level. That only makes sense if under assumptions that have little to do with either atm or hydro.

In the LBB2 trade chart a "P" world has no negative DMs in the purchase or resale columns. That means no items are so easily produced that they are regularly available cheap, only by some random chance (a company ordered this shipment and went bankrupt, so it sits at the starport and the bank just wants to unload it). And none are so universally available that resale is unlikely to create a profitable trade.

In LBB2 items 41-46 (weapons and armor) have the highest DMs for Poor worlds for both purchase and resale, and AFVs have a +4 purchase DM. That says weapons are expected to be in short supply and high demand among those who can afford them.

Unless the world is in anarchy (Gov 0?) or in a constant state of conflict (Gov 5 or 7, or dictatorships persecuting minorities?), and doesn't have the resources to make its own weapons (TL 4?) I don't think such trade conditions are possible.

By coincidence, that is similar to what we see in East Africa, for example. Except that the arms market is flooded and AK47s go for $50. Maybe if there hadn't been decades of Commies dumping weapons the arms market would be tight.

Are other versions of Traveller Trade and Speculation significantly different from LBB2?

 

[Liam Devlin]

The T20 PHB Milord Straybow, merely says:

"Poor Are those marginal backwater worlds with atmosphere 2-5, and hydrosphere of 3 or less."-pp 379 Only a -1 trade balance modifier for world type [same page, btw]

My former example:
Promise 2827 A542999-F Po Hi In Cp 602 LI M1V
--Might have been world resources "Poor", but was the subsector Capital, and Hi [population], and In [Industrialized], with an A class SY/Starport

[WHich in T20 yields a Trade balance of:
-1 = Poor
-1 = Govt. [Bureaucacy]
-1 = Law level [9]
+2 = TL-F
+2 = A-class SY/Port
+4 = Industrial
Total = +5.
"If Trade balance is a negative, world is major Importer of goods. If positive, a major exporter of goods [thereby Imperial credits!]".

Conversely, in the same Main of stars:
Exeter 2729 A769895-F Ri 524 LI K3V M9D
-1 = Govt [as above]
+0 = Population modifier
+1 = Law level modifier.
+2 = TL-F
+2 = A class SY/port
+2 = Ri, as in "Rich in resources"
Total +6.

Here we have a world of 500 million sentients out producing the subsector Capital several parsecs away with over ten times the population!
Is not production & exportation indicative of industrial might?


--Looking at Mal's argument --Wherein without saying it, population DOES affect the Trade Designators, as for the case of In [Pop 9-A & Atmosphere 0,2,4,7, & 9.]
Yet the example given [same page] is for Terra [21st century] D868976-8 Hi In Na 614 G4 V. Terra overall, does not have a tainted atmosphere--yet!

The definitions do need some revamping at the very least: Promise/Promise Diaspora was anything but a provincial, "marginal backwater" world! Granted the UWP is reflecting a "world average" here. But as the Trade Balance shows, Promise Promise produced more than she Imported.

 

[Straybow]

Don't have THB, only 3LBB. I'm not sure what those numbers mean. Is it comparing imports to export (trade balance) or to production?

Anyway, it's easy to have more imports than exports or vice versa. It's impossible to have more imports than domestic production, because only domestic production can generate money to buy imports. You can do it for maybe 1 year by ransacking savings and selling off capital.