Trade Alternatives

[SSS]

If the Rimworld is in between two more heavily populated areas, can you really say it's in the middle of nowhere?

Passing through 'flyover country'? 

On a side note, what always humors me about these conversations is how unrealistic reality is to some.

This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

If you're going to say it wasn't passed up, but that an entire civilization just "disappeared", then I ask why it hasn't been re-inhabited yet.

'Ignoring your side comment.

[Mathenaut]

This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

That entirely depends. Parallel to how things function on earth. For instance, no small number of people in the US never even see parts of the midwest or deep south unless they explicitly go out of their way in traveling.

In large countries with limited infrastructure, the difference in trade volume between large cities and small towns can be drastic. Even if those smaller towns are technically just out of the way of a trade route. They wouldn't bother going out of their way for you, you would need to contact them (which is essentially what you do in RW).

Besides trading, one must also think on the purpose of your pawns own ship. Since pawn backgrounds vary randomly, from primitive to glitterworlds, i think it's left unexplained so the player fills it with his own explanation (oh, it was a survey, a passenger, a military vessel, etc).

There's a problem here. If you're constructing your own story and background in the context of Rimworld, then the 'plotholes' are really just holes in your own story.

[Johnny Masters]

You can't outsource the hole/unexplaining/whatever to the player, the player only makes the best out of it.

[Mathenaut]

So then the problem is that the game doesn't presently allow for the kind of story you'd like to make?

[SSS]

This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

That entirely depends. Parallel to how things function on earth. For instance, no small number of people in the US never even see parts of the midwest or deep south unless they explicitly go out of their way in traveling.

In large countries with limited infrastructure, the difference in trade volume between large cities and small towns can be drastic. Even if those smaller towns are technically just out of the way of a trade route. They wouldn't bother going out of their way for you, you would need to contact them (which is essentially what you do in RW).

You missed my point completely. This isn't like the (inhabited) country or third world countries because we're not trying to colonize them. It's very easy to go further to some other destination if we so desire. In the context of trying to colonize new planets and expand vast distances, it makes more sense to take closer regions first, so there shouldn't be any in-between zones under normal circumstances.

I'm saying your analogy is bad.

[Mathenaut]

Oh, you're speaking about the imperative for colonial expansion.

Even then, it depends. Even expansion into new habitable territory is preferential, depending on the motive for expanding to begin with.

[SSS]

The only reason I can think of is some vastly superior habitable region, be it in natural resources or abundance of land. So, for example, if one or two close solar systems were discovered that contained a huge number of habitable planets, or if there were grand quantities of important natural resources, then you might have justification for a temporary in-between region. (Gold rushes caused this sort of mentality while the West was still being colonized, with the California Gold Rush being an excellent example.)

The thing is, systems are hardly arranged in a linear manner. You won't inevitably pass by some nowheres-ville colonized planet on the way to this trophy system you're wanting to trade with (which could indeed be very lucrative and worth the venture). It's even less likely than it would be traveling across a continent to some further colonized area. It might be possible, but it's very improbable, and improbability, naturally, tends to be the main source of broken suspension of disbelief in any story. (For example: That's why people tend to accept that Superman can fly and that he's allergic to a rock, yet tend to scoff when his co-workers never recognize his face or voice as Clark Kent.)

I think it would make more sense to see traders if our colonists were in this theoretical high-profit region. Even if it's a full-blown colonization attempt, we could say that most of the colonists were killed in the shipwreck, thus merging the "stranded" and "pioneer" concepts. Nobody's going to come to take you back, but they will come to make money (off you and other nearby planets in said region).

Edit: That could also justify new factions appearing at some point after the game starts, even if it's years later.

Edit 2: It would be really cool if far down the line we could have a "campaign mode" of sorts that tells a story across centuries- about the development of space around the Rim World. It starts out a Rim World indeed, but it eventually booms (due to the various technology clashes) and hits progressively higher levels of development, each with their own challenges. During the Rim World era it's mostly about surviving. During the Midworld era you might have to deal with more people in a war context (say, an inter-planetary empire is trying to form), as well as homogenizing factions. After that you'd deal with what would amount to the triumph or downfall of the region as it turns mostly into Glitterworlds or Urbworlds (maybe with an encounter or two with "Transcendence", though attaining this probably shouldn't be possible).

How you do in each section would affect the rest. If you triumph during the Rim World era, you take on the colony's descendents further down the line. If you fail, you might be that faction trying to form an inter-planetary empire (say, the pirate's descendents). So on and so forth, and it doesn't need to be exactly like my examples.

I don't think I can overstate the amount of work that would take, though, and I'm not entirely sure if it fits within Rimworld's premise, so it's mostly in the "I can dream" realm right now. xD

[Kegereneku]

After reading all post, the question seem to be "What kind of context/backstory allow us to justify as many case as possible ?"
On the matter what I gathered from Rimworld's lore sound to me extremely suited for many many kind of story (within what we accept for science-fiction of course).

@Kegereneku: How is having trade ships around more probable in a shipwrecked scenario?

That's the aspect that I found to be more probable, that would work better with the lore, if the colonists were actual space pioneers. Your argument is even harsher with a shipwreck on a rim world, since nobody will know to check in the first place.

Thing is, we have a whole sliding scale of realism from soft to hard SF to work with. So you have to invent the logic that lead to what you want sounding plausible. The pioneer-colonist for example is ...childish for HARD science-fiction but acceptable for softer SF, same for space-trading.
If I'm allowed to reformulate the lore I can make pioneer just as likely as unlikely.

In one logic, a ship can get wrecked here because there was a traffic* in the first place. Goods trading is indeed unlikely over such distance but still possible if the destination is incapable of producing the goods. So it isn't so much 'middle of nowhere' than 'on the way'.

