BetterThanLife
March 24th, 2004, 09:35 PM
OK after the long discussion on Starship economics I did some number crunching and research to find a way to actually break even with a Far Trader that is bank financed. (Also would work for other Jump-2 cargo vessels. It should work for Jump-3 vessels as well if you can find the same circumstances.) The problem in the spinward marches is that there are only two places to make this work. (And no places to make Jump-3 work.) I still am a firm believer that making a person pay per parsec travelled (both for passage and cargo) is the way to make the economic model work. In T20 you are allowed to carry "Priority cargo" which is charged per Parsec instead of per jump. If you are on a high population world you are likely to find some. If you find a pair of High Pop worlds. (POP 9+) with tech levels that are within a couple points of each other you can probably fill your hold with priority cargo and make a profit. In the Solomani Rim there are numerous places where you can do this. In the Spinward marches there are only 2. Sacnoth-Gram and Mora-Fornice. NOt a fun way to play the game running back and forth between two planets but it is actually possible. There is no place in the Spinward Marches to pull the same trick with a Jump-3 ship. You can of course carry hazardous Cargo or Security Cargo butto ensure you fillthe hold you still have to stick to the High Population worlds. Under this economic model there won't be much trade off the Spinward Main in the Marches and the Sword Worlds would be economically stronger than the Imperium. smile.gif Under those circumstances only Jump 1 freighters are economically viable with a loan (no matter what size you are building). The most expensize parts of a ship are the Jump Drive, the Power Plant and the Computer. The higher jump ships not only lose the space that is required by the fuel tanks (In proportion to the size of the ship) and the cost of the Jump Drives, Higher Jump capable computers and larger required Power Plant. I have tried all sorts of bulk carriers, passenger liners and other combination at Jump 2 and higher. As long as they have to charge by jump and not by parsec the Jump 1 ship will be the only ship financed and virtually the only ship plying the space lanes.(And District 268 would definitely be within hte Imperium to keep the Glisten Sector along normal trade lanes. smile.gif
Anyone find another way to consistently make your finance payments on a Jump-2+ ship on the per jump model in T20? (I'll also accept CT. smile.gif
Anyone find another way to consistently make your finance payments on a Jump-2+ ship on the per jump model in T20? (I'll also accept CT. smile.gif
far-trader
March 25th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
Anyone find another way to consistently make your finance payments on a Jump-2+ ship on the per jump model in T20? (I'll also accept CT. smile.gif Yes and no, it depends ;)
In T20 if I have to take the TL11 standard design I agree the way you outlined might be the only way.
Now if I can have a redesigned Far-Trader at TL13+, even a custom model (i.e. no 20% discount) then I think it works.
Heck I think a little tweaking of the standard model can even do it. Swap the 2G maneuver for a 1G maneuver (bonus, you get agility or power for weapons) and drop a TL12 fuel purifier in the recovered volume. Now you can skim (if it has scoops) or just buy unrefined fuel. Just putting a TL11 fuel purifier in your cargo hold (if the ref allows) will be money in the bank even if you have to buy unrefined fuel (assuming no scoops).
Another simple option is to cut back on the crew. The rules allow Combined Positions (ed.1 pg.348) so you can get by with say equal partners as Pilot/Medic and Astrogator/Steward. Each will collect a monthly salary of cr6,000 (saving 25% in salaries). More to the point it opens up two more staterooms for revenue (up to 8 paying high passengers).
And as a final budget stretcher sell that Air/Raft and convert the hanger space to 5 more tons of cargo or 10 more low berths, or some mix of the two (5 tons is just right for a mail contract too if you should be so lucky).
Anyone find another way to consistently make your finance payments on a Jump-2+ ship on the per jump model in T20? (I'll also accept CT. smile.gif Yes and no, it depends ;)
In T20 if I have to take the TL11 standard design I agree the way you outlined might be the only way.
Now if I can have a redesigned Far-Trader at TL13+, even a custom model (i.e. no 20% discount) then I think it works.
Heck I think a little tweaking of the standard model can even do it. Swap the 2G maneuver for a 1G maneuver (bonus, you get agility or power for weapons) and drop a TL12 fuel purifier in the recovered volume. Now you can skim (if it has scoops) or just buy unrefined fuel. Just putting a TL11 fuel purifier in your cargo hold (if the ref allows) will be money in the bank even if you have to buy unrefined fuel (assuming no scoops).
Another simple option is to cut back on the crew. The rules allow Combined Positions (ed.1 pg.348) so you can get by with say equal partners as Pilot/Medic and Astrogator/Steward. Each will collect a monthly salary of cr6,000 (saving 25% in salaries). More to the point it opens up two more staterooms for revenue (up to 8 paying high passengers).
And as a final budget stretcher sell that Air/Raft and convert the hanger space to 5 more tons of cargo or 10 more low berths, or some mix of the two (5 tons is just right for a mail contract too if you should be so lucky).
Commander Drax
March 25th, 2004, 03:25 PM
I agree, the problem with the far trader, is not the cost, its the cargo space, when I design ships for my players, I often make sure that no space is wasted carrying subordinate craft, such as air/rafts. Apart from giving the crew more potential revenue, it also forces them to get off their ship and hire local transport when adventuring which makes for a more interesting and varied game (I'm sure we've all had the pc group who wouldn't leave their ship or their souped up air/raft/speeder etc, because they wanted to stay safe, behind all that technology and firepower). Also I consider that many far traders would most likely be a pure cargo design, a lot like the Reliant Class Fat Trader, which again raises potential revenue when speculating, (some PC groups just hate carrying passengers). By the same token though I have designed a highly profitable minimal cargo/passenger specialist, (a reefer ship), the bulk of the internal space given over to low berths) which guarantees CR2000 per ton (in T20) as opposed to Cr1000 for freight, though admittedly not so useful when away from those high population worlds.
In reality, though you would find freighters of all sizes and capability in and around the higher tech worlds, as sufficient markets would exist for all, faster ships would make more money by tailoring their services to the priority market (T20) whilst subsidized merchants, free traders and chartered vessels would service the lower pop worlds as after all the government would be paying for this in order to foster economic development in local economies.
I would envisage that your tramp feighters earning more through speculation than freight, would actually develop markets sufficient to cover costs and earn a small profit, when the market reaches critical mass you would probably find the system going corporate, with bigger firms and bigger ships (freightliners) gobbling up all of the trade and squeezing out the independants, pushing them into the frontiers again wheron they would develop new markets and start the cycle again.
This seems in essence similar to the ethos of Imperial expansion. Needless to say life on the frontier would command higher prices than life within the corporate zone as corporate competition is generally ruthless and forces prices down. It is implied in all versions of traveller that the ticket prices for passage and freight are just that common corporate prices charged by large passenger carrying lines. If prices charged above smaller ships were higher then the low cost of 'low berth' would be even more appealing, risky or not.
In reality, though you would find freighters of all sizes and capability in and around the higher tech worlds, as sufficient markets would exist for all, faster ships would make more money by tailoring their services to the priority market (T20) whilst subsidized merchants, free traders and chartered vessels would service the lower pop worlds as after all the government would be paying for this in order to foster economic development in local economies.
I would envisage that your tramp feighters earning more through speculation than freight, would actually develop markets sufficient to cover costs and earn a small profit, when the market reaches critical mass you would probably find the system going corporate, with bigger firms and bigger ships (freightliners) gobbling up all of the trade and squeezing out the independants, pushing them into the frontiers again wheron they would develop new markets and start the cycle again.
This seems in essence similar to the ethos of Imperial expansion. Needless to say life on the frontier would command higher prices than life within the corporate zone as corporate competition is generally ruthless and forces prices down. It is implied in all versions of traveller that the ticket prices for passage and freight are just that common corporate prices charged by large passenger carrying lines. If prices charged above smaller ships were higher then the low cost of 'low berth' would be even more appealing, risky or not.
BetterThanLife
March 25th, 2004, 06:48 PM
The problems with speculation is that is is dicey (pun intended) at best. These ships should be inherently profitable. The biggest cost of these ships isn't the crew salary, 5 tons of cargo isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of things (I would always carry an Air/Raft for planetside exploration. Matter of fact I will usually buy a Grav Bike at my first opportunity as a PC because I hate to have to walk or rely on public transportation.) smile.gif The major cost is the ship's payment, which amounts to over Cr250000 per month. You also have to set aside 1/12 of that each month so that when your ship is in Maintenance you can still make the payment. Running a Far trader with a Crew of 3. (Pilot/Astrogator, Steward and Medic. (Both doubling as Gunners in a pinch.)) I would rather carry an engineer but one isn't needed as I have less than 35 tons of engine. Even if you carry a Crew of 6 Steward, Medic, 2xgunners and engineer and the Owner-Pilot-Astrogator (Who takes his money out of profits instead of salary.) Your payroll only amounts to Cr11000 per month with an additional Cr1000 set aside for vacation pay. Where you lose with a big crew is in loss of passenger space. smile.gif Fuel, landing fees etc is again a drop in the bucket compared to your payment.
For the sake of illustration lets use the standard Far Trader. As long as you stick to the Pop 6 and above you should be able to keep your ship full. We'll use T20 for this illustration. (CT doesn't work as well. smile.gif )
Your expenses. (Crew of 3.) Per month (Pilot/Astrogator/Engineer/Owner) (No Salary but Cr1000 per 2 weeks Life Support.)
Steward/Gunner 5000 per month plus 250/month set aside for vacation pay.
Medic/Gunner 4250 per month plus 188/month vacation pay.
Total salary plus life support = 11688 per month (Note that you can shave Cr1000 per month by feeding them as crew instead of officers.)
Maintenance= Cr68138 per year or 5679 per month.
Fuel Unrefined. (As a purification plant takes up 1.5 tons and only costs Cr6800 I think it is worth while.) Many planets won't allow you to skim, (Cuts into their revenue after all. smile.gif 84 tons per month Cr 8400.
Landing and berthing costs no more than Cr1200 per month.
Starship Payment Cr283,909 per month.
Maintanence Month payment Cr23660 Per month.
Total cost per month to fly ship. Cr334,536
Revenue for standard Cargo and High Passengers and Low Passengers.
7 High Passengers each leg of the month Cr9000 per passenger per jump (10000-1000 life support) Cr 126000 per month.
4 Low Passengers 950 each per jump. Cr 7600 per month
Cargo (I lost 1 ton to purification and made up for the other half ton because the Air/Raft only displaces 4.2 tons.) 65 tons at Cr 1000 per ton per jump. Cr130000 per month.
Total Revenue: Cr263600 per month. Profit per month Cr -70936.
Ooops can't operate at a profit. Now if you take only Priority cargo and always Jump 2 that adds 130000 per month to your ledger. Giving you a profit margin of Cr59064 per month. Only problem is that unless you are jumping between two worlds that are both POP 9+ and within a couple of TL of each other you can't fill your hold with priority cargo. The same with Hazardous or Security Cargo. By the way it doesn't say how big one of these cargos is? Major Cargo is 10-60 tons, Minor cargo is 5-30 tons each incidental cargo 1-6 tons each. If they are the same size as incidental cargo you will be hard pressed to fill your hold.
You will find the math tends to work the same way no matter what the size of the ship. (Though as you get bigger you are less likely to be able to fill it.) And you will have smaller revenue with farther jump ships. A Jump one ship does make a profit. Especially a Free Trader. Your payment and set aside totals Cr231834 you get 90 tons of cargo (If you carry an Air/Raft and purify your fuel. Your fuel costs drops to 42000 per month.)
Total cost = Cr254601 per month
Revenue = Cr313600 per month
Profit = Cr58999 per month.
Without worrying about Priority, Security or Hazardous cargo.
Under the pay per jump then more than Jump 1 starships can't make their bank payments. (Consistently, you might get lucky occasionally with special cargo types or Trade and Speculation charts.) Or you sit on a route that you only visit Pop 9+ worlds at the limit of your jump with close tech levels. (Ie 2 parsecs apart.) Then you are marginal but should make your payment. The problem with this is you are stuck generally between two worlds and never get to go travelling, well after the ship is paid off you can. smile.gif In the Spinward Marches you only have two places you can do this with a Far Trader and no places where you can use a Jump-3 ship like this. (And one of the two places is in the Sword Worlds. smile.gif )
For the sake of illustration lets use the standard Far Trader. As long as you stick to the Pop 6 and above you should be able to keep your ship full. We'll use T20 for this illustration. (CT doesn't work as well. smile.gif )
Your expenses. (Crew of 3.) Per month (Pilot/Astrogator/Engineer/Owner) (No Salary but Cr1000 per 2 weeks Life Support.)
Steward/Gunner 5000 per month plus 250/month set aside for vacation pay.
Medic/Gunner 4250 per month plus 188/month vacation pay.
Total salary plus life support = 11688 per month (Note that you can shave Cr1000 per month by feeding them as crew instead of officers.)
Maintenance= Cr68138 per year or 5679 per month.
Fuel Unrefined. (As a purification plant takes up 1.5 tons and only costs Cr6800 I think it is worth while.) Many planets won't allow you to skim, (Cuts into their revenue after all. smile.gif 84 tons per month Cr 8400.
Landing and berthing costs no more than Cr1200 per month.
Starship Payment Cr283,909 per month.
Maintanence Month payment Cr23660 Per month.
Total cost per month to fly ship. Cr334,536
Revenue for standard Cargo and High Passengers and Low Passengers.
7 High Passengers each leg of the month Cr9000 per passenger per jump (10000-1000 life support) Cr 126000 per month.
4 Low Passengers 950 each per jump. Cr 7600 per month
Cargo (I lost 1 ton to purification and made up for the other half ton because the Air/Raft only displaces 4.2 tons.) 65 tons at Cr 1000 per ton per jump. Cr130000 per month.
Total Revenue: Cr263600 per month. Profit per month Cr -70936.
Ooops can't operate at a profit. Now if you take only Priority cargo and always Jump 2 that adds 130000 per month to your ledger. Giving you a profit margin of Cr59064 per month. Only problem is that unless you are jumping between two worlds that are both POP 9+ and within a couple of TL of each other you can't fill your hold with priority cargo. The same with Hazardous or Security Cargo. By the way it doesn't say how big one of these cargos is? Major Cargo is 10-60 tons, Minor cargo is 5-30 tons each incidental cargo 1-6 tons each. If they are the same size as incidental cargo you will be hard pressed to fill your hold.
You will find the math tends to work the same way no matter what the size of the ship. (Though as you get bigger you are less likely to be able to fill it.) And you will have smaller revenue with farther jump ships. A Jump one ship does make a profit. Especially a Free Trader. Your payment and set aside totals Cr231834 you get 90 tons of cargo (If you carry an Air/Raft and purify your fuel. Your fuel costs drops to 42000 per month.)
Total cost = Cr254601 per month
Revenue = Cr313600 per month
Profit = Cr58999 per month.
Without worrying about Priority, Security or Hazardous cargo.
Under the pay per jump then more than Jump 1 starships can't make their bank payments. (Consistently, you might get lucky occasionally with special cargo types or Trade and Speculation charts.) Or you sit on a route that you only visit Pop 9+ worlds at the limit of your jump with close tech levels. (Ie 2 parsecs apart.) Then you are marginal but should make your payment. The problem with this is you are stuck generally between two worlds and never get to go travelling, well after the ship is paid off you can. smile.gif In the Spinward Marches you only have two places you can do this with a Far Trader and no places where you can use a Jump-3 ship like this. (And one of the two places is in the Sword Worlds. smile.gif )
flykiller
March 25th, 2004, 09:54 PM
The problems with speculation is that is is dicey (pun intended) at best.I sat down one day and just rolled dice for the book 2 trade and commerce tables, in the area of glisten and aki. admin-2 was available. after about two years the ship was completely paid off. there were long dry spells, but speculation works over time ('least by those rules). I'd say that any company willing to loan money for a ship should be willing to throw in an additional 1MCr cash-back to prime the economic pumps for action.
BetterThanLife
March 25th, 2004, 10:41 PM
T20 allows you some more choices than CT did. If you have money you can make money but your margins are fairly small and can actually be serious loses. (With one bad roll.) You might end up buying high and selling low. And that mortgage compnay wants their payment anyway. Granted if you have 58 milion lying around why get a loan? smile.gif I am sure you can probably even get a discount for cash. smile.gif
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The problems with speculation is that is is dicey (pun intended) at best.I sat down one day and just rolled dice for the book 2 trade and commerce tables, in the area of glisten and aki. admin-2 was available. after about two years the ship was completely paid off. there were long dry spells, but speculation works over time ('least by those rules). I'd say that any company willing to loan money for a ship should be willing to throw in an additional 1MCr cash-back to prime the economic pumps for action. </font>[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The problems with speculation is that is is dicey (pun intended) at best.I sat down one day and just rolled dice for the book 2 trade and commerce tables, in the area of glisten and aki. admin-2 was available. after about two years the ship was completely paid off. there were long dry spells, but speculation works over time ('least by those rules). I'd say that any company willing to loan money for a ship should be willing to throw in an additional 1MCr cash-back to prime the economic pumps for action. </font>[/QUOTE]
Straybow
March 26th, 2004, 12:30 AM
/me stirs up trouble :)
Change commodities to mass tons instead of dtons. Even if you limit the load to 2 tons per dton (instead of 5T/dT) in order to keep within the jump-2 mass limit, your initial calc becomes a 60k/mo profit instead of 70k/mo loss.
Change commodities to mass tons instead of dtons. Even if you limit the load to 2 tons per dton (instead of 5T/dT) in order to keep within the jump-2 mass limit, your initial calc becomes a 60k/mo profit instead of 70k/mo loss.
BetterThanLife
March 26th, 2004, 05:55 PM
If you try to carry twice your allowed mass in cargo, as long as it is a cargo load of Canaries and you can keep half of them flying at all times you are alright. smile.gif (I know I paraphrased it from STTNG but it fits. smile.gif
Originally posted by Straybow:
/me stirs up trouble smile.gif
Change commodities to mass tons instead of dtons. Even if you limit the load to 2 tons per dton (instead of 5T/dT) in order to keep within the jump-2 mass limit, your initial calc becomes a 60k/mo profit instead of 70k/mo loss.
Originally posted by Straybow:
/me stirs up trouble smile.gif
Change commodities to mass tons instead of dtons. Even if you limit the load to 2 tons per dton (instead of 5T/dT) in order to keep within the jump-2 mass limit, your initial calc becomes a 60k/mo profit instead of 70k/mo loss.
far-trader
March 26th, 2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
If you try to carry twice your allowed mass in cargo, as long as it is a cargo load of Canaries and you can keep half of them flying at all times you are alright. smile.gif (I know I paraphrased it from STTNG but it fits. smile.gif
Well since we're parapharsing ;)
"Oh, yeah, African Canaries, maybe, but not European Canaries... "
graemlins/file_21.gif
If you try to carry twice your allowed mass in cargo, as long as it is a cargo load of Canaries and you can keep half of them flying at all times you are alright. smile.gif (I know I paraphrased it from STTNG but it fits. smile.gif
Well since we're parapharsing ;)
"Oh, yeah, African Canaries, maybe, but not European Canaries... "
graemlins/file_21.gif
mike wightman
March 27th, 2004, 04:23 PM
A "cheat" I've just noticed that may help reduce the build cost of your Far Trader under the T20 system. Use a close structure hull and upgrade the streamlining/ avionics ( ;) ). It still works out cheaper than using an already streamlined configuration (over 10 MCr for the SD Far trader) ;)
far-trader
March 27th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Hey! That's not a cheat, its the way we build them at Journeyman Design Bureau!
Actually its only lots cheaper if you don't mind the slightly compromised handling in atmosphere, if you want the ship to handle properly you'll have to upgrade the avionics as well. Though it will still be cheaper the savings aren't quite as dramatic, at least on the smaller designs.
That actually reminds me I keep meaning to add to this (or some) thread that maybe its not the economic system (price per Jump regardless of range) that's broke but some of the designs.
The T20 TL11 Far-Trader for example says "that it cannot really compete on a main", so it must have a certain market niche to fill, maybe something like Bhoins pointed out above. And if its not in that niche it won't make its payments.
As for financing and ship rolls in mustering that's always been a "show me a good business plan and we'll set you up" deal (at least imtu). "So you want to make a go of it as an independant Far-Trader, no problem as long as you have found a route that will pay."
The real easy way to fix it of course is to design a "standard" Far-Trader that can work within the rules. And all you need to do there is build it at TL13 or higher and maximize the revenue generators (passengers, both warm and cold).
The other option would be to use some kind of currency exchange rate tied to energy production (i.e. powerplants) so that it makes economic sense to build ships at the lower TLs. After all its long been canon that the Imperium supports builds across all TLs. So it'd be a good idea to have a fair reason for it, like it being cheaper to build a TL11 Far-Trader than a similar performance TL13 Far-Trader. A difference of enough that the first can make as good a go of it as the latter.
Actually its only lots cheaper if you don't mind the slightly compromised handling in atmosphere, if you want the ship to handle properly you'll have to upgrade the avionics as well. Though it will still be cheaper the savings aren't quite as dramatic, at least on the smaller designs.
That actually reminds me I keep meaning to add to this (or some) thread that maybe its not the economic system (price per Jump regardless of range) that's broke but some of the designs.
The T20 TL11 Far-Trader for example says "that it cannot really compete on a main", so it must have a certain market niche to fill, maybe something like Bhoins pointed out above. And if its not in that niche it won't make its payments.
As for financing and ship rolls in mustering that's always been a "show me a good business plan and we'll set you up" deal (at least imtu). "So you want to make a go of it as an independant Far-Trader, no problem as long as you have found a route that will pay."
The real easy way to fix it of course is to design a "standard" Far-Trader that can work within the rules. And all you need to do there is build it at TL13 or higher and maximize the revenue generators (passengers, both warm and cold).
The other option would be to use some kind of currency exchange rate tied to energy production (i.e. powerplants) so that it makes economic sense to build ships at the lower TLs. After all its long been canon that the Imperium supports builds across all TLs. So it'd be a good idea to have a fair reason for it, like it being cheaper to build a TL11 Far-Trader than a similar performance TL13 Far-Trader. A difference of enough that the first can make as good a go of it as the latter.
mike wightman
March 28th, 2004, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
That actually reminds me I keep meaning to add to this (or some) thread that maybe its not the economic system (price per Jump regardless of range) that's broke but some of the designs.
The T20 TL11 Far-Trader for example says "that it cannot really compete on a main", so it must have a certain market niche to fill, maybe something like Bhoins pointed out above. And if its not in that niche it won't make its payments.Good point. If a planet is 2 parsecs from a main, but has lots of trade potential, then a jump 2 ship becomes desirable since a jump 1 ship must make a deep space jump (which costs in life support overheads, salaries, and the cargo hold wasted with fuel tanks) to get there.
Try also to stick to worlds that are going to give you good passenger numbers.
The other option would be to use some kind of currency exchange rate tied to energy production (i.e. powerplants) so that it makes economic sense to build ships at the lower TLs. After all its long been canon that the Imperium supports builds across all TLs. So it'd be a good idea to have a fair reason for it, like it being cheaper to build a TL11 Far-Trader than a similar performance TL13 Far-Trader. A difference of enough that the first can make as good a go of it as the latter. Another good idea.
That actually reminds me I keep meaning to add to this (or some) thread that maybe its not the economic system (price per Jump regardless of range) that's broke but some of the designs.
The T20 TL11 Far-Trader for example says "that it cannot really compete on a main", so it must have a certain market niche to fill, maybe something like Bhoins pointed out above. And if its not in that niche it won't make its payments.Good point. If a planet is 2 parsecs from a main, but has lots of trade potential, then a jump 2 ship becomes desirable since a jump 1 ship must make a deep space jump (which costs in life support overheads, salaries, and the cargo hold wasted with fuel tanks) to get there.
Try also to stick to worlds that are going to give you good passenger numbers.
The other option would be to use some kind of currency exchange rate tied to energy production (i.e. powerplants) so that it makes economic sense to build ships at the lower TLs. After all its long been canon that the Imperium supports builds across all TLs. So it'd be a good idea to have a fair reason for it, like it being cheaper to build a TL11 Far-Trader than a similar performance TL13 Far-Trader. A difference of enough that the first can make as good a go of it as the latter. Another good idea.
Straybow
March 28th, 2004, 09:11 AM
If you try to carry twice your allowed mass in cargoBut there is no "allowed mass" since the actual mass of cargo is never given.
/me ducks behind corner Use a close structure hull and upgrade the streamlining/ avionicsWhy have streamlining at all? With grav drive you can slow down to any arbitrary speed before descending into the atmosphere. You can VTOL at low velocity (a couple hundred km/hr) because you aren't using velocity or lift to achieve orbit or landing. What's it gonna do, add an hour each way to the trip time?
/me ducks behind corner Use a close structure hull and upgrade the streamlining/ avionicsWhy have streamlining at all? With grav drive you can slow down to any arbitrary speed before descending into the atmosphere. You can VTOL at low velocity (a couple hundred km/hr) because you aren't using velocity or lift to achieve orbit or landing. What's it gonna do, add an hour each way to the trip time?
Commander Drax
March 28th, 2004, 04:25 PM
All merchant ships should be built as cheaply as possible in order to minimize costs, and if that means using the close structure hull configuration and low grade avionics, then so be it, compromises to atmospheric performance should be the norm when weighed against profit, any starship only spends a fraction of its life in atmosphere in any case, so the gains (lower cost/higher profits) would far out weigh the losses (poorer performance). The Tl-11 Far Trader presented in the main rules, has 2G accelleration, which for a merchant is an unnecessary luxury, though useful if running blockades and smuggling etc.
In short as in earlier posts cut this to 1G, and use the cheapest hull build, and this soon becomes profitable, also Install a fuel processor (you don't need fuel scoops) as ships can simply land in oceans and open fuel cocks to draw in water and begin refining.
I'm thinking that there might even be a market for a long haul jump 3 merchant (unstreamlined/cheapest hull config possible) with a big hold, using local shuttles to load and unload cargo, also taking on unrefined fuel with an onboard processor(when I get two minutes I'll design one)
Also large cargos might be lifted from surface to orbit by tugs (though they wouldnt be able to bring them back down this way)...
Hmmm.... (head scratching)
In short as in earlier posts cut this to 1G, and use the cheapest hull build, and this soon becomes profitable, also Install a fuel processor (you don't need fuel scoops) as ships can simply land in oceans and open fuel cocks to draw in water and begin refining.
I'm thinking that there might even be a market for a long haul jump 3 merchant (unstreamlined/cheapest hull config possible) with a big hold, using local shuttles to load and unload cargo, also taking on unrefined fuel with an onboard processor(when I get two minutes I'll design one)
Also large cargos might be lifted from surface to orbit by tugs (though they wouldnt be able to bring them back down this way)...
Hmmm.... (head scratching)
far-trader
March 28th, 2004, 09:00 PM
Cross posted from my post in "Traveller Cargo Standards":
I found the bit I was remembering, in CT of course, and oddly enough the example used is Firearms (aka Guns, maybe that's why my memory twigged). I guess Straybows Cr3,000/ton was a simple typo (should be Cr30,000/ton). For those who don't have access to CT (from Book 2, Trade and Commerce):
When determining the contents of a cargo, the players and referee must be certain to correlate the established price of goods with the cost per ton. For example, the base price of a shotgun is Cr150, while a ton of firearms as trade goods has a base price of Cr30,000. A strict weight extension of the shotgun (3.75 kg per shotgun) would indicate 266 shotguns. Extension should be instead based on price, with weight as a limiting factor. Thus one ton of shotguns would contain 200 guns, at Cr150 each. The extra weight can be considered packing and crates. Similar calculations should be made to keep prices in line on other trade goods.
Some goods (those results 51 - 56, and 66 on the table) are sold individually instead of by the ton. Quantity is expressed in single units; tonnage and base prices must be determined by the players or referee in accordance with established prices and equipment.
note: 51 - 56, and 66 on the table are vehicles and vacc suits
I found this interesting and illuminating. Trade goods clearly ship by weight not volume. So too does freight, at Cr1,000 per ton of weight. It then follows that (originally at least) much or all the ship descriptions of tons must be weight and not volume. The notable exception seeming to be hull volume, specifically called mass displacement and noted as being (roughly) 14 cubic meters per ton.
So it seems in CT at least, contrary to my memory ;) we were always talking (metric) tons (1,000 kg) and any displacement of volume by that weight was a little arbitrary (use roughly 14 cubic meters per ton, calling a ton 1.5m x 3.0m x 3.0m, plus or minus up to 20% smile.gif ) Suddenly many more of those old deckplans become less problematic for me and my old "1/2 deckplan guidelines" make even more sense.
This gives me another mtu/ytu idea, in relation to the "Making a Jump 2 freighter profitable" thread.
What if, since we're talking weight we allowed the drives to haul one ton of cargo per rated ton of cargo hold per drive rating? A ship with maneuver drives rated 1G would be able to carry 1 ton (weight) of cargo per rated ton of cargo hold volume. A 2G maneuver drive would allow 2 tons (weight) of cargo per rated ton of cargo hold volume.
