• 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.

How to address the problem of the numbers

Either can work with the OTU because there is no direct correlation between the total *volume* of trade and the total *value* of trade.
Unless you add generic base values to your model, in which case you get a very strong correletion between volume and value.

The discussion is about fitting the data to canon. My point was that if a canon number is 100 but canon doesn't specify if it's made up of 10x10 or 5x20 or 2x50 then you can choose which you prefer.
No, your point is that if it says 100 without specifying whether it is talking about volume or value, then you can choose whichever you prefer. But canon does specify (FT talks about both), and if it didn't, you could choose either, but you would have to choose one, and choosing one would rule out the other.

You'd need enforcing it to be in the interests of the sub-sector Dukes.
And how do you do that?

Yes but the point is the model. The model is buy as low as possible, add shipping costs, sell as high as possible at the other end.
The CT model is buy as low as possible, search for a place to sell, sell, hopefully at a profit. This is different from the model for regular trade, which is buy, ship, sell for a regular profit.

Therefore as the base value of the goods limits the range of profitability it also limits the distance. If the maximum possible profit on a commodity in the OTU according to the trading rules is 4100cr then the maximum distance it can be traded profitably is four jumps.
Yes, but the CT trade model doesn't include all possible commodities. To the contrary, it leaves out most luxury items that can be profitably shipped across long distances.

Yes if the base value was higher - because profitable trading distance using the trading rules is determined by the base value.
And FT addresses that point. Mostly by admitting that its model breaks down over sufficiently long distances, but it also attempts to alliviate the problem by reducing the volume (but not the value) of trade across long distances.

It has every connection. Whatever rules you came up with would follow the same pattern - some kind of roll to decide the buy low and sell high based on whatever.
On the contrary, trade routes and the average volume of ships along them would be established by averages spread across years and decades, so all fluctuations would even out, eliminating the need for die rolls. The model would be buy, ship, sell for a small, but steady profit (or a big profit if you can arrange for a monopoly).


Hans
 
I may have confused things a bit by mixing in some of my IMTU thoughts - as that is what led me to this discussion.

Leaving all that out.

It seems to me as far as canon goes the Book 2 small ship side of things mostly makes sense as it is (leaving aside the flaws in the speculative trade rules) in that the ships are viable in their niche of planet-planet tramping between systems along the "mains" and in the hinterland where the volume of trade is too low for larger ships to be viable. The J2 and J3 Book 2 ships need subsidies, speculation or criminality to pay the bills but that fits with how they're described IIRC so that's fine.

Given Aramis' figures as far as I can tell merging Book 2 with a big ship universe simply requires:

1) reversing some assumptions about large ships being long distance and small ships being local. The actual numeric values can all stay the same because not only is there nothing to say volume is proportional to value, with long distance trade it can't be

2a) if J3 merchant ships are canon then they need some way of competing with J1 ships - the 1000cr floor on cargo gives them a way to compete if a cargo has a destination multiple jumps away e.g. hub-hub trade

2b) if you're being really strict with Aramis' costs per parsec per ton J3 merchant ships also need some form of subsidy or method of slicing a few hundred cr off their operating costs per parsec
 
It seems to me as far as canon goes the Book 2 small ship side of things mostly makes sense as it is (leaving aside the flaws in the speculative trade rules) in that the ships are viable in their niche of planet-planet tramping between systems along the "mains" and in the hinterland where the volume of trade is too low for larger ships to be viable. The J2 and J3 Book 2 ships need subsidies, speculation or criminality to pay the bills but that fits with how they're described IIRC so that's fine.
All they need is the ability to charge their operating expenses (in which I include a small profit).

2a) if J3 merchant ships are canon then they need some way of competing with J1 ships - the 1000cr floor on cargo gives them a way to compete if a cargo has a destination multiple jumps away e.g. hub-hub trade.
Being three times faster than J1 is a competitive advantage.


2b) if you're being really strict with Aramis' costs per parsec per ton J3 merchant ships also need some form of subsidy or method of slicing a few hundred cr off their operating costs per parsec.
All they need are passengers who are willing to pay a few hundred extra credits per parsec in order to get to their destination three times faster.

If J1 is cheaper per parsec than J2 and J3, then J1 becomes viable across distances greater than one parsec. But since I've been working with HG since it was published, I don't care for using Book 2 figures, so I'll bow out of that part of the discussion (or try to, anyway).


