Sector Data (economic)

[TamsinP]

I recently got pointed to the Sector Trade Maps on the Wiki (https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Category:Trade_maps) and found through that the Sector Data pages (eg. https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Daibei_Sector/data). Looking at some of the latter, it seems that there are a couple of issues with the column headers:

1) The headers for RU (and GWP are the wrong way round (or the data in the columns is the wrong way round) - the RU column has the GWP data and the GWP column has the RU data.

2) The header for the Trade column has an error - it should be MCr not BCr.

 

[TamsinP]

Just for clarity - it is the pages TUVWXYZ_Sector/data that have this issue; TUVWXYZ_Sector/economic pages are correct.

 

[tjoneslo]

I'm pretty sure the data pages are wildly out of date. The last time the data pages were updated was in 2015, and the economic pages were updated in 2019. The plan was to delete the outdated pages, but that has not been completed.

 

[TamsinP]

I'm pretty sure the data pages are wildly out of date. The last time the data pages were updated was in 2015, and the economic pages were updated in 2019. The plan was to delete the outdated pages, but that has not been completed.

If an update is done, it would be useful if they calculated the BTNs down further, even if the routes aren't shown - as far as I can tell, the Trade Value has only been calculated for systems that are on routes leaving a large number of systems with no value shown in that column even though there would be trade.

 

[tjoneslo]

If an update is done, it would be useful if they calculated the BTNs down further, even if the routes aren't shown - as far as I can tell, the Trade Value has only been calculated for systems that are on routes leaving a large number of systems with no value shown in that column even though there would be trade.

The trade map generator code has a cutoff of BTN 7.5. Which translates to less than one free trader per week. So worlds with 0 for trade have no scheduled service and are visited at random by free traders.

The code also assumes, probably over aggressively, that it is cheaper to ship along established routes than establishing a direct route. So worlds A and D have some amount of trade, but the shipping goes through worlds B and C because they are connected via a much larger trade route.

For the complete charted space run, the system has a cutoff of 200 parsecs. So it's possible for the trade in a given sector to originate and terminate outside the sector. And the full raw dataset was ~22Mb text file.

 

[TamsinP]

That's useful information - thanks!

Looking at my own calculations for the Akerut routes* in Aramis subsector from The Traveller Adventure (also going slightly beyond into Pretoria and Rhylanor subsectors), there are a number of routes of BTN 7.5 or more which seem to be missing (eg Rhylanor to Aramanx and Junidy) which suggests there may be some other factors involved.

I think I'll probably sit down over the holidays and look into it a bit deeper.

I wish you a wonderful Christmas.

* I was trying to work out how Akerut's fleet of about fifty 5000 ton J1 Hercules transports was viable - it looks like they might be if they only operate in the Towers Cluster.

 

[Spinward Flow]

the system has a cutoff of 200 parsecs.

200 parsecs at a 2 weeks per jump cadence commercial operations tempo amounts to ~2 Years @ J4 ... which seems rather ... excessive.
Note that a 60 parsecs cutoff for "regular" trade (as opposed to unique specialty) is probably a lot more reasonable. 60 parsecs is 1.5 sectors coreward/rimward and 2 sectors spinward/trailing worth of trading range. That's enough to build up a "links in the chain" hub and spoke system for trade flows which exceed that distance.



J1 can be routinely profitable (with full manifests and the right starship design).
J1+1 can ALSO be routinely profitable (with full manifests and the right starship design).
J2 can potentially be profitable, but the constraints on starship design are increasing.
J1+2 can be potentially be profitable with the right starship design and trade routes when dealing in speculative goods.
J2+2 can be potentially VERY lucrative with the right starship design when dealing in speculative goods.
J3 can potentially be profitable when subsidized with the right starship design, but also HIGHLY lucrative when dealing in speculative goods.
J2+3 can potentially be profitable when subsidized with the right starship design, but also HIGHLY lucrative when dealing in speculative goods.