*SCIENCE (see next quote) can justify ship halting by system-planet on their way fairly easily. But explaining why there is a continuous traffic is harder.

In another logic, the would-be pioneer colonist crashed on arrival.
But this time it ask for goods trader to voluntarily come to a 'middle of nowhere' which bring us back to how to justify their existence.
Note that 'volunteer pioneer colonist' negate a lot of the mystery and flexibility in term of storytelling. Imagine the TV series "Lost" if the crash survivors were stated to be peoples who wanted to live on an desert island.

This is why many suggested to replace (interstellar)trade-ship by local caravan.
Those caravan would be like us 'incapable of cheaply producing said good', the goods could come entirely from scavenging & other pods crash. From there, normal trading paradigm apply.

Said 'caravan of scavenger' are compatible with both shipwrecked/pioneer context, but -to me- more probable with the shipwrecked one because it have more parameter to play with.

This doesn't seem very practical given how long it takes to travel from one place to the next in space. Passing over inhabitable planets/systems in favor of much further ones doesn't make any sense, so there shouldn't be any.

If you're going to say it wasn't passed up, but that an entire civilization just "disappeared", then I ask why it hasn't been re-inhabited yet.

I can give possibility...
1) Spaceship reliability, if a spaceship can fail over 20light-year of travel, you better stop every 10 light-years at known inhabitable point to check it and 'reset/lessen' the risk, rather than dying mid-space.
2) Few people could have both reasons and the means to truly Colonize a planet, and as said earlier the lack of FTL and over 10y travel time ask for it to be independent.

A government could recolonize/exploit a system. But do they need to ? Humanity won't die because there's already other colony, Extracting resources so far might not be profitable, it would be costly to recolonize, require lot of colonist and ultimately said colony would become independent.
Way smaller group of privater could want to to found a new world but lack the means (technology/science/manpower/education) to do more than a primitive settlement.
This explaining nicely a crazy range of factions on Rimworld.

Lastly, it might be hardly conceivable for a technologically advanced civilization to just "disappear" but in the realm of SF you can shape everything to make the improbable into facts.
That mystery is a fertile soil for us to imagine.

[SSS]

Thing is, we have a whole sliding scale of realism from soft to hard SF to work with. So you have to invent the logic that lead to what you want sounding plausible. The pioneer-colonist for example is ...childish for HARD science-fiction but acceptable for softer SF, same for space-trading.
If I'm allowed to reformulate the lore I can make pioneer just as likely as unlikely.

In one logic, a ship can get wrecked here because there was a traffic* in the first place. Goods trading is indeed unlikely over such distance but still possible if the destination is incapable of producing the goods. So it isn't so much 'middle of nowhere' than 'on the way'.

*SCIENCE (see next quote) can justify ship halting by system-planet on their way fairly easily. But explaining why there is a continuous traffic is harder.

First, you need to explain why the pioneer idea is softer than the shipwrecked idea. I'm not going to just accept that unless I understand the reasoning behind it.

I already addressed the "California Gold Rush" scenario above. It's very, very improbable that there are other inhabitable systems in between point A and point B, meaning that there shouldn't be anyone passing by close enough to trade in the first place.

In another logic, the would-be pioneer colonist crashed on arrival.
But this time it ask for goods trader to voluntarily come to a 'middle of nowhere' which bring us back to how to justify their existence.
Note that 'volunteer pioneer colonist' negate a lot of the mystery and flexibility in term of storytelling. Imagine the TV series "Lost" if the crash survivors were stated to be peoples who wanted to live on an desert island.

This would be a lucrative "middle-of-nowhere" in the above post's example. For normal expansion, I concede that there might not be as many traders as there currently are in Rimworld, but it still makes more sense/is more likely than a trader happening to pass through a system on the way to another system, unless they need fuel and the pass-through system is inhabited. This wouldn't be the case with a Rim system.

This is why many suggested to replace (interstellar)trade-ship by local caravan.
Those caravan would be like us 'incapable of cheaply producing said good', the goods could come entirely from scavenging & other pods crash. From there, normal trading paradigm apply.

Said 'caravan of scavenger' are compatible with both shipwrecked/pioneer context, but -to me- more probable with the shipwrecked one because it have more parameter to play with.

I have no problem with this. It would solve a lot of questions posed without needing to answer them.

I can give possibility...
1) Spaceship reliability, if a spaceship can fail over 20light-year of travel, you better stop every 10 light-years at known inhabitable point to check it and 'reset/lessen' the risk, rather than dying mid-space.

This is a decent possibility. Stopping at an inhabitable planet, even if it is in the middle of nowhere, would make sense for maintenance purposes if you can do so. However, if you need to travel significantly out of your way to do so (as would be usual in space), even this wouldn't be common.

2) Few people could have both reasons and the means to truly Colonize a planet, and as said earlier the lack of FTL and over 10y travel time ask for it to be independent.

A government could recolonize/exploit a system. But do they need to ? Humanity won't die because there's already other colony, Extracting resources so far might not be profitable, it would be costly to recolonize, require lot of colonist and ultimately said colony would become independent.
Way smaller group of privater could want to to found a new world but lack the means (technology/science/manpower/education) to do more than a primitive settlement.
This explaining nicely a crazy range of factions on Rimworld.

This too is fair: We need reasons for further colonization in the first place, but, again, this is even harsher on the colonies that are further away than a theoretical "in between" world. Why would they colonize that region rather than this one? (See my above post for possible explanations.)

Also, it is possible that a large number of colonists were sent, but only a few survived after the crash, merging the shipwreck and pioneer concepts (like in my above post).

Lastly, it might be hardly conceivable for a technologically advanced civilization to just "disappear" but in the realm of SF you can shape everything to make the improbable into facts.
That mystery is a fertile soil for us to imagine.

