Cash in Traveller

[aramis]

On a local level (subsector to adjacent) The XBoat net's plenty fast enough except for a couple odd junctions. The vast majority (90% or more) of trade should be going at most 10 Pc.

And the costs of 2J6 vs 3J4 is roughly 14x the costs per ton for the 1 week savings... not to mention that under CT bk2 nor Bk5, you can't build a 100Td J6 design. (it's none too spacious under HG, either...)

A quick T20 design:
100.0 008.0 00 Hull: 100Td FlSph
020.0 000.5 00 Bridge
007.0 028.0 06 J6 JDrive
060.0 000.0 00 Fuel 1J6
001.5 012.0 00 Model 6111 MCr(6x(0.9+0.6+0.5 ) Td (.6+.4+.3+.2)
002.0 003.0 02 1G MDrive
003.0 009.0 06 PP TL15
001.5 000.0 00 PP Fuel 2 weeks
004.0 000.5 00 SRx1
001.0 000.0 00 Cargo
===== ===== == ========================================
100.0 061.0 00
But, under CT, the design fails, since the computer is bigger. (7Td, IIRC) and 30+ MCr more...

 

[rancke]

On a local level (subsector to adjacent) The XBoat net's plenty fast enough except for a couple odd junctions.

If by "plenty fast enough" you mean "faster than any reasonable alternative", then, no, the X-boat is very plainly not plenty fast enough. An optimized J4 network might be. Let's have a look at the Spinward Marches, shall we? The number of jumps between the subsector capitals I mentioned in a previous post would be:

Route            X-boats     Optimized J4   J6
Jewell-Regina:       7            4          2
Jewell-Frenzie:      9            3          3
Regina-Aramis:      11            4          2
Regina-Frenzie:      4            3          2
Regina-Lanth:        3            3          2
Regina Rhylanor:     7            3          2
Aramis-Rhylanor:     4            2          2
Frenzie-Lanth:       7            3          1
Lanth-Rhylanor:      4            4          2
Lanth-Lunion:        7            2          2  
Rhylanor-Lunion:     7            3          2
Rhylanor-Mora:      10            3          2
Lunion-Glisten:      7            4          3
Lunion-Mora:         5            3          2
Lunion-Trin:         9            5          3
Mora-Glisten:        9            5          3
Mora-Trin:           6            4          3
Glisten-Trin:        5            4          2

Note that some of the jump-6 links can be served by jump-5 and jump-4, so those routes would be cheaper.

The vast majority (90% or more) of trade should be going at most 10 Pc.

1) You assume. 2) Doesn't affect the impact on share trading over longer distances. The information that Amalgamated Porozlan Freight, LIC has had a bad year will affect trading on the Deneb Stock Exchange despite Amalgamated's trade being 99% with Rhylanor.

A

nd the costs of 2J6 vs 3J4 is roughly 14x the costs per ton for the 1 week savings... not to mention that under CT bk2 nor Bk5, you can't build a 100Td J6 design. (it's none too spacious under HG, either...)

Information isn't bulky. You can pack terabytes into one liter, so the freight cost of a dT is pretty irrelevant. What you have to compare is the cost of three X-boats[*] (or 126 X-boats) and three tenders vs. the cost of two J6 couriers (Couriers don't need tenders). By canonical CT figures[**] that would be 212+824 megacredits for the X-boat solution and 511 megacredits for the J6 solution.

[*] Or four if the astrography is awkward.

[**] I'm not sure if the figures in Fighting Ships are Book 2 or HG for the X-boat and the Fleet Courier. The X-boat tender figure is from Traders and Gunboats and defenitiely is Book 2. My use of this figure is purely for convenience and should not to be taken as evidence that I do not consider Book 2 design to be badly broken.
​

Why, look at that: The J6 solution is cheaper!

OK, if you employ more than one X-boat/courier per link, the figures shift in favor of the X-boats, since you only pay for one tender. Seven units per link would, for example, give MCr2307 for the X-boats and MCr3578 for the J6 solution. And then there's the operating expenses, but I'm not sure which way that would affect the figures.

Suffice it to say that J6 is demonstrably competetive with the X-boats, even if they (the X-boats) were optimized. As they're not, it's simply no contest.