But in order to get all the way up to J4 ... you have to GO BIG ... just to get sufficient revenue tonnage capacity to make the effort worth the price. Trying to make a merchant ship that is 100-1000 tons profitable with J4 performance just becomes too tight a squeeze in most design configurations. That typically means that you're looking at something in the 1k-5k range of "bulk carrier" to be able to pull off the J4 routinely ... and even then you're still at risk of hostile encounters when transiting through insufficiently patrolled space, which means you either need to invest in fighters for defense/escort (at range from the main ship) or actual jump capable close escorts for protection. Capable defenses COST, adding onto the already high price of J4 capability and the reduced revenue tonnage relative to the alternatives of J2 or J3 (or even J2+2 and J2+3 or J3+3). Going BIG for J4 involves a LOT of compromises to profitability for an independent merchant.

However, if you're a megacorporation, you can afford to operate the bulk transport starship at a loss by making up for that loss in the arbitrage of speculative goods transfers (in bulk!) to various worlds, taking advantage of vertical integration so your megacorporation produces low and sells high (enough) to wipe out the losses involved in operating the J4 bulk transport starships. It just becomes "a different game" at that scale with more moving parts in the shell game, made possible by the megacorporation's deep pockets and resources.

 

[whartung]

Part of the issue was simply that the model as presented in Far Trader allowed systems from VERY far away to impact the trade numbers.

I was curious how these maps were generated since there's, what, 20,000+ systems?

Just made the relationships when "every system impacts every system" just explode.

Does the trade volume of Regina really affect Core in any tangible way?

 

[tjoneslo]

was curious how these maps were generated since there's, what, 20,000+ systems

https://github.com/makhidkarun/traveller_pyroute - the code was run over the ~55,000 systems defined in the Traveller map data at the time.

 

[Kakistocrat]

200 parsecs at a 2 weeks per jump cadence commercial operations tempo amounts to ≈2 Years @ J4 … which seems rather … excessive.

I’d imagine that few (if any) merchants would travel so long a route themselves. Like the overland Silk Road routes, they’d probably travel a fraction of that distance to trade with other traders who are based closer to the ultimate destination, and ultimately depend upon successive “trader-to-trader” trading to get the in-demand products to their intended far-flung destinations. I’d guess that this model would be viable mainly for trading high-value, low-bulk items, although your proposed bulk arbitrage strategy for megacorporations might already be in place for supplying the far-to-coreward Zhodani worlds.

 

[infojunky]

Those maps are a boon to one of my side projects, Subsidized Merchants. The sets of systems on the subsidy really start to pop out.

 

[Ulsyus]

I’d imagine that few (if any) merchants would travel so long a route themselves. Like the overland Silk Road routes, they’d probably travel a fraction of that distance to trade with other traders who are based closer to the ultimate destination, and ultimately depend upon successive “trader-to-trader” trading to get the in-demand products to their intended far-flung destinations. I’d guess that this model would be viable mainly for trading high-value, low-bulk items, although your proposed bulk arbitrage strategy for megacorporations might already be in place for supplying the far-to-coreward Zhodani worlds.

Trade route length would also be impacted by things such as where home was: if a crew had a system where their families were then they'd regularly return there. If a ship was a living community (the traders in C.J. Cherryh's Union-Alliance novels spring to mind here) then they would only be constrained by what routes and markets were most profitable: they carry their house and their family on their back. That could potentially lead to longer routes traveled, but they'd lose the advantage of well-known contacts if that was the case. That would speak to the benefits of a more consistent 3I bureaucracy enabling more trade though...

 

[kilemall]

A few thoughts. A lot of this is rehash of individual points I’ve made before, but kind of mashed together for this Uber thread on the topic.

A major factor is the value of the cargo vs the margins of source cost vs destination. So CT IND products usually have a 30% at source price (which isn’t itself product cost, already profit baked in). Assuming we bake in an additional 10% profit/margin of costs of accident/error, the product travels 20% of source cost per Cr1000 per parsec-ton.