The same limits would also apply to the Jump drive so a ship rated J1 could only Jump with 1 ton (weight) of cargo per rated ton of hold volume, even if it could carry 2 tons (weight) of cargo per rated ton of hold volume due to a 2G maneuver drive. And vice versa a ship with a 1G maneuver drive and a J2 drive could jump with denser cargo than it could lift on its thrusters, all you have to do is get it there, maybe by shuttle.
So to make ships with bigger drives pay you need to look for denser cargos to make the most of your bigger drives and the players and referee will have to figure out said densities.
For example a ton (weight) of shotguns, being 200 units at 3.75 kg each (and 250kg packing) might rate only half a ton of hold volume.
So drives rated 1 could only carry one lot of shotguns (1 ton weight) per rated ton of hold volume. It would take up half a ton in the hold volume and another half a ton of hold volume would have to stay empty or the ship won't go.
If however the ship had drives rated 2 then it could carry two lots of shotguns (2 tons weight) per rated ton of hold volume. The two lots would take up one ton of hold volume.
In the first case the ship would charge Cr1,000 for shipping it as freight while in the second case the ship gets to charge Cr2,000 for the same hold volume (but at twice the weight its still the standard rate of Cr1,000 per ton weight). Et voila! The Far-Trader makes money without hacking the economics of per jump rates, by returning to the roots of Traveller economics as weight based. At least for cargo. And passenger rates are now closer to the freight rates.
Have I just fixed a major break by invoking and without breaking canon? ;)
Does that make some sense and track or have I slipped a cog? smile.gif
I found the bit I was remembering, in CT of course, and oddly enough the example used is Firearms (aka Guns, maybe that's why my memory twigged). I guess Straybows Cr3,000/ton was a simple typo (should be Cr30,000/ton). For those who don't have access to CT (from Book 2, Trade and Commerce):
When determining the contents of a cargo, the players and referee must be certain to correlate the established price of goods with the cost per ton. For example, the base price of a shotgun is Cr150, while a ton of firearms as trade goods has a base price of Cr30,000. A strict weight extension of the shotgun (3.75 kg per shotgun) would indicate 266 shotguns. Extension should be instead based on price, with weight as a limiting factor. Thus one ton of shotguns would contain 200 guns, at Cr150 each. The extra weight can be considered packing and crates. Similar calculations should be made to keep prices in line on other trade goods.
Some goods (those results 51 - 56, and 66 on the table) are sold individually instead of by the ton. Quantity is expressed in single units; tonnage and base prices must be determined by the players or referee in accordance with established prices and equipment.
note: 51 - 56, and 66 on the table are vehicles and vacc suits
I found this interesting and illuminating. Trade goods clearly ship by weight not volume. So too does freight, at Cr1,000 per ton of weight. It then follows that (originally at least) much or all the ship descriptions of tons must be weight and not volume. The notable exception seeming to be hull volume, specifically called mass displacement and noted as being (roughly) 14 cubic meters per ton.
So it seems in CT at least, contrary to my memory ;) we were always talking (metric) tons (1,000 kg) and any displacement of volume by that weight was a little arbitrary (use roughly 14 cubic meters per ton, calling a ton 1.5m x 3.0m x 3.0m, plus or minus up to 20% smile.gif ) Suddenly many more of those old deckplans become less problematic for me and my old "1/2 deckplan guidelines" make even more sense.
This gives me another mtu/ytu idea, in relation to the "Making a Jump 2 freighter profitable" thread.
What if, since we're talking weight we allowed the drives to haul one ton of cargo per rated ton of cargo hold per drive rating? A ship with maneuver drives rated 1G would be able to carry 1 ton (weight) of cargo per rated ton of cargo hold volume. A 2G maneuver drive would allow 2 tons (weight) of cargo per rated ton of cargo hold volume.
The same limits would also apply to the Jump drive so a ship rated J1 could only Jump with 1 ton (weight) of cargo per rated ton of hold volume, even if it could carry 2 tons (weight) of cargo per rated ton of hold volume due to a 2G maneuver drive. And vice versa a ship with a 1G maneuver drive and a J2 drive could jump with denser cargo than it could lift on its thrusters, all you have to do is get it there, maybe by shuttle.
So to make ships with bigger drives pay you need to look for denser cargos to make the most of your bigger drives and the players and referee will have to figure out said densities.
For example a ton (weight) of shotguns, being 200 units at 3.75 kg each (and 250kg packing) might rate only half a ton of hold volume.
So drives rated 1 could only carry one lot of shotguns (1 ton weight) per rated ton of hold volume. It would take up half a ton in the hold volume and another half a ton of hold volume would have to stay empty or the ship won't go.
If however the ship had drives rated 2 then it could carry two lots of shotguns (2 tons weight) per rated ton of hold volume. The two lots would take up one ton of hold volume.
In the first case the ship would charge Cr1,000 for shipping it as freight while in the second case the ship gets to charge Cr2,000 for the same hold volume (but at twice the weight its still the standard rate of Cr1,000 per ton weight). Et voila! The Far-Trader makes money without hacking the economics of per jump rates, by returning to the roots of Traveller economics as weight based. At least for cargo. And passenger rates are now closer to the freight rates.
Have I just fixed a major break by invoking and without breaking canon? ;)
Does that make some sense and track or have I slipped a cog? smile.gif
RainOfSteel
March 29th, 2004, 02:12 AM
In the Spinward Marches, what about Porozlo/Rhylanor (Pop-A TL-B) and Rhylanor/Rhylanor (Pop-9 TL-15)? Are their tech levels too far apart?
Overall (still discussing the Spinward Marches, as well), I've got to say, that excellent though these various cost-analyses are, they make the dangerous full-load assumption. Yes, I acknowledge that it is probably a part of the premise being made here that ships aren't profitable even at full-loads. However, those apparently profitable Free-Traders, stuck on their J-1 routes, are going to hover around a few ideal locations just as the Far Traders, because many worlds along the J-1 routes don't have a population large enough to cause the holds and berths to fill up. If they make big expeditions up and down the Spinward Main, they'll go broke.
Realistically speaking, the big, High-Pop worlds are actually going to have a lot of high-grade, competitive travel and shipping options available, established and well known transport companies. Would you ship with Fed-Ex or Joe's Courier service? I think that independents would have to scratch and claw for cargo and passengers on High-Pop worlds just as much as they would anywhere else. Especially since there are going to be many more independents also there, trying to do the same thing.
Personally, I think it might be wise to allow PCs to negotiate for base rates on cargo. I'd think, depending on good Broker, Diplomacy, Admin, or Liaison rolls, that rates may go up to 1500Cr. I've even given thought to setting the base rate at 1500Cr, and then assigning a throw that would raise or lower it by up to 500Cr. Then, extra options can stack on top of this, as desired, from the various editions (Priority, etc.).
Speculative Trading, even with good Broker Skill, is just that, Speculative. In a true speculative market, boom will be accompanied by bust. When PCs face a really big finanical loss from this, that can often trim their liking for it, just as it does for small investors who take a red bath in, say, Wall Street stocks on today's Earth. In short, doing this regularly will run into failures which can drain money as rapidly as a success or two builds it.
Into this rides the GM, with shady deals and offers with extra money. Of course, for starship owners, to make it attractive enough to stop jumping long enough to go adventuring, it's going to have to be in the hundreds of thousands . . .
This goes back to a post I made over on the Traveller Cargo Standards thread. We need two mechanics. One for the PCs on campaign. And another to simulate the background of Trade & Commerce in general among the stars, so that background/worldbuilding junkies like me (and, I assume, many others here) have the common framework with which to build similar economics and trade visions in their interstellar nations, instead of having lots of House Rules (no matter how good they are).
Overall (still discussing the Spinward Marches, as well), I've got to say, that excellent though these various cost-analyses are, they make the dangerous full-load assumption. Yes, I acknowledge that it is probably a part of the premise being made here that ships aren't profitable even at full-loads. However, those apparently profitable Free-Traders, stuck on their J-1 routes, are going to hover around a few ideal locations just as the Far Traders, because many worlds along the J-1 routes don't have a population large enough to cause the holds and berths to fill up. If they make big expeditions up and down the Spinward Main, they'll go broke.
Realistically speaking, the big, High-Pop worlds are actually going to have a lot of high-grade, competitive travel and shipping options available, established and well known transport companies. Would you ship with Fed-Ex or Joe's Courier service? I think that independents would have to scratch and claw for cargo and passengers on High-Pop worlds just as much as they would anywhere else. Especially since there are going to be many more independents also there, trying to do the same thing.
Personally, I think it might be wise to allow PCs to negotiate for base rates on cargo. I'd think, depending on good Broker, Diplomacy, Admin, or Liaison rolls, that rates may go up to 1500Cr. I've even given thought to setting the base rate at 1500Cr, and then assigning a throw that would raise or lower it by up to 500Cr. Then, extra options can stack on top of this, as desired, from the various editions (Priority, etc.).
Speculative Trading, even with good Broker Skill, is just that, Speculative. In a true speculative market, boom will be accompanied by bust. When PCs face a really big finanical loss from this, that can often trim their liking for it, just as it does for small investors who take a red bath in, say, Wall Street stocks on today's Earth. In short, doing this regularly will run into failures which can drain money as rapidly as a success or two builds it.
Into this rides the GM, with shady deals and offers with extra money. Of course, for starship owners, to make it attractive enough to stop jumping long enough to go adventuring, it's going to have to be in the hundreds of thousands . . .
This goes back to a post I made over on the Traveller Cargo Standards thread. We need two mechanics. One for the PCs on campaign. And another to simulate the background of Trade & Commerce in general among the stars, so that background/worldbuilding junkies like me (and, I assume, many others here) have the common framework with which to build similar economics and trade visions in their interstellar nations, instead of having lots of House Rules (no matter how good they are).
Straybow
March 29th, 2004, 03:23 AM
I guess Straybows Cr3,000/ton was a simple typo (should be Cr30,000/ton). For those who don't have access to CT (from Book 2, Trade and Commerce)
No, since MT or TNE says a dT is 10-15 tons, that would make a ton mass of guns only Cr3k, which makes the problem worse.
Yes, that paragraph is the canonical example. 1 ton mass per ton "mass displacement" doesn't fit the dTon standard except for fuel, and doesn't fit pricing for some cargos as I showed in some examples. It also makes no allowance for extreme values on the trade purchase/sale rolls, positing the retail price as the given base value.
Yes, far-trader, in lieu of a more detailed break-down of cargo mass and load limits. 2 tons cargo plus some allowance for structure is still short of the average total ship mass per dTon, but it keeps interstellar trade from being too easy.
Aramis said that TNE ships assume mass of 10-15 tons/dT for cargo, but since ships more typically total 5 tons/dT the upper end is way off-base and 10 tons/dT should be heavily penalized. A cargo container might normally allow 10 tons/dT, but accessibility and stabilization will consume some portion of hold space. Load balancing will also play a role even with compensation.
:paragraph: Try this: for loads above 2 tons/dT but less than 5 tons/dT (of hold space) reduce Jump/Maneuver factor by 1 (except Jump-1 is permitted 4 tons/dT). For loads 5 tons/dT or above divide load/dT by 4 (rounding up) for the number of Jump/Maneuver ratings to diminish performance. For each Maneuver rating below 1 gee divide acceleration by 2.
No, since MT or TNE says a dT is 10-15 tons, that would make a ton mass of guns only Cr3k, which makes the problem worse.
Yes, that paragraph is the canonical example. 1 ton mass per ton "mass displacement" doesn't fit the dTon standard except for fuel, and doesn't fit pricing for some cargos as I showed in some examples. It also makes no allowance for extreme values on the trade purchase/sale rolls, positing the retail price as the given base value.
Yes, far-trader, in lieu of a more detailed break-down of cargo mass and load limits. 2 tons cargo plus some allowance for structure is still short of the average total ship mass per dTon, but it keeps interstellar trade from being too easy.
Aramis said that TNE ships assume mass of 10-15 tons/dT for cargo, but since ships more typically total 5 tons/dT the upper end is way off-base and 10 tons/dT should be heavily penalized. A cargo container might normally allow 10 tons/dT, but accessibility and stabilization will consume some portion of hold space. Load balancing will also play a role even with compensation.
:paragraph: Try this: for loads above 2 tons/dT but less than 5 tons/dT (of hold space) reduce Jump/Maneuver factor by 1 (except Jump-1 is permitted 4 tons/dT). For loads 5 tons/dT or above divide load/dT by 4 (rounding up) for the number of Jump/Maneuver ratings to diminish performance. For each Maneuver rating below 1 gee divide acceleration by 2.
BetterThanLife
March 29th, 2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
That actually reminds me I keep meaning to add to this (or some) thread that maybe its not the economic system (price per Jump regardless of range) that's broke but some of the designs.
The T20 TL11 Far-Trader for example says "that it cannot really compete on a main", so it must have a certain market niche to fill, maybe something like Bhoins pointed out above. And if its not in that niche it won't make its payments.Good point. If a planet is 2 parsecs from a main, but has lots of trade potential, then a jump 2 ship becomes desirable since a jump 1 ship must make a deep space jump (which costs in life support overheads, salaries, and the cargo hold wasted with fuel tanks) to get there.
Try also to stick to worlds that are going to give you good passenger numbers. </font>[/QUOTE]That is great in Theory, only problem is that it still pays no matter the distance of the jump. Just because a Jump-1 freighter can't get there doesn't mean you are allowed to charge more for the trip. It just means the planets that aren't on the main aren't going to see ships. (Well they may see some but since Jump-2 ships take losses whenever they travel, (except Priority Cargo, Security Cargo and Hazardous Cargo) it doesn't help that there isn't any jump one ships that can get there. The stop just isn't profitable so nobody goes there. Now if we charge per parsec, for everything, instead of per jump...... Suddenly the Liner and Far Trader are as good as the Free Trader and the Fat Trader for making money. Trade flows and everyone is happy. (Well perhaps everyone except those people sitting on interdicted worlds. smile.gif ) The funny thing about it is that in most cases you recoup your 20% down in about the same time frame no matter what the jump potential of your ship is. A Jump-1 Ship that plies the main will make its 20% down in profits about the same time a Far Trader does and about the same time a Liner does. Since the ship costs vary the amount of time does vary depending which rule set you are using. Also remember that if you are travelling about, like a typical adventurer, intead of trying to stick to two Rich, Industrial, Hi-Pop, close to even tech level worlds that are at the limit of your jump, you aren't always going to get your full jump potential out of each leg. If you average 1 jump less than your max per month, (Jump-1 vs Jump-2) you still stay ahead, if you are short 2 in a month then you are behind. IMHO this makes things a bit more interesting in terms of playing the game instead of just trying to cut your costs to nil just to keep your ship. You can shave a little here and a little there but unless you build your freighter at TL-15 instead of 11 you don't save much. And the major costs of a high jump ship are the Powerplant, the Jump Drive and the Computer. The hidden cost is the required size of your fuel tanks.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
That actually reminds me I keep meaning to add to this (or some) thread that maybe its not the economic system (price per Jump regardless of range) that's broke but some of the designs.
The T20 TL11 Far-Trader for example says "that it cannot really compete on a main", so it must have a certain market niche to fill, maybe something like Bhoins pointed out above. And if its not in that niche it won't make its payments.Good point. If a planet is 2 parsecs from a main, but has lots of trade potential, then a jump 2 ship becomes desirable since a jump 1 ship must make a deep space jump (which costs in life support overheads, salaries, and the cargo hold wasted with fuel tanks) to get there.
Try also to stick to worlds that are going to give you good passenger numbers. </font>[/QUOTE]That is great in Theory, only problem is that it still pays no matter the distance of the jump. Just because a Jump-1 freighter can't get there doesn't mean you are allowed to charge more for the trip. It just means the planets that aren't on the main aren't going to see ships. (Well they may see some but since Jump-2 ships take losses whenever they travel, (except Priority Cargo, Security Cargo and Hazardous Cargo) it doesn't help that there isn't any jump one ships that can get there. The stop just isn't profitable so nobody goes there. Now if we charge per parsec, for everything, instead of per jump...... Suddenly the Liner and Far Trader are as good as the Free Trader and the Fat Trader for making money. Trade flows and everyone is happy. (Well perhaps everyone except those people sitting on interdicted worlds. smile.gif ) The funny thing about it is that in most cases you recoup your 20% down in about the same time frame no matter what the jump potential of your ship is. A Jump-1 Ship that plies the main will make its 20% down in profits about the same time a Far Trader does and about the same time a Liner does. Since the ship costs vary the amount of time does vary depending which rule set you are using. Also remember that if you are travelling about, like a typical adventurer, intead of trying to stick to two Rich, Industrial, Hi-Pop, close to even tech level worlds that are at the limit of your jump, you aren't always going to get your full jump potential out of each leg. If you average 1 jump less than your max per month, (Jump-1 vs Jump-2) you still stay ahead, if you are short 2 in a month then you are behind. IMHO this makes things a bit more interesting in terms of playing the game instead of just trying to cut your costs to nil just to keep your ship. You can shave a little here and a little there but unless you build your freighter at TL-15 instead of 11 you don't save much. And the major costs of a high jump ship are the Powerplant, the Jump Drive and the Computer. The hidden cost is the required size of your fuel tanks.
ChaserCaffey
February 10th, 2005, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
The other option would be to use some kind of currency exchange rate tied to energy production (i.e. powerplants) so that it makes economic sense to build ships at the lower TLs. After all its long been canon that the Imperium supports builds across all TLs. So it'd be a good idea to have a fair reason for it, like it being cheaper to build a TL11 Far-Trader than a similar performance TL13 Far-Trader. A difference of enough that the first can make as good a go of it as the latter. There are actually rules for this in the TNE main book. It basically answers the question "when is a credit not a credit?", and answers "when you're not on a TL-15 world with an active starport". Currencies on worlds with lower TLs or smaller starports are worth substantially less.
Now, the TNE rules say that the bank financing the ship's construction will usually be on the same world, but if the characters are getting financed as part of a muster-out benefit you can imagine them getting financing from a bank at their muster-out station, which might well be (for example) Rhylanor. If that's true, then buying a TL-11 far trader might offer a substantial advantage, since they'll need fewer of those TL-15 loan credits to buy a comparable ship.
The other option would be to use some kind of currency exchange rate tied to energy production (i.e. powerplants) so that it makes economic sense to build ships at the lower TLs. After all its long been canon that the Imperium supports builds across all TLs. So it'd be a good idea to have a fair reason for it, like it being cheaper to build a TL11 Far-Trader than a similar performance TL13 Far-Trader. A difference of enough that the first can make as good a go of it as the latter. There are actually rules for this in the TNE main book. It basically answers the question "when is a credit not a credit?", and answers "when you're not on a TL-15 world with an active starport". Currencies on worlds with lower TLs or smaller starports are worth substantially less.
Now, the TNE rules say that the bank financing the ship's construction will usually be on the same world, but if the characters are getting financed as part of a muster-out benefit you can imagine them getting financing from a bank at their muster-out station, which might well be (for example) Rhylanor. If that's true, then buying a TL-11 far trader might offer a substantial advantage, since they'll need fewer of those TL-15 loan credits to buy a comparable ship.
BetterThanLife
February 10th, 2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
In the Spinward Marches, what about Porozlo/Rhylanor (Pop-A TL-B) and Rhylanor/Rhylanor (Pop-9 TL-15)? Are their tech levels too far apart?Actually yes they are. That gives you a -4 on the trip from Rhylanor to Porozlo and can result in less than a full load. The reason to keep within one tech level is the -1 won't hurt you on high pop worlds is you are still travelling full of Priority cargo. You go -4 and you might not even be able to load your 6-7 High Passengers, and you certainly won't be able to carry a full load of Priority Cargo.
Overall (still discussing the Spinward Marches, as well), I've got to say, that excellent though these various cost-analyses are, they make the dangerous full-load assumption. Yes, I acknowledge that it is probably a part of the premise being made here that ships aren't profitable even at full-loads. However, those apparently profitable Free-Traders, stuck on their J-1 routes, are going to hover around a few ideal locations just as the Far Traders, because many worlds along the J-1 routes don't have a population large enough to cause the holds and berths to fill up. If they make big expeditions up and down the Spinward Main, they'll go broke.
Which is why I set the parameters as I did. High pop worlds with TL +/-1. Under those circumstances with a Far Trader your ship is generally full. Get to the big ships and it won't be.
<SNIP!>
Into this rides the GM, with shady deals and offers with extra money. Of course, for starship owners, to make it attractive enough to stop jumping long enough to go adventuring, it's going to have to be in the hundreds of thousands . . .But of course. However my point is the ship needs to be inherently profitable so that the characters are out advneturing to make up short falls or because something caught their eye. Not because the ship can never pay for itself without adventuring. Otherwise characters will tend not to own those types of ships. The party will be in a Scout Ship or travelling as passengers/crew on someone elses ship.
This goes back to a post I made over on the Traveller Cargo Standards thread. We need two mechanics. One for the PCs on campaign. And another to simulate the background of Trade & Commerce in general among the stars, so that background/worldbuilding junkies like me (and, I assume, many others here) have the common framework with which to build similar economics and trade visions in their interstellar nations, instead of having lots of House Rules (no matter how good they are). The funny part of the whole world building sequence when accompanied with the economic model of price per jump regardless of distance is that many High Tech, High Pop worlds are off the mains and therefore should be backwaters instead of centers of commerce. You can't get to or from Trin or Rhylanor without a Jump-2 ship. But you can't finance a J-2 ship so you can go there. Catch-22. It isn't profitable to run into Rhylanor or Trin so very few trade ships will go there. It is even less profitable to leave. Therefore they can't be Trade Centers or well developed systems because they are cut off from everywhere. That is the inherent problem with the system of charging per jump regardless of distance. It isn't simply that a Jump-2+ ship can't be operated at a profit. It is the implications that follow.
Now Trin and Rhylanor have a substantial economy and can use that to subsidize ships to go in and out of the clusters that they are located in, however if the ships have to be operated at a loss then the economy will be bankrupt eventually. The big reason to offer subsidies is to stimulate trade. Since the ships will be operating at a loss they aren't really stimulating trade, because unless you have a subsidy you can't go there.
In the Spinward Marches, what about Porozlo/Rhylanor (Pop-A TL-B) and Rhylanor/Rhylanor (Pop-9 TL-15)? Are their tech levels too far apart?Actually yes they are. That gives you a -4 on the trip from Rhylanor to Porozlo and can result in less than a full load. The reason to keep within one tech level is the -1 won't hurt you on high pop worlds is you are still travelling full of Priority cargo. You go -4 and you might not even be able to load your 6-7 High Passengers, and you certainly won't be able to carry a full load of Priority Cargo.
Overall (still discussing the Spinward Marches, as well), I've got to say, that excellent though these various cost-analyses are, they make the dangerous full-load assumption. Yes, I acknowledge that it is probably a part of the premise being made here that ships aren't profitable even at full-loads. However, those apparently profitable Free-Traders, stuck on their J-1 routes, are going to hover around a few ideal locations just as the Far Traders, because many worlds along the J-1 routes don't have a population large enough to cause the holds and berths to fill up. If they make big expeditions up and down the Spinward Main, they'll go broke.
Which is why I set the parameters as I did. High pop worlds with TL +/-1. Under those circumstances with a Far Trader your ship is generally full. Get to the big ships and it won't be.
<SNIP!>
Into this rides the GM, with shady deals and offers with extra money. Of course, for starship owners, to make it attractive enough to stop jumping long enough to go adventuring, it's going to have to be in the hundreds of thousands . . .But of course. However my point is the ship needs to be inherently profitable so that the characters are out advneturing to make up short falls or because something caught their eye. Not because the ship can never pay for itself without adventuring. Otherwise characters will tend not to own those types of ships. The party will be in a Scout Ship or travelling as passengers/crew on someone elses ship.
This goes back to a post I made over on the Traveller Cargo Standards thread. We need two mechanics. One for the PCs on campaign. And another to simulate the background of Trade & Commerce in general among the stars, so that background/worldbuilding junkies like me (and, I assume, many others here) have the common framework with which to build similar economics and trade visions in their interstellar nations, instead of having lots of House Rules (no matter how good they are). The funny part of the whole world building sequence when accompanied with the economic model of price per jump regardless of distance is that many High Tech, High Pop worlds are off the mains and therefore should be backwaters instead of centers of commerce. You can't get to or from Trin or Rhylanor without a Jump-2 ship. But you can't finance a J-2 ship so you can go there. Catch-22. It isn't profitable to run into Rhylanor or Trin so very few trade ships will go there. It is even less profitable to leave. Therefore they can't be Trade Centers or well developed systems because they are cut off from everywhere. That is the inherent problem with the system of charging per jump regardless of distance. It isn't simply that a Jump-2+ ship can't be operated at a profit. It is the implications that follow.
Now Trin and Rhylanor have a substantial economy and can use that to subsidize ships to go in and out of the clusters that they are located in, however if the ships have to be operated at a loss then the economy will be bankrupt eventually. The big reason to offer subsidies is to stimulate trade. Since the ships will be operating at a loss they aren't really stimulating trade, because unless you have a subsidy you can't go there.
aramis
February 10th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Having had players run profitable J3 vessels, it' all in how much and how good you speculate.
Under T20 trade mechanics, the players made money with a J3M1 freight & spec model... Buy the spec first. Use of broker at powerful levels makes spec trade profitable.
I've had players with large J3 ships (1-5KTd) make money under MT, as well, using MT's included MP trade system. You just have to have the broker.
Historically, until transatlantic cables, much trade between europe and the americas was speculative.
Heck, cargo brokerage exists today, so it must be profitable for both the broker and the speculator.
Now (Under CT & T20) one sure fire way to lower your per tonnage op costs per cargo ton is to build at 1000 Td+; you no longer loose out due to bridge tonnage minimums
Under T20 trade mechanics, the players made money with a J3M1 freight & spec model... Buy the spec first. Use of broker at powerful levels makes spec trade profitable.
I've had players with large J3 ships (1-5KTd) make money under MT, as well, using MT's included MP trade system. You just have to have the broker.
Historically, until transatlantic cables, much trade between europe and the americas was speculative.
Heck, cargo brokerage exists today, so it must be profitable for both the broker and the speculator.
Now (Under CT & T20) one sure fire way to lower your per tonnage op costs per cargo ton is to build at 1000 Td+; you no longer loose out due to bridge tonnage minimums
Fritz_Brown
February 10th, 2005, 05:05 PM
Aramis,
A lot of those plying speculative trade 'twixt America and Europe back then also went broke. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and some people seem to never get to the latter half of that.
A lot of those plying speculative trade 'twixt America and Europe back then also went broke. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and some people seem to never get to the latter half of that.
ChaserCaffey
February 10th, 2005, 08:16 PM
Just for fun, I ran the starship costs through the currency converter in TNE. The far trader listed in the back of the book (Jayhawk class) has a listed price of 55.95 MCr and a TL of 12. Assuming it's built at a world with a Starport rating of A, and the players are paying in credits from a TL-15 world with Starport A, the price comes out to 47.56 MCr, 198,166 Cr for monthly payments instead of 233,125.
Would that make enough of a difference to make the ship profitable? If so, we might expect to see higher-TL yards mostly used for Naval and Megacorp construction, while backwater yards in lower-tech systems handle construction for free traders. Means a lot of visits to seedy outback planets for the intrepid PCs.
Would that make enough of a difference to make the ship profitable? If so, we might expect to see higher-TL yards mostly used for Naval and Megacorp construction, while backwater yards in lower-tech systems handle construction for free traders. Means a lot of visits to seedy outback planets for the intrepid PCs.
BetterThanLife
February 10th, 2005, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Aramis:
Having had players run profitable J3 vessels, it' all in how much and how good you speculate.
Under T20 trade mechanics, the players made money with a J3M1 freight & spec model... Buy the spec first. Use of broker at powerful levels makes spec trade profitable.
I've had players with large J3 ships (1-5KTd) make money under MT, as well, using MT's included MP trade system. You just have to have the broker.
Historically, until transatlantic cables, much trade between europe and the americas was speculative.
Heck, cargo brokerage exists today, so it must be profitable for both the broker and the speculator.
Now (Under CT & T20) one sure fire way to lower your per tonnage op costs per cargo ton is to build at 1000 Td+; you no longer loose out due to bridge tonnage minimums The whole trade and spec is a nice thought. But does it work for the general transport or just for PCs. Think about it. If the seller also has a great broker then the broker skill should pretty much cancel out. Which pokes the big hole in the speculative trade route. You are back to not paying for the ship and Spec Trade becoming extremely dicey. However if only Players can be brokers then for PC ships the system works but not for the average freighter that isn't crewed by Players. So while the players might make it the rest of the Universe goes broke quickly. And the economic model falls apart, especially since many trade centers are not located on mains.
The Concept that the Players can buy low and sell high because one of them has the broker skill doesn't work for me. In a world, especially in Higher Pop worlds there will be whole brokerage firms to deal with these upstart travellers. (And while the PCs may be skilled at it do they have their Series 6, Series 63, Series 7 licenses for this planet?)
