Specifically, the Starport details... where does this information come from? I don't have a frame of reference to work with here.
Wiki world details question
- Thread starter Spartan159
- Start date
Can you provide an example of what your are looking for?
The details of what services are provided by each startport class were original written in Book 3 and copied (with few alterations) forward to each version.
On the right-hand sidebar of planetary data, such as Aramis under the local map is a column of details, the one I am interested in is the Starport Details:
Port Size 5
Building Capacity (Tons) 0
Port employees 6,745
Port passengers (annual) 10,000
Where did these values come from? I am especially interested in Port Size. Not to mention why a Class A starport has no building capacity.
steventirey1985
SOC-12
Possibly GURPS Traveller. It rates ports with a number classification, not the standard letter classification. IT also has stuff for determining port employees. Class 5 is the largest, and I believe that construction facilities are not actually required in GURPS Traveller for a higher rating.
It also uses World Trade Numbers and trade volumes, also listed in that data.
It also uses World Trade Numbers and trade volumes, also listed in that data.
Steve's correct. The numbers are straight from G:Traveller.
As for the quoted building capacity, you'll notice the sidebar lists the starport details twice and changes them each time. The first entry has a capacity of 0 tons and the second a capacity of 5,699 tons. The number of employees and annual pax change too.
It's the Wiki where Garbage In, Garbage Out is more than just a slogan. It's a way of life!
And here I was hoping for some frame of reference between say two different class A starports. Drat.
steventirey1985
SOC-12
Steve's correct. The numbers are straight from G:Traveller.
As for the quoted building capacity, you'll notice the sidebar lists the starport details twice and changes them each time. The first entry has a capacity of 0 tons and the second a capacity of 5,699 tons. The number of employees and annual pax change too.
It's the Wiki where Garbage In, Garbage Out is more than just a slogan. It's a way of life!
Listing it twice does make a bit of sense. The first one is labeled (under the name, above the little map) as Milieu 1116. The other section is labeled New Era (so about 1201).
Two different sections for two different time periods.
No, it doesn't.
First, since 1977 the description of a Class A (Class V in G:T) starport requires that there is a Shipyard capable of constructing starships and non-starships present.
Second, the 1105 map of Leedor on page 32 of CT's TTA explicitly shows the Naasirka Yards with three dedicated landing pads.
While it could be argued that Aramis had a yard in 1105, no yard in 1116, and a yard again in 1201, if the port on Aramis somehow lacked building capacity in 1116 then the port in 1116 was not Class A (V) despite the Wiki's claims.
The Wiki is wrong because the Wiki is drowning in garbage.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
And yet both have starport code A and therefore build ships.
Milieu 1116
A5A0556-B
New Era
A5A0653-C
Mr, Whipsnade beat me too it so this post is superfluous.
Milieu 1116
A5A0556-B
New Era
A5A0653-C
Mr, Whipsnade beat me too it so this post is superfluous.
steventirey1985
SOC-12
It isn't necessarily wrong (some of it may be. I don't know or care - I have never uses the official universe anyway). It is just trying to combine information from multiple (incompatible) sources.
Saying it has a Class A port while trying to use the listed shipyard information on that page doesn't work because it if from 2 different systems with 2 different standards. There are no Class A ports in GURPS where that info comes from (the class 5, number of workers, shipyard capacity) so saying Class A ports can build ships means absolutely nothing as they don't exist as far as that information is concerned.
The issue is whoever made those pages included information from multiple versions of the rules despite those versions not always being compatible. The UWP listing a class A port means nothing as far as GURPS is concerned, as GURPS doesn't even use a UWP. The stuff listed under IISS Astrographics Survey is the GURPS version of the world (Though that does list the wrong TL - it should be GURPS TL 9/Traveller TL 10-11).
The Wiki is garbage not because it is incorrect, but because it tries to use multiple incompatable rulesets at the same time without clearly separating the information. Your trying to use the entire list of information at once instead of just trying to use the appropriate set of information for whatever ruleset you are using.
Saying it has a Class A port while trying to use the listed shipyard information on that page doesn't work because it if from 2 different systems with 2 different standards. There are no Class A ports in GURPS where that info comes from (the class 5, number of workers, shipyard capacity) so saying Class A ports can build ships means absolutely nothing as they don't exist as far as that information is concerned.
The issue is whoever made those pages included information from multiple versions of the rules despite those versions not always being compatible. The UWP listing a class A port means nothing as far as GURPS is concerned, as GURPS doesn't even use a UWP. The stuff listed under IISS Astrographics Survey is the GURPS version of the world (Though that does list the wrong TL - it should be GURPS TL 9/Traveller TL 10-11).
The Wiki is garbage not because it is incorrect, but because it tries to use multiple incompatable rulesets at the same time without clearly separating the information. Your trying to use the entire list of information at once instead of just trying to use the appropriate set of information for whatever ruleset you are using.
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
No, it is badly researched and shows a misunderstanding of the rules and setting.
Dipping into GURPS Traveller is fraught with difficulties due to the odd decision of the GT authors to go with GTL rather than TTL for the setting and changing the way starports are rated - again a setting detail that should have remained upon conversion.
Dipping into GURPS Traveller is fraught with difficulties due to the odd decision of the GT authors to go with GTL rather than TTL for the setting and changing the way starports are rated - again a setting detail that should have remained upon conversion.
Build capacity comes from Trillion Credit Squadron. TCS, as a war game, gives each world a capacity for handling ships, building and repair based upon the population of the world. TCS has been decanonized for the economics of the OTU, and the sum of the values is much too large to make any sense for any TU, except maybe the Island Clusters. Think of this as a theoretical maximum.
The Port size, Port Employees, and Port Passengers are all from GT: Starports based upon values derived from GT: Far Trader and as generated by the Trade Map generator.