So Cr10000 per ton IND products have a travel distance of 2 parsecs, Cr100000 per ton travels 20 parsecs, MCr1 per ton travels 200 parsecs. Then add the target world modifiers for potentiallly further distances.

One can see why A starports can have all the letter drive/computer starship parts for repair and assembly. And why Ag planets are very tied to close and/or needy customer planets.

Plug in your version of per ton costs and parsec rates, you need some sort of speculative margin on trade codes like the CT/MgT tables.

Rate calculation matters. If using the CT rate of per jump instead of parsec, the range products travel may double or triple, depending on average.


Thats simplistic calculation for a sense of scale and issues. Megacorps and Megaliners are playing on a different level.

One variable is financed ships. If a ship starts out paid off no debt, there is a lot more profit built in.

If a megacorps owns its own supply chain ships, it ships at operating costs not standard rates, and so product travel distances can increase more. This is where the per jump rate could be collusion with fees built to favor rich self financed shippers to increase market range.

There can be another form of subsidized merchant, where a megacorps acts as financier, a megaline operates the ship paying crew and costs, and both megacorps and megaline share in both main products’ profits and opportunistic speculation.

These stick to the main trade routes and can be bigger high jump ships given no debt advantage, built bigger on large guaranteed hauling contracts above variable lots, and unparalleled reach.

Speaking of range, the ships only have to be maintained at some base along the way, the crews can operate on a two jump out and back per month basis/two weeks off basis. Or one jump out and back per month, only owner/operators have to ride the same hull the whole way.

So we get a picture of subsector, sector and multisector products with lines and corps servicing those customers based on value.

They are likely to stack the deck to preserve their investments in century long business models.

The per jump rate and financing advantages keep marginal lines from upsetting long range arrangements, but the same joined at the hip transport system can also be used to target potential local producers threatening to expand and damage near guaranteed profits.

An uppity air/raft maker may find their local subsector swamped by General Products diverting normal flows to sell below rate and embargoed by the megaline GP is partnering with, and drive them out of business.

Conversely, a megacorps that has driven out local production may decide to reduce supply locally to drive prices up, then trickle in limited shipments to maximize profit.

So a picture emerges of vast distant megacorps/lines keeping their markets under control and stamping out competition.

This explains government subsidized merchants not only contracting for rural route delivery, but also providing a service to get products locally produced shipped reliably and lessen the death grip of the distant overlords. And so, a LOT of stories to be told.

There is potentially more to get into, but this should be enough to chew on for awhile.

 

[Spinward Flow]

THIS.

@kilemall is completely on top of the "bigger picture" with this analysis.

The one point that I would dispute is the assumption of 200 parsec market range for Industrial world products ... not because the math is wrong (because it's not) but because the result gets overridden by context most of the time (specifically, map details).

Sure, Industrial produced goods from say, Jewell/Jewell or Efate/Regina in the Spinward Marches may have a "200 parsec radius of trade" in a vacuum, but as soon as you add other Industrial worlds into the mix (Vilis/Vilis, Lunion/Lunion, Strouden/Lunion, Mora/Mora, Glisten/Glisten, Trin/Trin's Veil, etc.) that "200 parsec radius of trade" rapidly shrinks. Why? Because in other parts of the map there will be OTHER Industrialized worlds that are closer (and therefore cheaper to source from) with all other factors being equal.

So although Jewell/Jewell is an Industrialized world, I would not expect the "useful trading range" for products manufactured at Jewell/Jewell to "get past" Efate/Regina in terms of meaningful trade flow volumes ... simply because Efate/Regina is "closer" than Jewell/Jewell is to basically everywhere in the Regina, Aramis and Lanth subsectors. This means that shipping costs from Jewell/Jewell will be slightly higher (due to the map) creating a competitive advantage for Efate/Regina over Jewell/Jewell.

By the same token, TL=13 products from Efate/Regina will meet an "equilibrium point" in competition with TL=13 products from Lunion/Lunion somewhere in the Lanth subsector, where transport costs to specific destinations in Lanth will depend upon the routes from Industrialized worlds exporting those products (all other factors being equal).

