|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 2, 2004 10:57:01 GMT -5
In that case, how do we get around the problem? From the sounds of it, we've first got to identify the problem! It is clear that smaller vessels generally/often do not possess warp drives, correct? Erm, I'm wary of this statement. More so when I take the unusual step of actually reading the rest of your post before continuing. Rather, I will say this: there is a minimum level of ship that can have a warp drive. This might be based upon a number of considerations, including economic, physical (i.e. 'warp fields') and the ever-present imagery (!)... Warp-capable ships will therefore me limited by this volume. However, that does not to say that all ships beyond this value must be 'warp capable', which is the reverse of your argument. (See "Factory" for the re-written thread which discusses this topic.) If the Mercantilis aren't going to a planet, the possibility of docking and using their warp drive is not there. Yes... but I'm missing the specific point, here. So you revert to waiting for a Civiles starship to be required in that area. If the mission isn't enough to warrant sending a starship, nobody goes back and forth at all. And which 'mission' is this? Unless of course, warp-capable smaller vessels are used for this purpose. Which now I think about it, would be most likely. For what purpose!? Again I point out that I'm working on the principle that "small" civilian warp-capable ships are, for me, more common that the "larger" merchant warp-capable ships. Although that of course depends on the minimum volume... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 2, 2004 11:17:07 GMT -5
*Mutter*
OK, imagine a scenario. A private shipping corporation desires to trade with a somewhat distant planet with a minimal importance. The Mercantilis only go there once in a blue moon, and the corporation itself owns no large warp-capable ships (star-ships). The only vessels it operates are small vessels with no warp drives, which normally get to and fro by docking with a large civilian or mercantile vessel. As it happens, the trading potential of this world doesn't warrant sending any starships, as their carrying capacity would be wasted on the minimal trade volume.
So, what is done? The only possibility is the considerable expense of a warp-capable 'small' vessel, or specifically chartering a starship to carry a number of small vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 2, 2004 14:22:45 GMT -5
While you've said you prefer 'chat' to "work out wrangles", I'm afraid that I find this post far more productive. We circle around in arguments when it comes to interpretation, but that's a nature of this thing... Once again it seems predicated around a misunderstanding. If a world has no Merchant activity and has a corporation that only has sublight vessels then, yes, of course it only has limited options. That really goes without question... I'm not saying that every world has 'warp capable' ships of the 'small' size since that is related to economics and trade. I'm just saying that not all 'trade' is maintained by the Merchants, which are mostly interested in 'dominant routes' (see the 'fluff') and not the peripheral worlds... But within that niche the 'civil' trade proliferates. That does not preclude the fact that they exist in 'dominant routes', however. The Merchant does not concern themselves necessarily with "Anargan King Crabs", but with the transportation of various forms of protein/carbyohydrate sources. That lies with the Civil trader... (But, of course, one must not forget the traditional Roman/medieval analogy where sailors often take small volumes of goods along as speculative trade!) Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 2, 2004 21:06:18 GMT -5
And now we have this scenario figured out, the discussion goes back to ship sizes...
Personally, I see warp drives as somewhat unwieldy and expensive for small vessels. Which is not to say that they can't be manufactured, just that a specific need must warrant their inclusion - like the impossibility of going to and fro by any other means.
Where convoys of starships are frequent, small warp drives are unnecessary unless you want your freedom, as it's much simpler and cheaper to charter a place on a starship and benefit from its warp drive.
When you're only dealing in small volumes and places on starships, either Civilian or Merchant are not forthcoming, then you resort to using a warp-capable Cutter or Corvette. These would be expensive, archaic and somewhat difficult to come by, as well as needing an experienced and comprehensive crew. Nevertheless, it can be and is done.
I'm still not sure how small 'small' is on 40K scale. I seem to prefer a significantly larger minimum size than yourself, however.