To be clear, are you aiming for soft sci-fi or hard sci-fi? I can't tell for certain.

Assuming the planet isn't marbled or toxic, I see no reason for it to not become re-inhabited, especially by factions seeking power in a sector. Controlling trade routes is a big deal, and is more readily possible if you have an inhabited in-between system since people might want to stop there for maintenance, supplies, etc. (as you said)- This is most likely when the system itself is transformed into a good trading destination, giving people greater incentive to divert further off their point A to point B path than there would be otherwise.

Also, when I'm talking about the improbable breaking disbelief, that doesn't include the premise usually. Fiction is generally assumed to be "like reality unless noted". If something isn't like reality, it needs to set that up for us. What is set in a reality-like context will be criticized: Using my Superman example, human interaction is a reality-based situation, which is why when they don't act normal (recognizing that Clark's and Superman's voices are the same, that their faces are the same) it's considered "suspension breaking". On the other hand, flying is completely fantastical and part of the premise- consuming the story comes with the condition that we accept its breaks from reality where it notes it, so criticizing Superman for being "unrealistic" due to human flying being impossible is unfair and breaks the rules of willing suspension of disbelief.

[Kegereneku]

(edit : minor correction, small add)

...let's start the Text Generator...
I wrote some of this with a 'sleep deprived' debuff

First, you need to explain why the pioneer idea is softer than the shipwrecked idea. I'm not going to just accept that unless I understand the reasoning behind it.

I already addressed the "California Gold Rush" scenario above. It's very, very improbable that there are other inhabitable systems in between point A and point B, meaning that there shouldn't be anyone passing by close enough to trade in the first place.

Let's say the myth of the self-made Pioneer isn't realistically transposable|/url] into space.
I think this website [url=http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellarcolony.php]AtomicRocket will cover more than I could (next page cover trading).

An Hard-sf logic for example can point out that we don't need a planet to live. If we can build comfy enough space-colony we can keep living in them better or even stay in orbit. Technology is assumed to ward-off any uncomforted/problems and all the resources found on planet can be found more easily accessible outside a gravity well.
If terraforming a planet (in person, or robot) would require to have the technology to do without first, it make terraforming unnecessary and wasteful.

Now in our context we are baseline human going toward a destination that is already inhabitable in ship paid for, no one ask how the planet was terraformed, by whom, where is the infrastructure and the organization, how it got there 50ly away from home and how it disappeared.
You just have colonist with magical tool and apparently perfect knowledge of various technology.

In short, our starting setting is quite soft to begin with (including how spaceship use reaction-less drive). It was made to allow many idea, as much the shipwreck than the pioneer.

This would be a lucrative "middle-of-nowhere" in the above post's example. For normal expansion, I concede that there might not be as many traders as there currently are in Rimworld, but it still makes more sense/is more likely than a trader happening to pass through a system on the way to another system, unless they need fuel and the pass-through system is inhabited. This wouldn't be the case with a Rim system.

First, from what I read you seem to supposing humanity will alway keep expanding its 'frontier'. But the reason it was done/possible on Earth aren't the same in space. Possibility can be divided in numerous case including Rimworld "abandoned planet".

Sorry if I repeat myself but that's where we shape the universe to fit the plot you want.

If I took a Hard-SF logic there would be no point for interstellar trader if you can bring schematic and start producing everything here in less time and effort than if would take to bring the goods from 10ly away. Especially since in hard-sf the spaceship is more costly to operate than what you would gain from trading.

But if we really want to make it fit... you can imagine the context of 'The Songs of Distant Earth' by Arthur C. Clarke. In this story human sent slow-seed-ship century before the very very hard way, then managed to built a reaction-less thruster that made possible heavy-cryogenic-ship moving at the speed of light.
But the ship travel so fast that particle it meet destroy the shield in front of it. And so they must stop in between star to rebuild the shield (out of ice) regularly.
They don't "need" the ice to be from the planet (there's asteroid), but they can.
(the whole story reference Native on island and Colonial passing by).

Back on Rimworld, as said we can imagine that trader-or-transport pass by star system they know to have inhabitable planet, to refuel/check. To answer why would they trade with you ? Because they know you are in need........... and can sell at way higher price. (we pretend here it is worth it)

I have no problem with this. It would solve a lot of questions posed without needing to answer them.

Indeed.

This is a decent possibility. Stopping at an inhabitable planet, even if it is in the middle of nowhere, would make sense for maintenance purposes if you can do so. However, if you need to travel significantly out of your way to do so (as would be usual in space), even this wouldn't be common.

'Significantly' is the key word, space is vast and it depend on the ratio of inhabited/other star systems, how much in a hurry you are. By the time you arrive a whole generation of human being might have disappeared, technology and politic will have changed...
That's part of why trade or even cargo between star system without FTL is considered unlikely/impossible in hard-SF (which itself avoid FTL).

This too is fair: We need reasons for further colonization in the first place, but, again, this is even harsher on the colonies that are further away than a theoretical "in between" world. Why would they colonize that region rather than this one? (See my above post for possible explanations.)

Also, it is possible that a large number of colonists were sent, but only a few survived after the crash, merging the shipwreck and pioneer concepts (like in my above post).

As said we need reason. Then a leitmotiv (will it improve the life of the one traveling/paying for?).
Because good planet could be as well 10ly apart than 50ly the 'colonist' are basically abandoning everyone and everything they knew.
You are describing it like an expanding frontier (which could be justified) but if you must travel years anyway with a terraforming-fleet, you might focus more on "best planet/system" rather than "closest system" first.

Remember that the lore mention planet colonized long long before then abandoned/deserted or stagnating. An 'In-between world' (even inhabited) might not be closer or more interesting to an Industrial/Glitterworld than other "outside" candidate.