For example. I, personally am a very nasty negotiator. I have special training in the subject. I am a hell of a sales person. It has been said that I can sell Ice to Eskimos and Sand to Bedouin. So I cut a good deal on a legal cargo of Coffee in Columbia. I then load it up on a ship, take it into New York harbor, walk into the Commodities Exchange and sell it at a profit? I don't think so. I don't have the connections or the legal licenses to do such a thing. But lets say I did have the license, after all I planned on doing this run on a semi-regular basis. Once I get to New York there aren't going to be better brokers around, better negotiators, people that specialize in this stuff and that is all they do each day is to trade commodities for their clients?
Not having it an opposed test bothers me. It is extremely unrealistic.
OK lets try something else. I get a load of the other Columbian product at a great price. I successfully dodge the Coast Guard, get it into New York Harbor, unload it, walk up to the front door of the head of the Gambino family's home and offer it to him? (As if I knew his address.) Again local connections are the key. The Local Broker is going to have an advantage over the guy coming in town. On both ends of the deal.
How about we pick up something on the New York Exchange and then transport it and sell it on the London Exchange. (Serious sharks at both ends.) I don't care how good a broker you are the brokers on both ends of this trip are going to be better.
But lets use the Broker skill only for Players. No opposed tests. What do the other thousands of ships do to make ends meet? Or are PCs the only ones that can make a Jump-2+ ship profitable?
Having had players run profitable J3 vessels, it' all in how much and how good you speculate.
Under T20 trade mechanics, the players made money with a J3M1 freight & spec model... Buy the spec first. Use of broker at powerful levels makes spec trade profitable.
I've had players with large J3 ships (1-5KTd) make money under MT, as well, using MT's included MP trade system. You just have to have the broker.
Historically, until transatlantic cables, much trade between europe and the americas was speculative.
Heck, cargo brokerage exists today, so it must be profitable for both the broker and the speculator.
Now (Under CT & T20) one sure fire way to lower your per tonnage op costs per cargo ton is to build at 1000 Td+; you no longer loose out due to bridge tonnage minimums The whole trade and spec is a nice thought. But does it work for the general transport or just for PCs. Think about it. If the seller also has a great broker then the broker skill should pretty much cancel out. Which pokes the big hole in the speculative trade route. You are back to not paying for the ship and Spec Trade becoming extremely dicey. However if only Players can be brokers then for PC ships the system works but not for the average freighter that isn't crewed by Players. So while the players might make it the rest of the Universe goes broke quickly. And the economic model falls apart, especially since many trade centers are not located on mains.
The Concept that the Players can buy low and sell high because one of them has the broker skill doesn't work for me. In a world, especially in Higher Pop worlds there will be whole brokerage firms to deal with these upstart travellers. (And while the PCs may be skilled at it do they have their Series 6, Series 63, Series 7 licenses for this planet?)
For example. I, personally am a very nasty negotiator. I have special training in the subject. I am a hell of a sales person. It has been said that I can sell Ice to Eskimos and Sand to Bedouin. So I cut a good deal on a legal cargo of Coffee in Columbia. I then load it up on a ship, take it into New York harbor, walk into the Commodities Exchange and sell it at a profit? I don't think so. I don't have the connections or the legal licenses to do such a thing. But lets say I did have the license, after all I planned on doing this run on a semi-regular basis. Once I get to New York there aren't going to be better brokers around, better negotiators, people that specialize in this stuff and that is all they do each day is to trade commodities for their clients?
Not having it an opposed test bothers me. It is extremely unrealistic.
OK lets try something else. I get a load of the other Columbian product at a great price. I successfully dodge the Coast Guard, get it into New York Harbor, unload it, walk up to the front door of the head of the Gambino family's home and offer it to him? (As if I knew his address.) Again local connections are the key. The Local Broker is going to have an advantage over the guy coming in town. On both ends of the deal.
How about we pick up something on the New York Exchange and then transport it and sell it on the London Exchange. (Serious sharks at both ends.) I don't care how good a broker you are the brokers on both ends of this trip are going to be better.
But lets use the Broker skill only for Players. No opposed tests. What do the other thousands of ships do to make ends meet? Or are PCs the only ones that can make a Jump-2+ ship profitable?
mike wightman
February 11th, 2005, 04:09 AM
A couple of solutions to the problem of making higher jump freighters and liners profitable, without rewriting the basic trade and commerce rules.
Buy a secondhand ship - unfortunately Traveller doesn't allow for this, except for the Scout/Courier in Traders and Gunboats, and only cash payment is usually accepted ;)
MegaCorporations and large shipping lines must be able to buy ships at cost, without being crippled by mortgage payments the higher jump numbers can be made to pay their way.
Do Megacorps sell off last years models???
Re-mortgage a ship result from character generation.
Say your referee is kind enough to grant pooling of ship results and/or to select alternative merchant models to the type A each extra receipt is ten years payment.
Calculate how much is still left to pay and remortgage over 40 years.
Buy a secondhand ship - unfortunately Traveller doesn't allow for this, except for the Scout/Courier in Traders and Gunboats, and only cash payment is usually accepted ;)
MegaCorporations and large shipping lines must be able to buy ships at cost, without being crippled by mortgage payments the higher jump numbers can be made to pay their way.
Do Megacorps sell off last years models???
Re-mortgage a ship result from character generation.
Say your referee is kind enough to grant pooling of ship results and/or to select alternative merchant models to the type A each extra receipt is ten years payment.
Calculate how much is still left to pay and remortgage over 40 years.
daryen
February 11th, 2005, 01:48 PM
I completely agree with Bhoin's assessment of Brokers. I imagine that most hi-pop worlds (with any sort of LL) will require the use of local brokers. Regardless of whether they are better or not, I doubt the local broker brotherhood is going to look kindly at the intrusion of alien competition.
So, even if a given group of players, with the right skills, can make money from a broken system, it doesn't mean the system isn't still broken.
As for how to make trading work, do the following:
- use a per parsec model.
- allow ships to be bought and financed used.
- never use Book 5 or MT ship prices.
(I have no idea why, but Book 5 and MT (which was apparently completely based on Book 5) ship prices are absolutely insane. Compared to either Book 2 or TNE, the prices are massively inflated. If you insist on Book 5 or MT, you must divide prices by at least a factor of 2.)
I have posted the per parsec price model already, but I can do so again, if it would help. But per parsec pricing is the only way to make the system remotely workable.
So, even if a given group of players, with the right skills, can make money from a broken system, it doesn't mean the system isn't still broken.
As for how to make trading work, do the following:
- use a per parsec model.
- allow ships to be bought and financed used.
- never use Book 5 or MT ship prices.
(I have no idea why, but Book 5 and MT (which was apparently completely based on Book 5) ship prices are absolutely insane. Compared to either Book 2 or TNE, the prices are massively inflated. If you insist on Book 5 or MT, you must divide prices by at least a factor of 2.)
I have posted the per parsec price model already, but I can do so again, if it would help. But per parsec pricing is the only way to make the system remotely workable.
BetterThanLife
February 11th, 2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
A couple of solutions to the problem of making higher jump freighters and liners profitable, without rewriting the basic trade and commerce rules.
Buy a secondhand ship - unfortunately Traveller doesn't allow for this, except for the Scout/Courier in Traders and Gunboats, and only cash payment is usually accepted ;)
MegaCorporations and large shipping lines must be able to buy ships at cost, without being crippled by mortgage payments the higher jump numbers can be made to pay their way.
Do Megacorps sell off last years models???
Re-mortgage a ship result from character generation.
Say your referee is kind enough to grant pooling of ship results and/or to select alternative merchant models to the type A each extra receipt is ten years payment.
Calculate how much is still left to pay and remortgage over 40 years. Interesting points. However, when buying a preowned (used) car, do you get the same financing rates as a new car? Or the same financing term lengths? Not likely. Why would ships be different?
OK so Mega Corporations pay cash for their ships. (Or have one division loan the money to another division and write off the interest as operating expenses for tax purposes, or whatever. Same difference.) The Corporation, or individual for that matter that pays cash for a ship, is still going to take more than 20 years to recover their investment when buying a jump>1 ship. Most corporations that stay in business have to show a profit most quarters and virtually all years. If you don't the stock holders sell off their stock, devaluing the company and potentially causing it to fail. (Remember the Dot-bomb debacle?) Corporations are out there to make a profit. That is the nature of their existance. Most are not willing to take losses for 20 years before making profits.
Corporations may sell off these ships after 25-40 years but unless there are maintenance problems not generally before they have actually made a profit. (I figure more like 30-40 years, if that soon.)
Under the finance rules, a Free Trader will recover its 20% down in between (depending on the rule set) 5 and 10 years. A Far Trader will operate at a significant loss until it is paid off. (40 years).
Now if you switch to the per parsec model, again depending on the rule set, the Free Trader, the Far Trader, the Sub Merchant and the Sub Liner all pay off the 20% down in about the same time frame, between 5 and 10 years. How close they are depends on how often you are able to travel at the limits of your jump drive and/or how full you can travel. Remember the bigger ships are less likely to be able to travel full.
With major trade centers off the mains, the way financing works and the fact that trade happens even in areas like the Gateway Domain where there are no long mains and very few large clusters it almost seems that the Per Parsec model was part of the original concept of the rules. It just seems to work better. Perhaps that is a question that should be asked of MWM. smile.gif
A couple of solutions to the problem of making higher jump freighters and liners profitable, without rewriting the basic trade and commerce rules.
Buy a secondhand ship - unfortunately Traveller doesn't allow for this, except for the Scout/Courier in Traders and Gunboats, and only cash payment is usually accepted ;)
MegaCorporations and large shipping lines must be able to buy ships at cost, without being crippled by mortgage payments the higher jump numbers can be made to pay their way.
Do Megacorps sell off last years models???
Re-mortgage a ship result from character generation.
Say your referee is kind enough to grant pooling of ship results and/or to select alternative merchant models to the type A each extra receipt is ten years payment.
Calculate how much is still left to pay and remortgage over 40 years. Interesting points. However, when buying a preowned (used) car, do you get the same financing rates as a new car? Or the same financing term lengths? Not likely. Why would ships be different?
OK so Mega Corporations pay cash for their ships. (Or have one division loan the money to another division and write off the interest as operating expenses for tax purposes, or whatever. Same difference.) The Corporation, or individual for that matter that pays cash for a ship, is still going to take more than 20 years to recover their investment when buying a jump>1 ship. Most corporations that stay in business have to show a profit most quarters and virtually all years. If you don't the stock holders sell off their stock, devaluing the company and potentially causing it to fail. (Remember the Dot-bomb debacle?) Corporations are out there to make a profit. That is the nature of their existance. Most are not willing to take losses for 20 years before making profits.
Corporations may sell off these ships after 25-40 years but unless there are maintenance problems not generally before they have actually made a profit. (I figure more like 30-40 years, if that soon.)
Under the finance rules, a Free Trader will recover its 20% down in between (depending on the rule set) 5 and 10 years. A Far Trader will operate at a significant loss until it is paid off. (40 years).
Now if you switch to the per parsec model, again depending on the rule set, the Free Trader, the Far Trader, the Sub Merchant and the Sub Liner all pay off the 20% down in about the same time frame, between 5 and 10 years. How close they are depends on how often you are able to travel at the limits of your jump drive and/or how full you can travel. Remember the bigger ships are less likely to be able to travel full.
With major trade centers off the mains, the way financing works and the fact that trade happens even in areas like the Gateway Domain where there are no long mains and very few large clusters it almost seems that the Per Parsec model was part of the original concept of the rules. It just seems to work better. Perhaps that is a question that should be asked of MWM. smile.gif
mike wightman
February 11th, 2005, 02:57 PM
Interesting points. However, when buying a preowned (used) car, do you get the same financing rates as a new car? Or the same financing term lengths? Not likely. Why would ships be different?Yes, yes I can ;)
I don't know how it works in the States, but here in Blighty I can take out a bank loan to buy a car up to my credit rating.
It wouldn't matter to the bank if I buy a brand new Ford or a secondhand Lexus.
But I take your point, especially since ships aren't financed like cars ;)
I don't know how it works in the States, but here in Blighty I can take out a bank loan to buy a car up to my credit rating.
It wouldn't matter to the bank if I buy a brand new Ford or a secondhand Lexus.
But I take your point, especially since ships aren't financed like cars ;)
BetterThanLife
February 11th, 2005, 03:09 PM
BTW Corporations are going to finance ships. Why buy one when you can leverage the use of 5 for the same amount. As long as they can recover their investment in a reasonable amount of time and then start turning a profit then that is a better route for corporations. In this way they are moving more product and expanding. In LBB2 a Free Trader makes back its 20% down in about 6 years of running full. So you take the price of a Free Trader, and finance 5 of them. You write off the price of the Free Trader. You bank the profits of each free trader above its mortgage. At the end of 6-7 years you go out and use that money to buy 5 more free traders. Still banking the money 6-7 more years, you buy 10 free traders, 6-7 more years you buy 20 Free Traders. so in 24-28 years you now have 40 free traders plying the space lanes and moving your product. If you pay cash for the ships then at the end of 30 years you have 4 ships. Granted they are paid for but you only have 4 ships. Under the other model you have 40-80 ships in space the at about 30 years. And you are making a profit all with the seed capital of the price of one Free Trader.
If you stop at 40 you are definitely making more profit at that point with the 40 ships that you are making payments on than the 4 that are paid off. Or you can grow a little slower. The first 6 years for each ship is to buy a new ship then the rest is banked as profit. At the end of 30 years you have 25 ships, which is still going to keep expanding your fleet and putting money in your accounts, more than the 4 paid for ships will.
If you stop at 40 you are definitely making more profit at that point with the 40 ships that you are making payments on than the 4 that are paid off. Or you can grow a little slower. The first 6 years for each ship is to buy a new ship then the rest is banked as profit. At the end of 30 years you have 25 ships, which is still going to keep expanding your fleet and putting money in your accounts, more than the 4 paid for ships will.
BetterThanLife
February 11th, 2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Interesting points. However, when buying a preowned (used) car, do you get the same financing rates as a new car? Or the same financing term lengths? Not likely. Why would ships be different?Yes, yes I can ;)
I don't know how it works in the States, but here in Blighty I can take out a bank loan to buy a car up to my credit rating.
It wouldn't matter to the bank if I buy a brand new Ford or a secondhand Lexus.
But I take your point, especially since ships aren't financed like cars ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Here in the States, good credit new car loans run between 0% and 4% interest. Used Car loans tend to start at 6% and can run as high as 13%. New car loans can have a term up to 6 years, used car loans tend to run no more than 3-4 years.
BTW a new home, at least here in the States, (new construction, not just new to you) can usually be bought at a lower mortgage rate (or at least a lower initial mortgage rate) than a new to you but pre-existing home.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Interesting points. However, when buying a preowned (used) car, do you get the same financing rates as a new car? Or the same financing term lengths? Not likely. Why would ships be different?Yes, yes I can ;)
I don't know how it works in the States, but here in Blighty I can take out a bank loan to buy a car up to my credit rating.
It wouldn't matter to the bank if I buy a brand new Ford or a secondhand Lexus.
But I take your point, especially since ships aren't financed like cars ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Here in the States, good credit new car loans run between 0% and 4% interest. Used Car loans tend to start at 6% and can run as high as 13%. New car loans can have a term up to 6 years, used car loans tend to run no more than 3-4 years.
BTW a new home, at least here in the States, (new construction, not just new to you) can usually be bought at a lower mortgage rate (or at least a lower initial mortgage rate) than a new to you but pre-existing home.
mike wightman
February 11th, 2005, 03:41 PM
Does anyone know how shipping lines finance their ships in the real world?
BetterThanLife
February 11th, 2005, 03:52 PM
I seem to remember reading that the US pays for Aircraft Carriers over 10 years.
Straybow
February 14th, 2005, 12:07 AM
The real economic price per ton for Traveller starships makes the comparison fall into the air carrier range rather than surface ship range.
Air carriers finance by issuing bonds and other investment instruments, as well as leveraging assets by as much as 10:1 with investment bankers. Investment trading is one of those things that goes on behind the scenes and wackos think it is the Illuminati taking over the world.
Air carriers finance by issuing bonds and other investment instruments, as well as leveraging assets by as much as 10:1 with investment bankers. Investment trading is one of those things that goes on behind the scenes and wackos think it is the Illuminati taking over the world.
Fritz_Brown
February 14th, 2005, 01:01 PM
A lot of freight carrier finances are a house of cards. Bhoins example (on the previous page of posts) is right - the financing pyramid. One bad year, though, (if you were too agressive) and you have 36 debts and no ships. That is what has happened with US air carriers after 9/11 - they weren't really leveraged for a downturn.
I just bring that up to point out that there are a lot of barriers to entry for the small operator. A majority of small businesses fail. A lot of great ideas end up in bankruptcy court. The difference is, of course, that we don't our PCs to be a statistic - we want them to (eventually graemlins/file_22.gif ) succeed, as it is more fun for all that way.
How to do this, while keeping all us gear/finance/mil-heads happy is what makes these forums so much fun.
I just bring that up to point out that there are a lot of barriers to entry for the small operator. A majority of small businesses fail. A lot of great ideas end up in bankruptcy court. The difference is, of course, that we don't our PCs to be a statistic - we want them to (eventually graemlins/file_22.gif ) succeed, as it is more fun for all that way.
How to do this, while keeping all us gear/finance/mil-heads happy is what makes these forums so much fun.
aramis
February 14th, 2005, 07:31 PM
Spec Trade, using paid brokers, is all that's needed to break a profit. Brokers make money at both ends; using the +3 or +4 broker is all that is really needed, plus careful use of the predict a die ability of trader skill.
Most merchants in the pre-cable days made money, mostly on spec. In the age of sail, most merchants made money most of the time on spec. If there hadn't been more people making money than not, it would not have been a long term business.
You are approaching it from a distance=money standpoint, like the airlines: freight and passengers both carried for hire only. That is NOT the model for traveller. The age of sail is... and paid freight and passengers were incidentals, not staples.
Lets face it, mechanically, Broker +3, and a trader roll showing us a 1st die of purchase price of 3 or less, allows us to figure that that load will cost at most 90% of base. if we know that we can get a +3 broker at the other end (B or A port), and the roll is 3+, we know that the sale will be at a minimum 100% base price, probably more. so at worst, you're looking at 10% base value more than half the time. with Bk7 T&C, that's a base purchase of about 4.5K and base sale of about 5.5K, or about 4.1K purchased max, and 5.5 K sale min. Sooo, you can expect a minimum return, IF YOU ARE SMART AND USE YOUR TRADER SKILL, of about 1400 cr/ton, with occasional bursts up to KCr5 per ton, and occasional losses. (The losses are usually from failed trader rolls.)
Now, under Bk2 or T20, apply the same restrictions, and the base buy and sell are the same. Under T20, you have the advantage of multiple lots available; 2/6th of lots will meet the requirements above; it's not uncommon to have 6 to 10 lots available. you need a base value of KCr5 to guarantee a match to paid freight; but 35/36 of the time, you make more than that on those loads. Fill rest with freight, and voila, profit.
And, by the way, with a little care, a J2 can make better on spec than a J1. J3 and J3 breaks about even; the lost revenue in hold is made up for by better targets. J4 even spec gets dicey.
Most merchants in the pre-cable days made money, mostly on spec. In the age of sail, most merchants made money most of the time on spec. If there hadn't been more people making money than not, it would not have been a long term business.
You are approaching it from a distance=money standpoint, like the airlines: freight and passengers both carried for hire only. That is NOT the model for traveller. The age of sail is... and paid freight and passengers were incidentals, not staples.
Lets face it, mechanically, Broker +3, and a trader roll showing us a 1st die of purchase price of 3 or less, allows us to figure that that load will cost at most 90% of base. if we know that we can get a +3 broker at the other end (B or A port), and the roll is 3+, we know that the sale will be at a minimum 100% base price, probably more. so at worst, you're looking at 10% base value more than half the time. with Bk7 T&C, that's a base purchase of about 4.5K and base sale of about 5.5K, or about 4.1K purchased max, and 5.5 K sale min. Sooo, you can expect a minimum return, IF YOU ARE SMART AND USE YOUR TRADER SKILL, of about 1400 cr/ton, with occasional bursts up to KCr5 per ton, and occasional losses. (The losses are usually from failed trader rolls.)
Now, under Bk2 or T20, apply the same restrictions, and the base buy and sell are the same. Under T20, you have the advantage of multiple lots available; 2/6th of lots will meet the requirements above; it's not uncommon to have 6 to 10 lots available. you need a base value of KCr5 to guarantee a match to paid freight; but 35/36 of the time, you make more than that on those loads. Fill rest with freight, and voila, profit.
And, by the way, with a little care, a J2 can make better on spec than a J1. J3 and J3 breaks about even; the lost revenue in hold is made up for by better targets. J4 even spec gets dicey.
far-trader
February 14th, 2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Aramis:
Spec Trade, using paid brokers, is all that's needed to break a profit. Brokers make money at both ends; using the +3 or +4 broker is all that is really needed, plus careful use of the predict a die ability of trader skill.Of course that presumes that you can find a Broker of that skill, and trust them not to rob you. I use rolls for both those tests.
In my CT you could find a Broker on a roll of 8+ with DM -X and Starport DM's of +1 for class A, -1 for class C, or -2 for class D. No Brokers on class E and lower. X is Broker skill level, maximum value of 4 but the player chooses it. I then roll 2d6 and reference the table below with a DM across the top for the Broker skill level and a DM down the side for the Starport class (rolls off table are treated as 1 or 6 as appropriate).
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 1 2 3 4 5 6 < (DM +X)
1 F C C F F F
2 C C F F F F
3 C F F F F F
4 F F F C F F
5 F F F F F C
6 F F F F C C
^ (DM for Port)</pre>[/QUOTE]F is a fair deal, the Broker does their best and charges the standard rate.
C is a cheat, the Broker does their best but skims off the top to the tune of reducing the final value roll by 1. So for example the final value roll with all the DM's is actually 11, you (the Broker) reports it to the player(s) as a 10. The player(s) collect 130% and the Broker (and his collaborators) skim 20% for themselves.
Naturally you can't let the player's see the final value roll and you'll have to make sure the result is within the realm of possibility, unless you want the crooked Broker to get caught ;) ...
"But if I don't have the 10K by end of business today the Marquis will sell my family into bondage and I'll never see them again <sob> so I had to try to cheat you, can't you help me please <wahhhh>... "
What I'm saying is there are as many reasons for cheating the PC's as your imagination can conceive, this is just one example. Have a few ready in case they catch on, or get suspicious enough to do some checking smile.gif
And of course Travellers (i.e. PC's unless you have a non-travelling kind of game) are never Brokers. Brokers require time in a market to develop contacts and knowledge, you can't be a roving broker. I mention it only because I seem to recall someone (maybe one of our old games) wanting Broker skill for a PC.
Spec Trade, using paid brokers, is all that's needed to break a profit. Brokers make money at both ends; using the +3 or +4 broker is all that is really needed, plus careful use of the predict a die ability of trader skill.Of course that presumes that you can find a Broker of that skill, and trust them not to rob you. I use rolls for both those tests.
In my CT you could find a Broker on a roll of 8+ with DM -X and Starport DM's of +1 for class A, -1 for class C, or -2 for class D. No Brokers on class E and lower. X is Broker skill level, maximum value of 4 but the player chooses it. I then roll 2d6 and reference the table below with a DM across the top for the Broker skill level and a DM down the side for the Starport class (rolls off table are treated as 1 or 6 as appropriate).
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 1 2 3 4 5 6 < (DM +X)
1 F C C F F F
2 C C F F F F
3 C F F F F F
4 F F F C F F
5 F F F F F C
6 F F F F C C
^ (DM for Port)</pre>[/QUOTE]F is a fair deal, the Broker does their best and charges the standard rate.
C is a cheat, the Broker does their best but skims off the top to the tune of reducing the final value roll by 1. So for example the final value roll with all the DM's is actually 11, you (the Broker) reports it to the player(s) as a 10. The player(s) collect 130% and the Broker (and his collaborators) skim 20% for themselves.
Naturally you can't let the player's see the final value roll and you'll have to make sure the result is within the realm of possibility, unless you want the crooked Broker to get caught ;) ...
"But if I don't have the 10K by end of business today the Marquis will sell my family into bondage and I'll never see them again <sob> so I had to try to cheat you, can't you help me please <wahhhh>... "
What I'm saying is there are as many reasons for cheating the PC's as your imagination can conceive, this is just one example. Have a few ready in case they catch on, or get suspicious enough to do some checking smile.gif
And of course Travellers (i.e. PC's unless you have a non-travelling kind of game) are never Brokers. Brokers require time in a market to develop contacts and knowledge, you can't be a roving broker. I mention it only because I seem to recall someone (maybe one of our old games) wanting Broker skill for a PC.
mike wightman
February 14th, 2005, 10:16 PM
I notice that Broker became a PC skill in SS:Merchant Prince, LBB7 and MT...
So unless you stick to basic character generation PC Merchants may well have Broker skill.
So unless you stick to basic character generation PC Merchants may well have Broker skill.
BetterThanLife
February 14th, 2005, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I notice that Broker became a PC skill in SS:Merchant Prince, LBB7 and MT...
So unless you stick to basic character generation PC Merchants may well have Broker skill. Certainly PCs may have the skill. That doesn't mean that without proper contacts they are going to get lots of mileage out of it. Now if they settle down on a planet, develope contacts then use it that should work. (Which is probably how they aquired it during prior history.) But Brokers, like Real Estate, and Insurance are highly regulated businesses. Licensing requirements are stiff, regulation is serious and review is virtually automatic if someone, anyone, thinks they have been cheated. The reason for all these licenses is that you are dealing with people's life savings. And Governments are expected to protect the people. Now if you are dealing with long exposure to a couple of planets and you have the skill you might get a license.
For example I have a license to sell Insurance in Indiana. To sell in Michigan, a total of 10 miles from my door to the Michigan state line, I would need a license specific to Michigan. I can see broker's licenses being good for a cluster, if you are established as a resident on one of the planets in the cluster. But roaming brokers, just doesn't make sense to me.
I notice that Broker became a PC skill in SS:Merchant Prince, LBB7 and MT...
So unless you stick to basic character generation PC Merchants may well have Broker skill. Certainly PCs may have the skill. That doesn't mean that without proper contacts they are going to get lots of mileage out of it. Now if they settle down on a planet, develope contacts then use it that should work. (Which is probably how they aquired it during prior history.) But Brokers, like Real Estate, and Insurance are highly regulated businesses. Licensing requirements are stiff, regulation is serious and review is virtually automatic if someone, anyone, thinks they have been cheated. The reason for all these licenses is that you are dealing with people's life savings. And Governments are expected to protect the people. Now if you are dealing with long exposure to a couple of planets and you have the skill you might get a license.
For example I have a license to sell Insurance in Indiana. To sell in Michigan, a total of 10 miles from my door to the Michigan state line, I would need a license specific to Michigan. I can see broker's licenses being good for a cluster, if you are established as a resident on one of the planets in the cluster. But roaming brokers, just doesn't make sense to me.
far-trader
February 14th, 2005, 11:17 PM
I recalled it being MT for sure, I was less certain about Book 7 but that sounds about right for when I remember the issue of PC Broker's coming up. I still say it makes no sense but eh, whatever works right. So mtu won't have travelling PC brokers. If they want to settle down and take a desk job like that fine. Cultivate your client list or go indy, maybe struggle for a month to make the minimum contacts you need and then you can apply your Broker skill at a minus -4 and reduce that penalty by 1 each month. So 5 months to become as good as any other local broker with equal talents. Unless I and the player(s) wanted to play a Homeworld version of Traveller. Kinda like DS-9, let the adventures come to the PC's.
edit - Bhoins types faster than I ;)
edit - Bhoins types faster than I ;)
BetterThanLife
February 14th, 2005, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Aramis:
Spec Trade, using paid brokers, is all that's needed to break a profit. Brokers make money at both ends; using the +3 or +4 broker is all that is really needed, plus careful use of the predict a die ability of trader skill. <SNIP> The point I am trying to make is still valid. Yes you have a broker working for you that is a Broker-3. And yes that will give you an advantage on your roll. But what if the seller is a Broker-4 and the guy you hired is only a broker-3. At the otherend you find a Broker-4 but the buyer is a Broker-5. You just probably got hosed on that trip. And whether you make money or lose money the broker still gets their commission. (Brokers are just high class bookies after all. smile.gif )
Given the way the economics work in Traveller, the most successful Merchant character wouldn't have a ship. He would have Broker-4, set up an office at the highport and broker deals for cargos. collecting commissions. You can sell for one customer in the morning and buy for another in the afternoon. After a few months you buy a ship for cash, then when you get bored or want to go on an adventure you take a vacation. Now that is the way to make a killing in the merchant business.