So although ON PAPER it's possible for products from Industrialized worlds to have an up to 200 parsec radius of trade for high cost items ... in practice that radius of trade will tend to be MUCH less than that, simply because other Industrialized worlds exist on the map, so each one tends to exert its own "center of gravity" on trade flows among neighboring systems. What you wind up with is a kind of "bubble sort" between Industrialized worlds of specific tech levels.

 

[kilemall]

Remember, worlds have interests in getting products out, but megacorps will be on all IND worlds, they would seek to ‘win’ everywhere and coordinate operations.

 

[tjoneslo]

The one point that I would dispute is the assumption of 200 parsec market range for Industrial world products ... not because the math is wrong (because it's not) but because the result gets overridden by context most of the time (specifically, map details).

The 200 parsec market derives from the 1/r^2 nature of the drop-off of trade from the gravity model (or roughly). I've thought about, and had discussions with others, about altering the formula so it drops off more quickly. I've done spreadsheets to demonstrate to myself what the ranges for that would look like, and been vaguely dissatisfied with the results.

If I understand what is being argued here is given two worlds N parsecs apart, in the ideal world their trade would be Y (based purely on the existing formula). But given a number of Industrial worlds close to the route, the trade should further drop. For example, for every 10 industrial worlds at or above the TL of both worlds within 4 parsecs of the route, drop the trade by another order of magnitude. These other worlds are picking up the slack or disrupting the trade, however you want to think about it.

So yes, the worlds 200 parsecs apart may have some small amount of trade, but all the other worlds in-between have something better to offer.

 

[Spinward Flow]

If I understand what is being argued here is given two worlds N parsecs apart, in the ideal world their trade would be Y (based purely on the existing formula).

You're on the right track, but the answer doesn't "yield" to the pure mathematical analysis of the spreadsheet quite so neatly.
(Game Simulation) Reality™ is more complicated than what the spreadsheet suggests.

Let me give you a concrete example to illustrate my point.
Travellermap LINK to Spinward Marches, so we're both/all using the same references when Playing The Home Game™.
This is to give you an insight into my thought process with regards to this question when put into context and practice so you can examine the logic and determine the soundness of process by your own standards.

Let's say, for the sake of argument (and to get the conversation going ) that there is a competitive demand for TL=13 goods from Industrialized worlds in the Spinward Marches coreward of Lunion/Lunion. In this region, there are two TL=13 Industrialized worlds.

1. Efate/Regina
2. Lunion/Lunion

Where is the "equilibrium mid-point" for transport expenses from these 2 production centers?

Well ... the answer to that question CHANGES depending on your assumptions. Allow me to demonstrate.

---

Let's say that your assumptions begin with a J1 ONLY trade route along the Spinward Main. This will then set the pattern for "how far before the equilibrium inflection point is reached?" question that will change the answer as jump range increases.

So if you're working with a J1 ONLY trade route between Efate/Regina and Lunion/Regina, you're going to be limited to the Spinward Main worlds ONLY, leaving a simple pathing between Efate and Lunion.

• At J1 only, Efate is 26J1 distant from Lunion along the Spinward Main.
• If the Spinward Main between Efate and Lunion is divided into 13+13 parsec sections, Pirema/Lanth is 13J1 distant from Efate ... and Pirema/Lanth is 13J1 distant from Lunion.

Therefore, transport costs @ J1 to Pirema/Lanth are exactly the same whether sourcing from Efate or Lunion.
Pirema/Lanth is the "economic mid-point" between Efate and Lunion @ 13J1 distance along the Spinward Main when using the map.

HOWEVER ... in terms of direct distance (not following the Spinward Main!) ... Pirema/Lanth is 12 parsecs distant from Efate and 11 parsecs distant from Lunion. So Pirema/Lanth is "closer" to Lunion/Lunion "in the grand scheme of things" on the map, but is "equidistant" from Efate by J1 routing, even though Efate is actually 1 parsec further away.

