Book 2 economics, again! Beating the dead horse...

[robject]

Using a hybrid-in-development, my numbers get pretty close to that, though they're more lenient. I've got 6 passenger staterooms, 5 crew staterooms, 66 tons for cargo, all for MCr60.

(Yes, I know, when you make up rules you can have anything you want.)

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">+200tons Hull - custom MCr20.000
Streamlined 2.000

-15tons Jump drive B 20.000
integral computer
-1tons Man. drive A 4.000
-4tons Powerplant A 8.000

-40tons Fuel x jump 2
-2tons Fuel x 4 week

-20tons Bridge - standard 1.000

-44tons Staterooms x11 5.500
-2tons Lowberths x4 0.200

-2tons Hardpoints x2 0.200

-4tons Air/Raft 0.600

-66tons Cargo hold</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[Golan2072]

I'm thinking of charging for cargos/passengers per parsec rather thn per jump; makes more sense that way.

I'm also thinking about having the Solar Triumvirate government hand out Hecate-class traders to military (Army, Marines or Navy) veterans it likes (i.e. loyal, trustworthy and well-decorated), similar to the land grants given to veterans in the Roman empire. Ofcourse, the number of actual grants will be low, but from the government POV, you (as the government) get the following advantages:

1) A boost to the PR showing the SolTrim government as "doing something" to comabt megacorporate monopoly, even though in the big picture it is in the pocket of the corporations.

2) You could set up trade routes in low-profit or non-profit areas that don't attract much corporate shipping.

3) You get a ship you could divert to perform local "jobs" for the government, highly trustworthy and without being asked too many questions.

4) Your soldiers will be eager to please you, knowing that if they do they have a change of being rewarded with a ship.

5) At a time of war you'll get plenty of small starships with loyal and well-trained crews for scouting and commando ops.

The government will own the starship; fuel will be given for free at Naval and Scout bases; all other expenses (life support, maintainance, repairs and berthing costs) will be paid by the veteran; the government takes 75% of all net profits (after deducting the aftermentioned expenses); the veteran is typically free to do as she wishes with her ship, except for when ordered otherwise by the government (i.e. a specific job, confining activity to a single subsector, or a string of related missions).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

So..... it's a merc/Free Trader/Scout ship? Cool.

 

[Golan2072]

Yep; Patron too - most of the time you'd go do whatever you want (trade, do small merc tickets, explore, even do some belting); from time to time the Government (i.e. Mr. Referee) will show up with some strange mission for you to do - typically for a nice reward (such as having the taxpayers pay your annual maintainance - if you come back alive, that is

).

 

[JAFARR]

Charge by distance travelled is the only way to fly. Charge per jump has to be something that was just stuck into the rules BEFORE play testing. It worked with the standard free trader in play testing so it was keep that way.

2 assumptions I make about trade IMTU. (1) Trade tables are to handle what is left over after the big boys have their stuff or they would never survived long enough to become big boys. (2) Travel between worlds is charged by the distance travelled.

 

[aramis]

Pay per time is a valid method of calculating wages.

Given the constraints of the OTU, paying flat-rate per distance is just as wrong as pay per time flat rate. Given that playability is a concern, flat rate by time makes more sense, and should be closer to the realities evidenced by the design sequence of CT, the flat rate by time is closer than flat rate by distance.

To be honest, the GT rates (which are NOT flat by time nor by distance) are more viable economically than either flat by time (CT) or flat by distance.

But the GT rates are less easily played than the flat by time of CT.

(To be honest, under pay per time, the rates work well enough for J1-J3. Spec is where, under CT, the real money is made. Freight is simply a way to make the whole tonnage pay, since under CT, one seldom fills the whole tonnage with spec, due to the one lot per week assumption; I have used one lot per speculator, but that's a dodge.)

 

[Pickles]

As a user of various shipping services, I have to agree that cost should be based on time taken. In inverse proportion.

A customer will not pay more for a delivery by J1 which takes twice as long as one by J2. He/she will pay less.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
As a user of various shipping services, I have to agree that cost should be based on time taken. In inverse proportion.

A customer will not pay more for a delivery by J1 which takes twice as long as one by J2. He/she will pay less.

He will have to pay more if he insist on having it delivered by J1. The solution to this conundrum is, of course, that he wouldn't ask to get it delivered by J1 if that would cost more than getting it delivered by J2.


Hans

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bromgrev:
As a user of various shipping services, I have to agree that cost should be based on time taken. In inverse proportion.

A customer will not pay more for a delivery by J1 which takes twice as long as one by J2. He/she will pay less.

He will have to pay more if he insist on having it delivered by J1. The solution to this conundrum is, of course, that he wouldn't ask to get it delivered by J1 if that would cost more than getting it delivered by J2.


Hans </font>[/QUOTE]Um, Hans, I think the point is that noone would pay more for something to take longer to arrive. Typically we pay more for things to get to the destination in a hurry. If I wanted something (say, a couch) delivered from Thailand to Guam it would cost significantly more if I wanted it shipped so it would arrive soon than if I didn't care when it arrived and they put it with all the other stuff that would eventually fill a container and be put on a ship that would eventually get there (after making other stops).

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The boxed info is just plain wrong - it contadicts both the text descrption and the USP in the back.

The boxed information is correct. For whatever bizarre reason, the 61 dton version was built with first edition Book 2. The boxed version (and the USP in the back) was built with second edition Book 2. 46 dton cargo is correct for the second edition Book 2 version of the Marava.