Hans
 
Unless you add generic base values to your model, in which case you get a very strong correletion between volume and value.

Yes I'm talking about the canon base values per ton which have a very wide range


No, your point is that if it says 100 without specifying whether it is talking about volume or value, then you can choose whichever you prefer. But canon does specify (FT talks about both), and if it didn't, you could choose either, but you would have to choose one, and choosing one would rule out the other.

My point would be *if* it doesn't specify that or if it says big freighters and small freighters without specifying which are the long distance ones and which are the local ones.

If it specifically says n number of x tonnage ships and also says which are local and which long distance then sure.


And how do you do that?

They'd need to make money from it somehow either through an increase in trade or making it easier to tax or through getting a cut in some other way like owning the J3 ship yards or simply for practical reasons because channeling the trade makes it easier to defend.


The CT model is buy as low as possible, search for a place to sell, sell, hopefully at a profit. This is different from the model for regular trade, which is buy, ship, sell for a regular profit.

Nope. The speculation part, "search for a place to sell" is simply done in advance by picking two worlds where the DMs mostly guarantees a safe regular profit over time.


Yes, but the CT trade model doesn't include all possible commodities. To the contrary, it leaves out most luxury items that can be profitably shipped across long distances.

Sure but you're the guy saying canon first. Personally if I get round to it I'll rejig the trade list and include at least one "planetary unique" commodity with a second table of 66 individual ones for different planets. I think planetary uniques could make great hooks.


On the contrary, trade routes and the average volume of ships along them would be established by averages spread across years and decades, so all fluctuations would even out, eliminating the need for die rolls. The model would be buy, ship, sell for a small, but steady profit (or a big profit if you can arrange for a monopoly).

A small, steady profit over years and decades is exactly what you'd get with a die roll for each trip with a net DM+2 on the die rolls.
 
@rancke

All they need is the ability to charge their operating expenses (in which I include a small profit).

Sure. There are lots of ways - and probably better ones - of doing it by changing the rules. The discussion - as you mentioned a few posts ago - is about seeing if it can be made to work with the canon rules.


Being three times faster than J1 is a competitive advantage.

Yes, that would an exception where time was critical .



All they need are passengers who are willing to pay a few hundred extra credits per parsec in order to get to their destination three times faster.

Yes, see the first point and your previous post.

If J1 is cheaper per parsec than J2 and J3, then J1 becomes viable across distances greater than one parsec. But since I've been working with HG since it was published, I don't care for using Book 2 figures, so I'll bow out of that part of the discussion (or try to, anyway).

Well as my part is trying to make Book 2 - or rather the ships from Book 2 which is the main bit I care about - fit into later additions there's no need for us to be discussing it.

#

Although it has made me realize a flaw.

Setting a floor on freight costs makes J1 uncompetitive over longer distances (as a J3 can charge 1000cr for one jump over three parsecs and a J1 would legally have to charge 3000cr and at c. 500cr per parsec even if it operated illegally it would only break even charging 1500cr which is still more than the floor). However the operating costs of the J3 are c. 1000cr per parsec not per jump so a J3 would still need a much bigger operating cost savings to make money at that price.

For the floor in cargo price to work it would need the operating costs of the J3 per parsec to be higher than the J1 but low enough to make money.

doh
 
Nope. The speculation part, "search for a place to sell" is simply done in advance by picking two worlds where the DMs mostly guarantees a safe regular profit over time.
In the Book 2 Merchant Game you select the next port based on which way you're headed, which may well depend on what speculative cargo you happen, mostly by happenstance, to be carrying. When you get there, you are offered one kind of speculative trade good out of the 36 possible. If that happens to be one with negative purchase modifiers and you happen to roll low, good for you, here, have a few dozen dT at 40% of base value. If it happens to be one with positive purchase modifiers and you roll high, here's a few dozen dT at 300% of value, take it or leave it, that's the best deal available. Sorry, we don't have any agricultural goods at 40% this week even though we're an argicultural world1. But stick around for another week and you have a chance that the best available trade good will happen to be one that have negative purchase modifiers.
1 Which doesn't mean what you and I and everyone else envisions when we see the term but simply a world where agricultural trade modifiers apply.

Then, having gotten a real deal on generic textiles, you start looking around for a Rich (trade code) world not too far away.