Hans

 

[aramis]

The fact that you can't build a valid 100 ton J6 design in CT is a real stopping point, hans.

The J6 courier is at least twice the size, twice the fuel costs, and requires at least twice the crew, and costs considerably more...

The XB in S9 is the same as the one in S7.
The fleet courier in s9 is a HG design, and is MCr254.54424 and 400 Td.... 3.5x the cost, and considerably more (5 crew vs 1) on other ops costs, and 6x the fuel cost... it's about KCr130.1 per jump using the same assumptions (70 year replacement schedule, 1.5 crews at KCr1/mo/man, unrefined fuel because it has an FPP, 9 day LS per trip, 40 trips per year)

Vs 52000 per jump for the XBoat. 2x cost for 1.5x performance. Not bad, but... it's also a TL15 design, vs TL13 for the XBoats, and thus not maintainable in the majority of the marches, unlike the XBoats.

the lack of long-haul optimization is a non-issue; The Xboat net is reasonbly fast, ties most major worlds together with their nearest major neighbors. It's long range aspects are pretty much incidental. I disbelieve that most trade will be long-routes; the centralization tendency is unpopular IRL, and is likely to be even more so when entire populations live or die by failure to deliver.

Further, the canonical mode for J1-J2 links is Type S couriers. They run KCr26.233 per jump, using the Bk2/S7/S9 ship and the same assumptions. (I can cut KCr8 offby redoing it in B7, and more still in T20...). And they are TL11.

 

[rancke]

The fact that you can't build a valid 100 ton J6 design in CT is a real stopping point, Hans.

No it's not.

For one thing, CT design rules may not be an entirely accurate portrayal of ship design in the "real" OTU. After all, T4 is also supposed to reflect the realities of the OTU (as is MT, TNE, T20, and MGT). But let's not go down that road here, since it does not automatically matter if J6 couriers are twice as expensive to build and run. It only matter if it is prohibitively more expensive. Which so far you've not managed to demonstrate that they are.

The fleet courier in s9 is a HG design, and is MCr254.54424 and 400 Td.... 3.5x the cost, and considerably more (5 crew vs 1) on other ops costs, and 6x the fuel cost... it's about KCr130.1 per jump using the same assumptions (70 year replacement schedule, 1.5 crews at KCr1/mo/man, unrefined fuel because it has an FPP, 9 day LS per trip, 40 trips per year)

Vs 52000 per jump for the XBoat. 2x cost for 1.5x performance. Not bad, but... it's also a TL15 design, vs TL13 for the XBoats, and thus not maintainable in the majority of the marches, unlike the XBoats.

All ships can be maintained at any Class A or Class B starport. Even if that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be hard to shedule the ships to be in one of the systems with TL15 (or a Scout Way Station) when they need maintenance. At worst it'll cost you a little slop with the performance, maybe an average performance of 39 trips per year instead of 40 (I would have calculated with 35 trips per year anyway).

The lack of long-haul optimization is a non-issue;

Unsubstantiated claim. I'll just reply with an equally valid "No it isn't".

The Xboat net is reasonbly fast, ties most major worlds together with their nearest major neighbors.

This is where I would have blown my stack if I was an exitable type. That statement is just plain wrong, and if you don't know it, you ought to. You're completely ignoring the facts that I pointed out in my previous post. Of the 18 capital-to-capital routes I listed TWO (count them: two) are as fast as they can be. If you consider one link more than necessary reasonable (which I don't), four out of those 18 are "reasonably fast". Unless I've made a mistake with my sums, those 18 routes have an average number of 6.72 links where an optimized J4 network would have an average of 3.44. (For comparison, a J6 network would have an average of 2.22 links).

Since I'm disinclined to blow up over something that's supposed to be a fun passtime, I'll just ask you to retract this contrafactual statement.

It's long range aspects are pretty much incidental. I disbelieve that most trade will be long-routes; the centralization tendency is unpopular IRL, and is likely to be even more so when entire populations live or die by failure to deliver.

Already addressed in previous post. It's just an opinion and it's irrelevant to share trading and other reasons for wanting fresh news.