I explained it in this thread.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by daryen:
The boxed information is correct. For whatever bizarre reason, the 61 dton version was built with first edition Book 2. The boxed version (and the USP in the back) was built with second edition Book 2. 46 dton cargo is correct for the second edition Book 2 version of the Marava.

I explained it in this thread.

Yes, and I complimented you for spotting it

Thanks again daryen, with hindsight it is obviously the explanation.

I've edited the offending post

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Um, Hans, I think the point is that noone would pay more for something to take longer to arrive. Typically we pay more for things to get to the destination in a hurry. If I wanted something (say, a couch) delivered from Thailand to Guam it would cost significantly more if I wanted it shipped so it would arrive soon than if I didn't care when it arrived and they put it with all the other stuff that would eventually fill a container and be put on a ship that would eventually get there (after making other stops).

Thanks for clarifying my post, Fritz!

Yes, that's what I was trying to say - it would be impossible for a J1 carrier to charge more than a J2 carrier for a 2-parsec delivery. In fact, because it would take much longer, he would have to charge less in order to compete. Which suddenly makes the type A2 a bit more attractive ...

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
Yes, that's what I was trying to say - it would be impossible for a J1 carrier to charge more than a J2 carrier for a 2-parsec delivery. In fact, because it would take much longer, he would have to charge less in order to compete. Which suddenly makes the type A2 a bit more attractive ...

So, it sounds like the CT rate should be the base (i.e. J-1) rate and higher jump capable ships should be able to tack on a "speedy" surcharge. Perhaps 10% per Jump Number? So, a J-3 tramp could get 1200 Cr/ton.

BTW, I always allowed PCs with a ship to pre-plan a route over say 3 to 6 jumps and check for cargo for each destination at the starting point. That gives more cargo to be shipped. Passengers are treated the same.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

How would anybody know what cargo needed to be shipped? In the time it took the info to travel to their point of origin, somebody would have snapped up the load.

 

[mike wightman]

That's where trade codes, brokers, and speculation come into it

Remember that if you are shifting freight for someone else at Cr1000/ton it is them doing the speculating - or they've got a guaranteed market that makes the shipping costs worthwhile.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Pay per time is a valid method of calculating wages.

Which is broadly irrelevant to what a potential buyer is willing to pay. He'll go with some combination of cheap and fast, depending where his priorities.

In any case, as the primary operating cost of a spaceship is depreciation, not crew costs, the general form for shipping costs is in the form of K*(cost of optimized merchant)*(weeks taken)/(cargo capacity of optimized merchant). K is in the vicinity of 0.001 for standard Traveller ships. While the details vary by ruleset, in general (cost/(jump*cargo)) is lowest for a J2 or J3 ship (typically nearly identical), though often not a lot lower than for a J1 ship, so a per-parsec freight rate is fairly reasonable.

 

[Pwyll]

In LBB traveller, many standard ships are simply not commercially viable under the trade rules. The far trader is a prime example. As GM i would never allow an A2 on payments as a mustering out benefit, because it simply would not get financed.
Alternatively, sometimes subsidies allow ships to provide service in situations that would not otherwise be viable. However, getting a subsidy for a very small ship (like an A2) is likely to be problematic.

 

[Pwyll]

LBB2 unfortunately gives very small amounts of available cargo and passengers at starports. Perhaps this is intended to push players towards speculation, but it really doesn’t allow for commercial ships of size greater than about 600 tons displacement and so limits what ships are commercially viable.

Prices for cargo and passage are generally extremely well-balanced in OTU, and explicitly stated as standard so lets leave them alone in general. IMO its demand that really needs work.

Lets look at the characteristics of what we can carry.
Persons in suspended animation.
They probably aren’t concerned about a speedy voyage, but they definitely prefer to not be awakened until they arrive at their final destination. Cost is the over-riding concern.
Persons expected to consume the same supplies as a crew member.
These folks would probably like a speedy voyage. Cost is a factor.
Persons expected to receive good food and personal service.
These folks would probably like a speedy voyage. Cost is not a major factor.
“Fast” cargo.
A speedy voyage is the over-riding concern. Cost is a factor.
“Slow” cargo.
Cost is the over-riding concern. A speedy voyage is not normally a factor.

Based on the above, we make some assumptions about demand.
There is significant demand for nonperishable goods to travel via the least expensive means available.
There is significant demand for perishable goods and passengers to travel via the fastest means available (highest jump).

Perhaps ships of certain characteristics could receive substantial bonuses to available passengers and cargo, if engaged in a regularly scheduled route. This would be distinct from charters and contracts.
Ship size over 400 tons – greatly increased demand for “slow” cargo.
Jump ability increases speed of voyage beyond jump-1 – increased demand for all passengers and “fast” cargo.
Ship regularly commits significant resources to entertainment – greatly increased demand and price for high passengers.

Anyone else got thoughts about this?

 

[robject]

I've recently crossed over to the Dark Side of the Imperium, where any unsubsidized trade is rare indeed, and LBB2 tells it like it is.

The fact is that 90% of all fledgling lines die a horrible death. Thus an A2 only has a 10% chance of surviving out there. LBB2, and perhaps LBB7, illustrate this nicely.

The Imperium and its member worlds subsidize interstellar trade.

 

[mike wightman]

If you start with an A1 and make a lot of money from speculation so that you can afford the really expensive cargos when they turn up (anything costing MCr1+ per ton or unit) you may eventually be able to afford an A2 for cash