Medium Ship Universe

[rancke]

Not particularly - resource bases being what they are, big ships would be built anywhere there's a large population base of TL9+.

Yes, really. Building few big ships instead of many small ships will help no matter what. It's not enough on it's own, but then, I mentionmed the other measure that was needed (keeping the high-population worlds at a distance). Oh, I did forget mentioning increasing the number of places that would need to be patrolled.

The way to mandate a small ship universe is to change 3 core assumptions:

1. ratio of per-capita domestic product to ship costs
2. ratio of drop-off of demand for time in transit of orders
3. ratio of drive-essential component materials to population bases.

That would result in a Few Ship Universe and would presumably increase the rarity and value of the PCs' ship, which is already troublingly high.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Yes, really. Building few big ships instead of many small ships will help no matter what. It's not enough on it's own, but then, I mentionmed the other measure that was needed (keeping the high-population worlds at a distance). Oh, I did forget mentioning increasing the number of places that would need to be patrolled.



That would result in a Few Ship Universe and would presumably increase the rarity and value of the PCs' ship, which is already troublingly high.


Hans

It's about on par, at present, with commercial aircraft... (A300-600 is about 480Td - 5.64x5.28x54.1m body - the wings and tail probably make up for the multi-conic profile of the body - is about 90Td... and $75M... about MCr35 using the current minimum wage and the T5 conversion, about MCr15 using Cr1=$5 based upon current US$ to 1977 US$, with 1977 US$1=Cr1).

You want a small ship universe, you'll need either to preclude big ships tech-wise, or reduce the overall tonnage available period.

If there's not a lot of demand due to distance, then much less tonnage is needed (and thus profitable) for a given run.

THe simplest is a combination of restricting the size of drives and increasing the dropoff for distance.

Personally, I also think the demand for a high pop world would most likely be met mostly on world; the opportunity cost of "don't have to wait as long for confirmation, for delivery, nor for payment" should make the opportunity cost difference far exceed the import price difference.

 

[GrayPennell]

Before I join in the this discussion I have a quick question. Where does the Imperium tax base come from again. I forget it is strictly from trade? We own the starports so we tax trade. Or is from individual worlds in a form of business/income tax? I want to say it come from trade because of their lazy faire approach to world governments.

 

[rancke]

Before I join in the this discussion I have a quick question. Where does the Imperium tax base come from again. I forget it is strictly from trade? We own the starports so we tax trade. Or is from individual worlds in a form of business/income tax? I want to say it come from trade because of their lazy faire approach to world governments.

It's a question that has not been fully answered.

We know from Striker that the Imperium gets its military budget by taxing member worlds 30% of their military budgets.

We know that the Emperor gets 2% of all licensed companies and that he owns larger portions of many of the megacorporations.

We don't know if he has a significant number of shares (over and above his 2%) in the smaller (sector-wide and subsector-wide and interface) companies, but it's certainly likely that he has a very healthy portfolio.

We don't know if the Imperium collects any other taxes from the member worlds to fund the Scouts and the Bureaucracy. The Scouts could be included in the military budget or they could be funded from the Emperor's stock income or they could be funded by a separate tax or by tariffs. The bureaucracy could quite conceivably be funded by the Emperor's income alone. Or it could be funded by another tax on the member worlds.

I'm not even sure that we know for a fact that the Imperium taxes trade at all. It's possible that it has been stated somewhere that it does, but I can't remember seeing it.


Hans

 

[GrayPennell]

So theoretically a world could decide to avoid taxes by not having a military?

 

[rancke]

So theoretically a world could decide to avoid taxes by not having a military?

It could avoid military tax, yes, although Striker says the smallest military budget is 1% of GWP. That's for all worlds, not just Imperial member worlds, so it could be a game artifact. However, I could easily imagine that a membership treaty could include a paragraph requiring the member world to maintain a minimum military spending level.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

So theoretically a world could decide to avoid taxes by not having a military?

If there is a government there will be taxes.

If there is organized crime there will be taxes.

If there is a warlord there will be taxes.

If there is anyone bigger than you there will be taxes.

Call it what you will, it's still a Tax.