Further, the canonical mode for J1-J2 links is Type S couriers. They run KCr26.233 per jump, using the Bk2/S7/S9 ship and the same assumptions. (I can cut KCr8 offby redoing it in B7, and more still in T20...). And they are TL11.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that bit of the description of the X-boat network where it said that they used Scout/Couriers for the one and two parsec links. I could have sworn the description has the X-boats proceed from one link in the chain to the next.

It's a reasonable way to handle a J4 network, I agree. Use jump-4 ships to go back and forth across four parsec distances, jump-3 ships across the occasional three parsec distance where astrography forces the network to "jump short", and distribute the news locally by low-jump ships. But that's not how the X-boat network is described.


Hans


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

I'm so confused by this Xboat discussion.

Primarily, what the heck does optimized mean?

Optimized for faster delivery time, lower cost, a more secure route, less boats and personnel needed....

I'm sure the pony express could have been 'optimized' for time by having more places where you swap out for a fresh horse. For cost by using slow nags. For availability by including a more zig zagged route that reached more locations...

I'm no whiz at these things but typically to gain in one area you lose in another.

What happens to the worlds being bypassed when the path between the capitals is 'optimized'?

The cost to swap out a fleet of ships to a different type does not sound cost effective.

it does not automatically matter if J6 couriers are twice as expensive to build and run. It only matter if it is prohibitively more expensive.

Isn't the Xboat subsidized with tax dollars? The xboat implementation may not be primarily cost based. Yes, time could be a consideration but often politics plays a part. Who has the contract to build and maintain the ships - can they support multiple ship models? Did someone convince someone else to get their system on the xboat route? Heavens no, there is no bribery, blackmail, nepotism, or corruption in the 3I!

under CT bk2 nor Bk5, you can't build a 100Td J6 design.

How about this CT LBB2 design?

020 Bridge
007 Computer Model 6
020 Jump Drive C J6
001 Maneuver Drive A M2
010 Power plant #1 C Pn6
040 Jump Fuel
015 Power plant #1 Fuel for 1 week (10x6/4)
004 Power plant #2 A Pn2 [second power plant actually gets you an additional day of operation]
003 Power plant #2 Fuel for 4.2 days (10x2/4.2)
======================
100 Total

I've not done a CT ship in a long time. I'm stretching things a bit, but hope I got it right.

Since the silly power plant fuel requirements are, well, maybe I shouldn't use the word I'm thinking of.

The book indicates the power plant fuel consumption is based on maximum output.

EXAMPLE: Two ships with identical design (lets say 100t J-2, M-2) except one has a larger power plant than the other. (lets say P-Plant 2 vs 6) With 10xPower Plant number, the larger power plant consumes 3 times the fuel at all times for it to still only provide 4 weeks of operation on 60t of fuel.

Possible explanations:
1) As the book states, this is 'a framework' and 'obviously rules which could cover ever aspect of every possible action would be far larger than these three booklets'. In my opinion, the power plant can operate at variable rates. Personally, as a compromise, I use the fuel consumption based on a power plant size required by the item currently in use. So when the J-6 drive is in use, the Pn6 power plant would be at full capacity but when the M-2 maneuver drive is in use the Pn-6 power plant would be using 1/3 of the fuel. 1/6 if the maneuver drive is only pushing 1G.
2) This futuristic power plant has two modes. Always on at full capacity and off. While I don't agree with this, I don't want the canon police coming after me, so I went with this.

Back to the ship design. The larger power plant is for the Jump drive and is only needed while the Jump drive is in operation. The second, smaller power plant is used the rest of the time.

The single person crew sleeps in a reclining bridge chair so that we can claim the stateroom space.

4.2 days of in system operation may not be much, but the xboat schedule is known and tenders could be made available for refueling.

My justification for this design - The CT LBB2 Drive potential chart indicates there is a Jump 6 100t ship so it must be possible somehow. Otherwise there should have been a dash in that column!

 

[Commander Truestar]

With all respect for the fact you did not raise this issue, there is Canon source material suggesting strongly that there was a hidden J-6 Military X-Boat network that served an alternate, and primarily government/military pattern of worlds in the OTU.
So there "is" another, more time-optimized OTU Xboat route. It was just not well documented in the material sold.