In result it could give
<Glitterworld>-10ly-<candidate>---30ly---<rimworld>---50ly---<Industrialworld>---10ly---<candidate>

You might also want to consider why the planet was abandoned in the first place. Maybe you don't want to live with Mechanoid and Boomrat as neighbor (or exterminate the native again). Maybe the plasteel of the planet isn't worth recycling and the system have already been exploited* by the precedent civilization, maybe a nearby star is about to blow-up...

*just a note : this is for argumentation, myself I consider that one solar system contain more than enough resources for millennium before it get impossible to predict what the civilization will look like.

To be clear, are you aiming for soft sci-fi or hard sci-fi? I can't tell for certain.

Neither one or the other. I'm just trying to put thing in perspective.
Personally I have a soft spot for Hard-SF, but I know it tend to do bad thing to our dream (you don't want to know what it do to them)
Rimworld wouldn't survive long if analyzed realistically, and remaking its multiple facet 'harder' would be counter-productive.
But soft sci-fi isn't inferior, it is good for storytelling as long as its tropes aren't too cheesy or predictable, and this have nothing to do with realism.
All you need is preserve suspension of disbelief.

Assuming the planet isn't marbled or toxic, I see no reason for it to not become re-inhabited, especially by factions seeking power in a sector. Controlling trade routes is a big deal, and is more readily possible if you have an inhabited in-between system since people might want to stop there for maintenance, supplies, etc. (as you said)- this is most likely when the system itself is transformed into a good trading destination, giving people greater incentive to divert further off their point A to point B path than there would be otherwise.

I can poke hole in that one with noth a soft or hard sci-fi approach.
- you need the resources to colonize a planet, you must be stronger than a government.
- it will take years to start controlling the system and build a population that support your ambition (and claim for legitimacy)
- with STL comm it can take 10y-50y to receive outdated information, you'll be alone on this.
- if you are (seen as) a threat (by other planet), you will be dealt with like one by other.
- trader might just change route, the inhabited planet was good but was not necessary space is also 3D and way too vast to control as border (if hard science at least).
- but now realistically, those "trade route" couldn't be compared to maritime trade routes... if they even exist.
As said trading itself is soft-sf.

Anyway, you are clearly thinking in term of "expanding frontier", but there is no frontier in space. In Hard-SF the best way to pass by a system "unseen" is to move close to the speed of light making it impossible to match velocity if they even see you in time.

btw : you just reminded me a short story I can link you to about how a trader beat a pirate-planet who keep capturing his qualified-worker (the goods exchanged here). It went like this :
The trader could afford to have 1 ship on 10 be an expensive trap for the pirate. Himself he could absorb the over-cost but the pirate couldn't because he had no supply of qualified-pirate. (no infinite raider!)

Also, when I'm talking about the improbably breaking disbelief, that doesn't include the premise usually. Fiction is generally assumed to be "like reality unless noted". If something isn't like reality, it needs to set that up for us. What is set in a reality-like context will be criticized: Using my Superman example, human interaction is a reality-based situation, which is why when they don't act normal (recognizing that Clark's and Superman's voices are the same, that their faces are the same) it's considered "suspension breaking". On the other hand, flying is completely fantastical and part of the premise- consuming the story comes with the condition that we accept its breaks from reality where it notes it, so criticizing Superman for being "unrealistic" due to human flying being impossible is unfair and breaks the rules of willing suspension of disbelief.

Disbelief is entirely based upon people knowledges of reality or fictional tropes. Many people don't know for example that space isn't cold, that you cannot "fall from orbit" with a measly explosion or many else.
Furthermore suspension of disbelief can be invoked intentionally for the need of the story. Considering that, I don't see a need to argue over superiority of pioneer over shipwreck. The LOST IN SPACE tropes is pretty well known and accepted and the blurred lore of Rimworld allow a wide range of possibility.

Our problem here was to find if we can make the trader better. The caravan seem to work, I think we could even keep it a ship, just not an interstellar/planetary one

[Mathenaut]

I'm going to have to flag down the probability bit. There is too much unknown about the scenarios described to have that claim stick with nothing to really justify it. Countless stars, where you can't pick a direction without bumping into something, and yet it's arbitrarily, specifically improbable here because.. reasons.

Statements like "We need reasons" should read more like "I need a reason", because the case isn't that the matter isn't justified, it's that you aren't satisfied with it. Which is fine. Just an important difference to clarify.

Also there's some odd consistency to run together. I find it odd that the 'improbable to run into' planet would be 'easily recolonized'. Particularly in the case that the colonists you start the game with are clearly not the first people to land on any given planet.

[SSS]

I did some light proofreading, but please forgive spelling or grammar errors, as well as potential overuse of some words or phrases. Also, because I exceeded the character limit, I'll be splitting my response to Kegereneku and Mathenaut into two posts.

First, you need to explain why the pioneer idea is softer than the shipwrecked idea. I'm not going to just accept that unless I understand the reasoning behind it.

I already addressed the "California Gold Rush" scenario above. It's very, very improbable that there are other inhabitable systems in between point A and point B, meaning that there shouldn't be anyone passing by close enough to trade in the first place.

Let's say the myth of the self-made Pioneer isn't realistically transposable|/url] into space.
I think this website [url=http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellarcolony.php]AtomicRocket will cover more than I could (next page cover trading).

An Hard-sf logic for example can point out that we don't need a planet to live. If we can build comfy enough space-colony we can keep living in them better or even stay in orbit. Technology is assumed to ward-off any uncomforted/problems and all the resources found on planet can be found more easily accessible outside a gravity well.
If terraforming a planet (in person, or robot) would require to have the technology to do without first, it make terraforming unnecessary and wasteful.