 

[BlackBat242]

It could avoid military tax, yes, although Striker says the smallest military budget is 1% of GWP. That's for all worlds, not just Imperial member worlds, so it could be a game artifact. However, I could easily imagine that a membership treaty could include a paragraph requiring the member world to maintain a minimum military spending level.


Hans

This would be simple... just require each world to provide a certain level of law enforcement & military defense capability within their own planetary system (You must be capable of X number of patrols per month out to Y Au from the stellar center of the system with ships with a combat rating of Z.), according to a formula which uses GWP to determine the required capability.

 

[GrayPennell]

It could avoid military tax, yes, although Striker says the smallest military budget is 1% of GWP. That's for all worlds, not just Imperial member worlds, so it could be a game artifact. However, I could easily imagine that a membership treaty could include a paragraph requiring the member world to maintain a minimum military spending level.


Hans

I pulled up the Striker and looked at that small section of the rule that your drawing from. I think its a pretty weak rule and is a game artifact to justifie Striker gaming more than the Imperium. I can't see holding the fate of canon to one small section that is debatable as a smart idea. Therefore I ll go with the idea that this small entry does not dictate the size of fleets for all of canon.

 

[rancke]

I pulled up the Striker and looked at that small section of the rule that your drawing from. I think its a pretty weak rule and is a game artifact to justifie Striker gaming more than the Imperium. I can't see holding the fate of canon to one small section that is debatable as a smart idea. Therefore I ll go with the idea that this small entry does not dictate the size of fleets for all of canon.

The text does state quite unequivocally that the average military spending for Imperial worlds is 3%. I've never gotten around to working with any number higher or lower than that.


Hans

 

[GrayPennell]

The text does state quite unequivocally that the average military spending for Imperial worlds is 3%. I've never gotten around to working with any number higher or lower than that.


Hans

The statement your using says the average is 3% that is equivocal as it gets.

 

[rancke]

The statement your using says the average is 3% that is equivocal as it gets.

Are you saying the statement can be interpreted to mean that the average is NOT 3%? Because if the only way to interpret the statement is that the average is 3% (and I don't see any other way to interpret it), that's as unequivocal as it gets.


Hans

 

[GrayPennell]

Are you saying the statement can be interpreted to mean that the average is NOT 3%? Because if the only way to interpret the statement is that the average is 3% (and I don't see any other way to interpret it), that's as unequivocal as it gets.


Hans

Actually when your talking averages across 10,000s worlds you can not say what world has what percentage. Than you throw in the statements about 1% and 5% this rule gets even less solid. You can even have worlds at 0 % military budget if it has been at peace for a time. This weakens the economic argument.

You can have worlds at the core at who dont pay taxes and worlds at the periphery paying 1% of 5% of their budgets. Not even their full GWP. Also would the worlds in the Rim pay their full taxes? Rich worlds that you would draw on resources to get these large fleets are probably the ones most at peace and thus contribute the least taxes especially for a military they have no need for.

Like you, I can easily manipulate the Imperium economic system within canon to meet a medium navy or even smaller navy.

 

[rancke]

Actually when your talking averages across 10,000s worlds you can not say what world has what percentage.

No, of course not.

Than you throw in the statements about 1% and 5% this rule gets even less solid. You can even have worlds at 0 % military budget if it has been at peace for a time. This weakens the economic argument.

What economic argument would that be?

You can have worlds at the core at who dont pay taxes and worlds at the periphery paying 1% of 5% of their budgets. Not even their full GWP.

No, 30% of their military budgets. Which averages 3% of their GWP. 0.9% of which would go to the Imperium.

Also would the worlds in the Rim pay their full taxes? Rich worlds that you would draw on resources to get these large fleets are probably the ones most at peace and thus contribute the least taxes especially for a military they have no need for.

For every world that spends less than 3% of its GWP you'll need worlds that spend more to arrive at the average. Isn't that what 'average' means?

Like you, I can easily manipulate the Imperium economic system within canon to meet a medium navy or even smaller navy.

The Imperium is already fielding a relatively small navy. 3% of GWP is not a big military budget for an empire surrounded by hostile and unfriendly empires of the same order of magnitude as itself, even if it is the largest. And when you've guesstimated the cost of the Imperial Navy implied by the numbers from Rebellion, you still only spend about half the budget; you have to assume that logistics eat up the other half.