Spec Trade, using paid brokers, is all that's needed to break a profit. Brokers make money at both ends; using the +3 or +4 broker is all that is really needed, plus careful use of the predict a die ability of trader skill. <SNIP> The point I am trying to make is still valid. Yes you have a broker working for you that is a Broker-3. And yes that will give you an advantage on your roll. But what if the seller is a Broker-4 and the guy you hired is only a broker-3. At the otherend you find a Broker-4 but the buyer is a Broker-5. You just probably got hosed on that trip. And whether you make money or lose money the broker still gets their commission. (Brokers are just high class bookies after all. smile.gif )
Given the way the economics work in Traveller, the most successful Merchant character wouldn't have a ship. He would have Broker-4, set up an office at the highport and broker deals for cargos. collecting commissions. You can sell for one customer in the morning and buy for another in the afternoon. After a few months you buy a ship for cash, then when you get bored or want to go on an adventure you take a vacation. Now that is the way to make a killing in the merchant business.
BetterThanLife
February 14th, 2005, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
I recalled it being MT for sure, I was less certain about Book 7 but that sounds about right for when I remember the issue of PC Broker's coming up. I still say it makes no sense but eh, whatever works right. So mtu won't have travelling PC brokers. If they want to settle down and take a desk job like that fine. Cultivate your client list or go indy, maybe struggle for a month to make the minimum contacts you need and then you can apply your Broker skill at a minus -4 and reduce that penalty by 1 each month. So 5 months to become as good as any other local broker with equal talents. Unless I and the player(s) wanted to play a Homeworld version of Traveller. Kinda like DS-9, let the adventures come to the PC's.
edit - Bhoins types faster than I ;) Hehehehhe. DMTA apparently. (Dirty Minds Think Alike.)
I recalled it being MT for sure, I was less certain about Book 7 but that sounds about right for when I remember the issue of PC Broker's coming up. I still say it makes no sense but eh, whatever works right. So mtu won't have travelling PC brokers. If they want to settle down and take a desk job like that fine. Cultivate your client list or go indy, maybe struggle for a month to make the minimum contacts you need and then you can apply your Broker skill at a minus -4 and reduce that penalty by 1 each month. So 5 months to become as good as any other local broker with equal talents. Unless I and the player(s) wanted to play a Homeworld version of Traveller. Kinda like DS-9, let the adventures come to the PC's.
edit - Bhoins types faster than I ;) Hehehehhe. DMTA apparently. (Dirty Minds Think Alike.)
far-trader
February 14th, 2005, 11:23 PM
Actually while typing the earlier note I was thinking maybe PC brokers could work, at least in one case. That of a Subbie. You have a specific route of a limited number of worlds and a regular schedule. So you could have/be a PC broker aboard in that case I'd think. There might be a bit of a penalty for being out of touch for stretches with each market but it could be made up for if you tied in the Trader skill, perhaps offering some synergy with the two skills. Just a thought.
mike wightman
February 14th, 2005, 11:37 PM
Hmm, synergy between skills?
Not a bad idea, and fits into the MT task system.
Some other skills that may be combined with Broker from time to time - admin, bribery, carousing, legal, liaison, streetwise.
By the time you've generated a decent merchant it doesn't leave a lot of room for ship operation skills ;)
I actually agree with you both that a Broker would need extensive contacts on a world, and that it could be quite an adversarial experience.
I like your subbie idea Dan.
Not a bad idea, and fits into the MT task system.
Some other skills that may be combined with Broker from time to time - admin, bribery, carousing, legal, liaison, streetwise.
By the time you've generated a decent merchant it doesn't leave a lot of room for ship operation skills ;)
I actually agree with you both that a Broker would need extensive contacts on a world, and that it could be quite an adversarial experience.
I like your subbie idea Dan.
BetterThanLife
February 14th, 2005, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
Actually while typing the earlier note I was thinking maybe PC brokers could work, at least in one case. That of a Subbie. You have a specific route of a limited number of worlds and a regular schedule. So you could have/be a PC broker aboard in that case I'd think. There might be a bit of a penalty for being out of touch for stretches with each market but it could be made up for if you tied in the Trader skill, perhaps offering some synergy with the two skills. Just a thought. I think you would need to spend longer stopovers on each planet than a typical one week in jump one planetside to become effective. Though after getting established you could go to the next world and get established as well. (And you would have to maintain contacts back home with a few trips in between. I would limit your use of the skill to a small cluster. (Unless you have extensive far reaching contacts from numerous Contacts feats (T20) or similar.
Actually while typing the earlier note I was thinking maybe PC brokers could work, at least in one case. That of a Subbie. You have a specific route of a limited number of worlds and a regular schedule. So you could have/be a PC broker aboard in that case I'd think. There might be a bit of a penalty for being out of touch for stretches with each market but it could be made up for if you tied in the Trader skill, perhaps offering some synergy with the two skills. Just a thought. I think you would need to spend longer stopovers on each planet than a typical one week in jump one planetside to become effective. Though after getting established you could go to the next world and get established as well. (And you would have to maintain contacts back home with a few trips in between. I would limit your use of the skill to a small cluster. (Unless you have extensive far reaching contacts from numerous Contacts feats (T20) or similar.
BetterThanLife
February 14th, 2005, 11:38 PM
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day.
mike wightman
February 14th, 2005, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
I think you would need to spend longer stopovers on each planet than a typical one week in jump one planetside to become effective. Though after getting established you could go to the next world and get established as well. (And you would have to maintain contacts back home with a few trips in between. I would limit your use of the skill to a small cluster. (Unless you have extensive far reaching contacts from numerous Contacts feats (T20) or similar. Leave the crewman broker behind on a planet to build up contacts. Next time you pass by following your subsidy route pick him up and move him onto the next planet.
Once the contact network has been established - could take years depending on the size of the subsidy route - then the crewman can stay on board.
I think you would need to spend longer stopovers on each planet than a typical one week in jump one planetside to become effective. Though after getting established you could go to the next world and get established as well. (And you would have to maintain contacts back home with a few trips in between. I would limit your use of the skill to a small cluster. (Unless you have extensive far reaching contacts from numerous Contacts feats (T20) or similar. Leave the crewman broker behind on a planet to build up contacts. Next time you pass by following your subsidy route pick him up and move him onto the next planet.
Once the contact network has been established - could take years depending on the size of the subsidy route - then the crewman can stay on board.
mike wightman
February 14th, 2005, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. All the more reason for the mix of skills I mentioned earlier ;)
Some combat skills may be required as well... brawling and the like ;)
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. All the more reason for the mix of skills I mentioned earlier ;)
Some combat skills may be required as well... brawling and the like ;)
far-trader
February 14th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. So we're talking a cartel right? The wheels are turning graemlins/file_23.gif
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. So we're talking a cartel right? The wheels are turning graemlins/file_23.gif
far-trader
February 14th, 2005, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. All the more reason for the mix of skills I mentioned earlier ;)
Some combat skills may be required as well... brawling and the like ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Ah yes, we'll need some muscle, now and then graemlins/file_22.gif
Maybe we'll just hire some other PC's graemlins/file_21.gif graemlins/file_23.gif
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. All the more reason for the mix of skills I mentioned earlier ;)
Some combat skills may be required as well... brawling and the like ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Ah yes, we'll need some muscle, now and then graemlins/file_22.gif
Maybe we'll just hire some other PC's graemlins/file_21.gif graemlins/file_23.gif
BetterThanLife
February 15th, 2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. So we're talking a cartel right? The wheels are turning graemlins/file_23.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I was thinking syndicate or Family might prove to be better. Having grown up in NYC, with the right family connections you can also control what gets loaded and what gets unloaded, or more importantly what doesn't get unloaded or loaded. And stuff can fall off the back of a Free Trader. smile.gif
(When I was going to Junior Highschool in Bay Ridge Brooklyn, NYC, there were students talking about going into the family business and usually you knew which family that meant. smile.gif )
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
To be a truly sucessful speculator though you really need control of all five aspects of the deal. You have to control the sale, the buy, the transport, the sale and the buy. Otherwise some other broker can get in there and ruin your whole day. So we're talking a cartel right? The wheels are turning graemlins/file_23.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I was thinking syndicate or Family might prove to be better. Having grown up in NYC, with the right family connections you can also control what gets loaded and what gets unloaded, or more importantly what doesn't get unloaded or loaded. And stuff can fall off the back of a Free Trader. smile.gif
(When I was going to Junior Highschool in Bay Ridge Brooklyn, NYC, there were students talking about going into the family business and usually you knew which family that meant. smile.gif )
mike wightman
February 15th, 2005, 12:15 AM
Which brings us to the crew of a Far Trader conducting borderline illegal activities - what am I saying - outright illegal activities in order to make ends meet ;) graemlins/file_23.gif
ChaserCaffey
February 15th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which brings us to the crew of a Far Trader conducting borderline illegal activities - what am I saying - outright illegal activities in order to make ends meet ;) graemlins/file_23.gif You know, I bet you could make a roleplaying game out of that. We could call it...Voyager? No... Wanderer? No...
:D
My non-sarcastic Cr.02: It seems to have been pretty conclusively established that you need some kind of speculative trade to be working in order to keep a J-2 ship running, because freight and passengers aren't going to cut it. With that in mind, might a somewhat more liberal interpretation of the Broker skill be in order? Since it essentially confers upon the players the ability to buy low and sell high rather than pay the price everyone else says they pay, should it be taken to represent a certain amount of business acumen and general instinct for who the "right" people are to talk to? I particularly like the idea of skills like Streetwise, Carousing, and Bribery acting as enabling skills here.
If we look at it that way, things such as licensing become less of an obstacle. Furthermore, making such licensing regulations less onerous in the 3I than they are currently would seem like a pretty easy thing to wave the "IMTU" wand at. (And then watch the players' faces when they land on a high Law Level world that *does* have strict rules on who's allowed to broker cargo)
Of course, even if they're allowed to broker their own deals and get to be pretty good at it, most crews are going to come up short at some point. Which is, of course, when they decide to overlook the irregularities in the paperwork of the mysterious gentleman with the Solomani accent and a remarkable similarity to the guy who threw a custard pie in the Sector Duke's face last Birthday...
Which brings us to the crew of a Far Trader conducting borderline illegal activities - what am I saying - outright illegal activities in order to make ends meet ;) graemlins/file_23.gif You know, I bet you could make a roleplaying game out of that. We could call it...Voyager? No... Wanderer? No...
:D
My non-sarcastic Cr.02: It seems to have been pretty conclusively established that you need some kind of speculative trade to be working in order to keep a J-2 ship running, because freight and passengers aren't going to cut it. With that in mind, might a somewhat more liberal interpretation of the Broker skill be in order? Since it essentially confers upon the players the ability to buy low and sell high rather than pay the price everyone else says they pay, should it be taken to represent a certain amount of business acumen and general instinct for who the "right" people are to talk to? I particularly like the idea of skills like Streetwise, Carousing, and Bribery acting as enabling skills here.
If we look at it that way, things such as licensing become less of an obstacle. Furthermore, making such licensing regulations less onerous in the 3I than they are currently would seem like a pretty easy thing to wave the "IMTU" wand at. (And then watch the players' faces when they land on a high Law Level world that *does* have strict rules on who's allowed to broker cargo)
Of course, even if they're allowed to broker their own deals and get to be pretty good at it, most crews are going to come up short at some point. Which is, of course, when they decide to overlook the irregularities in the paperwork of the mysterious gentleman with the Solomani accent and a remarkable similarity to the guy who threw a custard pie in the Sector Duke's face last Birthday...
far-trader
February 15th, 2005, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by ChaserCaffey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which brings us to the crew of a Far Trader conducting borderline illegal activities - what am I saying - outright illegal activities in order to make ends meet ;) graemlins/file_23.gif You know, I bet you could make a roleplaying game out of that. We could call it...Voyager? No... Wanderer? No...
:D </font>[/QUOTE]Movers? graemlins/file_22.gif
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which brings us to the crew of a Far Trader conducting borderline illegal activities - what am I saying - outright illegal activities in order to make ends meet ;) graemlins/file_23.gif You know, I bet you could make a roleplaying game out of that. We could call it...Voyager? No... Wanderer? No...
:D </font>[/QUOTE]Movers? graemlins/file_22.gif
BetterThanLife
February 15th, 2005, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by ChaserCaffey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which brings us to the crew of a Far Trader conducting borderline illegal activities - what am I saying - outright illegal activities in order to make ends meet ;) graemlins/file_23.gif You know, I bet you could make a roleplaying game out of that. We could call it...Voyager? No... Wanderer? No...
:D
My non-sarcastic Cr.02: It seems to have been pretty conclusively established that you need some kind of speculative trade to be working in order to keep a J-2 ship running, because freight and passengers aren't going to cut it. With that in mind, might a somewhat more liberal interpretation of the Broker skill be in order? Since it essentially confers upon the players the ability to buy low and sell high rather than pay the price everyone else says they pay, should it be taken to represent a certain amount of business acumen and general instinct for who the "right" people are to talk to? I particularly like the idea of skills like Streetwise, Carousing, and Bribery acting as enabling skills here.
If we look at it that way, things such as licensing become less of an obstacle. Furthermore, making such licensing regulations less onerous in the 3I than they are currently would seem like a pretty easy thing to wave the "IMTU" wand at. (And then watch the players' faces when they land on a high Law Level world that *does* have strict rules on who's allowed to broker cargo)
Of course, even if they're allowed to broker their own deals and get to be pretty good at it, most crews are going to come up short at some point. Which is, of course, when they decide to overlook the irregularities in the paperwork of the mysterious gentleman with the Solomani accent and a remarkable similarity to the guy who threw a custard pie in the Sector Duke's face last Birthday... </font>[/QUOTE]Then we are back to only Player Characters can make a J2+ Ship make its payments. I understand the adventure idea to make up for lost money occasionally. But when the adventure hook is always, this ship can't pay for itself so we will have to embark on some highly dangerous and legally questionable endeavor every new adventure, the players, if they have half a brain, will dump the ship and adventure without their own ship. If the only way to consistently make mortgage payments with a J2+ ship is to take horrible chances and engage in illegal activity then banks won't offer mortgages on J2+ ships. If banks don't offer mortgages on J2+ ships then virtually all systems that aren't on mains become backwaters because J2+ ships will be the exception not the rule. If a system is a backwater then it can't be a center for trade and commerce because virtually nobody goes there. Therefore either the maps are wrong or the economic system is wrong because the two can't economically coexist.
I understand the value of trade and speculation. The Trader feat. The fact that you can make Trade and spec work under very specific circumstances. However Trade and Spec should allow you to increase your profit margin or take a loss, with the probability being higher towards making a profit, but the ship should be economically sound in the first place.
I don't have LBB7 so I can't speak for it. However in LBB2 you were only allowed one roll to determine the nature of goods you could purchase. And the lot size. If the lot is too big to fit on your ship then you go without. If the lot is too small then you ship partially full. If the lot is too expensive then you are again stuck. If the lot is too cheap then you are also stuck. And if the lot is something that you should have special permits for, like armored vehicles, weapons or ammunition, then you are really stuck. (Like nobody is going to care if you are running guns.)
Lets give you an example. You are on Boughene (1904, Spinward Marches) and headed to EFATE (1705) your roll on the Trade and spec chart comes up 42, 43 or 55. Do you really think you will be allowed to take that load to EFATE? (With an active anti-imperial terrorist organization tying up Divisions of Imperial Troops?)
Making spec trade extremely dicey. (Pun intended.)
MT is confusing in its tables. Defining stuff you are shipping for someone else as freight and what you are purchasing as cargo, then apparently shifting between definitions. I am not sure if the chart that is repeated from LBB2 for available Cargo is for freight or cargo or both. Or how you determine the difference. Or which parts of the rolled result is cargo and which is freight. (What a mess!)
In T20 it is better defined and you actually get several lots to choose from in terms of speculation. It definitely makes more sense.
But I think if the PCs can, and for purposes of these charts should, use a broker or broker skill, for both buying and selling these spec goods, wouldn't NPCs do the same thing? And therefore wouldn't brokers tend to, on average, cancel each other out?
BTW goods under KCr4 are unlikely to return a profit, no matter how low you buy and how high you sell, greater than carrying cargo at KCr1 per ton.
It still looks like you have to be extremely lucky, even with all the advantages, especially with the guy you are buying from and/or the guy you are selling to using a broker, to make a serious profit. Remember on average your profit margin per ton of cargo hold has to be more than KCr1 per Jump drive number of your ship. (J2 ships, greater than KCr2, etc.) If it isn't then you can't make your expenses.
Since the chart goes from 30% to 180%. On average with only the PCs having access to a broker-3, then you are looking at buying at 80% and selling at 140%. Which is a nice 60% swing. With a Far Trader your base price of goods has to be KCr3.5 per ton with a full hold to make your starship payment. (Don't blow either roll.) Even with MCr1 seed capital to start, and that is definitely going to be rare for a PC, making this work is still chancy. Let the guy selling you the goods be a broker-2 and the guy at the other end buying be a broker-2 and you aren't going to make your starship payments 50% of the time. (Your profit margin just got slashed to well below the KCr150+ per jump you have to travel at in order to simply make your overhead.)
Now playing with a pair of high pop worlds with class A starports you have a shot. But that means you aren't travelling around anymore. You are pretty much staying put.
After looking at the T20 charts, perhaps I am reading them wrong, I still don't see it. Can someone show me how spec trade, included in the calculations, is going to consistently net me the, approximately, KCr350 per month required to make the Standard Far Trader's overhead? Lets even grant that only the players get to use the broker skill and can consistently use broker-3. (But we will make them pay the commission.) Using the standard 28 day month, 2 jumps per month, charge per jump, not per parsec. I am told it can be done. Anecdotal stories are not what I am looking for. Statistical evidence that shows it can actually work is what I am looking for. Anyone up for it? Oh and if it only works if you stick to two planets I am not interested. My PCs need to do some travelling about within the Sector. (So I can hook them with adventures.)
(I already know that in LBB2 it can't be done, the limit on one roll on the spec table won't allow enough profit margin, often enough, to make it work.)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Which brings us to the crew of a Far Trader conducting borderline illegal activities - what am I saying - outright illegal activities in order to make ends meet ;) graemlins/file_23.gif You know, I bet you could make a roleplaying game out of that. We could call it...Voyager? No... Wanderer? No...
:D
My non-sarcastic Cr.02: It seems to have been pretty conclusively established that you need some kind of speculative trade to be working in order to keep a J-2 ship running, because freight and passengers aren't going to cut it. With that in mind, might a somewhat more liberal interpretation of the Broker skill be in order? Since it essentially confers upon the players the ability to buy low and sell high rather than pay the price everyone else says they pay, should it be taken to represent a certain amount of business acumen and general instinct for who the "right" people are to talk to? I particularly like the idea of skills like Streetwise, Carousing, and Bribery acting as enabling skills here.
If we look at it that way, things such as licensing become less of an obstacle. Furthermore, making such licensing regulations less onerous in the 3I than they are currently would seem like a pretty easy thing to wave the "IMTU" wand at. (And then watch the players' faces when they land on a high Law Level world that *does* have strict rules on who's allowed to broker cargo)
Of course, even if they're allowed to broker their own deals and get to be pretty good at it, most crews are going to come up short at some point. Which is, of course, when they decide to overlook the irregularities in the paperwork of the mysterious gentleman with the Solomani accent and a remarkable similarity to the guy who threw a custard pie in the Sector Duke's face last Birthday... </font>[/QUOTE]Then we are back to only Player Characters can make a J2+ Ship make its payments. I understand the adventure idea to make up for lost money occasionally. But when the adventure hook is always, this ship can't pay for itself so we will have to embark on some highly dangerous and legally questionable endeavor every new adventure, the players, if they have half a brain, will dump the ship and adventure without their own ship. If the only way to consistently make mortgage payments with a J2+ ship is to take horrible chances and engage in illegal activity then banks won't offer mortgages on J2+ ships. If banks don't offer mortgages on J2+ ships then virtually all systems that aren't on mains become backwaters because J2+ ships will be the exception not the rule. If a system is a backwater then it can't be a center for trade and commerce because virtually nobody goes there. Therefore either the maps are wrong or the economic system is wrong because the two can't economically coexist.
I understand the value of trade and speculation. The Trader feat. The fact that you can make Trade and spec work under very specific circumstances. However Trade and Spec should allow you to increase your profit margin or take a loss, with the probability being higher towards making a profit, but the ship should be economically sound in the first place.
I don't have LBB7 so I can't speak for it. However in LBB2 you were only allowed one roll to determine the nature of goods you could purchase. And the lot size. If the lot is too big to fit on your ship then you go without. If the lot is too small then you ship partially full. If the lot is too expensive then you are again stuck. If the lot is too cheap then you are also stuck. And if the lot is something that you should have special permits for, like armored vehicles, weapons or ammunition, then you are really stuck. (Like nobody is going to care if you are running guns.)
Lets give you an example. You are on Boughene (1904, Spinward Marches) and headed to EFATE (1705) your roll on the Trade and spec chart comes up 42, 43 or 55. Do you really think you will be allowed to take that load to EFATE? (With an active anti-imperial terrorist organization tying up Divisions of Imperial Troops?)
Making spec trade extremely dicey. (Pun intended.)
MT is confusing in its tables. Defining stuff you are shipping for someone else as freight and what you are purchasing as cargo, then apparently shifting between definitions. I am not sure if the chart that is repeated from LBB2 for available Cargo is for freight or cargo or both. Or how you determine the difference. Or which parts of the rolled result is cargo and which is freight. (What a mess!)
In T20 it is better defined and you actually get several lots to choose from in terms of speculation. It definitely makes more sense.
But I think if the PCs can, and for purposes of these charts should, use a broker or broker skill, for both buying and selling these spec goods, wouldn't NPCs do the same thing? And therefore wouldn't brokers tend to, on average, cancel each other out?
BTW goods under KCr4 are unlikely to return a profit, no matter how low you buy and how high you sell, greater than carrying cargo at KCr1 per ton.
It still looks like you have to be extremely lucky, even with all the advantages, especially with the guy you are buying from and/or the guy you are selling to using a broker, to make a serious profit. Remember on average your profit margin per ton of cargo hold has to be more than KCr1 per Jump drive number of your ship. (J2 ships, greater than KCr2, etc.) If it isn't then you can't make your expenses.
Since the chart goes from 30% to 180%. On average with only the PCs having access to a broker-3, then you are looking at buying at 80% and selling at 140%. Which is a nice 60% swing. With a Far Trader your base price of goods has to be KCr3.5 per ton with a full hold to make your starship payment. (Don't blow either roll.) Even with MCr1 seed capital to start, and that is definitely going to be rare for a PC, making this work is still chancy. Let the guy selling you the goods be a broker-2 and the guy at the other end buying be a broker-2 and you aren't going to make your starship payments 50% of the time. (Your profit margin just got slashed to well below the KCr150+ per jump you have to travel at in order to simply make your overhead.)
Now playing with a pair of high pop worlds with class A starports you have a shot. But that means you aren't travelling around anymore. You are pretty much staying put.
After looking at the T20 charts, perhaps I am reading them wrong, I still don't see it. Can someone show me how spec trade, included in the calculations, is going to consistently net me the, approximately, KCr350 per month required to make the Standard Far Trader's overhead? Lets even grant that only the players get to use the broker skill and can consistently use broker-3. (But we will make them pay the commission.) Using the standard 28 day month, 2 jumps per month, charge per jump, not per parsec. I am told it can be done. Anecdotal stories are not what I am looking for. Statistical evidence that shows it can actually work is what I am looking for. Anyone up for it? Oh and if it only works if you stick to two planets I am not interested. My PCs need to do some travelling about within the Sector. (So I can hook them with adventures.)
(I already know that in LBB2 it can't be done, the limit on one roll on the spec table won't allow enough profit margin, often enough, to make it work.)
daryen
February 15th, 2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Aramis:
Spec Trade, using paid brokers, is all that's needed to break a profit. Brokers make money at both ends; using the +3 or +4 broker is all that is really needed, plus careful use of the predict a die ability of trader skill.Only if you are a very, very generous GM. There is no guarantee that a) you will find a +3 or +4 broker and that b) the +3 or +4 broker you just found really is.
You are approaching it from a distance=money standpoint, like the airlines: freight and passengers both carried for hire only. That is NOT the model for traveller. The age of sail is... and paid freight and passengers were incidentals, not staples.In the age of sail, there were not some ships that could make the trip in 1/2 or 1/3 the time of the next (or not very many). Time is money. That is true yesterday, today, and will be true tomorrow. As a result, there are always people who are willing to pay a premium for speed. (There are also always people who are willing to "spend" time to save money.)
And, by the way, with a little care, a J2 can make better on spec than a J1. J3 and J3 breaks about even; the lost revenue in hold is made up for by better targets. J4 even spec gets dicey. Great. So the (very) occational PC controlled J2 ship with guaranteed +3 brokers in every port they call on can make a profit. That still doesn't explain why anyone else has a J2 ship.
If you are going to have J2 (and J3, etc.) ships, then more than the PCs have to be able to make money. That doesn't happen without a per-parsec model.
Now I am not trying to convince you (or anyone else) to use a per-parsec model. I am, however, going to call out anyone who tries to take an isolated example (PCs with high skills) to show a broken system isn't broken.
Spec Trade, using paid brokers, is all that's needed to break a profit. Brokers make money at both ends; using the +3 or +4 broker is all that is really needed, plus careful use of the predict a die ability of trader skill.Only if you are a very, very generous GM. There is no guarantee that a) you will find a +3 or +4 broker and that b) the +3 or +4 broker you just found really is.
You are approaching it from a distance=money standpoint, like the airlines: freight and passengers both carried for hire only. That is NOT the model for traveller. The age of sail is... and paid freight and passengers were incidentals, not staples.In the age of sail, there were not some ships that could make the trip in 1/2 or 1/3 the time of the next (or not very many). Time is money. That is true yesterday, today, and will be true tomorrow. As a result, there are always people who are willing to pay a premium for speed. (There are also always people who are willing to "spend" time to save money.)
And, by the way, with a little care, a J2 can make better on spec than a J1. J3 and J3 breaks about even; the lost revenue in hold is made up for by better targets. J4 even spec gets dicey. Great. So the (very) occational PC controlled J2 ship with guaranteed +3 brokers in every port they call on can make a profit. That still doesn't explain why anyone else has a J2 ship.
If you are going to have J2 (and J3, etc.) ships, then more than the PCs have to be able to make money. That doesn't happen without a per-parsec model.
Now I am not trying to convince you (or anyone else) to use a per-parsec model. I am, however, going to call out anyone who tries to take an isolated example (PCs with high skills) to show a broken system isn't broken.
womble
February 15th, 2005, 10:05 AM
Without wanting to rain on any parades, this discussion is based somewhat on a false presumption of the metagame. For the purposes of generating story, it is better if standard operation doesn't allow the standard ship to make a profit. Hence the PCs' constant need to undertake slightly extra-legal deals just to make ends meet, which act as hooks for story. Now, being a simulationist GM/player this offends my sensibilities some, but it does provide a reason why it's difficult to make the "standard setup" work.
I don't know about any other set in detail, but T20's speculative trade tables are pretty generous, once you have a decent broker involved.
I don't know about any other set in detail, but T20's speculative trade tables are pretty generous, once you have a decent broker involved.
robject
February 15th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Actually, the system works great for all Free Trader games. It gives the players a push if a push is needed: after all, subsidies are on a per-contract basis. That's what makes it fun for refereed games.
And yes, you have to "game the system" to make it work, and you have to come to grips with your local interstellar geography to carefully determine your route. That's what makes it fun for solo play.
And let's face it, the rules are for players, not for NPCs. NPC traders operate under different rules: they're usually the agents and messengers of the Referee; but the game's never for their benefit or enjoyment.
And yes, you have to "game the system" to make it work, and you have to come to grips with your local interstellar geography to carefully determine your route. That's what makes it fun for solo play.
And let's face it, the rules are for players, not for NPCs. NPC traders operate under different rules: they're usually the agents and messengers of the Referee; but the game's never for their benefit or enjoyment.
ChaserCaffey
February 15th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Hmmm, I think I see the problem, Bhoins. I'm used to the TNE rules, where players have a *lot* more flexibility in deciding what cargo to take on spec. Basically, IIRC the ship declares a destination world, freight and passengers present themselves, and then the ship is free to fill the rest of its hold with whatever amount of "stuff" it can get a good price on. It sounds like the CT rules are a lot more restrictive about that, but I don't know anything about them, unfortunately.
I might do some runs through with the TNE rules to see if you can reliably make overhead on spec trade. Unfortunately, spare time is a bit thin on the ground at the moment.
Another thought- suppose the cargo rules *are* broken in such a way that you can't really make overhead on a J2 or greater ship in any reliable way. Obviously, in the OTU such ships get made, and worlds off of J1 mains aren't all backwaters, so what's the easiest fix? I think I like charging per parsec rather than per jump for freight, since it seems like the easiest and most logical fix.
I might do some runs through with the TNE rules to see if you can reliably make overhead on spec trade. Unfortunately, spare time is a bit thin on the ground at the moment.