Marc

I'm so confused by this Xboat discussion.
Primarily, what the heck does optimized mean?
Optimized for faster delivery time, lower cost, a more secure route, less boats and personnel needed....
I'm sure the pony express could have been 'optimized' for time by having more places where you swap out for a fresh horse. For cost by using slow nags. For availability by including a more zig zagged route that reached more locations...

I'm no whiz at these things but typically to gain in one area you lose in another.

What happens to the worlds being bypassed when the path between the capitals is 'optimized'?

 

[aramis]

How about this CT LBB2 design?

020 Bridge
007 Computer Model 6
020 Jump Drive C J6
001 Maneuver Drive A M2
010 Power plant #1 C Pn6
040 Jump Fuel
015 Power plant #1 Fuel for 1 week (10x6/4)
004 Power plant #2 A Pn2 [second power plant actually gets you an additional day of operation]
003 Power plant #2 Fuel for 4.2 days (10x2/4.2)
======================
100 Total

1: your total is wrong; you've 120 tons shown
2: you're missing 20 tons of the 60 tons JFuel required

Bk2
020 Bridge
020 Jump Drive C J6
060 Jump Fuel
======================
100 Total
Not even a SR, nor a power plant. Invalid even under CT1E
010 Power plant #1 C Pn6
020 Power plant #1 Fuel for 9.3 days
004 Stateroom
007 Computer Model 6
======================
141/100 Total

Bk5:
020 Bridge
007 JDrive 6
006 PP15-6
060 JFuel
007 Model 6
=== ===============
100 Total
Again, closer.. and the remaining equipment:
006 PP Fuel
004 Stateroom
=== ===============
110 (of 100T hull) Total

MGT
010 Bridge
020 Jump Drive C J6
060 Jump Fuel
010 Power plant C Pn6
000 Computer Model 6
======================
100 Total
Still not a valid design...

004 Power plant Fuel for 9.3 days
004 Stateroom
======================
108/100 Total
much closer, but not happening. Purple denotes items that differ from CT.

The CT tender is designed to work with 100Td XBoats... a parallel network should be obvious if tender based, since it's going to need different tenders. Imperiallines hides theirs, and uses some BIG ships for it, because theirs looks just like their cargo carriers.. It's clearly NOT a cost-optimized network, and given the low numbers, not overly traffic optimized; it's specifically a Capital-Deneb-Marches run, and hidden like q-ships. The Naval couriers are again probably not coverage optimized; they are connecting HQ to HQ. The X-boat net appears pretty well coverage optimized, not time, and is pretty well price optimized as well.

 

[rancke]

Primarily, what the heck does optimized mean?

I use it to mean the best possible compromise between cost and performance, where performance is rated by speed of communication between Capital and sector capitals and between sector capitals and subsector capitals. Secondary importance is given to in cluding important non-capital worlds, where importance is mostly rated by political issues (note though, that since wealth correlates with political clout, TL, population size, and trade classification are good indicators of political importance).

Optimized for faster delivery time, lower cost, a more secure route, less boats and personnel needed....

I may be wrong, but I've always thought that optimization involved weighing two or more different factors against each other. Thus you can't optimize for any one single factor.

I'm sure the pony express could have been 'optimized' for time by having more places where you swap out for a fresh horse.

No, it could have been maximized for speed by having more transfer points, but the gain from changing horses that were not yet near exhaustion would have been minimal, hence not optimal.

What happens to the worlds being bypassed when the path between the capitals is 'optimized'?

They get their news a week later when a Scout/Courier arrive from the nearest node.

The cost to swap out a fleet of ships to a different type does not sound cost effective.

Who is proposing that?

Isn't the Xboat subsidized with tax dollars?

We don't know. It may be (though it would probably be the Emperor's share dividends, not tax). Or perhaps the X-mail revenue is enough to cover the expenses.

The xboat implementation may not be primarily cost based. Yes, time could be a consideration but often politics plays a part. Who has the contract to build and maintain the ships - can they support multiple ship models? Did someone convince someone else to get their system on the xboat route? Heavens no, there is no bribery, blackmail, nepotism, or corruption in the 3I!