With me so far?

---

Now let's change the assumption.
Let's see what happens with J2 trade routes!

At J2, Pirema/Lanth is 6J2 distant from both Efate/Regina and Lunion/Lunion (both) and the remains the "equilibrium mid-point" for transport costs between the two Industrialized worlds.

Broadening things out a little bit more, 6J2 reaches Kinorb/Rhylanor (Efate) and Gileden/Rhylanor (Lunion), so the "equilibrium mid-point" for their respective ranges starts getting "fuzzier" and you move coreward+trailing.

Ah, but what happens in the Vilis subsector on the other side?

• 8J2 from Efate will reach as far down as Frenzie/Vilis.
• 8J2 from Lunion will reach as far up as Frenzie/Vilis.

So the economic "equlibirum mid-point" between Efate and Lunion is going to be in the vicinity of Frenzie/Vilis and Stellatio/Vilis.
Everything coreward of these worlds the routing is shorter from Efate ... and everything rimward of these worlds, the routing is shorter from Lunion.

So in a J2 trade route transport advantage to destinations, the map starts looking like THIS:

Frenzie/Vilis, Stellatio/Vilis, Pirema/Lanth, Macene/Rhylanor, Fulacin/Rhylanor and Risek/Rhylanor are more or less "equidistant" @ J2 from either Efate or Lunion.

But coreward of that demarcation line, Efate is closer and will thus have cheaper transport costs to those worlds.
And rimward of that demarcation line, Lunion is closer and will thus have cheaper transport costs to those worlds.
Assuming ALL OTHER FACTORS are normalized to be equal (which they won't be, but that's a more nuanced and deeper conversation).

---

My point here is that even though Efate/Regina and Lunion/Lunion are only 21 parsecs apart from each other via direct line, the J1 distance between the two worlds is before reaching economy of transportation parity is 13J1 along the Spinward Main. The J2 distance between the two worlds is 6J2 in the Lanth/Rhylanor subsector border region, or at 8J2 in the region around Frenzie/Vilis.

In NEITHER CASE is an assumption of "200 parsecs" for trade superiority even REMOTELY reasonable as a starting point.

I would not expect goods manufactured at Efate/Regina to be competitively priced down in the Glisten subsector, on the other side of the Lunion subsector, simply because Lunion/Lunion and Strouden/Lunion are going to be "closer" than Efate/Regina, making the Industrialized worlds have a competitive advantage in transport costs to the rimward subsectors of the Spinward Marches for TL=13 goods.

Likewise, I do not expect goods manufactured at Lunion/Lunion to be all that competitive with identical goods manufactured at Efate/Regina within the Regina and Aramis subsectors, simply because the transport chain all the way back to Lunion/Lunion becomes uncompetitively LONG in these regions.

---

I could keep going with J3 and J4 comparisons, but the "equilibrium boundary" wouldn't move all that much.

 

[tjoneslo]

I follow your logic along the way. But it doesn't answer a specific question, which is: What is the trade between Efate and Lunion? The 200 parsec trade isn't going to be between Asgard and Djinni (for example), it only takes place between two economic powerhouses.

From Efate's market viewpoint, all of the worlds in the sphere of influence it generates (6J2 if I follow your logic) does not match the power Lunion, that is number of people with money to spend.

In looking more at your map, and it helps if you turn on the population overlay, Efate's primary markets might be :

• Ruie (7B at TL7 and outside the Imperium)
• Enope (6B at TL7)
• Roupe (3B at TL7)
• Rethe (30B at TL8 and a class E port)
• Vilis (8B at TL10, and not reachable via J2 except going through Lunion)
• Porozlo (30B at TL11, and probably a continual fight between Efate and Lunion),
• Rhylanor (8B at TL15, like Porozlo, but also 40% Dandy).
• Lunion (8B at TL13)

The lower TLs mean's there simply isn't the kind of money in the economy that makes trade profitable at scale. The population of the remaining worlds is too small to matter in the scope of the market analysis. This is largely looking only at order of magnitude trade opportunities. The smaller ones matter to the small world, and they almost certianly trade only with their nearest trade partner world. But from the view of the Efate market, these worlds are a rounding error in their trade.