Another thought- suppose the cargo rules *are* broken in such a way that you can't really make overhead on a J2 or greater ship in any reliable way. Obviously, in the OTU such ships get made, and worlds off of J1 mains aren't all backwaters, so what's the easiest fix? I think I like charging per parsec rather than per jump for freight, since it seems like the easiest and most logical fix.
daryen
February 15th, 2005, 11:53 AM
womble,
I fully understand why the system was set up the way it was. 1) it is simple and 2) it forces the players to "adventure" to make ends meet.
However, that doesn't mean that the resulting system isn't "broken" in the sense that the system is non-sustaining. It also doesn't mean that other systems shouldn't be considered, especially when they are just as simple, don't stop "adventuring", and actually work out better.
Particularly since the "adventuring" that is forced on the players in the base system is pretty much uniformly illegal.
robject,
While it may be a personal problem, I disagree with giving PCs and NPCs totally different rules. I completely agree that rules will often need to be bent (if not broken) to get the PCs where the GM wants them. But the base rules should be the same. Otherwise you are accepting the conceit that either the PCs or NPCs are, by definition, morons. (If not both.)
What do I mean by that? Well, if NPCs can make the economics of a J2 (or J3) tramp trader work, but a PC can't, then the PCs are morons. And if the PCs can milk a "money run" purpetually, but NPCs can't ever "find" it, then the NPCs are morons. Having a system that does both at the same time boggles the mind.
I fully understand why the system was set up the way it was. 1) it is simple and 2) it forces the players to "adventure" to make ends meet.
However, that doesn't mean that the resulting system isn't "broken" in the sense that the system is non-sustaining. It also doesn't mean that other systems shouldn't be considered, especially when they are just as simple, don't stop "adventuring", and actually work out better.
Particularly since the "adventuring" that is forced on the players in the base system is pretty much uniformly illegal.
robject,
While it may be a personal problem, I disagree with giving PCs and NPCs totally different rules. I completely agree that rules will often need to be bent (if not broken) to get the PCs where the GM wants them. But the base rules should be the same. Otherwise you are accepting the conceit that either the PCs or NPCs are, by definition, morons. (If not both.)
What do I mean by that? Well, if NPCs can make the economics of a J2 (or J3) tramp trader work, but a PC can't, then the PCs are morons. And if the PCs can milk a "money run" purpetually, but NPCs can't ever "find" it, then the NPCs are morons. Having a system that does both at the same time boggles the mind.
Fritz_Brown
February 15th, 2005, 12:37 PM
I would actually not go with a per parsec model, but an inverse per week model. As daryen says, time is money. A J2 making a J4 run (with a midway refuel or some such) should be better (for the client) than 6 J1s around the long way. At least, if time IS money for him. There are some things that nobody will care to send the shorter route, but plenty of things that WILL get sent that way.
Maybe the definition of Priority cargo is broken? (After all, when this was written, FedEx was just becoming big. Now, it is common to send everything except large, heavy items by 2-day or overnight.)
Maybe the definition of Priority cargo is broken? (After all, when this was written, FedEx was just becoming big. Now, it is common to send everything except large, heavy items by 2-day or overnight.)
Anthony
February 15th, 2005, 12:58 PM
The only remotely coherent trade system which has been published for Traveller is GURPS Traveller: Far Trader, and, well, it represents a complete overhaul of the trade rules. Notably, it does use a (modified) per parsec cost model.
I also don't especially recommend using it, or really any trade system. A sensible trade system means that operating a free trader is stunningly boring, and is about as PC friendly as being crew on a modern cargo plane.
I also don't especially recommend using it, or really any trade system. A sensible trade system means that operating a free trader is stunningly boring, and is about as PC friendly as being crew on a modern cargo plane.
Fritz_Brown
February 15th, 2005, 01:44 PM
And, I should specify that it should be cheaper to go J2 than 2 J1s, but it should be more expensive to go J2 than J1 (for the client, that is).
robject
February 15th, 2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by daryen:
While it may be a personal problem, I disagree with giving PCs and NPCs totally different rules.
...if NPCs can make the economics of a J2 (or J3) tramp trader work, but a PC can't, then the PCs are morons. And if the PCs can milk a "money run" purpetually, but NPCs can't ever "find" it, then the NPCs are morons. Having a system that does both at the same time boggles the mind. I understand what you mean. The word I think of when reading the above is "consistency", or lack thereof.
"Hey, we can't make money here. How can they?"
(Actually, that sounds eerily similar to the "impossible UWP problem", doesn't it?)
I haven't sorted out all the implications -- it doesn't sink in that deeply for me. Perhaps part of the problem is that CT didn't develop concepts very far, and so we run up against its limitations quickly.
Granted that NPC ships have to play by the same Universal Rules of Economics that players play in, then I suppose they'll be on routes that will support them: pairs (or sets) of important worlds, complementary worlds, or subsidized routes?
Ah, then you worry about traders who show up on the random encounter list. Well, what more can I add?
While it may be a personal problem, I disagree with giving PCs and NPCs totally different rules.
...if NPCs can make the economics of a J2 (or J3) tramp trader work, but a PC can't, then the PCs are morons. And if the PCs can milk a "money run" purpetually, but NPCs can't ever "find" it, then the NPCs are morons. Having a system that does both at the same time boggles the mind. I understand what you mean. The word I think of when reading the above is "consistency", or lack thereof.
"Hey, we can't make money here. How can they?"
(Actually, that sounds eerily similar to the "impossible UWP problem", doesn't it?)
I haven't sorted out all the implications -- it doesn't sink in that deeply for me. Perhaps part of the problem is that CT didn't develop concepts very far, and so we run up against its limitations quickly.
Granted that NPC ships have to play by the same Universal Rules of Economics that players play in, then I suppose they'll be on routes that will support them: pairs (or sets) of important worlds, complementary worlds, or subsidized routes?
Ah, then you worry about traders who show up on the random encounter list. Well, what more can I add?
BetterThanLife
February 15th, 2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Fritz88:
I would actually not go with a per parsec model, but an inverse per week model. As daryen says, time is money. A J2 making a J4 run (with a midway refuel or some such) should be better (for the client) than 6 J1s around the long way. At least, if time IS money for him. There are some things that nobody will care to send the shorter route, but plenty of things that WILL get sent that way.
Maybe the definition of Priority cargo is broken? (After all, when this was written, FedEx was just becoming big. Now, it is common to send everything except large, heavy items by 2-day or overnight.) Actually T20 is the first time I encountered Priority Cargo. Granted I don't have LBB7 but I do have MT and it isn't there. By the time T20 was published every major shipper has an overnight for a premium fee. By the time MT was published FedEx was competeing with Airborne, UPS, USPS and a couple of other companies. (ANd they were running the "when it absolutely positively has to get their over night" commercials.)
In the per parsec travelled model, the higher jump ships get to charge at worst the same amount as the J1 ships and if they can "cut the corner" it would be cheaper to go from point A to point C on a J2+ ship than a J1 ship. Forget about the savings in time.
For example going from EFATE to REGINA. On a J1 ship or series of ships the trip takes just over 6 weeks to 12 weeks. Taking the same trip on a J2 ship or a series of J2 ships takes 3-6 weeks. On a J3 -J5 ship it takes 2-3 weeks and on a J6 ship one week. According to the per jump model the trip costs the most if you take the 6-12 weeks to get there. It costs the least on a J6 courier. I personally wouldn't mind that, if the J2+ ships were inherently capable of making their overhead. Unfortunately they are not. The faster ships need to charge more to make a profit. Coincidentally the profit margin becomes about equal between the J1, J2 and J3 ships if you get the most out of your jump drive and charge per parsec. (And all of these choices become economically viable at the same time.)
Under the per parsec model you are still going to run into problems. You are still going to have situations where you might have to deadhead. Situations where you have to accept a less than ethical solution to your problems, and/or that can be used as an adventuring hook. But a ship that can never, under normal merchant proceedures, make its overhead, isn't a merchant ship it would only get built as a military vessel or a yacht, where profit margin no longer matters.
If I had a ship that consistently cost more to operate than it could generate then I would ditch the ship and adventure without owning a ship. At that point the ship becomes a liability not an asset.
I would actually not go with a per parsec model, but an inverse per week model. As daryen says, time is money. A J2 making a J4 run (with a midway refuel or some such) should be better (for the client) than 6 J1s around the long way. At least, if time IS money for him. There are some things that nobody will care to send the shorter route, but plenty of things that WILL get sent that way.
Maybe the definition of Priority cargo is broken? (After all, when this was written, FedEx was just becoming big. Now, it is common to send everything except large, heavy items by 2-day or overnight.) Actually T20 is the first time I encountered Priority Cargo. Granted I don't have LBB7 but I do have MT and it isn't there. By the time T20 was published every major shipper has an overnight for a premium fee. By the time MT was published FedEx was competeing with Airborne, UPS, USPS and a couple of other companies. (ANd they were running the "when it absolutely positively has to get their over night" commercials.)
In the per parsec travelled model, the higher jump ships get to charge at worst the same amount as the J1 ships and if they can "cut the corner" it would be cheaper to go from point A to point C on a J2+ ship than a J1 ship. Forget about the savings in time.
For example going from EFATE to REGINA. On a J1 ship or series of ships the trip takes just over 6 weeks to 12 weeks. Taking the same trip on a J2 ship or a series of J2 ships takes 3-6 weeks. On a J3 -J5 ship it takes 2-3 weeks and on a J6 ship one week. According to the per jump model the trip costs the most if you take the 6-12 weeks to get there. It costs the least on a J6 courier. I personally wouldn't mind that, if the J2+ ships were inherently capable of making their overhead. Unfortunately they are not. The faster ships need to charge more to make a profit. Coincidentally the profit margin becomes about equal between the J1, J2 and J3 ships if you get the most out of your jump drive and charge per parsec. (And all of these choices become economically viable at the same time.)
Under the per parsec model you are still going to run into problems. You are still going to have situations where you might have to deadhead. Situations where you have to accept a less than ethical solution to your problems, and/or that can be used as an adventuring hook. But a ship that can never, under normal merchant proceedures, make its overhead, isn't a merchant ship it would only get built as a military vessel or a yacht, where profit margin no longer matters.
If I had a ship that consistently cost more to operate than it could generate then I would ditch the ship and adventure without owning a ship. At that point the ship becomes a liability not an asset.
far-trader
February 15th, 2005, 05:29 PM
I don't think Eris Reddoch will mind my sharing a formula he posted elsewhere recently. It's CT based but might give some ideas of another way to tackle this...
Originally posted by erisred (some edits):
A game mechanic to handle this might be to set a price something like...
Shipping Cost = Cr500 + (Cr1,000 (number of parsecs shipped) - (Cr500 (number of weeks for delivery)
For example: A cargo on System A needs to be shipped 4 parsecs to System B.
> Ship 1: (J1) 500 + (1,000 * 4) - (500 * 4) = 2,500 cr per dton
> Ship 2: (J2) 500 + (1,000 * 4) - (500 * 2) = 3,500 cr per dton
> Ship 3: (J4) 500 + (1,000 * 4) - (500 * 1) = 4,000 cr per dton
...to which I replied (some edits):
Well speaking for myself I like this suggestion, as long as it's done as you said per time actually required to make the delivery. I only mention it because your examples all presume the shipper does nothing but jump. The J1 ship could be adding as much as 3 weeks for intermediate stops, dropping his payment to Cr1,000 per ton.
And if the J1 ship were too tardy, say needing repairs along the way, and it takes him 9 weeks total to get there he's going to get zip. Any longer and he'll pay a penalty. There might be a limit on the penalty, say the value of the cargo plus the shipping rate for the replacement.
No point just spacing it after 9 weeks either, that'll just earn you an immediate fine for the value plus shipping as well as word that you're not a reliable shipper.
...and eris answered (some edits):
Doing it by actual time, rather than number of jumps is even better!
It was my first thought... and I think this would be the right way to go. It fits with the real world where there are often bonuses for fast deliveries, and penalties for slow deliveries of freight.
Eris
Originally posted by erisred (some edits):
A game mechanic to handle this might be to set a price something like...
Shipping Cost = Cr500 + (Cr1,000 (number of parsecs shipped) - (Cr500 (number of weeks for delivery)
For example: A cargo on System A needs to be shipped 4 parsecs to System B.
> Ship 1: (J1) 500 + (1,000 * 4) - (500 * 4) = 2,500 cr per dton
> Ship 2: (J2) 500 + (1,000 * 4) - (500 * 2) = 3,500 cr per dton
> Ship 3: (J4) 500 + (1,000 * 4) - (500 * 1) = 4,000 cr per dton
...to which I replied (some edits):
Well speaking for myself I like this suggestion, as long as it's done as you said per time actually required to make the delivery. I only mention it because your examples all presume the shipper does nothing but jump. The J1 ship could be adding as much as 3 weeks for intermediate stops, dropping his payment to Cr1,000 per ton.
And if the J1 ship were too tardy, say needing repairs along the way, and it takes him 9 weeks total to get there he's going to get zip. Any longer and he'll pay a penalty. There might be a limit on the penalty, say the value of the cargo plus the shipping rate for the replacement.
No point just spacing it after 9 weeks either, that'll just earn you an immediate fine for the value plus shipping as well as word that you're not a reliable shipper.
...and eris answered (some edits):
Doing it by actual time, rather than number of jumps is even better!
It was my first thought... and I think this would be the right way to go. It fits with the real world where there are often bonuses for fast deliveries, and penalties for slow deliveries of freight.
Eris
Fritz_Brown
February 16th, 2005, 08:36 AM
I like that layout, far-trader. It nicely gets to the idea that a J2 shouldn't just be double a J1, but there is a premium for getting it there faster.
FedEx/UPS/Airborne/DHL/etc. all charge you by "zone" - essentially how far you are shipping the product. (And, how inaccessible the destination is - it cost a bundle to ship something from Thailand to Guam if you weren't willing to wait forever.) Of course, to reinforce Bhoins critique of my idea, US Postal Service will send your package just about anywhere (in the US) in two nights, for a set price. (Of course, they are still not a private company - subsidized merchants, anyone?)
FedEx/UPS/Airborne/DHL/etc. all charge you by "zone" - essentially how far you are shipping the product. (And, how inaccessible the destination is - it cost a bundle to ship something from Thailand to Guam if you weren't willing to wait forever.) Of course, to reinforce Bhoins critique of my idea, US Postal Service will send your package just about anywhere (in the US) in two nights, for a set price. (Of course, they are still not a private company - subsidized merchants, anyone?)
daryen
February 16th, 2005, 10:21 AM
For what it is worth, the GT:Far Trader system is purely per-parsec. So, in CT terms, it would look like this:
FREIGHT
Cr900/dton/parsec if either world is hi-pop (9+).
Cr1000/dton/parsec if not.
PASSENGERS
High: KCr10/passenger/parsec
Middle: KCr8/passenger/parsec
Low: KCr1/passenger/parsec
The qualification for the lower freight cost is simplified, but works.
FREIGHT
Cr900/dton/parsec if either world is hi-pop (9+).
Cr1000/dton/parsec if not.
PASSENGERS
High: KCr10/passenger/parsec
Middle: KCr8/passenger/parsec
Low: KCr1/passenger/parsec
The qualification for the lower freight cost is simplified, but works.
BetterThanLife
February 16th, 2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Fritz88:
I like that layout, far-trader. It nicely gets to the idea that a J2 shouldn't just be double a J1, but there is a premium for getting it there faster.
FedEx/UPS/Airborne/DHL/etc. all charge you by "zone" - essentially how far you are shipping the product. (And, how inaccessible the destination is - it cost a bundle to ship something from Thailand to Guam if you weren't willing to wait forever.) Of course, to reinforce Bhoins critique of my idea, US Postal Service will send your package just about anywhere (in the US) in two nights, for a set price. (Of course, they are still not a private company - subsidized merchants, anyone?) The USPS will also ship anywhere in the US in one night, well almost anywhere, for a flat rate. (Even delivering on Sundays and Christmas.) Only the weight of the package matters. There probably should be a premium for speed, however in CT, MT and T20, you don't need it, in most cases to make the standard designs work. SImply charging per parsec does the trick. And flat rates keeps the Imperium trading without barriers to trade. (Which is what the Imperium is about.) Unfortunately the rate per jump is a barrier to trade so I can't see the Imperium using it. (Because it makes many places unreachable.) Further the per parsec model, again in CT, MT and T20, keeps the profit margins about the same so you aren't eliminating the Jump1 ships or making trade along the main less profitable.
smile.gif It isn't about the gorss profits it is about the margin. If you spend more then you should make more. You might get economies of scale, but given the charts that currently exist, Bulk Freighters are impractical and the Type-M (Liner) needs a high jump number so it can stick to the well populated systems and better quality starports so it can remain full. Once you get into the 1Kton+ merchants it becomes more difficult to keep them full.
I like that layout, far-trader. It nicely gets to the idea that a J2 shouldn't just be double a J1, but there is a premium for getting it there faster.
FedEx/UPS/Airborne/DHL/etc. all charge you by "zone" - essentially how far you are shipping the product. (And, how inaccessible the destination is - it cost a bundle to ship something from Thailand to Guam if you weren't willing to wait forever.) Of course, to reinforce Bhoins critique of my idea, US Postal Service will send your package just about anywhere (in the US) in two nights, for a set price. (Of course, they are still not a private company - subsidized merchants, anyone?) The USPS will also ship anywhere in the US in one night, well almost anywhere, for a flat rate. (Even delivering on Sundays and Christmas.) Only the weight of the package matters. There probably should be a premium for speed, however in CT, MT and T20, you don't need it, in most cases to make the standard designs work. SImply charging per parsec does the trick. And flat rates keeps the Imperium trading without barriers to trade. (Which is what the Imperium is about.) Unfortunately the rate per jump is a barrier to trade so I can't see the Imperium using it. (Because it makes many places unreachable.) Further the per parsec model, again in CT, MT and T20, keeps the profit margins about the same so you aren't eliminating the Jump1 ships or making trade along the main less profitable.
smile.gif It isn't about the gorss profits it is about the margin. If you spend more then you should make more. You might get economies of scale, but given the charts that currently exist, Bulk Freighters are impractical and the Type-M (Liner) needs a high jump number so it can stick to the well populated systems and better quality starports so it can remain full. Once you get into the 1Kton+ merchants it becomes more difficult to keep them full.
BetterThanLife
February 16th, 2005, 11:38 AM
So no takers on showing me how T20 Spec trade is the way to make payments on a Far Trader? And all these people were screaming, because the system was designed to work using spec trade, is why you should only need to charge per jump. smile.gif
BetterThanLife
February 16th, 2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Anthony:
The only remotely coherent trade system which has been published for Traveller is GURPS Traveller: Far Trader, and, well, it represents a complete overhaul of the trade rules. Notably, it does use a (modified) per parsec cost model.
I also don't especially recommend using it, or really any trade system. A sensible trade system means that operating a free trader is stunningly boring, and is about as PC friendly as being crew on a modern cargo plane. But operating a free trader or a far trader, in and of itself should be fairly boring, safe and profitable. Well the basic operations should be. But that is why the game is generally played on the fringes of civilized space. If it wasn't inherently profitable there wouldn't be mortgages for starships. (Banks don't gamble that much.) Note you can't get a ship mortgage in Vargr space. And I'll bet if you get caught spending serious time in Vargr space the bank will probably call your loan, as it is an unacceptable risk.
Funny how most of Traveller is played in a war zone. That brings up the adventuring possibilities. But the adventure hook shouldn't always be, "Damn it, we are short for the mortgage payment again, how is this supposed to work?" More like "Damn it, if it weren't for that Corsair we could have made the payment, now we have to find another source of income." Or "that stupid, used TLG powerplant is on the fritz again, how are we going to pay to fix that plus make the payment." Or "But Officer, what do you mean the machine parts we were carrying for Grrrvak, an honest business vargr, were actually concealing enough small arms to fight the Solomani Rim War?" Or the classic "We need to get to <Insert Name of system here> but only if it is on a fast ship, no questions asked and we would prefer to avoid any Imperial entanglements."
Just because the ship is supposed to work, safely and profitably, doesn't mean it actually will. Just because the space lanes are supposed to be safe doesn't mean the Players shouldn't arm their ships either. smile.gif
The only remotely coherent trade system which has been published for Traveller is GURPS Traveller: Far Trader, and, well, it represents a complete overhaul of the trade rules. Notably, it does use a (modified) per parsec cost model.
I also don't especially recommend using it, or really any trade system. A sensible trade system means that operating a free trader is stunningly boring, and is about as PC friendly as being crew on a modern cargo plane. But operating a free trader or a far trader, in and of itself should be fairly boring, safe and profitable. Well the basic operations should be. But that is why the game is generally played on the fringes of civilized space. If it wasn't inherently profitable there wouldn't be mortgages for starships. (Banks don't gamble that much.) Note you can't get a ship mortgage in Vargr space. And I'll bet if you get caught spending serious time in Vargr space the bank will probably call your loan, as it is an unacceptable risk.
Funny how most of Traveller is played in a war zone. That brings up the adventuring possibilities. But the adventure hook shouldn't always be, "Damn it, we are short for the mortgage payment again, how is this supposed to work?" More like "Damn it, if it weren't for that Corsair we could have made the payment, now we have to find another source of income." Or "that stupid, used TLG powerplant is on the fritz again, how are we going to pay to fix that plus make the payment." Or "But Officer, what do you mean the machine parts we were carrying for Grrrvak, an honest business vargr, were actually concealing enough small arms to fight the Solomani Rim War?" Or the classic "We need to get to <Insert Name of system here> but only if it is on a fast ship, no questions asked and we would prefer to avoid any Imperial entanglements."
Just because the ship is supposed to work, safely and profitably, doesn't mean it actually will. Just because the space lanes are supposed to be safe doesn't mean the Players shouldn't arm their ships either. smile.gif
Anthony
February 16th, 2005, 01:19 PM
My recommended merchant system is this:
A sensibly designed and operated merchant ship makes a modest profit (10-20% over operating costs). As long as a ship is operating as a sensible merchant, the GM should ignore the details of how it works. He should be aware that a ship operating as a sensible merchant on an established route jumps three times a month, and is probably deathly dull; one operating on a speculative route probably jumps twice and is more likely to have adventures in the process.
If the PCs decide to go haring off on some peculiar wild goose chase, the GM should start keeping track of finances. Ships engaged in 'adventuring' should normally be assumed to make no revenue; ships which are trying to mix trading with their adventuring should be assumed to make about half normal revenue, which will normally cause losing money quite fast (better hope that adventure is profitable).
If one assumes that a far trader is a sensible design, revenue for small J2 trade ships should be about Cr 4,000 per dton of cargo and passenger space; I don't happen to know the stats for a free trader, but it should probably be around Cr 2,400 per dton.
On a speculative route, jumping twice per month with 80% cargo fill, the J2 ship should charge about Cr 2,500 per dton cargo per jump. The J1 ship should charge about Cr 1,500. On main routes, both numbers drop by about a third.
A sensibly designed and operated merchant ship makes a modest profit (10-20% over operating costs). As long as a ship is operating as a sensible merchant, the GM should ignore the details of how it works. He should be aware that a ship operating as a sensible merchant on an established route jumps three times a month, and is probably deathly dull; one operating on a speculative route probably jumps twice and is more likely to have adventures in the process.
If the PCs decide to go haring off on some peculiar wild goose chase, the GM should start keeping track of finances. Ships engaged in 'adventuring' should normally be assumed to make no revenue; ships which are trying to mix trading with their adventuring should be assumed to make about half normal revenue, which will normally cause losing money quite fast (better hope that adventure is profitable).
If one assumes that a far trader is a sensible design, revenue for small J2 trade ships should be about Cr 4,000 per dton of cargo and passenger space; I don't happen to know the stats for a free trader, but it should probably be around Cr 2,400 per dton.
On a speculative route, jumping twice per month with 80% cargo fill, the J2 ship should charge about Cr 2,500 per dton cargo per jump. The J1 ship should charge about Cr 1,500. On main routes, both numbers drop by about a third.
Fritz_Brown
February 16th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Oh man, Anthony, if you don't count every Cr, then we can't have fun discussions like this! tongue.gif
BetterThanLife
February 16th, 2005, 02:55 PM
More wand waving and silly incantations. Is this a "Hard Science" SFRPG or Harry Potter goes to Space?
smile.gif
smile.gif
mike wightman
February 16th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Ahem,
grav plates
null grav modules
inertial dampers
reactionless thrusters
jump drive
plasma guns
fusion guns
antimatter power plants
nuclear dampers
meson guns
meson screens
black globes
superdense armour
bonded superdense armour
alien races
Virus
psionics
etc.
Enough magic to make H.Potter look reasonable ;)
One more - to have a Far Trader break even with Traveller economics is Clerical magic graemlins/file_22.gif
grav plates
null grav modules
inertial dampers
reactionless thrusters
jump drive
plasma guns
fusion guns
antimatter power plants
nuclear dampers
meson guns
meson screens
black globes
superdense armour
bonded superdense armour
alien races
Virus
psionics
etc.
Enough magic to make H.Potter look reasonable ;)
One more - to have a Far Trader break even with Traveller economics is Clerical magic graemlins/file_22.gif
BetterThanLife
February 17th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Ahem,
grav plates
null grav modules
inertial dampers
reactionless thrusters
jump drive
plasma guns
fusion guns
antimatter power plants
nuclear dampers
meson guns
meson screens
black globes
superdense armour
bonded superdense armour
alien races
Virus
psionics
etc.
Enough magic to make H.Potter look reasonable ;)
One more - to have a Far Trader break even with Traveller economics is Clerical magic graemlins/file_22.gif Hey now some of those things are, if not real right this second definitely probable.
Reactionless thrusters. Well the Thrusters in Traveller aren't exactly reactionless, they just don't have an exhaust. They are obviously reacting with something. As for exhaustless thrusters I can think of a couple right now. Battery operated propeller aircraft. And Battery operated car. The MT description of Thruster Plates, on the other hand is a bit far fetched. smile.gif
Jump drive? Jump drive defines the Traveller Universe and is the basis for the game. Can't leave it out. (Besides there is ample evidence that Einstein didn't quite go far enough. C may not actually be teh speed limit. smile.gif )
An economical Fusion plant? Fusion plants have to be able to work, after all we have one we can all see every day. Fusion plants do work, but so far they take in more energy than they put out. Unless you count the short duration Fusion Plants that appear to work extremely well (H-Bombs).
Plasma and Fusion Guns? Well we have to solve the Fusion generator problems first for Fusion gun but I seem to remember reading about Natick or DARPA working on a prototype Plasma Gun. Part of the SDI project. Man portable, well that is another matter. smile.gif
Anti-Matter powerplants? Well the problem isn't the anti-matter it is containg it. There are some interesting new theories on that.
Alien Races? Well now that one is virtually statistically impossible not to have Alien races out there. (Aliens here, now that is an entirely different matter.)
Superdense armor? What else would you call what they have on the Newest version of the M-1 Tank. It is a composite armor which includes Depleted Uranium. (Which is why virtually no weapon currently in existance can penetrate it.)
Now Artificial Gravity, Contra Gravity (2 sides of the same coin), Inertial dampers (Probably along the same lines of physics.), and Psionics may not now nor ever in the future exist, but they are fairly common within Science Fiction.
Black Globes, Nuclear Dampers, Meson Screens, Meson Guns, White Globes, might never exist. But the theoretical physics isn't all that bad. Implementation would be the cast iron bitch of these.
Something as simple as Capitalist economics should work. smile.gif
Ahem,
grav plates
null grav modules
inertial dampers
reactionless thrusters
jump drive
plasma guns
fusion guns
antimatter power plants
nuclear dampers
meson guns
meson screens
black globes
superdense armour
bonded superdense armour
alien races
Virus
psionics
etc.
Enough magic to make H.Potter look reasonable ;)
One more - to have a Far Trader break even with Traveller economics is Clerical magic graemlins/file_22.gif Hey now some of those things are, if not real right this second definitely probable.
Reactionless thrusters. Well the Thrusters in Traveller aren't exactly reactionless, they just don't have an exhaust. They are obviously reacting with something. As for exhaustless thrusters I can think of a couple right now. Battery operated propeller aircraft. And Battery operated car. The MT description of Thruster Plates, on the other hand is a bit far fetched. smile.gif
Jump drive? Jump drive defines the Traveller Universe and is the basis for the game. Can't leave it out. (Besides there is ample evidence that Einstein didn't quite go far enough. C may not actually be teh speed limit. smile.gif )
An economical Fusion plant? Fusion plants have to be able to work, after all we have one we can all see every day. Fusion plants do work, but so far they take in more energy than they put out. Unless you count the short duration Fusion Plants that appear to work extremely well (H-Bombs).
Plasma and Fusion Guns? Well we have to solve the Fusion generator problems first for Fusion gun but I seem to remember reading about Natick or DARPA working on a prototype Plasma Gun. Part of the SDI project. Man portable, well that is another matter. smile.gif
Anti-Matter powerplants? Well the problem isn't the anti-matter it is containg it. There are some interesting new theories on that.