Politics, bribery, and corruption is pretty much the only way to account for the canonical pretzely X-boat routes. But that's not the point. The point is that the X-boat network is obviously not fulfilling its primary purpose (speedy communication). So who is doing the job it isn't doing? My answer is: The 'NavyNet' for the Imperial Bureaucracy and civilian shipping for civilians.


Hans

 

[rancke]

With all respect for the fact you did not raise this issue, there is Canon source material suggesting strongly that there was a hidden J-6 Military X-Boat network that served an alternate, and primarily government/military pattern of worlds in the OTU.

The military jump-6 couriers are not X-boats and they're not hidden. Apart from that, I agree with you.

So there "is" another, more time-optimized OTU Xboat route. It was just not well documented in the material sold.

The problem is that the Norris story relies on these Navy couriers not doing their job and on civilian shipping averaging lower than the canonical X-boat performance of 2.6 parsecs per week. Except that the Norris story doesn't work even if those assumptions are accepted.


Hans

 

[rancke]

The CT tender is designed to work with 100Td XBoats... a parallel network should be obvious if tender based, since it's going to need different tenders.

Obvious how? There are huge amounts of stuff that must be obvious but nevertheless hasn't been documented so far.

Imperiallines hides theirs, and uses some BIG ships for it, because theirs looks just like their cargo carriers.. It's clearly NOT a cost-optimized network, and given the low numbers, not overly traffic optimized; it's specifically a Capital-Deneb-Marches run, and hidden like q-ships.

Imperiallines is specifically not just a Capital-Deneb-Marches run but covers the entire Imperium.

"Under various names and using various different ship designs, the company has offices in two out of three class C starport worlds in the Imperium. In addition, the company has offices at subsector capitals in many sectors [...]. Imperiallines is the name used in the Spinward Marches."

(Side note: The description in MT claims that Imperiallines is the name used Imperium-wide. My suggestion for reconciling those two statements is to say that there's a different company in each sector (Some (non-canonical) examples are: Core Carriers in Core, Khugishu Bilanidin in Vland, Corridor Caravels in Corridor, Bright Star Line in Deneb); that 'Imperiallines' was the code name/nickname for the entire setup; and that the company in the Spinward Marches was originally supposed to be named Spinward Freighters, but for reasons that has never been made clear, the agent who handled the transaction used 'Imperiallines' instead. Rather than draw attention to the setup by changing the name, the Director decided that the name would work as a double bluff and left it alone.

Also, Imperiallines is sometimes confused with Imperial Lines, an Imperium-wide corporation owned openly by the Imperial family and on the verge of achieving megacorporate status .)

The Naval couriers are again probably not coverage optimized; they are connecting HQ to HQ.

We don't know anything about what the Naval couriers cover. HQ to HQ is a given, but there's no reason to suppose that in those cases where the subsector fleet HQ is not located on the subsector capital, they wouldn't cover the capital too.

And one very good reason to suppose that they do: Since the X-boats are not doing the job of conveying information fast, someone else probably is.

The X-boat net appears pretty well coverage optimized, not time, and is pretty well price optimized as well.

I'd be fascinated to hear what definition you use to include the worlds that are covered by the X-boats and exclude the ones that aren't. Why Maitz and not Porozlo? Why Garrincski and not Heroni? Why Horosho and not Natoko? Why New Rome and not Louzy?

The X-boat coverage is not optimized in any way that I can discern. It does cover almost all class A starport worlds, many class B starport worlds, some class C starport worlds, and a few class D starport worlds regardless of their economic importance or astrographical position. It's almost as if the individual links had been established, or not established, by random die rolls that paid attention to nothing but the starport class rather than by any rational scheme.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

1: your total is wrong; you've 120 tons shown
2: you're missing 20 tons of the 60 tons JFuel required

Bad. Very bad. Not sure how a made such a blunder.

 

[david.wendelken]

The X-boat coverage is not optimized in any way that I can discern. It does cover almost all class A starport worlds, many class B starport worlds, some class C starport worlds, and a few class D starport worlds regardless of their economic importance or astrographical position. It's almost as if the individual links had been established, or not established, by random die rolls that paid attention to nothing but the starport class rather than by any rational scheme.


Hans

That sounds exactly like something designed by the US Congress or any bureaucracy worth it's salt.

