Re: fleets revisited, again...

> From: [email removed] (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3673) fleets revisited, again...
>
> The "jumppoiny is a myth.  Properly, it is the surface of a sphere of
> radius 100 planetary diameters.  It would take considerably more than
> one ship to defend same (perhaps 12, as I said earlier (for a world, a
> gas giant would require thousands).

  Ok. I'll multiply the number of ships needed by ten for each world and
1000 for each GG. This gives 3030 ships per system as an estimate.

> Sigh... TCS already sets crew and basing costs at 99% of the Naval
> Budget.  Which is where the 10% base comes from.

  Well, I've never even seen a copy of TCS in real life so I think I might
be forgiven some blundering about it, but I still think that it is too low
to assume that a ship, crewed, serviced and based will cost just 10% of its
budget each year.

  I'm basing my comments upon Mercenary where it said that a mercenary
force will have to pay 10% equipment cost each year on maintainance and
replacements, and on top of that the wages and exceptional expenses are
added.

> Actually, a "suitable" ship is the 5000 ton fleet escort at about GCr4.
> Multiply ship availability by 7.75 again.

  Ok, but the number of ships goes up to, so the new better figures would
be 33 MShips (Ah! A new unit!:) needed for anti-piracy duty. Using the
pure 10% figure for spending on ships, a 100% of GNP defence budget and
100% anti-piracy percentage each one of those 33 MShips can cost GCr66.
This is the absolute maximum upper limit on an 33 MShip navy.
  If we reduce defence spending to a more resonable level of the GNP, say
30% and anti-piracy percentage to 25%, each ship could cost GCr5. The cost
of them are GCr4, so lets just double cost and see the ships disappear:)

> And if we make automobiles fifty times as expensive, people will stop
> buying them.

  Hmm, have you been talking to some politicians here in Sweden? :)

> Of course, the pirates will then cost fifty times as much,
> too.  If they don't, then they are built like merchant ships, and a
> Naval vessel that could fight them could be built that way, too.

  Why fight them on their own terms and risk a loss?

> >  And when the pirates are gone, trade will commence again and so on.
>
> No.  If you are forced by "other concerns" to build a grav unit factory
> on your own planet, then when the pirates are gone, why would you shut
> it down and start importing them?

  I'm assuming that while everything can be produced everywhere, the
production costs vary quite heavily from system to system. And when the cost
of making them on Cheapo/Massilia plus the cost of transporting them to
Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses (including losses to piracy) is lower than the
cost of making them on Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses some shrewd businesssophont
(3 's'?) on Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses will start importing them again,
undercutting the local production. First the local Not-so-cheapo government
will impose taxes and stuff and travel to Cheapo/Massilia to persuade them
to impose voluntary quotas, and if the profit is big enough smuggling will
appear. Sooner or later Not-so-cheapo will discover that many can play
that game, and discover that they as a whole will gain from free trade,
and remove the tariffs. And trade will start up again.

> Once your indigenous industry can
> build something, importing it becomes a waste.

  I'll refrain from providing real-life examples:)

> In any case, by the time you finish
> building a missile of the correct size, you will notice that it has room
> for a Minuteman RV as a warhead.

  This will cause missile turrets to take up more space, making them less
attractive to merchants as a byproduct:)

> is Hard Times Traveller?

  That is debatable.

>  How about the
> Rebellion?

  That is also debatable.

> [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."