Alien Races? Well now that one is virtually statistically impossible not to have Alien races out there. (Aliens here, now that is an entirely different matter.)
Superdense armor? What else would you call what they have on the Newest version of the M-1 Tank. It is a composite armor which includes Depleted Uranium. (Which is why virtually no weapon currently in existance can penetrate it.)
Now Artificial Gravity, Contra Gravity (2 sides of the same coin), Inertial dampers (Probably along the same lines of physics.), and Psionics may not now nor ever in the future exist, but they are fairly common within Science Fiction.
Black Globes, Nuclear Dampers, Meson Screens, Meson Guns, White Globes, might never exist. But the theoretical physics isn't all that bad. Implementation would be the cast iron bitch of these.
Something as simple as Capitalist economics should work. smile.gif
jatay3
February 17th, 2005, 05:00 PM
Maybe because I am more interested in human sciences then natural sciences, but I find social unrealism more irritataing then natural. I don't mind jump space, but the trading sure better look something like trading even though the details need not be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
Also when we get into that level of science we are getting into areas where lines become blured. Maybe present day scientists say that faster-than-light is impossible but "new discoveries" can be made or imagined.
Also I tend to feel that human nature(in the collective rather than individual sense) is only so variable, wheras natural science is unpredictable. Actually one of the things I like about SciFi is simply trying out old principles in new environments.
Also when we get into that level of science we are getting into areas where lines become blured. Maybe present day scientists say that faster-than-light is impossible but "new discoveries" can be made or imagined.
Also I tend to feel that human nature(in the collective rather than individual sense) is only so variable, wheras natural science is unpredictable. Actually one of the things I like about SciFi is simply trying out old principles in new environments.
jatay3
February 17th, 2005, 05:13 PM
Also I tend to feel that human nature(in the collective rather than individual sense) is only so variable, wheras natural science is unpredictable. Actually one of the things I like about SciFi is simply trying out old principles in new environments.
-----------------------------------
That doesn't mean that nature doesn't follow laws, but that I think we know more about the laws that govern collective human nature(individual human nature is another matter:there is more there than is drempt of by your shrinks) than about the universe. Scientists who study that sort of thing would do well to remember that they are much like those who try to guess what a mosaic looks like by studying a piece of glass.
Thus I am not annoyed by faster-than-light: it has not been proved impossible. However I do get annoyed when on Star Trek they claim that they have eliminated, war, poverty, tyranny, crime, bigotry, strife, and the curse of sin in general from earth in two generations because I know perfectly well that that is simply impossible.
-----------------------------------
That doesn't mean that nature doesn't follow laws, but that I think we know more about the laws that govern collective human nature(individual human nature is another matter:there is more there than is drempt of by your shrinks) than about the universe. Scientists who study that sort of thing would do well to remember that they are much like those who try to guess what a mosaic looks like by studying a piece of glass.
Thus I am not annoyed by faster-than-light: it has not been proved impossible. However I do get annoyed when on Star Trek they claim that they have eliminated, war, poverty, tyranny, crime, bigotry, strife, and the curse of sin in general from earth in two generations because I know perfectly well that that is simply impossible.
jatay3
February 17th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Scientists who study that sort of thing would do well to remember that they are much like those who try to guess what a mosaic looks like by studying a piece of glass.
---------------------------
This is not to insult scientists except for those who get arrogant in their knowledge and thus need to have their balloons popped for the sake of science itself as much as for their own souls and the peace of mind of their neighbors. Such types do exist in science as well as in other places.
But anyway this is not to insult scientists. The fact that they know little of all their is to know is not a call to give up. It is rather an inspiration and a reminder that their are more pots of gold at the end of the rainbow of knowledge, waiting to be found by the intrepid.
---------------------------
This is not to insult scientists except for those who get arrogant in their knowledge and thus need to have their balloons popped for the sake of science itself as much as for their own souls and the peace of mind of their neighbors. Such types do exist in science as well as in other places.
But anyway this is not to insult scientists. The fact that they know little of all their is to know is not a call to give up. It is rather an inspiration and a reminder that their are more pots of gold at the end of the rainbow of knowledge, waiting to be found by the intrepid.
BetterThanLife
February 17th, 2005, 07:00 PM
OK back to the Far Trader Issue. I rolled up a Merchant in T20 last night. SInce I had today off, I spent a little time with the spec trade charts a set of dice and my Spinward Marches map and stats. He had a brand new Far Trader. (Substituted for the Free Trader because I wanted to see this work.) He mustered out with KCr190 and spent less than KCr20 on essentials, which is significantly less than I would normally spend and quite a bit less than any Player I have ever seen start a character out with.
(All the goodies look so tempting.)
I figured KCr170 should be enough for seed capital. After 4 attemtps here is where he wound up. The longest the seed capital lasted was 4 months. Twice it lasted 3 months in the shortest attmept it only lasted 2 months. After the periods listed there was no money and all of the expenses were not met. I was never forced to buy high and sell low. I was never forced to hold a load because I couldn't unload it and I always found a load. I never had to travel empty and mostly was able to travel absolutely full.
(All the goodies look so tempting.)
I figured KCr170 should be enough for seed capital. After 4 attemtps here is where he wound up. The longest the seed capital lasted was 4 months. Twice it lasted 3 months in the shortest attmept it only lasted 2 months. After the periods listed there was no money and all of the expenses were not met. I was never forced to buy high and sell low. I was never forced to hold a load because I couldn't unload it and I always found a load. I never had to travel empty and mostly was able to travel absolutely full.
kaladorn
February 17th, 2005, 07:51 PM
Interesting. It would be interesting to do this for the various flavours of era/trade rules, with some standardized ship designs, just to see how they perform relatively speaking. I bet *all* of them are money losing propositions.
flykiller
February 17th, 2005, 08:17 PM
The longest the seed capital lasted was 4 months.what routes did you run?
far-trader
February 17th, 2005, 08:42 PM
You're all stinking mind reading Zho spies!
;)
I was toying with some concepts along this line last night. Now I find Bhoins jumping the gun, and kaladorn proposing part of my scheme smile.gif
Oh well, maybe I'll still work on it all in the background and go ahead when I get it together. Until then...
...carry on!
p.s. I think a big part of the problem you had might be the book design. There could be errors, and certainly it is not optimal.
I did a quick custom design last night and checked the potential roughly and it loses about KCr40 per two-week trip over the year. Now if it were a standard design with the 20% discount the shortfall is closer to KCr10 per trip. Granted that's still a good chunk of change to make on spec but I think I'm close. Close enough to fine tune the design a little tonight and try my own hand at doing a little trade run like you did Bhoins. Maybe my positive attitude is all I need ;)
;)
I was toying with some concepts along this line last night. Now I find Bhoins jumping the gun, and kaladorn proposing part of my scheme smile.gif
Oh well, maybe I'll still work on it all in the background and go ahead when I get it together. Until then...
...carry on!
p.s. I think a big part of the problem you had might be the book design. There could be errors, and certainly it is not optimal.
I did a quick custom design last night and checked the potential roughly and it loses about KCr40 per two-week trip over the year. Now if it were a standard design with the 20% discount the shortfall is closer to KCr10 per trip. Granted that's still a good chunk of change to make on spec but I think I'm close. Close enough to fine tune the design a little tonight and try my own hand at doing a little trade run like you did Bhoins. Maybe my positive attitude is all I need ;)
BetterThanLife
February 17th, 2005, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The longest the seed capital lasted was 4 months.what routes did you run? </font>[/QUOTE]It wasn't much of a route. I was running between RHYLANOR and PORZOLO. I figured if I stuck to two High Pop, Class A Starports to get me started I should be able to build up enough capital to be able to afford a loss. But I couldn't get even that to make money. Which is how I managed to keep things full. A Free Trader would have made it but they can run without spec.
Looking further at how this thing actually works. (First time messing with it since I got fed up with the CT rules way back when, when there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to what you could buy where, and you only got one roll.
I can see how you can make money, but only if you are very lucky or have lots more cash lying about and get lucky enough to get the right commodity roll on one of your rolls each month.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The longest the seed capital lasted was 4 months.what routes did you run? </font>[/QUOTE]It wasn't much of a route. I was running between RHYLANOR and PORZOLO. I figured if I stuck to two High Pop, Class A Starports to get me started I should be able to build up enough capital to be able to afford a loss. But I couldn't get even that to make money. Which is how I managed to keep things full. A Free Trader would have made it but they can run without spec.
Looking further at how this thing actually works. (First time messing with it since I got fed up with the CT rules way back when, when there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to what you could buy where, and you only got one roll.
I can see how you can make money, but only if you are very lucky or have lots more cash lying about and get lucky enough to get the right commodity roll on one of your rolls each month.
Klaus
February 17th, 2005, 10:00 PM
I always regarded the fees for transport in CT or T20 to be the minimum anyone could expect to pay.
It made sense to me that the Imperium may enforce a min of 10kcr/jump high, 1kcr lo-berth etc, as this would stimulate trade and commerce. A max fee per jump would be unenforcable for a start and would stifle trade. (The rates seem to regular not to have some governmental influence on them).
If people were desperate to leave a planet (natural disaster) ship captains could make up any price. Trafficking goods to an Amber zoned world might be double, etc. IMHO the laws of supply and demand come over any arbitrary game system, broken or not. And they add lots of juicy adventure hooks too.
It made sense to me that the Imperium may enforce a min of 10kcr/jump high, 1kcr lo-berth etc, as this would stimulate trade and commerce. A max fee per jump would be unenforcable for a start and would stifle trade. (The rates seem to regular not to have some governmental influence on them).
If people were desperate to leave a planet (natural disaster) ship captains could make up any price. Trafficking goods to an Amber zoned world might be double, etc. IMHO the laws of supply and demand come over any arbitrary game system, broken or not. And they add lots of juicy adventure hooks too.
BetterThanLife
February 17th, 2005, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Interesting. It would be interesting to do this for the various flavours of era/trade rules, with some standardized ship designs, just to see how they perform relatively speaking. I bet *all* of them are money losing propositions. CT is the easiest to lose money on because you only get one roll on the commodity table per week. LBB7 I never had so I can't tell you what changed in CT with LBB7. (Matter of fact I never saw it in stores.)
MT I still, with the Errata in my hands, can't figure out how to read the tables, however because the "Standard Ships" are all built at TLF and the jump fuel requirements is lower for higher jump ships, the higher jump ships are closer to breaking even without using spec.
I never messed with TNE or T4 but would think without an Imperium and little trade you could charge quite a bit more than the standard fares.
GT, while I never messed with it, from all reports is a Per Parsec model not a Per Jump model and apparently works.
Which leaves T20, which I have been assured that the Trade and Spec rules actually work and you can make money with a higher jump ship. I can't seem to make it work though.
Interesting. It would be interesting to do this for the various flavours of era/trade rules, with some standardized ship designs, just to see how they perform relatively speaking. I bet *all* of them are money losing propositions. CT is the easiest to lose money on because you only get one roll on the commodity table per week. LBB7 I never had so I can't tell you what changed in CT with LBB7. (Matter of fact I never saw it in stores.)
MT I still, with the Errata in my hands, can't figure out how to read the tables, however because the "Standard Ships" are all built at TLF and the jump fuel requirements is lower for higher jump ships, the higher jump ships are closer to breaking even without using spec.
I never messed with TNE or T4 but would think without an Imperium and little trade you could charge quite a bit more than the standard fares.
GT, while I never messed with it, from all reports is a Per Parsec model not a Per Jump model and apparently works.
Which leaves T20, which I have been assured that the Trade and Spec rules actually work and you can make money with a higher jump ship. I can't seem to make it work though.
Anthony
February 18th, 2005, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Interesting. It would be interesting to do this for the various flavours of era/trade rules, with some standardized ship designs, just to see how they perform relatively speaking. I bet *all* of them are money losing propositions. J1 traders typically make money in most rulesets. In GURPS Traveller Far Trader, the cost of shipping has been back-computed from the cost of running a ship, so you generally make money with any sanely designed J1, J2, or J3 trader.
Interesting. It would be interesting to do this for the various flavours of era/trade rules, with some standardized ship designs, just to see how they perform relatively speaking. I bet *all* of them are money losing propositions. J1 traders typically make money in most rulesets. In GURPS Traveller Far Trader, the cost of shipping has been back-computed from the cost of running a ship, so you generally make money with any sanely designed J1, J2, or J3 trader.
mike wightman
February 18th, 2005, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
I did a quick custom design last night and checked the potential roughly and it loses about KCr40 per two-week trip over the year. Now if it were a standard design with the 20% discount the shortfall is closer to KCr10 per trip. Granted that's still a good chunk of change to make on spec but I think I'm close. Close enough to fine tune the design a little tonight and try my own hand at doing a little trade run like you did Bhoins. Maybe my positive attitude is all I need ;) I think ther should be a standard hull for the 200t Far Trader in CT.
25t drive compartment, 175t main compartment, cost 8MCr, time to build 11 months.
If it is also a standard design then it qualifies for a further 10% discount.
I think I can build (using LBB2) a jump 2, maneuver 1 Far Trader for MCr52.83 with no passenger staterooms, low berths, or air/raft. 84t of cargo hold.
I did a quick custom design last night and checked the potential roughly and it loses about KCr40 per two-week trip over the year. Now if it were a standard design with the 20% discount the shortfall is closer to KCr10 per trip. Granted that's still a good chunk of change to make on spec but I think I'm close. Close enough to fine tune the design a little tonight and try my own hand at doing a little trade run like you did Bhoins. Maybe my positive attitude is all I need ;) I think ther should be a standard hull for the 200t Far Trader in CT.
25t drive compartment, 175t main compartment, cost 8MCr, time to build 11 months.
If it is also a standard design then it qualifies for a further 10% discount.
I think I can build (using LBB2) a jump 2, maneuver 1 Far Trader for MCr52.83 with no passenger staterooms, low berths, or air/raft. 84t of cargo hold.
flykiller
February 18th, 2005, 04:17 AM
It wasn't much of a route. I was running between RHYLANOR and PORZOLO.in CT the big-ticket speculation transactions take place between industrial, rich, and poor worlds, so the trick is to include those sorts of worlds in the run. if that relationship exists in the ruleset you're using then try glisten-aki-sorel, or collace-talos-trexalon.
mike wightman
February 18th, 2005, 06:28 AM
If you haven't seen LBB7 or MegaTraveller before then the following skill modifiers may be of use in the CT economic system:
Admin +1 DM per skill level on the middle passengers table;
Liaison +1 DM per skill level on the minor cargos table;
Steward +1 DM per skill level on the high passengers table;
Streetwise +1 DM per skill level on the low passengers table;
Admin +1 DM per skill level on the middle passengers table;
Liaison +1 DM per skill level on the minor cargos table;
Steward +1 DM per skill level on the high passengers table;
Streetwise +1 DM per skill level on the low passengers table;
BetterThanLife
February 18th, 2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
If you haven't seen LBB7 or MegaTraveller before then the following skill modifiers may be of use in the CT economic system:
Admin +1 DM per skill level on the middle passengers table;
Liaison +1 DM per skill level on the minor cargos table;
Steward +1 DM per skill level on the high passengers table;
Streetwise +1 DM per skill level on the low passengers table; Those kinds of things are present in the T20 rules. Problem is, with the economic rules, as written, travelling full doesn't help, you still can't make your overhead on the J2+ ships.
If you haven't seen LBB7 or MegaTraveller before then the following skill modifiers may be of use in the CT economic system:
Admin +1 DM per skill level on the middle passengers table;
Liaison +1 DM per skill level on the minor cargos table;
Steward +1 DM per skill level on the high passengers table;
Streetwise +1 DM per skill level on the low passengers table; Those kinds of things are present in the T20 rules. Problem is, with the economic rules, as written, travelling full doesn't help, you still can't make your overhead on the J2+ ships.
mike wightman
February 18th, 2005, 09:31 AM
Would squeezing in an extra jump per month help, or would there still be a shortfall?
Must go and check the numbers.
Must go and check the numbers.
mike wightman
February 18th, 2005, 09:41 AM
Nope, still won't work.
A per parsec charge for cargo fits my numbers beautifully though ;)
A per parsec charge for cargo fits my numbers beautifully though ;)
BetterThanLife
February 18th, 2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I did a quick custom design last night and checked the potential roughly and it loses about KCr40 per two-week trip over the year. Now if it were a standard design with the 20% discount the shortfall is closer to KCr10 per trip. Granted that's still a good chunk of change to make on spec but I think I'm close. Close enough to fine tune the design a little tonight and try my own hand at doing a little trade run like you did Bhoins. Maybe my positive attitude is all I need ;) I think ther should be a standard hull for the 200t Far Trader in CT.
25t drive compartment, 175t main compartment, cost 8MCr, time to build 11 months.
If it is also a standard design then it qualifies for a further 10% discount.
I think I can build (using LBB2) a jump 2, maneuver 1 Far Trader for MCr52.83 with no passenger staterooms, low berths, or air/raft. 84t of cargo hold. </font>[/QUOTE]Ton for ton, Low berths are actually a good thing to carry as they pay Cr1800/ton, as long as you don't have so many that you can't keep them full. High Passengers if you carry them in groups of 8 and double bunk your steward, net about Cr1258 per passenger per ton. Mid Passengers net (Provided they aren't replacing High Passengers so you aren't carrying an idle steward.) Cr1500 per ton. If they are replacing High Passengers and you aren't firing a Steward then they only net Cr788 per ton, which is better than dead heading but not up to even freight standards. However if you are carrying a mix of high passengers and mid passengers, with no more than 50% of your passengers being Mid passengers that are replacing High Passengers then you are still carrying passengers at more than Cr1024 per ton. So while having nice big cargo holds might ba a nice idea, a small amount of passengers, is a better idea. (* High Passenger Staterooms, unless you happen to pretty much stick to High Pop Worlds, and 12-16 Low passengers would be a good part of your design. (Though it still won't break even on higher jump ships.)
The Standard design, LBB2, Far Trader is only MCr59.6. (And it can't make its overhead under standard LBB2 trade rules running full loads.) Losing passengers for cargo doesn't help, because you lose money. (If you steward is also your medic or you double bunk your steward and medic or engineer, you can carry 7 High passengers, at about Cr1200 per ton and you can usually manage to carry a full load of passengers.) The same with your 4 low passengers, you can keep 4 low berths full.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I did a quick custom design last night and checked the potential roughly and it loses about KCr40 per two-week trip over the year. Now if it were a standard design with the 20% discount the shortfall is closer to KCr10 per trip. Granted that's still a good chunk of change to make on spec but I think I'm close. Close enough to fine tune the design a little tonight and try my own hand at doing a little trade run like you did Bhoins. Maybe my positive attitude is all I need ;) I think ther should be a standard hull for the 200t Far Trader in CT.
25t drive compartment, 175t main compartment, cost 8MCr, time to build 11 months.
If it is also a standard design then it qualifies for a further 10% discount.
I think I can build (using LBB2) a jump 2, maneuver 1 Far Trader for MCr52.83 with no passenger staterooms, low berths, or air/raft. 84t of cargo hold. </font>[/QUOTE]Ton for ton, Low berths are actually a good thing to carry as they pay Cr1800/ton, as long as you don't have so many that you can't keep them full. High Passengers if you carry them in groups of 8 and double bunk your steward, net about Cr1258 per passenger per ton. Mid Passengers net (Provided they aren't replacing High Passengers so you aren't carrying an idle steward.) Cr1500 per ton. If they are replacing High Passengers and you aren't firing a Steward then they only net Cr788 per ton, which is better than dead heading but not up to even freight standards. However if you are carrying a mix of high passengers and mid passengers, with no more than 50% of your passengers being Mid passengers that are replacing High Passengers then you are still carrying passengers at more than Cr1024 per ton. So while having nice big cargo holds might ba a nice idea, a small amount of passengers, is a better idea. (* High Passenger Staterooms, unless you happen to pretty much stick to High Pop Worlds, and 12-16 Low passengers would be a good part of your design. (Though it still won't break even on higher jump ships.)
The Standard design, LBB2, Far Trader is only MCr59.6. (And it can't make its overhead under standard LBB2 trade rules running full loads.) Losing passengers for cargo doesn't help, because you lose money. (If you steward is also your medic or you double bunk your steward and medic or engineer, you can carry 7 High passengers, at about Cr1200 per ton and you can usually manage to carry a full load of passengers.) The same with your 4 low passengers, you can keep 4 low berths full.
BetterThanLife
February 18th, 2005, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It wasn't much of a route. I was running between RHYLANOR and PORZOLO.in CT the big-ticket speculation transactions take place between industrial, rich, and poor worlds, so the trick is to include those sorts of worlds in the run. if that relationship exists in the ruleset you're using then try glisten-aki-sorel, or collace-talos-trexalon. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better. (Matter of fact, owning a Wharehouse on the High Port, or even at the Low Port, Set up on a High Pop, Rich World, with the Broker Skill, provided your overhead for the wharehouse is much cheaper than a Starship, and it should be, and buying one week and selling the next will make you rich in a hurry, especially since you aren't sitting a week in jump space a week. You should be able to get 3-4 transactions a month. You could, of course, supplement your income by acting as a Broker for Starships, or vice versa. However the game is called Traveller, it is not supposed to be a game about Commodities Brokers at the exchange. Though you could always try to corner the market in Frozen Orange Juice Concentrate.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It wasn't much of a route. I was running between RHYLANOR and PORZOLO.in CT the big-ticket speculation transactions take place between industrial, rich, and poor worlds, so the trick is to include those sorts of worlds in the run. if that relationship exists in the ruleset you're using then try glisten-aki-sorel, or collace-talos-trexalon. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better. (Matter of fact, owning a Wharehouse on the High Port, or even at the Low Port, Set up on a High Pop, Rich World, with the Broker Skill, provided your overhead for the wharehouse is much cheaper than a Starship, and it should be, and buying one week and selling the next will make you rich in a hurry, especially since you aren't sitting a week in jump space a week. You should be able to get 3-4 transactions a month. You could, of course, supplement your income by acting as a Broker for Starships, or vice versa. However the game is called Traveller, it is not supposed to be a game about Commodities Brokers at the exchange. Though you could always try to corner the market in Frozen Orange Juice Concentrate.
BetterThanLife
February 18th, 2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Nope, still won't work.
A per parsec charge for cargo fits my numbers beautifully though ;) Do the same with passengers and it is profitable to carry them as well. (If you only carry freight per Parsec, then J2+ ships won't carry passengers.)
Nope, still won't work.
A per parsec charge for cargo fits my numbers beautifully though ;) Do the same with passengers and it is profitable to carry them as well. (If you only carry freight per Parsec, then J2+ ships won't carry passengers.)
BetterThanLife
February 18th, 2005, 10:00 AM
I have to assume that the Leviathan, (CT Adventure 4) and the Lorimar (EA4) are loss leaders for major corporations to do market research and in no way are expected, in and of themselves, to make a profit.
mike wightman
February 18th, 2005, 10:12 AM
I left out the passenger staterooms because I wanted to see what a pure cargo carrier could do.
Without per parsec cargo it won't work.
The next question is what is the ideal amount of passenger accomodation?
I'd go for eight low berths and seven passenger staterooms.
Employ a steward/medic, and double bunk the crew to free up another stateroom if the extra passenger is found.
As long as someone in the crew has streetwise, admin, and steward skill for your steward ;) you should find the passengers.
You still can't pay you're overheads though :(
Without per parsec cargo it won't work.
The next question is what is the ideal amount of passenger accomodation?
I'd go for eight low berths and seven passenger staterooms.
Employ a steward/medic, and double bunk the crew to free up another stateroom if the extra passenger is found.
As long as someone in the crew has streetwise, admin, and steward skill for your steward ;) you should find the passengers.
You still can't pay you're overheads though :(
BetterThanLife
February 18th, 2005, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I left out the passenger staterooms because I wanted to see what a pure cargo carrier could do.
Without per parsec cargo it won't work.
The next question is what is the ideal amount of passenger accomodation?
I'd go for eight low berths and seven passenger staterooms.8 Passengers, it makes your Steward cheaper. (And you can normally find, at least (unless you stick to low pop worlds), 4 High Passengers and 4 Mid Passengers which is still better than carrying cargo.
Employ a steward/medic, and double bunk the crew to free up another stateroom if the extra passenger is found.
As long as someone in the crew has streetwise, admin, and steward skill for your steward ;) you should find the passengers.
You still can't pay you're overheads though :( Funny that is what I have been saying about Traveller Economics for 25 years. smile.gif Which means you can't get a Starship Mortgage, which means that anything not on a main is a backwater. Any travel off the mains will have to be subsidized and the government will take losses and run up serious deficits.
I left out the passenger staterooms because I wanted to see what a pure cargo carrier could do.
Without per parsec cargo it won't work.
The next question is what is the ideal amount of passenger accomodation?
I'd go for eight low berths and seven passenger staterooms.8 Passengers, it makes your Steward cheaper. (And you can normally find, at least (unless you stick to low pop worlds), 4 High Passengers and 4 Mid Passengers which is still better than carrying cargo.
Employ a steward/medic, and double bunk the crew to free up another stateroom if the extra passenger is found.
As long as someone in the crew has streetwise, admin, and steward skill for your steward ;) you should find the passengers.
You still can't pay you're overheads though :( Funny that is what I have been saying about Traveller Economics for 25 years. smile.gif Which means you can't get a Starship Mortgage, which means that anything not on a main is a backwater. Any travel off the mains will have to be subsidized and the government will take losses and run up serious deficits.
mike wightman
February 18th, 2005, 10:39 AM
There's always piracy ;)
Bit difficult to include it in the business plan though :eek: graemlins/file_28.gif graemlins/file_23.gif
Bit difficult to include it in the business plan though :eek: graemlins/file_28.gif graemlins/file_23.gif
BetterThanLife
February 18th, 2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
There's always piracy ;)
Bit difficult to include it in the business plan though :eek: graemlins/file_28.gif graemlins/file_23.gif That of course depends on how much of a gearhead and how into Naval design the Referee is. If you take the typical Subsector, assign a CruRon or a BatRon plus escorts, to each Naval base, and a Task Force to the Subsector Capital Naval Base, throw in a Colonial and/or reserve fleet. Move them all about to conduct training, show the flag, and perform other routine missions and Piracy virtually goes away for some reason. smile.gif
There's always piracy ;)
Bit difficult to include it in the business plan though :eek: graemlins/file_28.gif graemlins/file_23.gif That of course depends on how much of a gearhead and how into Naval design the Referee is. If you take the typical Subsector, assign a CruRon or a BatRon plus escorts, to each Naval base, and a Task Force to the Subsector Capital Naval Base, throw in a Colonial and/or reserve fleet. Move them all about to conduct training, show the flag, and perform other routine missions and Piracy virtually goes away for some reason. smile.gif
GBoyett
February 18th, 2005, 11:59 PM
Hearing everyone's "betatesting" of the T20 trade rules, I decided to do the same thing tonight. So here's my result.
The main PC is a Belter 4 / Merchant 9. With some luck at the casinos and bonuses his starting cash was $360,000. Instead of a Trader he gets a 10 year old standard Seeker (J-2, M-1, 35dtons cargo).
Because of the limitation of the mortgage spreadsheet(See below reason for this spreadsheet) I used the ship has a 30 year mortgage. Please note this is a 10 year old ship with a new mortgage, not in the middle of an existing one.
Anyway, I did a 6 month run in the Beta Quadrant of the Gateway Sector. The primary stopovers were Varan's Belt and Vestra, with couple of sidetrips to Oceanis and Polacci.
In summary, after 6 months I ended up with 2.22MCr. Cargo runs caused minor profits or loses while the speculative trade was the real money maker.
So well my business was going I started to add extra principal begining with the 4th payment. The extras prinicipal totaled 2.25MCr, which reduced the project schedule by 68 payments. It was variable extra principal per payment that made me select this mortgage spreadsheet.
Here's the breakdown.
Cargo - Except for Polacci all the systems had almost similar populations (7) and tech levels (A & B). Having a good Laision skill helped
Speculative - The clincher was a very high Broker skill (18 = +4 Int +12 Rank +2 Barter). This will virtually guarrenty something is available to buy. With Calculating Eye feat you can easily get +3 brokerage bonus for the actual value table. The broker bonus help offset any negative or nonexisting trade mods. Most trade goods actually had no applicable mods for the visited worlds.
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.
In summary, with a good set of skills, feats, and systems, the t20 rules do work. You can get some very wacked-out selling prices with the ACT. The worse was +11 (+3 Broker, +8 Rich) when selling coffee and tea to Oceanis. Though most had +3 - +5 mods.
The main PC is a Belter 4 / Merchant 9. With some luck at the casinos and bonuses his starting cash was $360,000. Instead of a Trader he gets a 10 year old standard Seeker (J-2, M-1, 35dtons cargo).
Because of the limitation of the mortgage spreadsheet(See below reason for this spreadsheet) I used the ship has a 30 year mortgage. Please note this is a 10 year old ship with a new mortgage, not in the middle of an existing one.
Anyway, I did a 6 month run in the Beta Quadrant of the Gateway Sector. The primary stopovers were Varan's Belt and Vestra, with couple of sidetrips to Oceanis and Polacci.