 

[abomination]

Most modern coins are not specie, nor reserve allocation tokens, however, and thus are not properly hard currencies. The Euro and US coins lack sufficient precious metals to account for their face value; they are thus properly fiat coins.

A pre1965 US dime would have the same rough value to any local world that can test it: 2.268 grams at 90% silver, or roughly 2.04g of silver @.99 fine, and the 0.228g copper. A pre 1966 Canadian had roughly 5/9 the silver value, and thus about 70% of the value, of its nearly identical mass US dime cousin.

Oddly here in the UK, the rise in copper prices meant our smallest copper coins (1p & 2p) were worth more than their face value.

I only discovered this when one unexpectely stuck to a magnet I was playing with. They are now only copper covered steel.

I can see a scenario where players would buy lots of low denomination coin, only to ship it off world for it's scrap value on the next world.

 

[Supplement Four]

Thus I would think that cash is far more common in the Imperium than people think, especially among spacefarers.

Especially for when the time the game was written in the 70's.

Remember in A New Hope, when Han Solo is loading boxes and boxes of coin onto the Falcon as the rest of the Rebels are preparing to assault the Death Star. I remember back then, even with Star Wars super-tech, that cash must be important. Whenever communication is slow (as when you can travel faster than light, and comms can go no faster than you), I think cash is very important.

Check out the Traveller Adventure. In the Library Section, there's a detailed write up, with illo, of Imperial Credits.



Now, I want to give a nod to what Aramis said in Post #2 as well. I think he's correct. There will be local money, and depending on tech, this may or may not be electronically transferred.

Remember, in Traveller, most people never leave their homeworlds. It's too expensive. Remember, a one way ticket to the nearest worlds will cost you 8,000 credits. People can't affort to travel offworld on a whim (as they do in Star Wars).

So, every populated world will have some sort of local economy, based on the world's tech level.

This is discussed in the JTAS in a couple of articles. The Imperial Credit is accepted on all Imperial Worlds, but it's buying power fluctuates. There's a chart provided in one of those articles that helps the GM adjust buying power of the ImpCred on different worlds.



Now...I'm sure a more sophisticated system is in place for inter-world trade. I do think it exists--but I'm also sure it's not an exact replica of our real world economy.

Sure, there's cash. But, maybe Travellers have "credit ratings" to where they can spend up to their credit limit, on paper (electronic paper), leave the world, and have the funds "catch up" with the person's spending. This may be a feature of banking at some interstellar banks.

Or, maybe its as simple as the description of the Imperial Credit fluctuating in value from world to world. The money is accepted, but the buying power of a single credit changes, depending on where you are.

One of the equipment articles in JTAS describes a Credit Card that is crazy hard to forge or tamper with. If you buy something on one world, your total number of credits will be less when you get to the next world because the vendor imbedded the info on the card--which is very hard to break open and have values changed.

 

[rancke]

Remember, in Traveller, most people never leave their homeworlds. It's too expensive. Remember, a one way ticket to the nearest worlds will cost you 8,000 credits.

Though if the ship you travel on only charges what it actually costs to carry you (including a decent profit) it will only cost you 3-4000 credits to go one parsec. (Exact amount varies with which rules you believe in).

People can't affort to travel offworld on a whim (as they do in Star Wars).

Most people can't afford to travel on a whim[*]. Millionaires and business executives of big companies can. And high-population worlds have a LOT of millionaires and big companies. Even a tiny fraction of a billion people amounts to a considerable number.

[*] Which can be annoying, as it sometimes forces me to either abandon a nifty plot or to ignore the economics of the situation.​

Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

Oddly here in the UK, the rise in copper prices meant our smallest copper coins (1p & 2p) were worth more than their face value.

I only discovered this when one unexpectely stuck to a magnet I was playing with. They are now only copper covered steel.

I can see a scenario where players would buy lots of low denomination coin, only to ship it off world for it's scrap value on the next world.

The US went from primarily copper pennies to copper-plated zinc pennies in 1982.

This was only a temporary solution...
As of March 2008, it cost the U.S. Mint 1.7 cents to make a penny, 70% more than the value of the coin.