At least, that's how the typical PC campaign works. If you really want to game the system, you should select a world with suitable trade modifiers and just sit there without a starship, rolling once per week buy the good deals, then sit around and wait for the dice to favor you. The are a number of commodities where the purchase and resale modifiers are close enough that the dice can make a big difference. Buying gems at -8 and reselling them at -2 on Non-Industrial worlds, for instance. This works even better for someone with Broker skill.

Sure but you're the guy saying canon first.
I do say 'canon first', provided it a) makes sense, and b) is applicable. The 'Merchant Game' is a tad broken, but good enough for running a free trader campaign if the referee is aware of the limitations and is prepared to backstop the flaws. It is too broken to use for modelling tramp trade in general, and it is not even applicable for modelling long-distance trade patterns.


Hans
 
(naval)

What I mean is if those systems could support a fleet of X size on their own (more if you include their hinterland) then once they've been incorporated into the Imperium they could still support that size of fleet - in keeping with the feudal theme.

Plus extra from the Imperium itself as it's the frontier.

Mmmm - no.

Well, I mean you're always free to do your own thing, but you're assuming a bit. Parts of the Marches have been Imperial for the past 500 years. They've had a grand total of five major wars in that time, counting the most recent one. That's not exactly an incentive for a world or even the Imperium to spend at the same level as a little pocket empire with several nearby enemies. In fact, it's a pretty strong incentive for the influential people to push for holding defense spending to the minimum necessary and spending money on other needs instead. With its depth, the Imperium would depend its ability to summon forces from neighboring sectors to throw back an invasion rather than spending more in the one sector - which is pretty well how canon scripts it.

Second, the colonial fleet is already laid out in MegaTraveller as being about the same size as the Imperial fleet but with older ships, and the Imperial fleet's size is pretty well described.
 
In the Book 2 Merchant Game you...

Yes and the "regular trade" non-speculative version can use the same system using pre-selected commodities between pre-selected systems to guarantee a reasonable profit over time with less risk.



At least, that's how the typical PC campaign works. If you really want to game the system, you should...This works even better for someone with Broker skill.

Yes, I am saying that's what NPCs are doing - or could be doing - using the same rules without all the risk.


I do say 'canon first', provided it a) makes sense

We agree then.


and it is not even applicable for modelling long-distance trade patterns.

Critical parts of the trade rules apply to long distance trade patterns i.e.

1) only high value goods can be profitably transported long distances
2) this distance is modified by favorable or unfavorable purchase and resale DMs
 
Well, I mean you're always free to do your own thing, but you're assuming a bit. Parts of the Marches have been Imperial for the past 500 years. They've had a grand total of five major wars in that time, counting the most recent one. That's not exactly an incentive for a world or even the Imperium to spend at the same level as a little pocket empire with several nearby enemies. In fact, it's a pretty strong incentive for the influential people to push for holding defense spending to the minimum necessary and spending money on other needs instead. With its depth, the Imperium would depend its ability to summon forces from neighboring sectors to throw back an invasion rather than spending more in the one sector - which is pretty well how canon scripts it.
A pocket empire surrounded by unfriendly neighbors could have a peacetime budget of 8 or even 10% of GWP. According to Striker, Imperial worlds have an average peacetime military budget of 3%. And the numbers work out at the member worlds collectively having a naval budget twice the size of the Imperium. Since the Imperium seems to have logistical expenses much higher then the member worlds (which makes a lot of sense), this could translate to fleets collectively four times bigger, but we usually ignore that aspect when we discuss figures.

Second, the colonial fleet is already laid out in MegaTraveller as being about the same size as the Imperial fleet but with older ships, and the Imperial fleet's size is pretty well described.
'Colonial' is a term that is employed differently in different places. Sometimes it includes the planetary navies, sometimes it just means the subsector navies (CT)/reserve fleets (MT). There are three levels of naval forces in the Imperium and two of them are colonial and two of them are Imperial. That occasionally makes for ambiguous statements.

Where does it say that the colonial fleet is about the same size as the Imperial fleet? I've been looking for a statement to that effect for over a decade. I'd be really grateful for a reference and/or a quote.


Hans
 
Second, the colonial fleet is already laid out in MegaTraveller as being about the same size as the Imperial fleet but with older ships, and the Imperial fleet's size is pretty well described.

I wasn't clear. What I was asking was could the major systems between them support that size of fleet i.e. do they need x amount of trade to pay for the fleet or is it (the trade) just gravy?
 