In summary, after 6 months I ended up with 2.22MCr. Cargo runs caused minor profits or loses while the speculative trade was the real money maker.
So well my business was going I started to add extra principal begining with the 4th payment. The extras prinicipal totaled 2.25MCr, which reduced the project schedule by 68 payments. It was variable extra principal per payment that made me select this mortgage spreadsheet.
Here's the breakdown.
Cargo - Except for Polacci all the systems had almost similar populations (7) and tech levels (A & B). Having a good Laision skill helped
Speculative - The clincher was a very high Broker skill (18 = +4 Int +12 Rank +2 Barter). This will virtually guarrenty something is available to buy. With Calculating Eye feat you can easily get +3 brokerage bonus for the actual value table. The broker bonus help offset any negative or nonexisting trade mods. Most trade goods actually had no applicable mods for the visited worlds.
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.
In summary, with a good set of skills, feats, and systems, the t20 rules do work. You can get some very wacked-out selling prices with the ACT. The worse was +11 (+3 Broker, +8 Rich) when selling coffee and tea to Oceanis. Though most had +3 - +5 mods.
Morte
February 19th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by George Boyett:
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.I don't know what the intent of the rules was, but I find that unbalancing in actual play. IMHO it's best to limit that bonus to either sales or purchases. Well, unless they've got a really unprofitable ship but you want them to break even on trade anyhow.
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.I don't know what the intent of the rules was, but I find that unbalancing in actual play. IMHO it's best to limit that bonus to either sales or purchases. Well, unless they've got a really unprofitable ship but you want them to break even on trade anyhow.
daryen
February 19th, 2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better.Do note, of course, that a world cannot be both High Pop and Rich. (High Pop is population rating of 9+. Rich must have a population of 6 to 8.)
So you can't have a route between two worlds that are both High Pop and Rich.
Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better.Do note, of course, that a world cannot be both High Pop and Rich. (High Pop is population rating of 9+. Rich must have a population of 6 to 8.)
So you can't have a route between two worlds that are both High Pop and Rich.
GBoyett
February 19th, 2005, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Morte:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George Boyett:
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.I don't know what the intent of the rules was, but I find that unbalancing in actual play. IMHO it's best to limit that bonus to either sales or purchases. Well, unless they've got a really unprofitable ship but you want them to break even on trade anyhow. </font>[/QUOTE]Check the latest errata for THB. It gives it as +/- brokerage bonus.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George Boyett:
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.I don't know what the intent of the rules was, but I find that unbalancing in actual play. IMHO it's best to limit that bonus to either sales or purchases. Well, unless they've got a really unprofitable ship but you want them to break even on trade anyhow. </font>[/QUOTE]Check the latest errata for THB. It gives it as +/- brokerage bonus.
BetterThanLife
February 20th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better.Do note, of course, that a world cannot be both High Pop and Rich. (High Pop is population rating of 9+. Rich must have a population of 6 to 8.)
So you can't have a route between two worlds that are both High Pop and Rich. </font>[/QUOTE]I klnew there was a problem with that combination. OK Rich World Pop 8 would be best or Hi-Pop, Industrial. In all reality though since the rolls are so randomly distributed, at least in CT and T20, the trade classification matters less than the Population Digit, Tech Level and Starport type. All three have a bigger, consistent economic impact.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better.Do note, of course, that a world cannot be both High Pop and Rich. (High Pop is population rating of 9+. Rich must have a population of 6 to 8.)
So you can't have a route between two worlds that are both High Pop and Rich. </font>[/QUOTE]I klnew there was a problem with that combination. OK Rich World Pop 8 would be best or Hi-Pop, Industrial. In all reality though since the rolls are so randomly distributed, at least in CT and T20, the trade classification matters less than the Population Digit, Tech Level and Starport type. All three have a bigger, consistent economic impact.
JAFARR
February 22nd, 2005, 08:04 PM
IMHO,what this whole topic boils down to is this: The origional rules were a good starting place. Out of them grew LBBs 4 - 8 just because of glitches like this. Then MT was supposed to put all the revisions and updates in place, but their fix for commerce didn't completly fix it, so IMTU I resolved it by charging by the parsec and stopped worrying about it.
selunatic2397
February 22nd, 2005, 10:36 PM
Thats what i've been doing IMTU too. It works out okay...that and the preference for the non merchants to favor extremely ancient ships [as long as it's paid off they could care less if it's 100 years old]. Currently they're raiding pirates because "They've got all the good stuff already". With the CT prices for turrets and lasers and the like my players are doing okay on the salvage markets.
BetterThanLife
February 23rd, 2005, 03:37 PM
Actually the whole topic boils down to can the economic system of paying passage and freight per jump regardless of distance finance a J2+ Starship using the standard freight prices, the standard passenger prices, the standard mortgage, and hopefully, but not neccessarily, one of the standard starship designs? With or without speculative trading.
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships.
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships.
far-trader
February 23rd, 2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually the whole topic boils down to can the economic system of paying passage and freight per jump regardless of distance finance a J2+ Starship using the standard freight prices, the standard passenger prices, the standard mortgage, and hopefully, but not neccessarily, one of the standard starship designs? With or without speculative trading.Agreed, on the topic meaning ;)
I'd even add the requirement of 25 trips per year (1 week in port, 1 week in transit) with 2 weeks off for annual maintenance, with paid crew vacations of course.
And no I'm not forgetting the little things like landing and berthing fees either.
Originally posted by Bhoins:
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships. But here I disagree, at least in part. The standard far-trader design sucks, no doubt on purpose as a means of "encouraging" the player's to "adventure".
I can consistently meet my obligations with "my" standard* TL11 200ton Far-Trader for T20, and turn a profit when speculating. In fact a quick business plan shows a profit of about Cr19,600 per trip assuming maximum expenses and full revenue potential (which should be doable most of the time per the design).
* I say standard because there's nothing special about it, it's just a logical design imo. If it were priced as a custom design it would probably lose money even with speculation. But then as a custom design perhaps I could make an opposed check against the different shipyards until I found one willing to build it for me at a 30% discount graemlins/file_22.gif Check the Trader skill notes smile.gif
So there needs be no change to the rates or shy away from financed J2 ships, you just need the right tools (ship and crew). J3 might be a different story but I did the numbers quite a while back and recall finding it can be made to work too if you build it at TL13 and/or perhaps a little larger, say up to 400tons.
Again I could, should, and want to share my ideas, but it ties into a project I want to propose so I'm loathe to just throw stuff out before it's ready.
I will just say again, it can be done. Belive it or don't.
Actually the whole topic boils down to can the economic system of paying passage and freight per jump regardless of distance finance a J2+ Starship using the standard freight prices, the standard passenger prices, the standard mortgage, and hopefully, but not neccessarily, one of the standard starship designs? With or without speculative trading.Agreed, on the topic meaning ;)
I'd even add the requirement of 25 trips per year (1 week in port, 1 week in transit) with 2 weeks off for annual maintenance, with paid crew vacations of course.
And no I'm not forgetting the little things like landing and berthing fees either.
Originally posted by Bhoins:
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships. But here I disagree, at least in part. The standard far-trader design sucks, no doubt on purpose as a means of "encouraging" the player's to "adventure".
I can consistently meet my obligations with "my" standard* TL11 200ton Far-Trader for T20, and turn a profit when speculating. In fact a quick business plan shows a profit of about Cr19,600 per trip assuming maximum expenses and full revenue potential (which should be doable most of the time per the design).
* I say standard because there's nothing special about it, it's just a logical design imo. If it were priced as a custom design it would probably lose money even with speculation. But then as a custom design perhaps I could make an opposed check against the different shipyards until I found one willing to build it for me at a 30% discount graemlins/file_22.gif Check the Trader skill notes smile.gif
So there needs be no change to the rates or shy away from financed J2 ships, you just need the right tools (ship and crew). J3 might be a different story but I did the numbers quite a while back and recall finding it can be made to work too if you build it at TL13 and/or perhaps a little larger, say up to 400tons.
Again I could, should, and want to share my ideas, but it ties into a project I want to propose so I'm loathe to just throw stuff out before it's ready.
I will just say again, it can be done. Belive it or don't.
BetterThanLife
February 23rd, 2005, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships. But here I disagree, at least in part. The standard far-trader design sucks, no doubt on purpose as a means of "encouraging" the player's to "adventure".
I can consistently meet my obligations with "my" standard* TL11 200ton Far-Trader for T20, and turn a profit when speculating. In fact a quick business plan shows a profit of about Cr19,600 per trip assuming maximum expenses and full revenue potential (which should be doable most of the time per the design).
* I say standard because there's nothing special about it, it's just a logical design imo. If it were priced as a custom design it would probably lose money even with speculation. But then as a custom design perhaps I could make an opposed check against the different shipyards until I found one willing to build it for me at a 30% discount graemlins/file_22.gif Check the Trader skill notes smile.gif
So there needs be no change to the rates or shy away from financed J2 ships, you just need the right tools (ship and crew). J3 might be a different story but I did the numbers quite a while back and recall finding it can be made to work too if you build it at TL13 and/or perhaps a little larger, say up to 400tons.
Again I could, should, and want to share my ideas, but it ties into a project I want to propose so I'm loathe to just throw stuff out before it's ready.
I will just say again, it can be done. Belive it or don't. </font>[/QUOTE]Well I personally have yet to make it more than 6 months, in a dozen attempts. Not in T20 at any rate. CT doesn't stand a chance because you only get one roll per week and it is too easy to get fragged. And that is without the nice plot devices like hijacking, corrupt officials, piracy, quarantines, shifty loads, etc. (Those are to encourage adventuring. smile.gif )
Now I know I am not the only person that tried to make this work. And remember it has to work, not just for Player Characters but for the general merchant population as well. Has anyone besides Far-Trader made it work, consistently, not just some fluke load?
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships. But here I disagree, at least in part. The standard far-trader design sucks, no doubt on purpose as a means of "encouraging" the player's to "adventure".
I can consistently meet my obligations with "my" standard* TL11 200ton Far-Trader for T20, and turn a profit when speculating. In fact a quick business plan shows a profit of about Cr19,600 per trip assuming maximum expenses and full revenue potential (which should be doable most of the time per the design).
* I say standard because there's nothing special about it, it's just a logical design imo. If it were priced as a custom design it would probably lose money even with speculation. But then as a custom design perhaps I could make an opposed check against the different shipyards until I found one willing to build it for me at a 30% discount graemlins/file_22.gif Check the Trader skill notes smile.gif
So there needs be no change to the rates or shy away from financed J2 ships, you just need the right tools (ship and crew). J3 might be a different story but I did the numbers quite a while back and recall finding it can be made to work too if you build it at TL13 and/or perhaps a little larger, say up to 400tons.
Again I could, should, and want to share my ideas, but it ties into a project I want to propose so I'm loathe to just throw stuff out before it's ready.
I will just say again, it can be done. Belive it or don't. </font>[/QUOTE]Well I personally have yet to make it more than 6 months, in a dozen attempts. Not in T20 at any rate. CT doesn't stand a chance because you only get one roll per week and it is too easy to get fragged. And that is without the nice plot devices like hijacking, corrupt officials, piracy, quarantines, shifty loads, etc. (Those are to encourage adventuring. smile.gif )
Now I know I am not the only person that tried to make this work. And remember it has to work, not just for Player Characters but for the general merchant population as well. Has anyone besides Far-Trader made it work, consistently, not just some fluke load?
JAFARR
February 24th, 2005, 12:17 AM
Actually there are hints here and there that there may be reasons to charge/earn more than the "standard" prices. It would seem that in the SM these prices would certanly be welcome. I haven't done much adventuring in other sectors, but "Knightfall" shows a much more likely area to try.
Another thought: PC's are actually free lancers trying to make it on what the bigger boys leave lying around. If these ships were owned by a megacorp with long term contracts in place, would they be profitable? I suspect so. In actuality PC's trying to pay off a ship by carrying freight and passengers are Free Traders no matter what they may think of the idea. Maybe the question should be: Can a Free Trader make the rules work ...?
Another thought: PC's are actually free lancers trying to make it on what the bigger boys leave lying around. If these ships were owned by a megacorp with long term contracts in place, would they be profitable? I suspect so. In actuality PC's trying to pay off a ship by carrying freight and passengers are Free Traders no matter what they may think of the idea. Maybe the question should be: Can a Free Trader make the rules work ...?
RickA
March 5th, 2005, 03:52 PM
Re: 8 pages of trade discussion
My brain hurts.
My brain hurts.
far-trader
March 5th, 2005, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by RickA:
Re: 8 pages of trade discussion
My brain hurts. Congratualtions, you have passed your entry test to the Merchant Academy of Regina.
Welcome aboard :D
That is presuming you actually read the material and didn't just mean you hurt your brain from the very fact that there are 8 pages of trade discussion graemlins/file_21.gif
Re: 8 pages of trade discussion
My brain hurts. Congratualtions, you have passed your entry test to the Merchant Academy of Regina.
Welcome aboard :D
That is presuming you actually read the material and didn't just mean you hurt your brain from the very fact that there are 8 pages of trade discussion graemlins/file_21.gif
Maynard
March 5th, 2005, 10:53 PM
The costs of operation are badly skewed. If you look at the tramp freight rates here on Earth versus the cost of operations, yes, then plenty of businesses will fail, especially small start ups.
The large container ships can't be touched for rates. The little guy has to offer express service and excellent customer service as well, to justify higher prices. Same in trucking; the big guys have trucks all over the place, hence regular accounts and semi-regular routes, while the little guy either has only a few customers, or has to take what's offered on the spot market, where brokers rake off the cream.
The real question is, how can anybody sink some 40,000,000 Credits into such an operation, much less actually find banks stupid enough to make loans to such little operations, with such high failure rates? So, the game rules must be fudged, and interstellar flights have to be cheaper, to justify the kind of volumes of traffic supposedly going on in the settled areas and all those class A and B starports and shipyards, and there should be fewer settled planets in reality, than is the case in the OTU.
This kind of makes the Annic Nova's solar panels and capacitors make a lot more sense than the standard Imperial approach to ship design, eh? at least it would if it weren't for the long charge up times.
The large container ships can't be touched for rates. The little guy has to offer express service and excellent customer service as well, to justify higher prices. Same in trucking; the big guys have trucks all over the place, hence regular accounts and semi-regular routes, while the little guy either has only a few customers, or has to take what's offered on the spot market, where brokers rake off the cream.
The real question is, how can anybody sink some 40,000,000 Credits into such an operation, much less actually find banks stupid enough to make loans to such little operations, with such high failure rates? So, the game rules must be fudged, and interstellar flights have to be cheaper, to justify the kind of volumes of traffic supposedly going on in the settled areas and all those class A and B starports and shipyards, and there should be fewer settled planets in reality, than is the case in the OTU.
This kind of makes the Annic Nova's solar panels and capacitors make a lot more sense than the standard Imperial approach to ship design, eh? at least it would if it weren't for the long charge up times.
RickA
March 6th, 2005, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
Congratualtions, you have passed your entry test to the Merchant Academy of Regina.
Welcome aboard :D
That is presuming you actually read the material and didn't just mean you hurt your brain from the very fact that there are 8 pages of trade discussion graemlins/file_21.gif Oh, no, I have read it all, and all such threads I can find on the subject. I'm about to start a T20 Traveller campaign (my first Traveller work in nigh 20 years) and it will be a classic sort of campaign starting with the Stoner Express module.
So, trade is an important issue and knowing now (before the bedamned post office even gets me my rule book I ordered last week) that a parsec system for cargo fees should be considered instead of a per jump system is a big help.
Frankly I don't see how distance isn't a factor in pricing, but hey, maybe they just didn't think it through all the way. /shrug/
I'd not jump in a make such a profound change for my campaign myself, not until after we struggled mightily with the existing rules and likely had a few players give up in disgust.
So, if nothing else, this thread has saved me that.
Meanwhile, carry on gentlebeings. There are those of us with little to add to your discussion who are nevertheless benifiting from it.
Congratualtions, you have passed your entry test to the Merchant Academy of Regina.
Welcome aboard :D
That is presuming you actually read the material and didn't just mean you hurt your brain from the very fact that there are 8 pages of trade discussion graemlins/file_21.gif Oh, no, I have read it all, and all such threads I can find on the subject. I'm about to start a T20 Traveller campaign (my first Traveller work in nigh 20 years) and it will be a classic sort of campaign starting with the Stoner Express module.
So, trade is an important issue and knowing now (before the bedamned post office even gets me my rule book I ordered last week) that a parsec system for cargo fees should be considered instead of a per jump system is a big help.
Frankly I don't see how distance isn't a factor in pricing, but hey, maybe they just didn't think it through all the way. /shrug/
I'd not jump in a make such a profound change for my campaign myself, not until after we struggled mightily with the existing rules and likely had a few players give up in disgust.
So, if nothing else, this thread has saved me that.
Meanwhile, carry on gentlebeings. There are those of us with little to add to your discussion who are nevertheless benifiting from it.
Maynard
March 6th, 2005, 11:12 AM
I would think tweaking the drive and power plant fuel requirements, and also the cost of refining fuel, in order to increase freight capacity and lower operating costs would be the 'realistic' way to go, and having jump tenders available on the regular routes and the occasional irregular route, getting 'bulk rates' for several Traders going to the same destination, kind of like the equivalent of taking the bus or train, getting on and off at various stops along the service routes.
In medieval times, they used to have 'Fairs' on regular dates, so this could be the case with, say A, B, and C starports, so traffic can travel at a 'discount' on such dates, along with larger amounts of freight on a semiregular basis, and hence not subject to the normal traffic rules for those ports on 'Fair Weeks'. This also gives a more 'Techno-Medieval' feel to an empire based on fuedalism.
Thus, you can bend some of the trade classification effects to increase profits based on the smaller off route worlds coming to the local area's major'market day' for their shopping, also, as the market demand is now clustered for ,say, the D and E type worlds nearby, and their pop and trade classification figures can be used also, especially if they are a hi pop world. This would also allow more freight contracts for the little guy, who will haul for the special niche markets the big frieghters ignore.
I haven't gamed this idea yet, but it would make more sense than just wandering around randomly, picking up the odd lot here and there. Just like when the railroads were built, the towns along the rail became centers for a network of haulers from there to the outer reaches and smaller markets.
In medieval times, they used to have 'Fairs' on regular dates, so this could be the case with, say A, B, and C starports, so traffic can travel at a 'discount' on such dates, along with larger amounts of freight on a semiregular basis, and hence not subject to the normal traffic rules for those ports on 'Fair Weeks'. This also gives a more 'Techno-Medieval' feel to an empire based on fuedalism.
Thus, you can bend some of the trade classification effects to increase profits based on the smaller off route worlds coming to the local area's major'market day' for their shopping, also, as the market demand is now clustered for ,say, the D and E type worlds nearby, and their pop and trade classification figures can be used also, especially if they are a hi pop world. This would also allow more freight contracts for the little guy, who will haul for the special niche markets the big frieghters ignore.
I haven't gamed this idea yet, but it would make more sense than just wandering around randomly, picking up the odd lot here and there. Just like when the railroads were built, the towns along the rail became centers for a network of haulers from there to the outer reaches and smaller markets.
far-trader
March 6th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Before I went anywhere near changing the trade rules or ship rules as they are, especially since they work for J1 and in my design even J2 and possibly even limited specific J3 designs, I'd look at exploiting the rules as they are or making minor interpretive expansions in them.
For example, "buying" used ships is allowed and they come at a discount of 10% plus as much as 1% more for every year of age. So if a design can't make money as a "free-trader" it was probably originally a cash purchase (good for another 10% off for the original buyer) by a small line, and now it's 40 years old and being traded off for newer ships, the PC's can have one for 50% of the original new (and 20% discounted originally if a standard design) cost. If they still can't make money on it then they are hopeless smile.gif
Sure it'll have a few quirks and need constant attention from the Engineer(s) but that's part of the fun.
Or maybe it was a subsidized ship now being taken off route and sold by the government that contracted it. Of course it comes with a rider that still binds the purchaser to the "subject to mobilization as an auxiliary in the event of emergency or hostilities" clause, deeply buried in the fine print if you like ;)
Personally I've always felt the ship acquisition rules (barring TNE) were backwards. The first roll of ship should be for a 40 year old ship with a second mortgage. Each roll after that should be to add or subtract (player's choice), 10 years from the age of the ship, but the mortgage will still be for 40 years, just the price of it will change based on the depreciation. And let them pick any ship they want (that you can live with) that fits their character and your game. So if they want a 70 year old Type M Cruiser for their 4 ship rolls, fine, the cost is discounted 45% (being kept in good repair) and it has some maintenance issues and quirks. Or maybe they'd rather have that newer 10 year old Type A Trader that wasn't too well cared at 20% off the already lower standard design cost. If the repairs don't mount up they'll make the payments easily and probably be able to pay it off early. Likely long before the 40 years.
Or here's another idea if you want to stretch the rules to allow more revenue potential without straying too far from the OTU rules. Canon has examples of approved designs charging more for passage rates, and now with T20 even for freight. So double the size of the staterooms, I call them luxury passage suites, and charge more. I explain them in my posts/design INSIDE the Grand Traveller (http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000626#000000) (click the link). They are interpolated from the standard rates so they should not be too upsetting while still adding some revenue. Might not make much difference on a small ship though.
Or add some new classes of "traveller". Like the "priority passenger". Similar to priority cargo these passengers want to get there sooner than later and will pay for it. Same rules apply as for priority cargo. Priority passengers would be regular High passage but pay Cr10,000 per jump distance if on time, or nothing if late.
You could also have "hazardous passengers". Perhaps people suffering from serious rare medical conditions requiring treatment only available offworld. Hazardous passengers travel in Low Passage but pay Cr10,000 for the trip for the added risks of contamination.
And lastly how about "security passengers". They might be criminals being transported offworld for Imperial prosecution or incarceration, or perhaps security conscious VIP's travelling on important business. Again the same rules apply as for the cargo type of the same designation. Security passengers will book Middle passage at a Cr40,000 premium for the presumed risks and required ship security minimum of being armed and crewing a gunner.
In the above special passenger cases I would just use the numbers on the Bulk Cargo table to determine how many of the special types of passengers there are. And I'd use the Modifiers (based on destination world) from the cargo table for these special passengers.
For example, "buying" used ships is allowed and they come at a discount of 10% plus as much as 1% more for every year of age. So if a design can't make money as a "free-trader" it was probably originally a cash purchase (good for another 10% off for the original buyer) by a small line, and now it's 40 years old and being traded off for newer ships, the PC's can have one for 50% of the original new (and 20% discounted originally if a standard design) cost. If they still can't make money on it then they are hopeless smile.gif
Sure it'll have a few quirks and need constant attention from the Engineer(s) but that's part of the fun.
Or maybe it was a subsidized ship now being taken off route and sold by the government that contracted it. Of course it comes with a rider that still binds the purchaser to the "subject to mobilization as an auxiliary in the event of emergency or hostilities" clause, deeply buried in the fine print if you like ;)
Personally I've always felt the ship acquisition rules (barring TNE) were backwards. The first roll of ship should be for a 40 year old ship with a second mortgage. Each roll after that should be to add or subtract (player's choice), 10 years from the age of the ship, but the mortgage will still be for 40 years, just the price of it will change based on the depreciation. And let them pick any ship they want (that you can live with) that fits their character and your game. So if they want a 70 year old Type M Cruiser for their 4 ship rolls, fine, the cost is discounted 45% (being kept in good repair) and it has some maintenance issues and quirks. Or maybe they'd rather have that newer 10 year old Type A Trader that wasn't too well cared at 20% off the already lower standard design cost. If the repairs don't mount up they'll make the payments easily and probably be able to pay it off early. Likely long before the 40 years.
Or here's another idea if you want to stretch the rules to allow more revenue potential without straying too far from the OTU rules. Canon has examples of approved designs charging more for passage rates, and now with T20 even for freight. So double the size of the staterooms, I call them luxury passage suites, and charge more. I explain them in my posts/design INSIDE the Grand Traveller (http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000626#000000) (click the link). They are interpolated from the standard rates so they should not be too upsetting while still adding some revenue. Might not make much difference on a small ship though.
Or add some new classes of "traveller". Like the "priority passenger". Similar to priority cargo these passengers want to get there sooner than later and will pay for it. Same rules apply as for priority cargo. Priority passengers would be regular High passage but pay Cr10,000 per jump distance if on time, or nothing if late.
You could also have "hazardous passengers". Perhaps people suffering from serious rare medical conditions requiring treatment only available offworld. Hazardous passengers travel in Low Passage but pay Cr10,000 for the trip for the added risks of contamination.
And lastly how about "security passengers". They might be criminals being transported offworld for Imperial prosecution or incarceration, or perhaps security conscious VIP's travelling on important business. Again the same rules apply as for the cargo type of the same designation. Security passengers will book Middle passage at a Cr40,000 premium for the presumed risks and required ship security minimum of being armed and crewing a gunner.
In the above special passenger cases I would just use the numbers on the Bulk Cargo table to determine how many of the special types of passengers there are. And I'd use the Modifiers (based on destination world) from the cargo table for these special passengers.
BetterThanLife
March 7th, 2005, 12:35 AM
Dan, Why not just charge per parsec? It makes the system work and is a simple fix. GT did it. (And many people claim, contrary to what MWM said that it is ATU, not OTU, that it is canon as long as you stick before the Rebellion.) Besides if you look at that one paragraph, that keeps turning up in each bersion of Traveller, that a Jump 1 ship would charge the same as a Jump 2 ship going to the same destination even though you would have to purchase two tickets on the Jump 1 ship to get there in two jumps instead of the one Jump of a Jump 2 Ship. (Or however the direct quote reads, it is late and I am not looking it up tonight. smile.gif )
As long as you don't rules lawyer or Munchkin the ship design rules, the proportion of profit margin between similar ships with different jump capacity will remain proportional to the price difference. WIll there be exceptions, sure there will be, but over all it works.
It allows, under routine conditions, a Far Trader to make its payments, and about at the same profit porportion to a Free Trader. However it isn't a perfect Universe so sometimes the ship will fall short because it didn't have the right combination for jump and/or full load. smile.gif Which, of course, allows for adventuring opportunities without making it a requirement to pay for your ships normal, routine operations.
As long as you don't rules lawyer or Munchkin the ship design rules, the proportion of profit margin between similar ships with different jump capacity will remain proportional to the price difference. WIll there be exceptions, sure there will be, but over all it works.
It allows, under routine conditions, a Far Trader to make its payments, and about at the same profit porportion to a Free Trader. However it isn't a perfect Universe so sometimes the ship will fall short because it didn't have the right combination for jump and/or full load. smile.gif Which, of course, allows for adventuring opportunities without making it a requirement to pay for your ships normal, routine operations.
far-trader
March 7th, 2005, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
Dan, Why not just charge per parsec? It makes the system work and is a simple fix.True enough, to a point. Works fine for a game, but then so does the per jump rule if all the PC's have (and should have) is a Type A. The point I thought we were working out was a functional, and yes easy to play, game model that made some economic sense.
Granted GT has by what I hear addressed all this, but I don't have it so I'm not privy to how they covered all the bases.
But certainly, if you think you have all the consequences accounted for, or they won't come into play in your game, go for it.
What do I fear from a simple per parsec rule? Unintended consequences I can only half imagine and more contradictory rules required to cover them...
How long can I carry freight? Can I sign a shipment to a world 6 parsecs distant even though my ship is just J1? Do I still get paid the full rate even if it takes me 12 weeks to get there? How about 12 months?
How far can I contract freight? 4 parsecs? 40 parsecs? My jump rating? My jump destination?
Will there be the same amount of cargo going 4 parsecs from any world as going 1 parsec? Even if that 4 parsec jump is on the scheduled route of a megaton freighter for some megacorp or a government subbie?
The nice thing about the simple rules is they are geared for J1 which eliminates a lot of the extra complexity. I think the whole badly worded text of how to charge was a terrible idea once it started trying to explain how to charger for jumps over 1 parsec. It should just say this is how it's done for PC's, the big boys (NPC's) have infrastructure to handle longer haulage that you don't and can't compete with.
Further I think I've seen numbers that suggest the profit margin to operational cost increases dramatically with increased range in a flat per parsec model, especially in design systems where the power plant is both smaller and cheaper at higher TL. So why are there any J1 or even J2 Free-Traders if the way to make money is at J6? I have my own limits for this kind of runaway trade but they aren't shared by many from the feedback I've gotten.
And just how are PC's supposed to come up with the 20% down-payment on the much higher priced long legged ships? Is the financing easier because the profit is that much more? Oops there goes the market for the short jump ships again. Either they won't be made becuase no one wants them or they'll be so cheap that it won't pay to build them. That changes the whole Traveller universe. No small traders, everybody is operating big ships and crews. That can be a fine game, but it's not the one we started with, or the one still pictured, even in GURPS, of small PC ships scratching a living at the edges.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Largely my opinion of course so you're welcome to ignore it. Whatever rocks your world is the way to play the game.