Years: Material
1793–1857: copper
1857–1864: 88% copper, 12% nickel (also known as NS-12)
1864–1942: bronze (95% copper, 5% tin and zinc)
1943: zinc-coated steel (also known as steel penny)
1944–1946: brass (95% copper, 5% zinc)
1946–1962: bronze (95% copper, 5% tin and zinc)
1974: Experimental aluminum variety
1962–1982: brass (95% copper, 5% zinc)
1982–2009: 97.5% zinc core, 2.5% copper plating
2009 (Limited): bronze (95% copper, 5% tin and zinc)
2010–present: 97.5% zinc core, 2.5% copper plating

 

[storkje]

Electronic cash

In my campaign we use a concept of "electronic cash", something like a cross between a debit card and a letter of credit. The card has the amount and the bank it's drawn on electronically encoded using digital signature encryption that makes it both impossible to forge and impossible to repudiate. The card does not point back to your bank like a debit card, the cash is actually transferred to the card, so there's no question of the balance being good. The card is a bearer instrument, good for whoever holds it, but can be password protected and so difficult to steal. You can also imagine refinements that would make it difficult to lose, such as an expiration date after which it will not transfer anywhere else, and after a period reverts to the issuing bank.
So basically people carry "cash" but it looks like a handful of credit cards instead of crates of paper and coin.
All our house rules gradually being posted on a wiki for the players at firstimperium.wikispaces.com

storkje

 

[jatay3]

I've been thinking that interstellar banking doesn't actually make much sense in Traveller. Since communication is so slow, electronic cash isn't a real advantage (the only reason it works well in 21st century Earth is because it is so much faster than transporting physical cash).

I'd also be very wary if I were a bank of giving money to someone who's details (including ID and account balance) I couldn't verify for two weeks minimum! This is to say nothing if giving them millions of credits so that they can buy a starship that then travels parsecs away (makeing debt recovery problematic). I wouldn't even invest or put my money in banks that would do such things.

Thus I would think that cash is far more common in the Imperium than people think, especially among spacefarers. This is a two edged sword for adventurers - on the plus side, thier transactions are hard to trace but on the other side, they can easliy be robbed of large sums and they are targets for robbery.

It also means that I provide other ways for PCs to aquire starships. The price is also somewhat more fluid since getting a loan from a bank isn't usually possible.

The reason abstract economics developed in the first place was to make room for traveller-like travel difficulties. If Antonio in Venice knows from a note that Abdul in Constantinople that he theoretically has a warehouse full of spice in constantinople, And Abdul knows that he theoretically has however many ducats waiting for him to pay for the theoretical spice in the theoretical warehouse, then both can send their respective galleys somewhere else. The effect is that both have added a ghost tonnage of hold space to add to their more concrete form. If all trade was within their respective cities then there is no need.

Of course money was in the first place a form of ghost barter. So bills of exchange were ghosts of a ghost. There is no reason this cannot continue in space; the only limit will be the trust of the user.

As trust is the issue, it would be reasonable for the Imperium to issue some cash, perhaps even a supply of old fashioned precious-metel coinage. However in a civilization that takes electronics so much for granted, electronic money will be a natural part of it.

 

[Commander Truestar]

It is funny I am coming back to this, but you miss an economy of scale.

IM F2F TU, I have an electronic "IdentCard" that holds all account information in a restricted screen, as well as all public and legal data in various publically accessed or restricted screens.
But recently the players landed on a TL 8 world. So I took the direction of my international travels on this TL planet of ours
Where the players go they either find that they can close transactions with either their IdentCard, by using their IdentCard for a fee or with local currency they got from an exchange point.
Because these people are very much recognized as "from the stars" no bank will deal with them and transactions with individuals can only be safely made when the Legal system allows the transaction to gain enforcement from port authorities who will restrict or even ground a ship until payment is made and the restriction is lifted.
But this is well below the scale of interstellar banking, and that is the "Scale recognition" that is missing in the poster's first statement.
Loans and Scale should be something similar to the following:
- Local banks deal with locals only, or in those situations where port restrictions can be
enforced, or Mega-Corporate/Imperial guarantees are available to the local institution.
Example: So you get Corner Bank and Holding to come to the port where you sit with a starport, Mega-Corp or Imperial official. The bank then consults with the official sitting in to see what safeguards are available.
- If it is the port, then the ship is looking at being unable to lift until it can make good on
the loan by sending for funds form a neighboring system...which can take a very long
time. So Sailor Sam and his crew are stuck on dustball until their draft can be sent
back to the moneybags system and a hireling of StarBank Inc can escort the funds to
the Dustball system
- If it is an Imperial or Mega-Corporate factor, then failure to repay means that factor's
agents...who are likely watching their investments and getting a cut...WILL hunt you
down if you fail to pay.