I also think we need to distinguish between 'possible' and 'practical'. It's most likely possible to produce a warp drive to fit into a backpack, but it'd be so horribly expensive, time-consuming and unreliable when miniaturised to such a degree, it isn't worth the effort unless it really is the only option. So, in theory it's possible to install a warp drive in only a few thousand tonnes displacement, but it really wouldn't be worth it unless you happen to be an Inquisitor or similar. For practical uses i.e. what is common in the Fleet, I'd suggest a minimum size perhaps even two orders of magnitude higher than the absolute minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 3, 2004 1:00:43 GMT -5
The answer is obvious to your little quandry and, indeed, has been suggested elsewhere since it is more a case of 'setup' of the argubate rather than any failure of the concepts involved. Simply replace "smallest possible warp drive" with "smallest economically feasible warp drive" and engage suspension of disbelief that it doesn't have to be a 1km monstronsity, which for me ties too much into the "Rule of the Cool" of GW 'fluff'. Rather, we offer variation to that "Rule of Cool" ("big ships are coooollll..." <dribble> ) that allows for smaller warp-capable ships being economically feasible. Again, this ties into the idea that just as GW allows for 'unfeasible' 'demand' worlds, so we will allow economically feasible small-scale trade... Of course the 'smallest warp ship size' does not preclude the production of smaller ships at greater expense... but it moves beyond the boundaries of economic feasibility when one considers increased maintenance, etc. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 21, 2004 1:58:03 GMT -5
*dazo approaches the abyss...and jumps* I think your both wrong, i think your presupositions on warp mechanics are flawed somewhat. You both seem to assume that the warp drive matrix is some massive piece of equipment that would require substantial integretion into a star ships systems. where does it say that it can't simply be plugged in to the ships existing power supply and be ready to go. Why are you assuming its the small ships that are difficult to build and are the most expesive when in fact the opposite could be true. The main bulk of any ship is dedicated to its plasma rectors not the warp drive. We already know large mass/gravity objects affect the warp why would the same not be true of a ship, the bigger it is the more energy is required for the ship to enter warp. The more energy that is needed the more plasma reactors you need, i believe it is the number of plasma reactors, which lets face it are not simple to build, that incure the prohibitive costs you apply to starships. Logically this would mean small ships are the prefered norm and unless they were milatary would not be that expensive. The imperium is the greatest empire in the histroy of the human race and like all great empires depends not so much on military might for its continued existence but on trade. This has been the case since ancient times you lose your trade you lose your empire. The british empire has been the largest empire to date and it was built through private investment of overseas prospects, Would the imperium truly want to discourage this sort of inovative expasion of its interests i think not. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jul 21, 2004 4:19:42 GMT -5
If they're so simple why can't anyone build them?
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Jul 21, 2004 6:39:26 GMT -5
Maybe I'm restating the obvious, but the question is really how expensive is the warp system relative to the ship's total cost. This to an extent also depends on whether that cost increases (and linearly/exponentially/?) with ship mass/volume.
Dazo, you seem to assume that warp engines are relatively easy to build (cost and scarcity being related, obviously), not just that they're small. If warp engines are hard to build and consequently cost a lot, unless there are real diseconomies of scale due to the ship's mass, you're going to want to mount them on larger ships to spread the cost of warp travel per kg of cargo as much as possible.
If it is VERY difficult to build a warp engine then putting one on a small ship is a serious problem as each warp engine may represent a significant portion of the potential increase in shipping capacity of a planet or subsector for a given period. IOW, if I can build only ten warp engines per year at this planet do I mount them in 1MT freighters (and increase the planet's merchant trading capability by 10MT) or put them in small tramps each carrying 10 ktons (increasing trading capability by 100KT)? If carrying capability is a significant limiting factor on the local economy, the choice is obvious. This changes if the local economy can build warp engines much more easily than large hulls, but that doesn't fit the picture of the 40k universe.
Unless the small ships are faster (and there's no indication warp travel speed depends on size), or manpower is an issue, why build them?