Now in our context we are baseline human going toward a destination that is already inhabitable in ship paid for, no one ask how the planet was terraformed, by whom, where is the infrastructure and the organization, how it got there 50ly away from home and how it disappeared.
You just have colonist with magical tool and apparently perfect knowledge of various technology.

In short, our starting setting is quite soft to begin with (including how spaceship use reaction-less drive). It was made to allow many idea, as much the shipwreck than the pioneer.

I started to skip reading the article, but I'm glad I did now. My comparison to the California Gold Rush has nothing to do with equating space to the West. Colonization does indeed require combined effort, and nothing that article said really had anything at all to do with what I said. I don't know what point you're trying to make with it, so I will make my question as abundantly plain and spelled-out as I can possibly muster (you seem to be misunderstanding):

We have space traders. They are in the game, permanently or temporarily, for better or worse, whether they make the setting soft of not. They are present. My point is tied completely and irrevocably to their presence, so arguments or asides complaining that they shouldn't be present or irrelevant to the point I am currently making.

For them to be present, (and they are present) there needs to be some explanation, even if the only appropriate explanation takes us into soft sci-fi territory. Because they are present, I am saying that a colonizing attempt would be more likely to lead to traders being in the region of the game's planet than a circumstantial passing through the system to another system. I am saying the former is a better explanation than the latter because of the current reality present in the game (that is, the presence of space traders).

Why humanity isn't in space colonies rather than terraformed planets (or whether there are some space colonies and we just don't know about them) is beyond the scope of the conversation concerning the justification of the presence of space traders.

Now that I have that established, I will try to defend my position below, but do note that I am not tied to my position. I am open to changing it if another more logical explanation favoring against colonization (to explain the presence of space traders) is present. We've both already agreed that the ideal solution would be a lack of space traders present, so there's little more to discuss in that direction.

This would be a lucrative "middle-of-nowhere" in the above post's example. For normal expansion, I concede that there might not be as many traders as there currently are in Rimworld, but it still makes more sense/is more likely than a trader happening to pass through a system on the way to another system, unless they need fuel and the pass-through system is inhabited. This wouldn't be the case with a Rim system.

First, from what I read you seem to supposing humanity will alway keep expanding its 'frontier'. But the reason it was done/possible on Earth aren't the same in space. Possibility can be divided in numerous case including Rimworld "abandoned planet".

Sorry if I repeat myself but that's where we shape the universe to fit the plot you want.

If I took a Hard-SF logic there would be no point for interstellar trader if you can bring schematic and start producing everything here in less time and effort than if would take to bring the goods from 10ly away. Especially since in hard-sf the spaceship is more costly to operate than what you would gain from trading.

But if we really want to make it fit... you can imagine the context of 'The Songs of Distant Earth' by Arthur C. Clarke. In this story human sent slow-seed-ship century before the very very hard way, then managed to built a reaction-less thruster that made possible heavy-cryogenic-ship moving at the speed of light.
But the ship travel so fast that particle it meet destroy the shield in front of it. And so they must stop in between star to rebuild the shield (out of ice) regularly.
They don't "need" the ice to be from the planet (there's asteroid), but they can.
(the whole story reference Native on island and Colonial passing by).

Back on Rimworld, as said we can imagine that trader-or-transport pass by star system they know to have inhabitable planet, to refuel/check. To answer why would they trade with you ? Because they know you are in need........... and can sell at way higher price. (we pretend here it is worth it)

I'm not sure what your point/conclusion is. Traders are present. That might make the scifi "soft", but that again is beyond the scope of my point. Because space traders are present, I'm saying that having a colony they're trying to visit makes more sense than catching them while they pass through nowheres-ville.

Two things need to be established here. First, to travel through the "middle of nowhere", you need a destination beyond said "nowhere". Second, space is 3D, meaning that you can miss a system due to a difference in the X, Y, or Z axis in your straight-line travel between your start point and end point.

I will get into the specifics of why those two points make a colonization attempt more likely to bring traders below. If you dispute the below rather than these establishments directly, then I will assume you agree with the establishments.

This is a decent possibility. Stopping at an inhabitable planet, even if it is in the middle of nowhere, would make sense for maintenance purposes if you can do so. However, if you need to travel significantly out of your way to do so (as would be usual in space), even this wouldn't be common.

'Significantly' is the key word, space is vast and it depend on the ratio of inhabited/other star systems, how much in a hurry you are. By the time you arrive a whole generation of human being might have disappeared, technology and politic will have changed...
That's part of why trade or even cargo between star system without FTL is considered unlikely/impossible in hard-SF (which itself avoid FTL).

Like I said before, I already agree that having no space traders in the first place would be better. This entire line of conversation I'm heading in is under the prerequisite that there are space traders present, and in the current quantities we see in-game.

This too is fair: We need reasons for further colonization in the first place, but, again, this is even harsher on the colonies that are further away than a theoretical "in between" world. Why would they colonize that region rather than this one? (See my above post for possible explanations.)

Also, it is possible that a large number of colonists were sent, but only a few survived after the crash, merging the shipwreck and pioneer concepts (like in my above post).

As said we need reason. Then a leitmotiv (will it improve the life of the one traveling/paying for?).
Because good planet could be as well 10ly apart than 50ly the 'colonist' are basically abandoning everyone and everything they knew.
You are describing it like an expanding frontier (which could be justified) but if you must travel years anyway with a terraforming-fleet, you might focus more on "best planet/system" rather than "closest system" first.

Remember that the lore mention planet colonized long long before then abandoned/deserted or stagnating. An 'In-between world' (even inhabited) might not be closer or more interesting to an Industrial/Glitterworld than other "outside" candidate.