BTW, I don't quite understand why you're raising this matter in connection with this thread.


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

The economic rules from Striker/TCS were meant to make exciting scenarios for wargaming, not describing a full interstellar trade model.

Why does no one use Pocket Empires for this sort of thing when it was designed to simulate economy and diplomacy?

I personally think any arguments of the sort being discussed here that are based on only TCS/Striker are invalid.

Exchange rates are not linear with respect to technology, for example.
different governments will allocate tax spending differently based on their own situation, therefore military spending will be different from government to government as well as from cultural feelings of military power, for example.

 

[rancke]

I personally think any arguments of the sort being discussed here that are based on only TCS/Striker are invalid.

It's the best evidence we have available and it seems to conform to Real Life pretty well.

Exchange rates are not linear with respect to technology, for example.

The rules for calculating GWP takes tech level and trade codes into account.

different governments will allocate tax spending differently based on their own situation, therefore military spending will be different from government to government as well as from cultural feelings of military power, for example.

Something else that can be taken into account at the level of individual worlds (There's a rule in TCS that adjusts naval budgets according to government). And if you'll let me know how government modifiers would affect the sum total of all Imperial worlds, I'll be happy to take that into account at the Imperium level.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

The economic rules from Striker/TCS were meant to make exciting scenarios for wargaming, not describing a full interstellar trade model.

I personally think any arguments of the sort being discussed here that are based on only TCS/Striker are invalid. ...

The economic rules for Striker/TCS provide a common framework for discussion. Invalidating the Striker/TCS rules based on their perceived oversimplicity can as easily be applied to any number of other Traveller rules for world data generation. Without a common game-based framework, we're reduced to trying to extrapolate far future economic and military trends of a star-spanning civilization based on the historical experiences of one primitive planet that hasn't managed to get a living body past its own moon.

There being no realistic way to accurately extrapolating the economic and military behavior of a star-spanning far-future civilization with access to cheap fusion and core-to-periphery communication lags in the months-to-a-year range, Striker/TCS has at the very least the benefit of ensuring that we all end up on roughly the same page - in this game where the characteristics of a planet and its population are decided by die rolls.

...Why does no one use Pocket Empires for this sort of thing when it was designed to simulate economy and diplomacy? ...

I don't have Pocket Empires. Can you share some specific aspect of that rules system that might be more effective for determining military data?

 

[Vladika]

Rich worlds that you would draw on resources to get these large fleets are probably the ones most at peace and thus contribute the least taxes especially for a military they have no need for.

Could it be that they are at peace because of that military that they do pay for?

If real world examples apply, it seems to me that any weak country with good resources gets them taken away from them by larger, stronger powers.

Resources can be natural, geographical developed or undeveloped. Force can be direct, implied or threatened. In any case, the weaker state looses it's control over it's own resources.

An example, based on historical fact, and leaving politics out of it, is the USA. When the USA had a weak navy it had ongoing problems with the British Empire and the Barbary states. When it build a Navy, and proved it would use it, those problems were vastly reduced.

With a credible military, your own or through allegiance, you are generally left alone. When it is cheaper and less troublesome to buy a commodity than take it by force you have "peace" and trade. When it is cheaper and easier to "take" a commodity, you have war.

In the 3I you have peace BECAUSE rich and poor worlds use a "pooled" Imperial Navy, paid for buy their combined resources.

That rich world at peace DOES need that Navy, it's just not as readily apparent as it would be if the Navy wasn't there.

 

[HG_B]

Could it be that they are at peace because of that military that they do pay for?

If real world examples apply, it seems to me that any weak country with good resources gets them taken away from them by larger, stronger powers.

Not in the 3I. Inter-system wars aren't really allowed by the Imp Navy...

 

[robject]

I've bounced around between Big Ship Universe and Really Big Ship Universe. What I've tried to grapple with are superstructures such as Loeskalth planetoid starships (50 billion tons!) and Ringworlds. Granted, though, a Ringworld is more like a planet than a structure -- in other words, it's an Event, and something you have adventures ON, rather than drive around. Not that you can't drive around a jump-capable planet, but still, there aren't construction rules for planets or planetary jump drives.