And going back to the title of the thread, Sabryan Aeronautics ILC, has anyone on ASP considered whether the Imperium would even have a limited liability business structure of some kind?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 21, 2004 12:55:01 GMT -5
Back to Portent-style quoting for this thread, methinks... Good for you...! Well, it doesn't involve 'warp mechanics' at all, but rather the supposition that warp drives tend to large because - superficially - they require a great deal of energy to transfer between the matterium and the warp. Large amounts of energy equates to large power plants, field generators, capacitors, etc. Well, I'm not a librarian but I'm sure that people can post you quotes from specific bits of 'fluff' suggesting the scope of these devices. But even a basic consideration on what the drive does suggests that it would be quite substantial... First point, erm, first. The idea of 'small ships being expensive' is predicated upon the idea of a "minimal economically feasible size" which, at the moment, is somewhere in the realm of 3,000 volume-displacement tons (I'm beginning to feel that this is a tad large as does CELS in recent IM! ). This is the size at which it (arbitrarily!) becomes 'cheap' to build warp drives after which it becomes a function of linear increase in prise per unit volume/mass to translate and maintain in the warp. Below this 'minimum volume', however, the smaller integration of components, etc., mean that more resources must be dedicated to construction, the greater the maintenance costs, etc. That is why it is expensive... As to the second point, yes large ships are expensive. But it is not simply - despite an erroneous post of mine - a simple case of linear increases. A 1,000 t d might cost $400M, but that doesn't mean a 3,000t d is going to cost $1,200M... rather, chances are that if you're not substantially changing the purpose of the ship that the extra space is going to cost nothing more than a shell around the increased cargo space! And regarding the 'plasma drives' being the largest component. In some regards you might be true, but only if you include reaction mass! Of course, the nature of how we represent Imperium sub-light drives between the different aspects of ASP is still up for grabs (see Factory). Well, that's how it works! Actually the 'plasma reactor' - rather, a fusion power plant - is actually not as 'expensive' as the combined cost of the capacitors and warp drive... at least as indicated in an RPG system. While RPGs might not bring across the specifics of the 40k universe, they give us detail where none is otherwise available. One might call it a 'framework of interpretation'... You will not that the 'Economy/Trade' thread in Imperium is predicated upon this feature. While that is true, one must also remember the "putting all your eggs in the same egg basket" phrase. The sheer amount of resources plugged into these 'uber-ships' is truly staggering and, while indeed the cost per unit mass is reduced with the larger ship (see non-linear cost comment, above) you also run into the feature that it inherently precludes the smaller operator. Some might see this as validation that only the Imperium travels, but I would still disagree. Not only do you have the 'dangers of warp travel' (often over-stated, true, but it is still there), but the associated problem of loss/delay of consumables/goods negatively impacting upon the consumer. Having a larger number of smaller ships ameliorates this situation. Of course, with that said it's always going to be a threshold situation. Hence the advocation herein that the classis mercatilis tends to operate the 'uber-ships' and the classis civiles has the larger number of 'privately' owned vessels... Of course, this presupposes that the 'warp drive' is the aforementioned 'plug and play' device and not one that is designed for the ship/class in question. LOL... a number of reasons! To be fair I had ignored the implication of limited endemnity...
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 25, 2004 1:32:14 GMT -5
What does that mean
Does Sabryan Aeronautics, ILC have an invetory of ships it produces as i'm interested in using it in my write up for the UTC( formerly Leskus corp but CELS didn't like the name) and was also wondering how you felt about the idea of Sabryan Aeronautics, ILC joining the UTC(which means United Trade Conglomerate by the way)
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Jul 25, 2004 10:43:57 GMT -5
Put simply, does the Lex Imperialis permit corporations or similar limited liability business structures? What is the largest political structure that recognizes such entities - the planetary, the subsector, the sector, the segmentum or the Imperial?
The primary advantages of corporate structures have to do with transaction/monitoring costs of your investment. Partnerships between thousands of people are not practical for these reasons because each partner has unlimited personal liability for the acts of the other partners, so you need to check out each and every one and make sure they're trustworthy, and then make sure they don't do anything stupid, which has ongoing costs. Corporations limit your liability (usually) to the amount of your investment, so you don't need to check out the other investors or management to the same extent.
Now consider lawyers. In Canada, lawyers are not permitted to form limited liability corporations for the practice of law (a simplification, but let's move on). Lawyers acting together MUST form a partnership or else keep separate practices because for policy reasons the government feels they should not be permitted to limit their liability to their clients if they screw up.