In result it could give
<Glitterworld>-10ly-<candidate>---30ly---<rimworld>---50ly---<Industrialworld>---10ly---<candidate>

You might also want to consider why the planet was abandoned in the first place. Maybe you don't want to live with Mechanoid and Boomrat as neighbor (or exterminate the native again). Maybe the plasteel of the planet isn't worth recycling and the system have already been exploited* by the precedent civilization, maybe a nearby star is about to blow-up...

*just a note : this is for argumentation, myself I consider that one solar system contain more than enough resources for millennium before it get impossible to predict what the civilization will look like.

I agree that it would make more sense to go for the better planets for colonization, but only under the condition that distance does actually matter. While it is true that the colonists in question will be leaving everything one way or the other, matters such as confirming the success of the colony, sending additional people (if desirable), and so on take much longer as well when the difference is magnitudes greater. (There's a big difference between waiting 20 years for a communication and response, and 100 years for the same.) As distance increases, so the magnitude of desirability of the better planet needs to rise in comparison. If the difference is between a planet with "bad gravity, bad day-night cycles, and bad atmosphere" and a planet that only has a "bad atmosphere", then the latter might be preferable despite the further distance since the end result of terraforming would be significantly better.

What makes this interesting is the re-colonization bit. Why would you try to recolonize a world infested with mechanoids and AI personas with psychological warfare (psychic projection) capabilities...? Well, for one, you don't have to go through the (likely time consuming/expensive) process of finding and terraforming another potentially habitable planet. For two, the planet itself could be part of a "hot region" with vast resources or multiple potentially habitable planets (making colonizing more than one possible, if desired). The mechanoids and AI personas could be part of a war to control this region, or the product of rebels, zealots, or anarchists trying to keep anyone from controlling it.

I don't think a temporary lack of civilization translates to a planet definitely being undesirable, even if it could. If you have other reasoning to combine with this, I think that would help a lot.

To be clear, are you aiming for soft sci-fi or hard sci-fi? I can't tell for certain.

Neither one or the other. I'm just trying to put thing in perspective.
Personally I have a soft spot for Hard-SF, but I know it tend to do bad thing to our dream (you don't want to know what it do to them)
Rimworld wouldn't survive long if analyzed realistically, and remaking its multiple facet 'harder' would be counter-productive.
But soft sci-fi isn't inferior, it is good for storytelling as long as its tropes aren't too cheesy or predictable, and this have nothing to do with realism.
All you need is preserve suspension of disbelief.

Okay. It's just hard to tell when you keep mentioning how the traders' presence is unlikely, only to then talk about possible explanations for their presence. I'm trying to keep the conversation geared toward the latter, since we already agree on the former.

Assuming the planet isn't marbled or toxic, I see no reason for it to not become re-inhabited, especially by factions seeking power in a sector. Controlling trade routes is a big deal, and is more readily possible if you have an inhabited in-between system since people might want to stop there for maintenance, supplies, etc. (as you said)- this is most likely when the system itself is transformed into a good trading destination, giving people greater incentive to divert further off their point A to point B path than there would be otherwise.

I can poke hole in that one with noth a soft or hard sci-fi approach.
- you need the resources to colonize a planet, you must be stronger than a government.
- it will take years to start controlling the system and build a population that support your ambition (and claim for legitimacy)
- with STL comm it can take 10y-50y to receive outdated information, you'll be alone on this.
- if you are (seen as) a threat (by other planet), you will be dealt with like one by other.
- trader might just change route, the inhabited planet was good but was not necessary space is also 3D and way too vast to control as border (if hard science at least).
- but now realistically, those "trade route" couldn't be compared to maritime trade routes... if they even exist.
As said trading itself is soft-sf.

Anyway, you are clearly thinking in term of "expanding frontier", but there is no frontier in space. In Hard-SF the best way to pass by a system "unseen" is to move close to the speed of light making it impossible to match velocity if they even see you in time.

btw : you just reminded me a short story I can link you to about how a trader beat a pirate-planet who keep capturing his qualified-worker (the goods exchanged here). It went like this :
The trader could afford to have 1 ship on 10 be an expensive trap for the pirate. Himself he could absorb the over-cost but the pirate couldn't because he had no supply of qualified-pirate. (no infinite raider!)

Just to help keep the distinction clear (mostly for myself), in this sub-argument I'm arguing against the possibility of shipwreck in an uninhabited previously terraformed system between two more popular systems with terraformed planets.

Keep in mind that the goal of this argument is to explain the presence of space traders.

Setting up an intermediary world would indeed take time, and we definitely agree concerning the three-dimensionality of space. It would be much quicker to simply go from point A to point B, but if you have an area of interest "in between", then people might want to divert for more trading, (safer) refuel/maintenance/resupply, any updates on the current times (though even that news would be very old), and so on.

My point is, until there is such an incentive to divert from the simple point A to point B, it would be far too inefficient to divert for simple maintenance. The average distance between stars is four light years, so even if we assume that drives exist that take us up to .9 the speed of light, you're nearly doubling the distance traveled (assuming this in-between point is roughly the average distance away from both the start and the end). Even if your destination is only one star system away and there's another terraformed system directly "adjacent" to your starting system and destination system, that's a roughly eight light year journey rather than a four year one. It defeats the whole point in stopping somewhere else for safe maintenance when you could already be at your destination.

To make this argument (shipwreck in an uninhabited previously terraformed system between two more popular systems with terraformed planets) work and still have lots of space traders stopping by on the way, you have to have a theoretical start and end point with terraformed planets and another terraformed planet in a separate intermediary system in the same (nearly exact) x/y/z direction they're heading, which I'm saying is flimsy/unlikely. If such a system did exist, someone would make an effort to re-colonize it to control the rare trade route situation (which indeed isn't typical in space).

