Some odd data from a TED talk.

[aramis]

Death rate for gang members in the 1990's in chicago: 7% per year
Death rate for black males in chicago: 1% per year
Death rate on death row: 2% per year
Death rate for soldiers in Iraq War 0.5% per year

Source: Levitt, Steven. The freakanomics of McDonalds vs Drugs Jan 2007.

Working this out to 4 years, rounding to 4 places, then to 36ths.
Ganger: 0.93^4≅0.7481% ≅ 27/36 ≅ 6+ on 2d
Black male: 0.99^4≅0.9605 ≅ 34/36 ≅ 3+ on 2d then 4+ on 1d
Death Row: 0.98^4 ≅0.9224 ≅ 33/36 ≅4+ on 2d
Soldiers in Iraq: 0.995^4 ≅0.9801≅35/36 ≅ 3+ on 2d

This puts the survival chances on notice... reversing this...
looking at survival numbers
3+ is 35/36 ≅ 0.9930 survival / year ≅ 0.7% annual death rate
4+ is 33/36 ≅ 0.9785 survival / year ≅ 2.15% annual death rate
5+ is 30/36 ≅ 0.9554 survival / year ≅ 4.46% annual death rate
6+ is 26/36 = 0.9219 survival / year ≅ 7.81% annual death rate
7+ is 21/36 ≅ 0.8739 survival / year ≅ 12.61% annual death rate
8+ is 15/36 ≅ 0.4167 survival / year = 58.33% annual death rate

A quick look at the US overall is 0.83% annual death rate... ( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm )

 

[coliver988]

Hmm, so the Far Future is apparently a lot more dangerous based on survival rolls during chargen if I am understanding the numbers. Of course, Travellers are supposed to be the outliers.

 

[whartung]

Death rate for gang members in the 1990's in chicago: 7% per year
Death rate for black males in chicago: 1% per year
Death rate on death row: 2% per year
Death rate for soldiers in Iraq War 0.5% per year

Death rate for participants in the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy annual motorcycle races: 1-2%.

There's about 100 participants, and they lose 1 or 2 each year.

I honestly don't know if there's a more dangerous professionally organized competition in the world today.

 

[Adam Dray]

Even BASE jumpers "only" suffer 1 fatality per 60 jumpers per year, or 1.7%.

179 of 1300 Mt. Everest climbers have died. That's 13.8%.

 

[aramis]

179 of 1300 Mt. Everest climbers have died. That's 13.8%.

13.8% on an average of 6 weeks. Which, thanks to compunding, is 71% per annum...

 

[creativehum]

A thought, of for those trying to make the Survival odds line up with reality (which is a questionable goal in my book, but what the heck)...

Everest is an environment very different than the environment humans are supposed to live at. The conditions are conditions that humans are not designed to survive.

I would offer that...
a) space, in it's entirety, and
b) countless worlds that potential, would-be travellers travel to before they muster out and become travellers...

...also meet the conditions that are as counter to human survival as Everest. And that the Survival Throws in terms of service should not be mapped directly to to comparable survival rates for humans during 20th/21st Century Earth, but altered to reflect the rates Aramis has laid out for the Everest climbers.

 

[Timerover51]

A thought, of for those trying to make the Survival odds line up with reality (which is a questionable goal in my book, but what the heck)...

Everest is an environment very different than the environment humans are supposed to live at. The conditions are conditions that humans are not designed to survive.

I would offer that...
a) space, in it's entirety, and
b) countless worlds that potential, would-be travellers travel to before they muster out and become travellers...

...also meet the conditions that are as counter to human survival as Everest. And that the Survival Throws in terms of service should not be mapped directly to to comparable survival rates for humans during 20th/21st Century Earth, but altered to reflect the rates Aramis has laid out for the Everest climbers.

The problem with that is with a perspective survival rate of 29% per year, very few persons are going to survive for 4 years. 0.7 per cent if you carry it out. With that sort of survival rate, very few persons are going to attempt any travel. Even a 90% chance of survival for any given year only factors out to a 65.6 chance of survival for 4 years. Projecting that out 4 terms gives you an 18.5% chance of survival.

In addition, Mt. Everest requires a considerable amount of physical capability to climb it. Not that many in the world would even consider attempting that sort of climb. Quite simply, even if I were healthy, I have zero interest in mountain climbing. Deep sea research submarine diving no problem, climbing around next to a dud 2,000 pound bomb, also not a problem. But if the odds are that of surviving a climb of Mt. Everest, I am not a taker.

 

[kilemall]

I read a statistic that more German paratroopers were lost in Alps climbing for pleasure then the difficult landings on Crete.

 

[creativehum]

I was in no way trying to suggest that the odds should be mapped literally per year.

My overall point -- the point that bears considering -- is that we are talking about Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Merchant Marines, Scouts, and assorted characters of certain "off the grid stripes" in the Traveller Character Generation system will be working against odds not merely of the profession as we know it but in environments that increase the odds of death as they are not environments humans are designed to survive in.

Whether or not you or I or anyone else we know would accept these odds is not the point. The point is that in the implied setting of at least Classic Traveller, as well as other editions, surviving is often an accomplishment. And this logic can be rightfully used to justify these odds -- which are bleaker than one might expect in 20th century armed services. That is the point I was making.