By your metrics, Rhylanor would prefer to buy from Lunion because it's cheaper due to lower travel costs. But the merchants and manufacturers on Efate aren't simply going to give up on a potentially profitable market like that one. And the same is true of Lunion itself. Yes, there is a large markup on goods because they are traveling a long way, but it is possible to make that profitable.

Or, at least, that's the assumption built into the gravity trade model.

 

[Spinward Flow]

What is the trade between Efate and Lunion?

What can Efate manufacture that Lunion CANNOT?

Why would you buy something at Efate ... from Lunion ... at a Cr26,000 per ton @ J1 or Cr Cr12,000 per ton @ J2 for shipping costs from Lunion to Efate (see: map above) ... when you can buy the identical something at Efate ... from Efate ... at Cr0 per ton for shipping costs?

When you can explain that one, you'll have the answer to your question of "What is the trade between Efate and Lunion?"

From Efate's market viewpoint, all of the worlds in the sphere of influence it generates (6J2 if I follow your logic) does not match the power Lunion, that is number of people with money to spend.

When the "near abroad" is NOT THE SAME ... the market opportunities are not going to be the same (who knew? ).
Welcome to location, location, location.

The lower TLs mean's there simply isn't the kind of money in the economy that makes trade profitable at scale. The population of the remaining worlds is too small to matter in the scope of the market analysis.

In other words, the low population worlds get left to the "riff raff" of the free traders and independents to service, because the volume of demand just isn't there for the Big Boys™ to move in with their biggest bulk transports.

By your metrics, Rhylanor would prefer to buy from Lunion because it's cheaper due to lower travel costs. But the merchants and manufacturers on Efate aren't simply going to give up on a potentially profitable market like that one. And the same is true of Lunion itself. Yes, there is a large markup on goods because they are traveling a long way, but it is possible to make that profitable.

But, again ... there are MORE competitors for the Rhylanor market than just Efate and Lunion!

TL=15 Rhylanor/Rhylanor is 8J2 distant from both TL=13 Efate/Regina and TL=13 Lunion/Lunion.
TL=15 Rhylanor/Rhylanor is also 8J2 distant from TL=15 Mora/Mora (because Heroni/Rhylanor has no fuel).
TL=15 Rhylanor/Rhylanor is 5J2 distant from TL=15 Magash/Sabine (in Deneb sector).
TL=15 Rhylanor/Rhylanor is 3J2 distant from TL=10 Bevey/Rhylanor.
TL=15 Rhylanor/Rhylanor is 2J2 distant from TL=11 Zivijie/Rhylanor.

So if someone on Rhylanor/Rhylanor wants to buy a product from an Industrialized world, the cheapest sources are going to be Zivijie (TL=11) and Magash (TL=15 in Deneb sector) ... rather than sourcing from Efate, Lunion or Bevey ... depending on what you're interested in buying.

The ONE difference that I can imagine where Efate might have an advantage over the other Industrial world competitors would be ... man portable weapons ... because the Law Level at Efate is ZERO ... meaning that "all weapons are legal" for manufacture (and export). Importing elsewhere can potentially be problematic due to local law levels at destinations. However, even that might be too broad of an excessive interpretation of the UWP and rules.

 

[whartung]

The other issue with the 200 parsec limit is simply the base shipping cost to move anything over that distance. At the most base level, it's 100K Cr just in "shipping" (at 1000Cr per ton/Jump 2 trip).

So, the farther you get away, the more valuable the base items must be just to justify moving to from A to B.

Then, on top of that, the farther away it gets, the more the middle man stack on to the base price. So, the value to the original world may actually be quite cheap, but by the time it gets to its destination, it can be quite high, but all of that value is lost and scattered in transit.