Now, we could claim that our colonists are part of this effort, but that the re-colonization didn't work as planned due to ship problems (meaning only a tiny fraction of the colonists survived). This is basically my stance in different circumstances, however.

Do you honestly think it's more likely that our colonists shipwrecked on this rare exactly identical x/y/z coordinate direction in-between terraformed system on the way from one terraformed system to a further terraformed system, after the civilization of this in-between system wiped itself out somehow, but before someone else re-colonized it? (Can I mention again how rare such a system would be in the first place?)

...

This is a very, very situational explanation, although it is possible. If Rimworld is a specific planet with a specific history, rather than any number of planets in a "Rim world" classification, than I'd be okay with such an explanation. If it is just "a" Rim world, however, then I object due to the sheer improbability of it.

Disbelief is entirely based upon people knowledges of reality or fictional tropes. Many people don't know for example that space isn't cold, that you cannot "fall from orbit" with a measly explosion or many else.
Furthermore suspension of disbelief can be invoked intentionally for the need of the story. Considering that, I don't see a need to argue over superiority of pioneer over shipwreck. The LOST IN SPACE tropes is pretty well known and accepted and the blurred lore of Rimworld allow a wide range of possibility.

Our problem here was to find if we can make the trader better. The caravan seem to work, I think we could even keep it a ship, just not an interstellar/planetary one

Well... I already said we don't "need" to explain space traders since they may or may not even be permanent in Rimworld, certainly not to the point of getting upset, insulting, being passive aggressive or otherwise attacking a poster rather than their ideas. Since some still seem interested in discussing it anyway, though, I didn't/don't see any harm in it.

[SSS]

(Part two.)

I'm going to have to flag down the probability bit. There is too much unknown about the scenarios described to have that claim stick with nothing to really justify it. Countless stars, where you can't pick a direction without bumping into something, and yet it's arbitrarily, specifically improbable here because.. reasons.

Too much unknown about what scenarios? My scenarios? You can launch in any given direction and you will almost certainly hit nothing for untold thousands, millions, even billions of years unless you know exactly where your destination is. Space is called "space" for a reason. It's mostly nothing out there. As I noted above, even between star systems there is an average of a little over four light years (straight line) separation. Between galaxies, we're talking on the magnitude of a few million light years before you are even "remotely" (a few light year's distance) close, and even that assumes you're heading in the general correct x/y/z direction.

Even if your randomly selected direction just so happens to point you toward the general direction of the galactic core, meaning you'll have gravity to help keep you from leaving the galaxy anytime "soon" (a potentially favorable scenario), you could get pulled into the greater orbit of the galaxy, prolonging the amount of time it will take to reach a system toward further incomprehensible numbers (approaching "never").

Even going further, and assuming you somehow manage to select a direction that takes you through a star system, you may or may not come close enough to its sun to get trapped in the system, meaning that unless you manage to pass by close enough to get pulled into the solar gravity, even your highly unlikely scenario of actually making it to a system is all for naut.

It's not arbitrarily, specifically improbable here, in this specific case. It's specifically improbable period, in any case.

Statements like "We need reasons" should read more like "I need a reason", because the case isn't that the matter isn't justified, it's that you aren't satisfied with it. Which is fine. Just an important difference to clarify.

How do you justify the matter again? Trivializing my points rather than addressing them isn't really conducive to discussion, and it's promotes an unnecessary "me vs. you" scenario that I'd like to avoid. The difference isn't important to clarify; it's just the common "your opinion is an opinion" response that doesn't actually change or add to the conversation in any way.

Also there's some odd consistency to run together. I find it odd that the 'improbable to run into' planet would be 'easily recolonized'. Particularly in the case that the colonists you start the game with are clearly not the first people to land on any given planet.

It is improbable to run into even a star system on the same identical x/y/z direction as another two star systems (that is practically reachable at non-FTL speeds), let alone a planet, which is much smaller. If it did exist exactly in between two star systems that were practically reachable at STL speed and all three just so happened to have terraformed, habitable planets, then it would indeed be (relatively) easy to re-colonize the intermediary one.

If you're referring to "adjacent" systems that aren't on the same identical (or very very close to identical) x/y/z direction, then they would need to provide proper incentive for someone to prolong their trip in order to stop by them on the way. It wouldn't necessarily be easy to colonize in such a case.

[Kegereneku]

[Text hidden for brevity, answered all at once for clarity]

There's no misunderstanding, I took for granted we were talking about what Traders event are or could be to discuss the whole subject all around. Making no judgment of value over the tropes/cliche that can be used to justify traders as they are, or alternative.

However, your arguments that "colonization attempt is more likely to" implied that it was more logical, since being more logical lead to 'harder' SF I put in perspective that using a more realistic logic/science it would not be likely (neither interstellar trading).... then that keeping the same soft-SF context, traders passing by rimworld, or planet in the process of being re-colonized can be seen as just as likely as each other.

The likelihood of anything in this fictional universe is subject to interpretation, pseudoscience and any logic one can find to support it.
If you insist on saying your interpretation is the only one likely, there's not point in this discussion.

My point being that it is absurd to insist trader must be private venture between a Colony and a to-be-colonized planet when the actual situation is no less unlikely but give more interesting backstory.
I infer that the question is less "it is more likely ?", and more "how can it fit the lore better ?" so as to not lessen Rimworld's potential by imposing a personal point of view to everyone.

On the "traveling in the middle of nowhere" :
I took for granted we had already established a valid idea "the rimworld is known and trader prefer to stop by for check-up anyway", I don't get what 'missing a planet's coordinate you are going for' have to do with anything.
Same vein, many SF tropes can also justify "the abandoned planet" tropes as well as "stranded shipwreck survivor".

But apparently not.
You are assuming a lot without considering alternative.

