• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Trade Classifications

Chaos

SOC-12
Hi there,

in my humble opinion, the trade classifications - like Agricultural, Industrial and so on - are a bit too arbitrary - being tied to the UWP statistics too much without consideration for special circumstances - for example, why shouldn´t a world with a few thousand people and LOTS of robotic factories not be considered Industrial, or for that matter, why can´t Industrial worlds have breathable atmospheres?

I don´t like whining without coming up with something better, so I thought up an extension to the World Creation rules to cover that. You determine three additional characteristics - Minerals, Fertility and Infrastructure, and use these to calculate the trade classifications.

Minerals is determined by rolling 1d6, adding World Size and subtracting Hydrographics (I figured that minerals on the bottom of the ocean would, by and large, be too difficult to mine); also, you add 1 per full 4 Tech Levels to reflect mining technology.
For Asteroid Belt worlds, you simple roll 2d6 and add the TL bonus, since there, mineral deposits are much easier to access.

Fertility depends on the Atmosphere digit:
2d6 for Atmospheres 5, 6 and 8 (thin, standard and dense) plus a TL bonus for farming technology - +1 at TL 4-6, +2 at TL 7-9, +3 at TL 10-12 and +4 at TL 13-15.
1d6 for 4, 7, 9, D, E and F, with a TL bonus of +1 at TL 7-9, +2 at TL 10-12 and +3 at TL 13-15 (i.e. 1 less than usual)
0 for 0-3 and A-C (hard to grow crops in vacuum, or in insidious atmospheres...), with a TL bonus of +1 for TL 10-12 and +2 for TL 13-15 (for large-scale hydroponics).

Infrastructure is determined by rolling 2d6-12 plus the Population digit, plus half the TL, treating anything below 1 as 1.

(FYI that would give modern-day Earth a Mineral score of 1d6+3, a Fertility score of 2d6+2 and an Infrastructure score of 2d6+1)

Then you calculate the trade balances in three ares: Mineral, Agriculture, Industrial and General.
Mineral Trade Balance (MTB) is Minerals minus Infrastructure - i.e. does the planet need to import minerals for their industry, or do they export?
Agricultural Trade Balance (ATB) is Fertility minus 3 plus the Size digit minus the Population digit - i.e. you compare agricultural effecitivy to population density; a Fertility of 3 is enough to feed the population if the Size and Population digits are the same.
Industrial Trade Balance (ITB) is Infrastructure minus Population digit, i.e. can the industry satisfy the demands of the population.
General Trade Balance (GTB) is simply the sum of the other balances - MTB, ATB and ITB.

Now for the classifications:
Any world with an ATB of +3 or more is considered Agricultural; with an ATB of -3 or less, it is Non-Agricultural.
Any world with an ITB of +3 or more is considered Industrial; with an ITB of -3 or less, it is considered Non-Industrial.
A world with a GTB of +5 or more, or with both a positive ATB and ITB, is considered Rich; with a GTB of -5 or less, or with both negative ATB and ITB, is considered Poor.
The other Trade Classifications stay as they are.

Right now I´m working on putting together new Speculative Goods tables, one (of 20 goods) for each combination of positive and negative trade balances - so that, for example, most agricultural products will NOT be available for export on Non-Agricultural worlds.
BTW you may have noticed that MTB doesn´t figure into trade classifications; it will figure into these tables.
 
Thanks, Rick. It´s always nice to feel appreciated.


OTOH it won´t be too soon, I guess, except for maybe an example table or two. Exams are starting next, and right now I´m doing Traveller tinkering only to get my mind off Costing and Accountancy and stuff - not that trade rules would be much of a diversion from that... ;)

I´ve also thought of sorting these tables so that goods which need a higher TL infrastructure to produce are in the higher numbers - Clond Human Organs, for example -, so when rolling goods for a low-TL world, you could, for example, drop the last eight items on the list and 1d12 instead of 1d20 - of for a very high-TL world, drop the first eight items...
If you have only a very limited number of worlds to trade on - say, one subsector or so - you could also create a made-to-fit 6-, 8- or 10-item Goods list for each of them.

Then, I want to think up a way to have the number and/or size of speculative cargoes be influenced by the population size (or maybe the Infrastructure value) - I mean, how come that even on a world the size of Earth, you couldn´t locate more than, at most, 192 head of lifestock available for export each week? (1d8 cargos of 4d6 lifestock, theoretical - if you rolled up only lifestock cargo, that is)
 
I have finally done some work on this.