Last edited:
You mean, it would be necessary to change the Book 2 rules? Fancy that... :D


Hans

It doesn't anyway. All it changes is the long distance J3 scheme I liked.

Aramis' data shows: J1 > J2 > J3 and bigger > smaller

which makes the default freighter a 5K, J1.

1) The small Book 2 ships still make sense if the volume of trade in a region means the bigger ships can't fill their holds enough (this is the bit I was mostly concerned about).

2) With a fixed shipping cost J2 and J3 ships need a subsidy or speculation to break even carrying cargo. Even if they could charge more to cover their higher operating costs they would still be unable to compete with a J1 (because they have higher operating costs than a J1) except under certain conditions e.g.

a) as a kind of bridge or ferry where a J1 route existed but required a long detour, for example Strouden to Spirelle which is 11 par secs by J1 but only 4 with J2 or J3 (so even with operating costs of only 500cr per parsec a J1 would cost more than a J2 or J3 with costs of 1000cr)

b) time critical cargos where the shipper would pay enough of a premium to pay higher operating costs.

The speculation angle could possibly work as having a longer jump range they would have more choice of where to sell a particular commodity - in fact it would be quite interesting to see how speculative trade worked with a long range ship due to that greater choice of resale DMs.

However - sticking strictly to the rules as written with a fixed cargo cost - it seems that long range freight would be 5K J1s except where it wasn't possible in which case it would need a subsidized J2 or J3 "ferry" over the gap with different J1s taking the cargo on from the other side.

There'd be an obvious reason for having the "ferry" but not for subsidizing it instead of simply letting them charge more.
 
...But their trade in potted mockswallow tongues could go even farther than their computer parts. ...

Ugh. I don't see why anyone even likes those things.

...That only works if the assets assigned to protect trade isn't a sunk cost. If the naval fleet would be a given size anyway (for protection), you might as well use it to protect your merchant trade too. A second problem is that you don't use squadrons of capital ships to guard merchant traffic, at least not in peacetime; you use smaller ships, and we don't have any figures for smaller ships, except a few pre-HG references. ...

Hmmm, poor word choice on my part. The lemonade stand metaphor was more to indicate the Imperium staking out enough ships to dissuade the Zho (and sundry) from trying to take those worlds and their associated trade into their own empires. My thought is that when the Imperium extends an invitation to some populous world that already has the means to defend its own system against piracy, it's going to weigh costs against benefits. Being protected against hostile neighbors is fine, but in many cases the immediate neighbors lack the resources to be a threat and the big neighbor over the horizon is someone likely to offer much the same deal the Imperium offers (or at least that's the way it looked until the anti-psionic thing persuaded folk that the Zho were out to pluck your deepest secrets from between your ears). In that case, the prime benefit is better interstellar trade, but if the costs eat up the benefits of the trade and start digging into your local tax base, you wonder if the deal is worth taking or if you might be better off staying independent or seeing what deal you can get from the folk over the horizon.

Maybe there is a need for more ships than the interstellar trade could finance, but the pattern of wars in the region doesn't really convince me that there's a need for costs beyond what that would cover.

...FS describes escorts as "small ships of up to 5000 tons" and the Sloan is an example of a 5000T escort. Presumably those 10,000T escorts are few enough to be ignored in a general description. ...

I think consensus is MT's Fighting Ships isn't a very good source. I will quite happily put it to the side.

A pocket empire surrounded by unfriendly neighbors could have a peacetime budget of 8 or even 10% of GWP. According to Striker, Imperial worlds have an average peacetime military budget of 3%. And the numbers work out at the member worlds collectively having a naval budget twice the size of the Imperium. Since the Imperium seems to have logistical expenses much higher then the member worlds (which makes a lot of sense), this could translate to fleets collectively four times bigger, but we usually ignore that aspect when we discuss figures. ...

Striker is one of those sometimes-canon-sometimes-not things, depending on the subject, but I like it. Yes, average planetary mil budget of 3% with the Impies taking 30% of that, or 0.9% of the GWP. Of the remaining 2.1%, 40% is army (0.84%), which means the planetary "navy" gets 1.16% - and I take it we agree that's not the wet navy? I got nuthin' on logistical expenses, but I always figured the bulk of the planetary navy was SDBs and their half of the planetary defenses costs. With a cruiser squadron costing in the neighborhood of a quarter million megacredits, individual worlds aren't capable of fielding capital ships until they're up in the tens of millions population, and then you're splitting that up among ships, SDBs and planetary defenses.

When you talk about Imperial logistical expenses, you're figuring the need to buy tankers, transports and such?

...Where does it say that the colonial fleet is about the same size as the Imperial fleet? I've been looking for a statement to that effect for over a decade. I'd be really grateful for a reference and/or a quote. ...

Whup, you're right. They say there are 320 numbered reserve fleets, same as the number of IN regular fleets, but they don't say how they're comprised. I just assumed the number of squadrons and ships was the same.
 
I think consensus is MT's Fighting Ships isn't a very good source. I will quite happily put it to the side.
So would I, especially since I don't have it. But I wasn't referencing MT's Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium (FSotSI for short), I was referencing CT's Fighting Ships (FS for short).

Striker is one of those sometimes-canon-sometimes-not things, depending on the subject, but I like it.
Striker has been decanonized, but since nothing has been provided to replace it, I still use it on a 'best available evidence' basis.

Yes, average planetary mil budget of 3% with the Impies taking 30% of that, or 0.9% of the GWP. Of the remaining 2.1%, 40% is army (0.84%), which means the planetary "navy" gets 1.16% - and I take it we agree that's not the wet navy? I got nuthin' on logistical expenses, but I always figured the bulk of the planetary navy was SDBs and their half of the planetary defenses costs. With a cruiser squadron costing in the neighborhood of a quarter million megacredits, individual worlds aren't capable of fielding capital ships until they're up in the tens of millions population, and then you're splitting that up among ships, SDBs and planetary defenses.
Yes, that's perfectly true (except that orbital fortresses are charged to the navy budget, the army budget, or a mixture, depending on which world). But the major worlds are the ones that build the Imperium's ships for it. It would be strange if they didn't build a few for themselves.

When you talk about Imperial logistical expenses, you're figuring the need to buy tankers, transports and such?
I'm talking about if you figure out the Imperial naval budget and then figure an average composition of Imperial squadrons and a ratio of of BatRons to CruRons of 1:3, add 10% for auxiliaries, and use the TCS maintenance figure of 10% of original cost, you still only account for half the budget. You have to assume that the other half is used for bases and transportation -- things that member worlds usually don't have to worry about.

Note that the cost of subsector navies/reserve fleets are not accounted for. Nor is maintenance of reserves (i.e. mothballed ships; reserve fleets are not reserves). Also, that there are a number of assumptions made along the way. I think they're all plausible, but YMMV.


Hans
 
Last edited:
reading Book 2 to see if i missed anything, p19

subsidized liner - type M 600 tons, J3, M1

doesn't that only need 190 tons of fuel and not the 210 tons listed?

20 tons less fuel and 20 tons more cargo is a net +30k / jump which I think makes it just profitable (+gunner, +mail, -5tons cargo) if at full capacity
 
reading Book 2 to see if i missed anything, p19

subsidized liner - type M 600 tons, J3, M1

doesn't that only need 190 tons of fuel and not the 210 tons listed?

20 tons less fuel and 20 tons more cargo is a net +30k / jump which I think makes it just profitable (+gunner, +mail, -5tons cargo) if at full capacity

J3, PP3. Power plant fuel in Book 2 is 10 times power plant number.

I'm seeing the subsidized liner running a loss of more than Cr788,000 each month of full service. A 30k jump would be a drop in the bucket.
 
...Yes, that's perfectly true (except that orbital fortresses are charged to the navy budget, the army budget, or a mixture, depending on which world). But the major worlds are the ones that build the Imperium's ships for it. It would be strange if they didn't build a few for themselves. ...

I agree. I just think they'd spend a lot on SDBs and planetary defenses.

Rhylanor's easy, no quarreling about tech level depreciation. 8 billion people, TL15, projected GWP Cr176 trillion, potential planetary naval budget a bit over Cr2 trillion. That's a whole lotta potential tonnage if these things are lasting about 40 years before being retired or sold off. 120 million dtons? Split it in thirds and you still have a couple hundred dreadnoughts, and anything from thousands to tens of thousands of SDBs depending on how big you like to build them, and a fierce planetary defense grid. Plus enough army budget to pay and equip an army of 40 million, which is something like 80 thousand battalions. Plus the IN gets a bit under Cr1.6 trillion, which is a whole lotta tonnage for them as well

On the other hand, Rhylanor's GURPS trade is around 12 million dTons weekly: Cr6.24 trillion value. CT trade, I don't know, we're still arguing that one, but even the GURPS value is clearly not going to generate enough tax revenue to pay for Rhylanor's IN budget. So, maybe I need to refigure that business about fleet size being tied to trade volume. But the gripping hand is even the MegaTrav fleet is smaller than a 30% of 3% sector-wide outlay would fund - you're having to speculate on unknown logistical expenses to account for half of it - so maybe that 30% of 3% business is too high.

I think. Since the depreciation thing is still controversial, it's hard to figure exactly what kind of budget the IN has sector wide, but Rhylanor's already coughing up enough to fund all the IN combat ships by itself under the Striker model, and then there's Trin and Mora and Glisten, and then a whole lotta pop at lower tech levels. So, either our model is wrong or all those expensive warships account for only 10-15% of the IN budget.
 
J3, PP3. Power plant fuel in Book 2 is 10 times power plant number.

I'm seeing the subsidized liner running a loss of more than Cr788,000 each month of full service. A 30k jump would be a drop in the bucket.

Doh, yes of course: power plant x 10 not the manouver x 10

I'm blinding myself with wishful thinking.

#

On the second point though.

Book 2

"The government may subsidize larger commercial vessels (built on type 600 hulls or larger), primarily to assure consistent service to specific worlds. These subsidized merchants are generally assigned a specific route connecting from 2 to 12 worlds of varying characteristics. The route will generally be determined before a subsidized merchant is purchased, to allow tailored design features as may be necessary. When a subsidized merchant is ordered, the character himself must make the 20% down payment, with the government assuming responsibility for the payments upon delivery, and taking 50% of the gross receipts of the ship while in service. The character is responsible for all expenses and costs of operation."

So the govt pays the bank repayments but takes 50% of the gross revenue.

My calcs (assuming full capacity and with no monthly bank payment) comes to roughly

cost: 197k
revenue: 369k
-> 50% revenue is 184.5k

so only a gap of roughly 12.5k a jump

That's without the bank payments - it's massive with the bank payments of course. I've probably missed something though. Will go look at Aramis' data again.

(I think the assumption of full capacity is reasonable on hub-hub runs like Glisten-Lunion or Glisten-Mora as it's both cheaper and faster on a J3.)
 
So, maybe I need to refigure that business about fleet size being tied to trade volume.

...
but Rhylanor's already coughing up enough to fund all the IN combat ships by itself under the Striker model, and then there's Trin and Mora and Glisten, and then a whole lotta pop at lower tech levels.


Reading back through earlier comments


(Aramis)
Then, there appears to be a presumption of CT and MT that larger population worlds are more self sufficient

...

We know that, in the US, Canada, Australia, and the Spanish colonies, as the colonies increased in population, trade per capita dropped, even tho trade overall climbed. Traveller fluff includes some elements of this, especially in terms of individual world histories.


This seems plausible to me, that hub systems specifically but even more the combined hub-hinterland clusters are relatively self-sufficient.

#

(Carlobrand)
I take a clue from the fact that the Imperium fields a naval force of several hundred ships out here to protect them. That's a couple trillion credits annually for new ships and maintenance, not to mention the cost of crew, bases, and other supports. Suggests a significant volume of trade worth defending, but of course that only gives us a vague idea of scale.

...

Me, I'm honestly a bit intimidated by the scale, but I can't see a way around it given the numbers. 300-some billion people are going to make a rather big economy.

It seems to me the clusters hold the bulk of the value themselves: Glisten and its hinterland systems, Mora and it's hinterland systems etc are the honey pots. So if the fleets are there to protect value the primary value to protect are the clusters themselves.

Then on top of that there's the frontier, the trade routes between the hubs and reinforcing the poorer clusters.

So one model of fleet size might be
1) cluster fleets
2) frontier fleets
3) trade route fleets
4) reinforcement fleets

If the clusters paid for (1), (2) and (4) either directly or via taxes to the Imperium then maybe trade pays for (3).

so maybe
1) clusters collect tax, keep x and hand over y to the Imperium
2) clusters pay for defense of their own cluster with x
3) Imperium use y to pay for frontier fleets, reinforcement fleets and trade protection fleets)
4a) size of cluster fleets proportional to x
4b) size of trade protection fleet proportional to trade value
4c) number of IN ships proportional to y

this probably contradicts something.
 
Back
Top