I'm not entirely convinced that in a universe with hereditary charters, clans, guilds, etc. that corporate structures are plausible. The Imperium seems to me exactly the sort of place to say that if the business screws up we go after every investor personally.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 25, 2004 10:56:40 GMT -5
So whats the difference between the above, why is a guild different from a corporation, if say the corporation is performing the exact same "service" ,for want of a better word, as a guild or clan(to be honest i dont understand clans either). Could a corporation get an administratum charter if it has superior resources at its disposal To clarify corporations are formed to limit the damage that could be done to an individual, to spread the problem between many, is that right. So does the same apply to a conglomerate or consortium or are they the same as a corporation
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Jul 25, 2004 21:19:59 GMT -5
A conglomerate would normally, as the name implies, be a grouping of corporations, impliedly ones with differing products and natures.
In a limited liability company, generally, your liability as an investor is limited to the amount you put in. If you invest $100, you can lose $100 but the company's creditors can't come after your house. In a partnership, if you invest $100 and your partner runs up debts all over town, you are liable for ALL the debts of the partnership, not $100. So, you have to know your partners well and be able to trust them. This places upper limits on the practical size of a partnership and lead to the development of various forms of limited liability business organization. It made it possible for large numbers of smaller investors to pool their money.
But. Is this something the Imperium wants- to enfranchise the middle class? Not having corporations may make things less economically efficient, but the Imperium tolerates a heck of a lot of inefficiency in a heck of a lot of places where it suits them.
I see a bit of a disconnect between having multisystem corporations control the shipping trade when the only way to get the right to operate an intersystem ship is to have either a personally obtained or a hereditary charter, both of which are granted to individual captains and their families.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 25, 2004 21:46:52 GMT -5
What if the major invester was the imperium itself, like a planetary governor or a high ranking fleet officer, the rich always want more money and power, might this not mitigate that problem Mmm yes this is true, but they couldn't do that every where, they'ed soon run out of resources wouldn't you think. Economic viability is being discussed in the sector already, and it all seems to keep coming back to ships, it appears its also the number or warp drives available and their cost which is the major limiting factor to any buisness that opperates in the imperium. GW never really bother about economics in relation to 40k, i think we might find its more important than vast armies and fleets, and that private companies possibly play a bigger role in the impeerium than we may have previously thought...of course im biased on this matter
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Jul 26, 2004 6:47:45 GMT -5
Large investors suggest that corporations are not required.
If three people each invest $100 Million into a business, you can be damn sure they're going to carefully investigate the business and will certainly want ongoing control over it and will watch how it is performing and what it is doing very carefully.
If one million people invest $100 each into a business, it doesn't make sense for them to invest more than $100 worth of their time into investigating the business or in continuing to keep an eye on how it is run thereafter. For $100, how many letters are they going to write, how many times are they going to swing by the offices to check the books, etc., to say nothing of the chaos if one million partners can enter into contracts on behalf of the partnership and thereby pledge the complete personal assets of each of the partners to back up that contract. For an example of why large partnerships like this can go disastrously wrong, see the Lloyds names scandals. Too many partners scattered too far to keep an eye on what was going on (a lot more complicated, but you get the idea).
I would agree that probably the largest private wealth generator in the imperium is shipping. I would point out that the various forms of permission to trade in or out- system are personal grants to a captain. I would then point out that all trade between sectors and a significant portion of trade within a sector will require a navigator on board the ship. These two factors concentrate most of the power in the shipping industry (and one presumes therefore a very large portion of the wealth) in very very few hands, and those hands are not those of the shipbuilders or the planetside traders.
While the bribes required to obtain a charter might be astronomical and mean that a captain spends a whole life (or in hereditary charters, multiple lifetimes) paying off the amounts borrowed to make them, it remains that unlike our world, permission to ship belongs to the captain and not the ship- in effect, to use the wet navy analogy, the flag of each ship is the personal colours of the captain, not the shipping line or sector or segmentum. I'm not entirely sure how corporations (except those controlled by the captain(s)) could control shipping.
|
|