But this only covers the smallest category of banking.
Any larger and player characters should not be dealing with local banks. They should be dealing with Mega-Corporations, who are not as restricted in hunting down malfeasance, even less restricted than Imperials...

So the grander interstellar banking network is there for larger entities, Companies, Colonies, Dirtside governments(global or balkanized), Counties, Duchies, Subsector Governments, Sectors, etc... This includes departments of the various governments.

So why does this matter?
As we are seeing now. When the grander scales of economic systems fail, they take down even the lower tiers unless there is a large amount of buffering. In the Third Imperium's case, this is a good thing because that buffering largely exist. With the "hands off" method of letting worlds govern themselves, the Imperium is not involved in their financial system unless it is through aid or direct support.

So when Greece fails, or Large banks in the USA fail, only Greece, The USA and their direct trading partners suffer. It does not become systemically hazardous.

So how does this effect the players in your game?(IE: Why should you care?)
1) It means that players will have to find interstellar sources for loans and financial rescue...making life that much harder for them(because, as GM's know...nothing should be easy for players)
2) Remember that Bank guy escorting funds?? Can we say TONS of adventure hooks here?
3) Do you...the GM..want to discourage players form going somewhere? "Economic disaster making it almost certainly unprofitable" anyone??

I can keep giving reasons. But what needs to be considered here is what scale of bank does business with what scale of customer. Because a local bank will not do business with an interstellar customer does not condemn all interstellar banking.
Add to this the other thing you forget. This is not the banking system YOU are familiar with. This is a banking system with different safe guards, like interstellar networks for tracking customers, Imperial guarantees backed up with the likelihood an Imperial Destroyer(or Frigate) will pull you over if you drop debts and run.

And then there are those fun and friendly Skip tracers >

Marc

 

[Zedwardson]

I have always played it like this.

The Imperial Credit is accepted everywhere, most worlds have a local currency (sometimes Company script) that also exists.

The most basic money is Coin of valueable metals, No matter if your dealing with the highest nobles to chirpers, gold or silver coin is accepted, however there is always concerns that they are shaved or otherwise not the acutal amount of metal as advertized.

MOST transactions are not coin, they are in a semi-electronic format.

If person X knows they will be in System Y in a few months time, they will transfer by X-boat their money (IC or local currency) to a bank in that system, so when they arrive, they have money in hand. The main advantage of the Credit is that even if system A and B do not trade often with each other, someone going from A to B can easily convert local currency in A to local currency at B by first converting to IC, then IC to currency used in B. Many times, Worlds might still have a number of currencies in existance.

The easiest way to "Carry cash" is though a Hortalez & Cie or Traveller Society Cheque, which is when someone deposits money to the issuing company, and is given sticks in equal value. Thus, if you Jump into a system that you had not forwarded cash, you can take one of your data sticks, cash it in the local currency (Easy) or IC (Tougher) and go on.

Many time the more shady deals will be in Coin, which means the party has to sweat till they can get to a banking center and covert it to DataCheque.

Yes, in theory a dataCheque could be forged, (Just like today) but most criminals do not, as they know if they are cought, they will be lucky if they will live, (Normally the options are forced into some sort of Gulag forging Zho documents for navalsec, and if they refuse, some sort of horrid death)

DataCheque crime is more often stealing a DataCheque and convicing someone to cash it, even if your not really the person who owns it. DataCheques if stolen are NOT replaced, unlike modern traveller checks.

So a stash of money found in a safe of a free trader may very well be a box of Coin, two dozen datacheques, and small selection of local currency.

Of course, nothing like having party grab a mining station payroll, and find out it mostly company script and local currency, when the orginial plan was to jump the next system and spend a few weeks at a resort while coverting the expected coin to Datacheques under the proper names.