Now, for each available speculative cargo that you roll, you get a number of lots equal to the UWP population digit; they are rolled on the Actual Value table only once, but each lot beyond the first has a modifier to is price of +1 (i.e. the more you buy, the more you will have to pay for the next lot)
For every potential buyer that you locate for a speculative cargo, you actually get a number of buyers equal to half the UWP size digit, rounded up; each of them will buy up to the maximum possible size of a cargo (e.g. up to 24 tons if the cargo size on the Trade table it 4d6); only one roll on the Actual Value table is made, but of each buyer beyond the first, the result is modified by -2.


I have alos field-tested by system for generating trade classifications. Using the UWP data in Galactic 2.4, the following classifications resulted for the worlds in the Jewell, Regina, Vilis and Lanth subsectors (108 worlds total):
(numbers in brackets are classifications using the official criteria)

31 Agricultural (16)
26 Non-Agricultural (6)
10 Industrial (7)
33 Non-Industrial (72)
24 Rich (11)
23 Poor (10)

I admit I had not expected the differences in the results to be this extreme...
 
Interesting.

I'm looking now for a way to make sure the Speculative Trade system is an opposed check from the getgo. I know I'm not the first person to consider that this is needed, but I'm to the point where without it the speculative trade system is not only worthless, it's damaging to a T20 campaign. I'm now convinced that the system cannot be salvaged, it needs to be reconsidered.

Opposed rolls is the only way to go, imho. But to go along with that a mechanic for determining at least a range of possible skill for NPC merchants would be needed. You can't just guess at every starport what the local broker skill levels are. If you're going to wing that you might as well improvise the entire subject.
 
re: possible skills for NPC Merchants.

I'd go with a rating based upon the UWP population digit, based on the fact that larger worlds have more trade, and will teach (or attract) higher level trader brokers.

The basic formula: Trader level = UWP Population code. Traders would always be professionals, giving then the trader and broker skills at level + 3. At 4th level (and above) take a skill focus feat, giving an additional +2 to both skills. At 6th level, the trader increases their Wisdom giving another +1 bonus. At UWP 8+ the local market is big enough to allow using a computer to find clients, giving a +2 equipment bonus.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">UWP Broker Modifier
0 +3
1 +4
2 +5
3 +6
4 +8
5 +9
6 +11
7 +12
8 +15
9 +16
A +17</pre>[/QUOTE]
 
Good thinking, tjoneslo. I like it.

Merchant in my group is good enough to settle down at a type A starport and make a mint (+24 on his broker check).

You know, if pirates attack a free trader, they ought to kidnap the broker. He's the most valuable thing on the ship, heh.
 
Really in T20 broker needs to be an opposed roll.

Welcome to the A class starport high-pop industrial world. Please prepare to be reamed unless you have a broker effective skill of 25+.
 
@tjoneslo:
Shouldn´t the broker be a Merchant? Then, with the automatic Barter feat, the bonuses are increased by +2 each - and of course he can get the Market Analyst feat...

OTOH I think a better way to determine the level of the broker would be to add the Fertility, Minerals and Infrastructure values and add a bonus for starport size (A: +6, B: +4, C: +2, D: +0, E: -2, X: divide by two) and use the result to calculate the broker´s level. (i.e. the more stuff the world has than can be traded, the more experienced the world´s brokers are)
The maximum result for that procedure could be 19 (1d6+13 for a TL12+ Size A Desert world) for Minerals plus 16 (2d6+4 for a TL13+ Atmosphere 5/6/8 world) for Fertility and 17 (2d6-12+17 for a TL14+ Pop A world) plus 6 for a class A starport, for a total of 58. Say, the total sum divided by 2 is the broker´s skill bonus, with a theoretical maximum of +29.
I´ll run that formula through my field test worlds.

ETA: Field test done.
My formula resulted in broker bonuses ranging from +1 (for Ao-Dai, 0401 Jewell) to +17 (for Regina, 0310 Regina), and an average skill bonus of just above 7.5.
I figured that this would be a little too low, so I also added the planets´ UWP digit to the total.
This resulted in bonuses from +2 (for Djinni, Lanth 0501) to +21 (again, for Regina). This seems to be a little more like it...
 
Yah. Well, if my 11th or 12th level Merchant in our campaign has +24 to his roll (or something insane like that) then maybe there needs to be a broader range. A Type A high pop planet ought to have the best of the best, especially if it's a rich planet. Say, +30?
 
Hmm, not much time and some of my thoughts on this are in an earlier related thread(s) on this but it just occured to me the easiest way to "fix" this might be to require that such skills be fixed to a specific system.

So your PC Broker will have to decide which ranks will apply to which system. He could drop all 24 ranks (as an eg.) into his Broker skill for Regina. Or maybe trading back and forth between Regina and Feri he decides to drop 12 ranks into each.

This seems a good way to model the fact that Brokering and such should be based on specific system market conditions. And your NPC Brokers won't have to be as high a level since they will be dropping all their ranks into their home system.

Just a thought. And there may be other skills where this should apply (I suspect but can't think of any off the top of my head).
 
I agree, Far-Trader. And the further away from your home base you get, the more negatives you take to your roll, to a maximum of maybe -10 (no matter how far you go, it doesn't get THAT much harder).

I used this is my T20 campaign on my Merchant. First time to ever visit a system and you know enough to rape the locals who are supposed experts in their own markets? Please.
 
@RickA:
I suppose we could also add the world´s law level into the formula... the more laws there are on a planet, there more ways a local can find to rip off the hapless off-worlder using obscure legal provisions... ("I´m afraid that our law clearly states that all local merchants wearing a suit and tie are entitled to a 10% discount from off-worlders, Sir.") :D
I suppose that the laws of the market (not to mention Imperial Law) works pretty much the same everywhere. But how about "Xeno-Economics" feats similar to the Xeno-Medicine feats? That, and/or a separate Broker skill or each nation, region or species.

Anyway, I´ve been beset by a streak of productivity and made some revised Speculative Goods tables.
Under the revised system, for every cargo the PC broker locates, he can choose from among up to 8 tables with different cargo categories: Farming, Processed Goods (i.e. processed agricultural products), Minerals, Chemicals, Industrial Goods, High-Tech Goods, Luxury Items and Hand-Crafted Items. Each is a smaller table of 6-30 items. Of course, not all tables are available on all planets; for example, Industrial Goods is available at TL 4 or higher, while Hand-Crafted Goods is vailable at TL 7 or less.
 
Originally posted by Chaos:
@tjoneslo:
Shouldn´t the broker be a Merchant? Then, with the automatic Barter feat, the bonuses are increased by +2 each - and of course he can get the Market Analyst feat...
You lost me here in this entire thing. Using a straight formula to calcluate broker bonuses (like this one) has some odd results. Especially if you try and compare it to the character generation system.

If you are assuming a dedicated broker on every world (even if it just the guy who runs the starport and country store), at 1st level they will always have a bonus of +3, or if you assume they all have the broker feat as well +5.

Since the absolute value of the GTB determines the value of trade coming in or going out, use this as the character level. My calcluations shows GTB maxes at about 17, giving a 17th level broker with 20 skill ranks in the approriate skill. +5 for feats above, +2 for stat increases, and +4 for equipment bonuses (TL dependent upon access to good computer equpiment) gives: +31 ranks.
 
A general comment on the rules below. I don't like how each stat is detemined in a different manner. I like to simplify things.

Originally posted by Chaos:
Minerals is determined by rolling 1d6, adding World Size and subtracting Hydrographics (I figured that minerals on the bottom of the ocean would, by and large, be too difficult to mine); also, you add 1 per full 4 Tech Levels to reflect mining technology.
For Asteroid Belt worlds, you simple roll 2d6 and add the TL bonus, since there, mineral deposits are much easier to access.
I disagree with both of these assumptions. Water covered minerals are not necessecarlly more difficult to mine, partiruclarly if you have access to much high technology. I'd drop the hydrographics modifier.

Conversly, a planet without water (or asteroids belts), the minerals are much harder to extract because the action of water concentrates them for easier extraction. A 500 cf rock may have 10 tons of gold in it, but there are no veins of gold, just gold atoms scattered through the entire rock. Makes mining an difficult and work intensive process.
Fertility depends on the Atmosphere digit:
2d6 for Atmospheres 5, 6 and 8 (thin, standard and dense) plus a TL bonus for farming technology - +1 at TL 4-6, +2 at TL 7-9, +3 at TL 10-12 and +4 at TL 13-15.
1d6 for 4, 7, 9, D, E and F, with a TL bonus of +1 at TL 7-9, +2 at TL 10-12 and +3 at TL 13-15 (i.e. 1 less than usual)
0 for 0-3 and A-C (hard to grow crops in vacuum, or in insidious atmospheres...), with a TL bonus of +1 for TL 10-12 and +2 for TL 13-15 (for large-scale hydroponics).
I'd change this to be Fertility = 2d6 + tech level modifier, -4 for tainted atmosphere, -8 for atmoshere 0-3,A-C.
Infrastructure is determined by rolling 2d6-12 plus the Population digit, plus half the TL, treating anything below 1 as 1.
Are all of these minimum of 1 or 0?
 
@tjoneslo:
Thanks for the comments.

The GTB is not a good base for calculation the total amount of trade - for example, if a world has a MTB of +5, ATB of +5 and a ITB of -10, it imports and exports lots of stuff, but has a GTB of 0 nonetheless.
On backwater worlds - crappy starport, few people, no economy to speak of - of course you won´t find a dedicated broker, but instead maybe a guy who uses the Broker skill untrained with just his Int bonus to work for him.

Isn´t mining an asteroid belt a lot easier than mining a planet? There´s no gravity to deal with, and the whole mass is accessible, instead for just the area relatively close to the surface.

Why should atmosphere 0-3, A-C worlds have a chance for a base fertility of more than 0? There´s just nothing there for the plants to grow on.

The Infrastructure minimum is 1; the exception is planets with a population digit of 0, which always have an Infrastructure value of 0.
 
Originally posted by Chaos:

Isn´t mining an asteroid belt a lot easier than mining a planet? There´s no gravity to deal with, and the whole mass is accessible, instead for just the area relatively close to the surface.
Not really. For two reasons. First, as stated above, there are no veins of ore in asteriods. "Mining" an asteroid involves grinding it to dust and extacting the needed ore. Which is a time and energy consuming task, much more so than mining concentrated ore from veins on a planet. Second, the asteroids are scattered over a huge volume of space, several weeks of travel assuming Travellers infinite power multi-G drives. The technlogy that makes this possible also applied to the ground based mining as well.

So you might be able to produce more minerals from an asteroid belt, but I can't see producing orders of magnitude more than a planetary mine. I not sure of the scale of the numbers, but I'd say at most a +1 for the asteroid belt, not +1d6.


Why should atmosphere 0-3, A-C worlds have a chance for a base fertility of more than 0? There´s just nothing there for the plants to grow on.
I was taking fertility to be a mesaure of the ability to grow plants to support your population. That is an Icy, nitrogen rich comet may never grow plants on it's own, but in the right orbit, and a little dome, you'll have a jungle before you know it.
 
That makes sense. I stand corrected.

So, how about giving asteroid belts the normal 1d6 in base Minerals, but a higher TL bonus, because I think that improving spacefaring technology helps asteroid mining more than ground-based mining. Asteroid mining should start around TL 8-9, so they´ll get...
+3 instead of +2 at TL 8-11
+5 instead of +3 at TL 12-15
or something like that...

As for fertility, how about the following:
The base value for Fertility is 2d6-2 for all planets i.e. 0 to 10. All worlds receive the TL bonuses previously reserved for normal (5,6,8) atmospheres, i.e. +1 at TL 4-6, +2 at TL 7-9 etc.
For tainted and/or very thin atmospheres (2,3,4,7,9) and Desert worls (due to lack of precipitation) get a -6 modifier up to TL 6, -4 at TL 7-9, -2 at TL 10-12 and none at TL 13+ (because technology helps offset adverse environmental conditions in addition to "just" boosting crops).
Vacuum, trace, exotic or worse atmospheres (0,1,A,B,C) get -10 if the TL is less than 10, -8 at TL 10-12 and -6 at TL 13+.
 
Re: Asteroid mining. My brain just went on a jaunt. Many systems will have a asteroid belt, even if the main world isn't an asteroid belt itself (cf. Sol system). To a large extent the mineral wealth (and availability of the same) of a system isn't tied to the size, or other features, of the main world. I'd suggest using 2d6-2 + TL modifier. (TL 0-3: +0, TL 5-8: +1, TL9-11: +2, TL12-15, +3).

Re: Fertility. This sounds about right.
 
Originally posted by tjoneslo:
Re: Asteroid mining. My brain just went on a jaunt. Many systems will have a asteroid belt, even if the main world isn't an asteroid belt itself (cf. Sol system). To a large extent the mineral wealth (and availability of the same) of a system isn't tied to the size, or other features, of the main world. I'd suggest using 2d6-2 + TL modifier. (TL 0-3: +0, TL 5-8: +1, TL9-11: +2, TL12-15, +3).

Re: Fertility. This sounds about right.
Interesting idea.
How about this: if the mainworlds is TL 8+, then it will receive a bonus to its Mineral rating representing its asteroid belts.
At TL 8-9, the bonus is +1 per 2 asteroid belts (rounded up)
At TL 10-11, +1 per asteroid belt
At TL 12-13, +1.5 per asteroid belt
At TL 14-15, +2 per asteroid belt

Alternatively, we could determine the Mineral values of the belts, add them together, and add a fraction of the sum to the mainworld´s Mineral rating:
TL 8-9: 1/10
TL 10-11: 1/8
TL 12-13: 1/6
TL 14-15: 1/4
all rounded normally

With average mineral values of 3.5 + TL bonus per belt that gives us an average bonus per belt of: (and totals for 1,2,3,4 belts of)
TL 8-9: +0.65 (+1,+1,+2,+3)
TL 10-11: +0.81.. (+1,+2,+2,+3)
TL 12-13: +1.41.. (+1,+3,+4,+6)
TL 14-15: +2.125 (+2,+4,+6,+9)

The second method would require more work, though. And, either way, I´ll have to change the Trade Balance formulas to re-balance them.
 
Back
Top