Lastly I've said it before, the canon Far-Trader type seems to be the broken bit if you're trying to prove economic sense with the per jump trade rules. Either it needs a redesign or it needs to be dropped altogether as a PC ship, at least as brand new with a first mortgage.
PC's are the bottom of the food chain in interstellar trade. It should be tough to make a go of it independantly and that's what the rules seem designed to reflect. To the point that they can only make a sure business with the lowest end ship possible, a simple J1 trader, and that only if they don't have bad luck. The kind that leads to depserate contracts to cover the unanticipated shortfall. The kind that get the PC's labled "adventurers" by the legitimate merchants ;)
'nuff rambling for now. I'm not trying to defeat the per parsec movement, just make sure any issues are addressed or at least considered by anyone thinking of using it.
Dan, Why not just charge per parsec? It makes the system work and is a simple fix.True enough, to a point. Works fine for a game, but then so does the per jump rule if all the PC's have (and should have) is a Type A. The point I thought we were working out was a functional, and yes easy to play, game model that made some economic sense.
Granted GT has by what I hear addressed all this, but I don't have it so I'm not privy to how they covered all the bases.
But certainly, if you think you have all the consequences accounted for, or they won't come into play in your game, go for it.
What do I fear from a simple per parsec rule? Unintended consequences I can only half imagine and more contradictory rules required to cover them...
How long can I carry freight? Can I sign a shipment to a world 6 parsecs distant even though my ship is just J1? Do I still get paid the full rate even if it takes me 12 weeks to get there? How about 12 months?
How far can I contract freight? 4 parsecs? 40 parsecs? My jump rating? My jump destination?
Will there be the same amount of cargo going 4 parsecs from any world as going 1 parsec? Even if that 4 parsec jump is on the scheduled route of a megaton freighter for some megacorp or a government subbie?
The nice thing about the simple rules is they are geared for J1 which eliminates a lot of the extra complexity. I think the whole badly worded text of how to charge was a terrible idea once it started trying to explain how to charger for jumps over 1 parsec. It should just say this is how it's done for PC's, the big boys (NPC's) have infrastructure to handle longer haulage that you don't and can't compete with.
Further I think I've seen numbers that suggest the profit margin to operational cost increases dramatically with increased range in a flat per parsec model, especially in design systems where the power plant is both smaller and cheaper at higher TL. So why are there any J1 or even J2 Free-Traders if the way to make money is at J6? I have my own limits for this kind of runaway trade but they aren't shared by many from the feedback I've gotten.
And just how are PC's supposed to come up with the 20% down-payment on the much higher priced long legged ships? Is the financing easier because the profit is that much more? Oops there goes the market for the short jump ships again. Either they won't be made becuase no one wants them or they'll be so cheap that it won't pay to build them. That changes the whole Traveller universe. No small traders, everybody is operating big ships and crews. That can be a fine game, but it's not the one we started with, or the one still pictured, even in GURPS, of small PC ships scratching a living at the edges.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Largely my opinion of course so you're welcome to ignore it. Whatever rocks your world is the way to play the game.
Lastly I've said it before, the canon Far-Trader type seems to be the broken bit if you're trying to prove economic sense with the per jump trade rules. Either it needs a redesign or it needs to be dropped altogether as a PC ship, at least as brand new with a first mortgage.
PC's are the bottom of the food chain in interstellar trade. It should be tough to make a go of it independantly and that's what the rules seem designed to reflect. To the point that they can only make a sure business with the lowest end ship possible, a simple J1 trader, and that only if they don't have bad luck. The kind that leads to depserate contracts to cover the unanticipated shortfall. The kind that get the PC's labled "adventurers" by the legitimate merchants ;)
'nuff rambling for now. I'm not trying to defeat the per parsec movement, just make sure any issues are addressed or at least considered by anyone thinking of using it.
Anthony
March 7th, 2005, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
True enough, to a point. Works fine for a game, but then so does the per jump rule if all the PC's have (and should have) is a Type A. The point I thought we were working out was a functional, and yes easy to play, game model that made some economic sense.
Granted GT has by what I hear addressed all this, but I don't have it so I'm not privy to how they covered all the bases.
They charge by the parsec, with a slight adjustment for distances of only jump 1 (they cost slightly more than half of jump 2). After great attempts to save the per-jump pricing, it was found that it was simply impossible to make them sensible.
True enough, to a point. Works fine for a game, but then so does the per jump rule if all the PC's have (and should have) is a Type A. The point I thought we were working out was a functional, and yes easy to play, game model that made some economic sense.
Granted GT has by what I hear addressed all this, but I don't have it so I'm not privy to how they covered all the bases.
They charge by the parsec, with a slight adjustment for distances of only jump 1 (they cost slightly more than half of jump 2). After great attempts to save the per-jump pricing, it was found that it was simply impossible to make them sensible.
zakrol
March 7th, 2005, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
What do I fear from a simple per parsec rule? Unintended consequences I can only half imagine and more contradictory rules required to cover them...
How long can I carry freight? Can I sign a shipment to a world 6 parsecs distant even though my ship is just J1? Do I still get paid the full rate even if it takes me 12 weeks to get there? How about 12 months?
How far can I contract freight? 4 parsecs? 40 parsecs? My jump rating? My jump destination?
The simplest idea would seem to be to mirror the official system and contract per jump. It's just the charge made that will be different. Multi jump contracts would have to be negotiated individually as regards timescale as they would in the per jump model.
Will there be the same amount of cargo going 4 parsecs from any world as going 1 parsec? Even if that 4 parsec jump is on the scheduled route of a megaton freighter for some megacorp or a government subbie?
This strikes me as the area that would see the biggest change. Common sense suggests that as the transport costs are now four times as great for jump 4 as for jump 1, the market would reduce considerably. It would have to be for goods where the difference in price could justify the extra cost. The rules for determining how much cargo was available would have to be looked at for the higher jumps.
The effect would be that trade volumes would be much greater for shorter jumps. Jump 3 and up might start to tail off dramatically.
Further I think I've seen numbers that suggest the profit margin to operational cost increases dramatically with increased range in a flat per parsec model, especially in design systems where the power plant is both smaller and cheaper at higher TL. So why are there any J1 or even J2 Free-Traders if the way to make money is at J6? I have my own limits for this kind of runaway trade but they aren't shared by many from the feedback I've gotten.
Market forces would limit this. Jump 6 traders would have relatively small cargo space as few routes would be able to fill large ones. Jump 6 might well be profitable, but only if you can fill the hold and how many goods are worth trading at six times the cost?
And just how are PC's supposed to come up with the 20% down-payment on the much higher priced long legged ships? Is the financing easier because the profit is that much more? Oops there goes the market for the short jump ships again. Either they won't be made becuase no one wants them or they'll be so cheap that it won't pay to build them. That changes the whole Traveller universe. No small traders, everybody is operating big ships and crews. That can be a fine game, but it's not the one we started with, or the one still pictured, even in GURPS, of small PC ships scratching a living at the edges.
PCs are not expected to come up with the costs for high jump ships. As is mentioned elsewhere, they are the bottom end, struggling to get a foot on the ladder. The Mega-Corporation would be the ones that could accurately identify the genuinely viable high jump routes and then have the funds to buy the needed ships. There might be the odd exception, but this would be the rule.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Largely my opinion of course so you're welcome to ignore it. Whatever rocks your world is the way to play the game.
You do make strong points and have made me think more about the possibilities of a per jump system that just seemed to be plain broken at first look.
Lastly I've said it before, the canon Far-Trader type seems to be the broken bit if you're trying to prove economic sense with the per jump trade rules. Either it needs a redesign or it needs to be dropped altogether as a PC ship, at least as brand new with a first mortgage.
That may well be the case, but a profitable jump 2 ship would be little more than a large cargo bay with engines. There would be no room for the other parts of a ship that make the Far Trader of use to adventurers. Everything would have to be geared towards minimising cost of operation.
PC's are the bottom of the food chain in interstellar trade. It should be tough to make a go of it independantly and that's what the rules seem designed to reflect. To the point that they can only make a sure business with the lowest end ship possible, a simple J1 trader, and that only if they don't have bad luck. The kind that leads to depserate contracts to cover the unanticipated shortfall. The kind that get the PC's labled "adventurers" by the legitimate merchants ;)
I agree it should be tough. And it's upto each referee to work out how to do that - if the per jump method can be made to work then great. Per parsec is not a panacea, but problems will tend to stem from lack of available cargo rather a systemic inability to make profits with a reasonably sensible ship design.
My new player group happily went to Fulacin in the Spinward Marches seeing the A class starport but not really looking at the population level and were most distressed to see the profits from the previous month go up in smoke when they couldn't fill the cargo hold.
'nuff rambling for now. I'm not trying to defeat the per parsec movement, just make sure any issues are addressed or at least considered by anyone thinking of using it. .. which can't be a bad thing.
Chris
What do I fear from a simple per parsec rule? Unintended consequences I can only half imagine and more contradictory rules required to cover them...
How long can I carry freight? Can I sign a shipment to a world 6 parsecs distant even though my ship is just J1? Do I still get paid the full rate even if it takes me 12 weeks to get there? How about 12 months?
How far can I contract freight? 4 parsecs? 40 parsecs? My jump rating? My jump destination?
The simplest idea would seem to be to mirror the official system and contract per jump. It's just the charge made that will be different. Multi jump contracts would have to be negotiated individually as regards timescale as they would in the per jump model.
Will there be the same amount of cargo going 4 parsecs from any world as going 1 parsec? Even if that 4 parsec jump is on the scheduled route of a megaton freighter for some megacorp or a government subbie?
This strikes me as the area that would see the biggest change. Common sense suggests that as the transport costs are now four times as great for jump 4 as for jump 1, the market would reduce considerably. It would have to be for goods where the difference in price could justify the extra cost. The rules for determining how much cargo was available would have to be looked at for the higher jumps.
The effect would be that trade volumes would be much greater for shorter jumps. Jump 3 and up might start to tail off dramatically.
Further I think I've seen numbers that suggest the profit margin to operational cost increases dramatically with increased range in a flat per parsec model, especially in design systems where the power plant is both smaller and cheaper at higher TL. So why are there any J1 or even J2 Free-Traders if the way to make money is at J6? I have my own limits for this kind of runaway trade but they aren't shared by many from the feedback I've gotten.
Market forces would limit this. Jump 6 traders would have relatively small cargo space as few routes would be able to fill large ones. Jump 6 might well be profitable, but only if you can fill the hold and how many goods are worth trading at six times the cost?
And just how are PC's supposed to come up with the 20% down-payment on the much higher priced long legged ships? Is the financing easier because the profit is that much more? Oops there goes the market for the short jump ships again. Either they won't be made becuase no one wants them or they'll be so cheap that it won't pay to build them. That changes the whole Traveller universe. No small traders, everybody is operating big ships and crews. That can be a fine game, but it's not the one we started with, or the one still pictured, even in GURPS, of small PC ships scratching a living at the edges.
PCs are not expected to come up with the costs for high jump ships. As is mentioned elsewhere, they are the bottom end, struggling to get a foot on the ladder. The Mega-Corporation would be the ones that could accurately identify the genuinely viable high jump routes and then have the funds to buy the needed ships. There might be the odd exception, but this would be the rule.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Largely my opinion of course so you're welcome to ignore it. Whatever rocks your world is the way to play the game.
You do make strong points and have made me think more about the possibilities of a per jump system that just seemed to be plain broken at first look.
Lastly I've said it before, the canon Far-Trader type seems to be the broken bit if you're trying to prove economic sense with the per jump trade rules. Either it needs a redesign or it needs to be dropped altogether as a PC ship, at least as brand new with a first mortgage.
That may well be the case, but a profitable jump 2 ship would be little more than a large cargo bay with engines. There would be no room for the other parts of a ship that make the Far Trader of use to adventurers. Everything would have to be geared towards minimising cost of operation.
PC's are the bottom of the food chain in interstellar trade. It should be tough to make a go of it independantly and that's what the rules seem designed to reflect. To the point that they can only make a sure business with the lowest end ship possible, a simple J1 trader, and that only if they don't have bad luck. The kind that leads to depserate contracts to cover the unanticipated shortfall. The kind that get the PC's labled "adventurers" by the legitimate merchants ;)
I agree it should be tough. And it's upto each referee to work out how to do that - if the per jump method can be made to work then great. Per parsec is not a panacea, but problems will tend to stem from lack of available cargo rather a systemic inability to make profits with a reasonably sensible ship design.
My new player group happily went to Fulacin in the Spinward Marches seeing the A class starport but not really looking at the population level and were most distressed to see the profits from the previous month go up in smoke when they couldn't fill the cargo hold.
'nuff rambling for now. I'm not trying to defeat the per parsec movement, just make sure any issues are addressed or at least considered by anyone thinking of using it. .. which can't be a bad thing.
Chris
Maynard
March 7th, 2005, 07:29 AM
With all the HooHah in some canonical texts about this or that planet being 'the industrial hub of the subsector', or even the sector, I would say that plenty of freight is indeed being carried through multiple jumps, so clearly the rules are broken, and homebrews are necesary to get interstellar commerce and travel up and affordable. I like the GURPS Far Trader supplement.
In any case, I avoid a lot of that fudging by making everybody Imperial Postal Employees, which gives them a reason to be just about anywhere, and for no particular reason, other than bureaucratic assignments that only make sense to higher level Bureaucrats.
The whole idea that some guy with a few terms of service can suddenly get a multi-million CR line of pull at an interstellar bank is rediculous on it's face, which is why none of my characters ever get a starship unless they score big enough to buy it, wich is very rare.
In any case, I avoid a lot of that fudging by making everybody Imperial Postal Employees, which gives them a reason to be just about anywhere, and for no particular reason, other than bureaucratic assignments that only make sense to higher level Bureaucrats.
The whole idea that some guy with a few terms of service can suddenly get a multi-million CR line of pull at an interstellar bank is rediculous on it's face, which is why none of my characters ever get a starship unless they score big enough to buy it, wich is very rare.
BetterThanLife
March 7th, 2005, 12:05 PM
Dan,
Still contract for Freight per Jump, but pay per parsec. (The rest of the rules stay the same that way.) However planning the trip, for the consumer, now makes more sense. The Consumer, (passenger, person contracting for the freight, etc) can figure costs in a more reasonable and consistent manner.
Further, if you consider the fact that the ship loses carrying capacity as the jump number goes up, you will find that the higher jump ships, especially the Jump 4 and higher ships will only work in specialized circumstances. (High Jump/Full routes.) There is still a place for the Jump-1 and Jump-2 ships, they work the mains and clusters. The problem for the per parsec rules for the high jump ships is they can't go Jump 1 and still make a profit.
The Problem in saying use used ships, is you can't new build used ships. If the ships don't work at new ship prices, then there won't be used ships, because nobody will buy them new in order to sell them used.
As for how to come up with the 20% down? How do they come up with the 20% down for a Free Trader? It works the same way. 20% down for a Fat Trader, SubLiner, or Far Trader is a goal not neccessarily something to start with. smile.gif
As a GM will I occasionally allow a Far Trader instead of a Free Trader as the Mustering out Benefit instead ofa Free Trader? Yes. IMTU that can happen. There are few places you can't get to with a Jump 2 ship, makes some adventuring easier. The ship not being always able to travel full or at full jump capacity is another adventure hook. However the ship is no longer a liability. smile.gif
Bruce
Still contract for Freight per Jump, but pay per parsec. (The rest of the rules stay the same that way.) However planning the trip, for the consumer, now makes more sense. The Consumer, (passenger, person contracting for the freight, etc) can figure costs in a more reasonable and consistent manner.
Further, if you consider the fact that the ship loses carrying capacity as the jump number goes up, you will find that the higher jump ships, especially the Jump 4 and higher ships will only work in specialized circumstances. (High Jump/Full routes.) There is still a place for the Jump-1 and Jump-2 ships, they work the mains and clusters. The problem for the per parsec rules for the high jump ships is they can't go Jump 1 and still make a profit.
The Problem in saying use used ships, is you can't new build used ships. If the ships don't work at new ship prices, then there won't be used ships, because nobody will buy them new in order to sell them used.
As for how to come up with the 20% down? How do they come up with the 20% down for a Free Trader? It works the same way. 20% down for a Fat Trader, SubLiner, or Far Trader is a goal not neccessarily something to start with. smile.gif
As a GM will I occasionally allow a Far Trader instead of a Free Trader as the Mustering out Benefit instead ofa Free Trader? Yes. IMTU that can happen. There are few places you can't get to with a Jump 2 ship, makes some adventuring easier. The ship not being always able to travel full or at full jump capacity is another adventure hook. However the ship is no longer a liability. smile.gif
Bruce
Anthony
March 7th, 2005, 12:15 PM
Under most rulesets, the optimal jump capability for ships which will be carrying cargo more than one parsec is either J2 or J3; J1 ships wind up being a bad choice for carrying cargo more than one parsec, and J4 and higher are only useful for cases where the extra jump capability is really needed (because of some gap or another), or where the customer cares a lot about speed.
Chuck Anumia
March 7th, 2005, 03:37 PM
Perhaps Passanger travel should be made to cost double for each parsec traveled?
BetterThanLife
March 8th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by cweiskircher:
Perhaps Passanger travel should be made to cost double for each parsec traveled? Why? Simply charging per parsec is enough. The only problems you run into, in this regard, is free passages. (Travellers Aide Member or Mustering Out Benefits.) The way I handle it is that if you cash it in then it is a one jump ticket, if you use it then you get one ticket on one jump and the association or the Government picks up the tab.
Perhaps Passanger travel should be made to cost double for each parsec traveled? Why? Simply charging per parsec is enough. The only problems you run into, in this regard, is free passages. (Travellers Aide Member or Mustering Out Benefits.) The way I handle it is that if you cash it in then it is a one jump ticket, if you use it then you get one ticket on one jump and the association or the Government picks up the tab.
Straybow
March 17th, 2005, 02:41 AM
Hmmmm, nine pages and still nobody looks at mass versus volume and spec pricing...
[returns to lurk mode]
[returns to lurk mode]
BetterThanLife
March 17th, 2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Straybow:
Hmmmm, nine pages and still nobody looks at mass versus volume and spec pricing...
[returns to lurk mode] Well in all honesty in a contra grav society, with artificial gravity fields, there is no real concern about mass. Mass and density matter less, much less when dealing with starships, than how big the object is. Granted inertia would still be a mother, but unless you are moving things around by hand and they break loose, it isn't really a concern.
Unles you have a different view you care to share?
Hmmmm, nine pages and still nobody looks at mass versus volume and spec pricing...
[returns to lurk mode] Well in all honesty in a contra grav society, with artificial gravity fields, there is no real concern about mass. Mass and density matter less, much less when dealing with starships, than how big the object is. Granted inertia would still be a mother, but unless you are moving things around by hand and they break loose, it isn't really a concern.
Unles you have a different view you care to share?
Fritz_Brown
March 17th, 2005, 10:50 AM
You know, there is the question. (And, I think it has been bandied about on one of these threads.) With contragrav, does inertia still have meaning? If not, then why do your M-ratings get related to how large the ship is? (Yeah, I know that's volume in TU, but it is connected.) If the answer is that the size of the M-drive is related to size/mass, but once turned on it makes mass irrelevant, then adding mass to the cargo bay should have an effect (until it is turned on, of course).
Or am I just blowing smoke, here?
Or am I just blowing smoke, here?
BetterThanLife
March 17th, 2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Fritz88:
You know, there is the question. (And, I think it has been bandied about on one of these threads.) With contragrav, does inertia still have meaning? If not, then why do your M-ratings get related to how large the ship is? (Yeah, I know that's volume in TU, but it is connected.) If the answer is that the size of the M-drive is related to size/mass, but once turned on it makes mass irrelevant, then adding mass to the cargo bay should have an effect (until it is turned on, of course).
Or am I just blowing smoke, here? Actually things like variable AG fields and Contra Gravity negate weight not mass. So inertia would still be a bitch. However, when you are dealing with Maneuver Drives, remember that the cargohold of a ship is inside the ship, usually, so Inertia compensators would tend to keep stationary objects in place. (The problem is if you are moving it, then it still has mass.) The ship itself is not in such a field, so it has mass and size. Though how it would work with the Supp-9 Jumpship is another matter.
You know, there is the question. (And, I think it has been bandied about on one of these threads.) With contragrav, does inertia still have meaning? If not, then why do your M-ratings get related to how large the ship is? (Yeah, I know that's volume in TU, but it is connected.) If the answer is that the size of the M-drive is related to size/mass, but once turned on it makes mass irrelevant, then adding mass to the cargo bay should have an effect (until it is turned on, of course).
Or am I just blowing smoke, here? Actually things like variable AG fields and Contra Gravity negate weight not mass. So inertia would still be a bitch. However, when you are dealing with Maneuver Drives, remember that the cargohold of a ship is inside the ship, usually, so Inertia compensators would tend to keep stationary objects in place. (The problem is if you are moving it, then it still has mass.) The ship itself is not in such a field, so it has mass and size. Though how it would work with the Supp-9 Jumpship is another matter.
Fritz_Brown
March 17th, 2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
... remember that the cargohold of a ship is inside the ship, usually, so Inertia compensators would tend to keep stationary objects in place. (The problem is if you are moving it, then it still has mass.)... Yeah, that was my thought. Which is why, in a "real world" I wouldn't be shipping inflated balloons to that 500th anniversary commemoration j3 away. "You want me to pay what?! But, it's just air!" "Yeah, but you filled my cargo hold, man."
... remember that the cargohold of a ship is inside the ship, usually, so Inertia compensators would tend to keep stationary objects in place. (The problem is if you are moving it, then it still has mass.)... Yeah, that was my thought. Which is why, in a "real world" I wouldn't be shipping inflated balloons to that 500th anniversary commemoration j3 away. "You want me to pay what?! But, it's just air!" "Yeah, but you filled my cargo hold, man."
Straybow
March 22nd, 2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Bhoins:
Originally posted by Straybow:
Hmmmm, nine pages and still nobody looks at mass versus volume and spec pricing...
[returns to lurk mode] Well in all honesty in a contra grav society, with artificial gravity fields, there is no real concern about mass. Mass and density matter less, much less when dealing with starships, than how big the object is. Granted inertia would still be a mother, but unless you are moving things around by hand and they break loose, it isn't really a concern.
Unles you have a different view you care to share? Well, "no real concern about mass" except that it effects what you're paying for. When you pay for a meal at the starport you don't really care if you get a 50g hamburger patty or a 300g steak? The difference between mass-based and volume-based standards have greater disparity than that in many cases.
*Points to many discussions on economics, ergonomics, and other considerations that seem to have been left out when Traveller was designed.
Far Trader cargo/Freight manifest questions (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=1004)
Price-Fixed Travel (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=4914)
Making a Jump 2 freighter profitable (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=370) (ie, go back to the first couple of pages in this thread)
Traveller Cargo Standards (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=4925) (This one I started)
Starship Economics, Book 2 (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=3757&highlight=Economics)
To summarize: the value of usable space on the ship must be clearly defined, and the standard that evolved sometime after the original LBBs were published is the "(hydrogen) displacement ton" (dT). However, the use of dT to define ship components and systems is inconsistent at best, stupid at worst. (see above links for examples)
Commodities are not priced in dT but in more nebulously defined "tons" which sometimes conform to metric tons, other times to dT, but usually to neither. The pricing of cargo shipping was also not proportional to either metric tons or dT, but was scaled to the arbitrary measures of the original LBBs.
The economics can't be fixed while ignoring the proverbial elephant standing in the way.
Originally posted by Straybow:
Hmmmm, nine pages and still nobody looks at mass versus volume and spec pricing...
[returns to lurk mode] Well in all honesty in a contra grav society, with artificial gravity fields, there is no real concern about mass. Mass and density matter less, much less when dealing with starships, than how big the object is. Granted inertia would still be a mother, but unless you are moving things around by hand and they break loose, it isn't really a concern.
Unles you have a different view you care to share? Well, "no real concern about mass" except that it effects what you're paying for. When you pay for a meal at the starport you don't really care if you get a 50g hamburger patty or a 300g steak? The difference between mass-based and volume-based standards have greater disparity than that in many cases.
*Points to many discussions on economics, ergonomics, and other considerations that seem to have been left out when Traveller was designed.
Far Trader cargo/Freight manifest questions (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=1004)
Price-Fixed Travel (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=4914)
Making a Jump 2 freighter profitable (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=370) (ie, go back to the first couple of pages in this thread)
Traveller Cargo Standards (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=4925) (This one I started)
Starship Economics, Book 2 (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=3757&highlight=Economics)
To summarize: the value of usable space on the ship must be clearly defined, and the standard that evolved sometime after the original LBBs were published is the "(hydrogen) displacement ton" (dT). However, the use of dT to define ship components and systems is inconsistent at best, stupid at worst. (see above links for examples)
Commodities are not priced in dT but in more nebulously defined "tons" which sometimes conform to metric tons, other times to dT, but usually to neither. The pricing of cargo shipping was also not proportional to either metric tons or dT, but was scaled to the arbitrary measures of the original LBBs.
The economics can't be fixed while ignoring the proverbial elephant standing in the way.
BetterThanLife
March 30th, 2005, 08:24 AM
To butcher an old Next Generation episode.
"You can carry twice your designed cargo mass. Provided they are canaries and you can keep half of them flying at all times then you are alright."
"You can carry twice your designed cargo mass. Provided they are canaries and you can keep half of them flying at all times then you are alright."
aramis
March 30th, 2005, 02:15 PM
Straybow: The typical modern shipping unit for naval use is the "Container"; said containers are both a volume and weight limit (and despite varying container sizes, the ratio remains fairly proportional).
I see the 1Td (1.5x3x3m) 2Td (3x3x3m) and 4 Td (3x3x6m) containers as standards. A shipping ton is (IMTU, and derived from TNE sources and the specified dimension, per TTA) 13.5KL of goods , or 10Mg of goods, which ever weighs less.
Volume, by the way, is really the disposable commodity in realistic ship design, not mass. The problem is that traveller never reconciles mass and displacement until TNE (MT did mention them, but FF&S correlates them to performance).
CT Bk2 was a better design system than it's contemporaries had....
CT Bk5 was a more flexible system than bk2
MT was more realistic still than CT Bk5
TNE was even more realistic than MT.
But at this comes a price: playability.
Now, when we wrap our heads around the T&C systems of Traveller, we have, really 3 (Ignoring for the moment GT)
Bk2 was simple, and playable.
Bk7 was a tad bit less simple, and far less useful information
MT added details to Bk7.
TNE used MT's.
T4 used MT's
So the evolution stopped at MT. GT is a ground-up, for the most part unrelated, new system of resolving trade. (I found it too cumbersome to use in GURPS, let alone port to MT, but it is more relistic; it is a different set of assumptions, however.) And T20 drops back to Bk 2, then expands again in different directions from Bk7, but adds the innovations to make Bk 7 profitable for even J2.
Realistic T&C is difficult to do simply, and simple T&C is seldom going to be realistic.
The main Traveller simplification is that one follows the pre-modern purchase most cargos model, rather than the work for hire model of the 20th century.
If you accept that (the purchase model), then profitability is based upon being able to acquire sufficient lots at a good price. Bk7 does that. T20 does that. GT makes the Work for hire model work (by most accounts) well; it is a different assumption on the nature of trade in the 3I tho'.
I see the 1Td (1.5x3x3m) 2Td (3x3x3m) and 4 Td (3x3x6m) containers as standards. A shipping ton is (IMTU, and derived from TNE sources and the specified dimension, per TTA) 13.5KL of goods , or 10Mg of goods, which ever weighs less.
Volume, by the way, is really the disposable commodity in realistic ship design, not mass. The problem is that traveller never reconciles mass and displacement until TNE (MT did mention them, but FF&S correlates them to performance).
CT Bk2 was a better design system than it's contemporaries had....
CT Bk5 was a more flexible system than bk2
MT was more realistic still than CT Bk5
TNE was even more realistic than MT.
But at this comes a price: playability.
Now, when we wrap our heads around the T&C systems of Traveller, we have, really 3 (Ignoring for the moment GT)
Bk2 was simple, and playable.
Bk7 was a tad bit less simple, and far less useful information
MT added details to Bk7.
TNE used MT's.
T4 used MT's
So the evolution stopped at MT. GT is a ground-up, for the most part unrelated, new system of resolving trade. (I found it too cumbersome to use in GURPS, let alone port to MT, but it is more relistic; it is a different set of assumptions, however.) And T20 drops back to Bk 2, then expands again in different directions from Bk7, but adds the innovations to make Bk 7 profitable for even J2.
Realistic T&C is difficult to do simply, and simple T&C is seldom going to be realistic.
The main Traveller simplification is that one follows the pre-modern purchase most cargos model, rather than the work for hire model of the 20th century.
If you accept that (the purchase model), then profitability is based upon being able to acquire sufficient lots at a good price. Bk7 does that. T20 does that. GT makes the Work for hire model work (by most accounts) well; it is a different assumption on the nature of trade in the 3I tho'.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét