> From: [email removed] (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3652) more Navy/merchant bickering...
>
> Bertil:
>
> > The navy could protect the merchants using *fewer* ships because each
> >ship could kick around several pirates.
>
> No. You can only fight pirates where you are. The number of ships
> would be the minimum required to put an adequate force in EVERY system
> needing them.
How about the convoy tactic? Or 'defended sealine'? This could be
realized in Traveller by putting three of my 'stronger than the pirates'
military ships at each main world and at one gas giant in each system:
One ship would guard a 'jump point' where the merchants jump in and out,
one would guard the mainworld or gasgiant and the third would escort them
between the point and the mainworld/gasgiant.
The number of vessels that is needed to eliminate piracy is reached by
assuming one mainworld and one gasgiant in each system, each having three
ships to handle the merchants. This would be 62982 ships. Counting 2/3rds on
station at each given moment this increase to 94473 ships.
But some systems lack a gasgiant, some mainworlds are moons of gasgiants and
so on, which would reduce it to (wild estimate) 70000 ships, many more if
the ships arn't 100% 'pirate proof'.
If we go below that number, wider and wider areas of the Imperium will begin
to become open to the pirates, and unprotected systems would probably be
posted by the TAS. I'm not sure how to factor in protection against outside
agression into this, that would increase the number of ships and their size
somewhat (to say the least:)
The Gross Imperial Product is 219,474,958,700,000,000 Credits (courtesy of
Wildstar). This is the value of everything that is produced in the Imperium
each year. This must then also be the *absolute* top figure on how much
the Imperium can spend on anti-piracy ships.
I'm assuming that each ship lasts 40 years and that crew costs are 50% of
the budget. This is a low estimate: The Swedish defence budget is about 60%
wages despite the fact that all conscripts go on $4 to $25 per day.
This will lead to a expenditure of 25% of the full price of the ships
for each ship each year (10% base, 40 years life is 1/40th per year: 2.5%,
12.5% doubled is 25%.)
The maximum cost of each one of those 70000 ships would then be 1.25E13 Cr or
12.5 Teracredits. A suitable ship is the Sun Tzu cruiser, which cost GCr31.
The relationship between max ship cost and real ship cost for 70000 Sun Tzus
is 404.
But the Imperium cannot spend 100% of its GIP on anti-piracy ships, going
from Terran history I would put the top limit on defence spending at 30% GIP.
So if the entire military budget is spent on buying anti-piracy ships they
will have 120 times as much as needed.
A likelier percentage of anti-piracy vice other military work is 25/75, then
they would have 30 times as much as needed. So if we make all military ships
50 times as expensive, they will have to cut down on either anti-zhodani or
anti-piracy work.
> And if piracy levels are high, then worlds will be forced to develop
> their own resources, rather than importing things, and the merchant
> traffic will cease, and the pirates will disappear.
And when the pirates are gone, trade will commence again and so on.
This is not a fixed state: It is a cycle just like the rabbit population
and given the normal amount of referee freedom we can choose where on
this cycle the Imperium is depending on the level of piracy we want. It is
probably dependent on the frontier wars, by the way: When the navy is occupied
kicking the zhodanis around, or replacing destroyed ships in the Marches by
depleting the fleet in their own sector piracy goes up.
> In that case, use bigger nukes.
I don't have a killpound table handy, but there is a limit on how big a
nuke one can cram into a 100kg 15cm missile, and it is smaller than the
nuke one can cram into a 400kg(?) 25cm missile which in turn is smaller than
that in a 65cm missile.
> I can see other ways. Removing all interstellar governments from the
> scene would be a good start. NOT reducing them in size, removing them
> completely.
Will it be Traveller? I've seen more persons using the Traveller background
with other rules than the Traveller rules with other backgrounds so I am
forced to look upon 'Traveller' as a setting more than a set of rules.
> > 100% of GNP in taxes is the maximum they will get, and even long
> >before that their return will begin to decrease with increased taxes.
>
> I take it they don't do "deficit spending" over there. That is the
> process of spending money you don't have. Most governments use it, and
> make up the difference by printing money. This is called "inflation".
Isn't GNP the value of all goods and services produced during one year?
If the military spending is equal to the GNP it means that any and all work
done is done for a directly military purpose. Not a centicred goes to growing
food or sweeping the streets or to health care or to educating children.
How can the Imperium go above this unless by buying ships from outside
sources?
Deficit spending is the government spending more than what the government
'earns' from taxes. But taxes are just a percentage of the GNP, so it isn't
a case of the government spending more than the GNP.
> [email removed]
- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."