Port size is an abstracted approximate size of the port. It ranges from 0 (smallest, basically non-existant) to 7 (largest). Each step represents an order of magnitude of size increase. This is different from the port class, from Traveller these are A-X, or in GT they are rated V to I and 0. So you can have a A port of size 2 or D port of size 6.
Port Passengers are the number of passenger that pass through the port. Trade Volume (MCr/year) is the other number that is important to the size and volume of the star port. The passengers + trade volume set the budget for the port.
Port Employees are the number of full time employees required to run the starport based upon the budget from the trade and passengers.. This would include managing passengers (TAS Lounge, AstroBurger employees), cargo handlers, security, maintenance for the starport equipment and Highport systems (if there is a high port), etc.
There are two sets of values for all of the worlds in the Spinward Marches and Deneb sector. One for the 1105 era data, as derived from the T5 Second Survey data, the current official canon. The second is from the TNE era (1200) as derived from TNE's Regency Sourcebook.
Last edited:
Ah, excellent. More things to learn. :rofl: Thanks for the clarification tjoneslo! New formulas such as were in TCS and Striker would be kind of handy. Although one thing that population does not take into account is how robotized a planet is.
More things to ignore, actually.
As clear as mud. As you'll see, Thomas' post is more a litany of excuses than a list of explanations.
No they won't. The TCS and Striker formulas have been explicitly and repeatedly decanonized for use in the OTU for decades now. They are only to be used for those Traveller wargames and not for Traveller the RPG.
Returning to the moronic mishmash of misunderstanding that is the Wiki page:
- Both Traveller's Class A and GURPS' Class V ratings require an ability to build starships and spaceships.
- From CT up though T5, a port cannot be rated A without that construction ability.
- The Wiki page claims Aramis' port in 1105 has no building capacity despite being Class A.
- The Wiki page claims Aramis' port in 1105 has no building capacity while ignoring a map of Leedor from 1105 shows the Naasirka Yards with three dedicated landing pads.
- The Wiki page's sidebar confuses startport class with starport size.
- The Wiki page's sidebar uses size calculations from GT:Starports without explanation.
- The Wiki page's sidebar uses formulas from TCS and Striker in ways Mr. Miller says they cannot be used.
Any damn fool can shovel any damn thing into the Wiki and many are busily doing just that. Sadly, there's no one pumping out the sludge being pumped in and the Wiki drowning as a result.
The Wiki is garbage because the Wiki lacks the active and robust editing any real Wiki requires.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
If you are looking for data on military expenditures as a percentage of GWP, which is sounds like you are, there are some sources to look at. First, check out the defense expenditures in the CIA World Factbook for various countries, with the consideration that much of the equipment expenditures will be on imported military equipment.
As a rule of thumb, for nations not under direct threat, or with a powerful ally, a figure of 1 to 2 per cent of the GNP will be spent on defense, with a lot of that spent on pay, support, and training. Nations with more of a perceived threat will go to 5 per cent or so, with a strong perceived threat up to 10 per cent. Anything over 10 per cent would indicate ongoing military action, with 25 per cent indicating all out war. Spending more than 50 per cent for defense will break the economy fairly quickly. As for manpower committed to defense, 10 per cent is about the maximum.
The Military and Naval Defense budgets would be handy as a guideline but I was thinking mainly of a more current GWP calculation than the decanonized ones. Thanks for that rule of thumb, I've copied it for future use.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Does it? The numbers given does not match TCS.
According to TCS Aramis in ~1100 would have a capacity of 700 000 × 0,95 / 1000 = 665 dT. In ~1200 it would be 8 000 000 × 0,95 / 1000 = 7600 dT.
Generally the TCS capacity would never be 0, unless the population is 0.
Last edited:
As other shave mentioned, it's mix of data from different rule sets. Most of that stuff is derived from GURPS Trav values. GURPS Trav used a different TL system and a number of other peculiarities distinctive to it. When Thomas crunches the numbers, they sometimes produce a wide spectrum of results.
You'd pretty much need to know many of the different editions of traveler to get a deep understanding of them. Many of the detractors lack that breadth of Traveller knowledge. It happens.
Part of really appreciating Traveller is getting past the many different editions and authors and just enjoying it for what it is. Some people get stuck in one editions and miss the forest for the trees. Don used to put it that we shouldn't throw rocks at any edition of Traveller because we're all in it together.
Shabbat Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
GURP Starports give some ideas of value ranges, but it's still pretty much a mishmash system, but much better than nothing at all.
Fans who really get into crunching the numbers, totally adore the really clever work done By Thomas Jones-Low. He's done some pretty amazing things with the data. Really neat.
Shabbat Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Of course, one man's garbage is another man's treasure.
If you want to appreciate it, be glad we have data to quibble over, and not all individually have to compile the data repeatedly over.
Would love to have your help, Steven Tirey , in improving the wiki.
Yes, it's pretty hard to reconcile apples and oranges. Marc Miller wanted to get it done and specifically assigned Thomas to do it. It's a thankless job, and many people complain about it without noticing that it's a pretty amazing resource once one considers that it is considerably less than perfect, like the many imperfect resources it draws from.
Take another look when you get the chance, much of the research there, while imperfect, cannot be gotten elsewhere. More than a few of the current Traveller authors draw on the language lists, alien lists, or other writing for their inspiration and to point them to resources.
However, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm one of the guys working on improving the wiki. I got tired of people whining about it nonstop and did something about it. I love the constructive criticism which can be used to improve it. Not a fan of the negative complaining and then not doing anything about it expect calling it garbage, insulting the guy FFE appointed to write it, and generally not adding anything of value to the community chest. That's not cool.
Shabbat Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Similar threads