Btw, the (botched) 'colonization effort' count as a "shipwreck survivor" plot. All you need is a 'magnet' to justify manned spaceship to pass by, And we've discussed some already.
ex :
- If a spaceship drive is only reliable 10years, stopping by inhabitable stars 10y-of-travel make the difference between a 99% chance of surviving the travel and 50% risk of dying stranded in space because the spaceship drive failed.
- You could say that a ship that stop every 10ly can move at 0.8C, while a ship that only stop every 20ly wouldn't be safe over 0.5C.
Making the first one able to cross 20ly in 16y while the other would take 40y.
- Same with energy shield SCIENCE! Take the new shield that allow melee fighter, it would be good against space particle doesn't it ? Well, have such gigantic SCIENCE shield need to recharge every 5/10ly (again directly linked to speed)

Next : On the colonization subject and to answer your biased-question over likeliness, I insist you read the very interesting ProjectRho website which give us tool to justify what we want to achieve.

The core of this argument is that -unlike what you seem to assume- being a colony don't make you able to re-colonize anywhere soon if at all nor a necessity, and traders* (assuming they even make sense) can be anywhere if you get the right magnet.

What we know of Rimworld is that it put us in the year 5500.
In a radius of 1000ly we have like 1milions stars, if you want trading 50ly to exist at all (an aberration but let's drop that) you need to have 90% of them with at least one planet you can terraform.
Supposing the Homeworld started seeding by the year 2500, it give us 3000 years to 1) travel 2) terraform&colonize planet 3) prosper, decline or glitter.
At 90% of C a ship can reach 1000ly and still dispose of 1800year to do stuff... look a lot but not really.
# First Phase : Nothing say all ships departed from day 1, nothing say they aimed for close star first, nothing say they are homogeneously spread or started with the same technology.
# Second Phase : Terraforming can take hundreds of years, population need to grow before colonizing again, there can be war, dark age, mechanoid, psychotic boomrat event...
# Third phase : The planet might not prosper (who know the success rate ?), most might all die from plague, squirrels and many things (no trader for them), they might have lacked technology, they also won't get the ability to colonize in just a few generations, if they started with barely the minimum colonist/DNA-stock 2500 year is not much to grow above say 5 millions (And who know the workforce needed to send new colony ?), what if the population don't want to send colony ship ?
# Bonus : What if 'terraformer fleet/mechanoid' after finishing a job went to another stars ? We can find yourself with more inhabitable planet with no population than colony.

So yeah, Rimworld can be a damn entire category of planet if it want.

*On Traders :
A market need only 2 places that have offer&demand, meaning that hypothetically you can have trader between 2 barely developed planets/star system as long as it make sense for the trader.
You can also reconfigure  the 'traffic' to act like traders (my cargo ship example). What good is there to trade with underdeveloped world ? Mostly "scam them good".

So, to answer your biased-question...

Do you honestly think it's more likely that our colonists shipwrecked on this rare exactly identical x/y/z coordinate direction in-between terraformed system on the way from one terraformed system to a further terraformed system, after the civilization of this in-between system wiped itself out somehow, but before someone else re-colonized it? (Can I mention again how rare such a system would be in the first place?)

... I have my own question :
Do you honestly think in an universe with terraformed/colonized/abandoned/destroyed/glitter world, reactionless-drive, interstellar spaceship built by survivor, interstellar STL traders, mechanoid, psychic...
Do you honestly think it matter ?
I could ask you the same absurdly worded question about new colony and trader.
We are discussing a fictional world made of soft-SF concept that break fundamental law of physics, play the odds, and require to suspend our disbelief over the idea that colonization is about terraforming planet and living like Pioneers.

the edit of doom ! (nothing changed up there)
I only rediscovered now the Rimworld Universe Quick Primer.
It does change a number of thing in how I would have done my maths.
For all Tynan insist on not homogenizing planet by technological level he's kind of contradicting himself by declaring rich planet on the inside of the galactic core and the poor one on the outside.
Not that it would be possible to travel from the galactic core to the outside in less than 10 000 years
I'm thinking Tynan miscalculated the scale big time.
Guess, I'll have to speak of headcanon now...

[Mathenaut]

Separation between galaxies and how long you travel before hitting something if you aim in a random direction are mostly functions of speed and what lies in the direction you are heading in. There are some averages to make, but these arguments aren't working off of averages, they are making awkward assumptions about specific scenarios that aren't particularly necessary and invoking incredulity. Not a well grounded approach.

Gravity isn't so much an issue toward the galactic core unless you're zeroing in on the core itself. That is strictly an issue of critical proximity. Probably not the best approach to take without knowing the subject.

There is no assuming that a direction will intersect a star system. It is only a question of where and when and, again, being trapped in the system is strictly a matter of critical proximity, which is orders of magnitude closer than is being presumed. Again, not best approach to take without knowing the subject.

For galaxies, yes, there is a massive time scale involved. For systems within a galaxy, traveling along the galactic disk, looking at a timescale of ~3000 years within a column less than a third of that range, it's more likely than is being freely presumed. It's almost inevitable if you're looking even halfway out toward the rim.

Sorry if you feel that your concern is being trivialized. It's just the case that you're assuming problems that don't really have to exist to make an argument that is only true for specific cases that don't really need to be. That isn't really a lore problem.

For all Tynan insist on not homogenizing planet by technological level he's kind of contradicting himself by declaring rich planet on the inside of the galactic core and the poor one on the outside.
Not that it would be possible to travel from the galactic core to the outside in less than 10 000 years
I'm thinking Tynan miscalculated the scale big time.
Guess, I'll have to speak of headcanon now...

Avoiding a double-post.
I think you're misunderstanding. It's not that all worlds on the Rim are 'poor'. It's that there is drastic variation due to the isolation, compared to the core worlds.