On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:52:20PM +1000, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 06:10:19PM -0400, Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
> > I'm interested in knowing how people, who home grow their Traveller
> > Universe, impose trade routes?
>
> There's a system in GURPS Far Trader, though it's fairly simplistic
> and has quite a few flaws.  I used it for a while before deciding that
> the flaws outweighed the usefulness for its intended task.
>
> However, it's not bad for generating trade *routes*.  I did generate
> some trade routes using it and all pairs weighted path algorithms, and
> they came out quite well.  They still needed tweaking on the local
> scales, but the overall patterns looked pretty decent.
>
>
> > I see it as mainly two variable system. Better starports promote [...]
> > Shorter distances promote trade so two [...]
>
> One of the biggest factors seems to be missing from this: system
> population.  There will be much greater trade volume with, between,
> and through high-pop systems than low-pop ones.  The causality runs in
> both directions here: high-pop worlds will (other factors being equal)
> have more people who want offworld goods, more people who can supply
> them, and a greater capacity to support through trade.  Also, trade
> routes and hubs attract people for economic reasons, so that such
> systems are more likely to end up with higher population over longer
> timescales.
>

I shelved the trade routes problems and tried to create some
SQL to list out Subsector and Sector capitals and it occured to me
that my initial sort when generating trade routes was completely
wrong. I'll revisit it from a new perspective. That perspective will
include: population, starport, and tech level, in no order. I'm also
brushing up on my graph theory.

Actually this software is really more about the journey for me. One
example is that I'm discovering that my sectors are somewhat barren of
water but that's off topic. I'm not sure if that's a bug in my copy of
the hydrographics tables or side effect of the expanded system
rules. After looking at the tables and DMs, I'm leaning towards the
latter. I'm noticing that the vast majority of systems have M
spectral class stars and the M5 doesn't even have a habitable band. That
imposes big negative DM's on size, hydrographics, and population. I'm
thinking that if you use the expanded system you end up with much
fewer people in your sector than if you dice up planets with the basic
system which uses DMs tuned to a rock or gas giant in the goldilocks
band of G5V star.

The upshot is that many people in the sectors I'm generating now live
on vacuum worlds. If this isn't a bug in my program I'm almost
thinking that one needs to impose a minimum tech level of 7 for vacuum
worlds. But again, that's another story.

--
Chris

      __o          "All I was trying to do was get home from work."
    _`\<,_           -Rosa Parks
___(*)/_(*)____.___o____..___..o...________ooO..._____________________
Christopher Sean Hilton                    [chris/at/vindaloo/dot/com]