Again, and as always, any attempt to map "reality" to the rules of (at least) early editions of Traveller are going to be doomed to fail for any number of reasons. But broadly because Classic Traveller was designed to be a roleplaying game, not a simulation or a model of an interstellar future.

But still, as a bit of color to justify the odds it makes sense. It also implies a relatively dangerous environment. Which, if one looks at the other aspects of the rules for those who travel between the stars, makes perfect sense.

 

[Condottiere]

In a campaign, five percent losses per battle is a trifle alarming, if there are no reinforcements or replacements.

 

[Timerover51]

Thinking of survival rates, I have been reading a short history of Magellan's voyage, which resulted in one ship making it around the World. Magellan did not make it.

He left with 5 ships and 234 men. Of the five captains. two were killed in a mutiny, one was marooned, and one abandoned the voyage when the tip of South America was reached and returned to Spain. Magellan, serving as Captain-General did not make it, dying in a fight with the natives in the Philippines. One ship and 19 men eventually sailed back to Spain. The ship did carry enough in terms of spices to cover all of the costs of the voyage, plus a good return on the investment. Survival rates of the early sea explorers were a bit grim.

 

[creativehum]

Thinking of survival rates, I have been reading a short history of Magellan's voyage, which resulted in one ship making it around the World. Magellan did not make it.

He left with 5 ships and 234 men. Of the five captains. two were killed in a mutiny, one was marooned, and one abandoned the voyage when the tip of South America was reached and returned to Spain. Magellan, serving as Captain-General did not make it, dying in a fight with the natives in the Philippines. One ship and 19 men eventually sailed back to Spain. The ship did carry enough in terms of spices to cover all of the costs of the voyage, plus a good return on the investment. Survival rates of the early sea explorers were a bit grim.

When I first read Little Black Books 1-3 years and years ago, this stuff is the analog that was in my head.

 

[kilemall]

Don't forget, in classic Star Trek lore Kirk was such a Fleet god because he brought back his ship and crew largely intact after a 5-year tour.

So that would be a hideous loss rate for the others.

 

[Condottiere]

I thought it was the notches on his bed knobs and broomstick, plus resolving the Kobayashi Maru Scenario in a satisfactory manner.

Though Security Branch personnel must have dreaded a transfer to the Enterprise.

 

[whartung]

Thinking of survival rates, I have been reading a short history of Magellan's voyage, which resulted in one ship making it around the World. Magellan did not make it.

He left with 5 ships and 234 men. Of the five captains. two were killed in a mutiny, one was marooned, and one abandoned the voyage when the tip of South America was reached and returned to Spain. Magellan, serving as Captain-General did not make it, dying in a fight with the natives in the Philippines. One ship and 19 men eventually sailed back to Spain. The ship did carry enough in terms of spices to cover all of the costs of the voyage, plus a good return on the investment. Survival rates of the early sea explorers were a bit grim.

So, can you price that out for us Timerover?

Simply, how much do you think the ships cost. How much the provisions cost. How much was the spices worth. Did the survivors get a cut of the proceeds from the spice, or were they all simply salary.

I mean, you've got the time/value of the money invested, lost 90% of the men and 80% of the ships, yet it still come back profitable. Those little peppercorns must have been worth quite a bit.

 

[LiNeNoiSe]

In a campaign, five percent losses per battle is a trifle alarming, if there are no reinforcements or replacements.

The Allies had a two percent daily loss rate in WWII. After two weeks, a division was rendered largely ineffective. It takes time to integrate and train replacements. It was even worse for the Germans and Soviets.

 

[BwapTED]

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war!

 

[aramis]

The Allies had a two percent daily loss rate in WWII. After two weeks, a division was rendered largely ineffective. It takes time to integrate and train replacements. It was even worse for the Germans and Soviets.

Just as an odd bit I discovered in my thesis research...

The US estimates of Soviet strength in WWII were based upon two factors: Russian gun production and purchases, and halving the german high command's numbers. The German high command numbers were wrong, tho; their field agents were halving what they saw, because they knew high command wouldn't believe the real numbers, and high command was halving those in disbelief, while US intel also couldn't believe that the numbers were twice what the guns supported... so halved them. But, lo, the actual numbers for forces were about 8x the number of firearms procured...many soviets were trained using brooms instead of rifles, and had to pick up a dead man's weapon as they entered battle...
(This was in a 1995 paper by Paul Avrich. I was able to find corroboration in a 1940's Red Army manual in the UAA library. )

 

[Condottiere]

It was explained to me that the Soviets had a firm grasp of Maskirovka, and managed to deceive the Germans as to their actual troop strength and where their concentrations were, which at the point of breakthrough, could be eight to one.

 

[Timerover51]

So, can you price that out for us Timerover?

Simply, how much do you think the ships cost. How much the provisions cost. How much was the spices worth. Did the survivors get a cut of the proceeds from the spice, or were they all simply salary.

I mean, you've got the time/value of the money invested, lost 90% of the men and 80% of the ships, yet it still come back profitable. Those little peppercorns must have been worth quite a bit.

I will see if I can find that. My guess is that I can, but it might not be right away.