Cargo costs

[Enoki]

I tried looking through old threads for something on this, maybe I missed it.

Anyway, I was fooling around with some aspects of economics and noticed that in CT / MT that cargo is supposed to pay 1000 Cr per ton when taken as part of a ship's load. I couldn't find any adjustments for jump distance, etc.

What I noticed from that is that any merchant ship that has greater than a M1 J1 capacity is losing money per ton of cargo compared to that baseline. That is, if you go from say J1 to J3 you lose about 10% on the value of the cargo due to increased fuel, crew, maintenance, and other operating costs.
Since the rules don't appear to have any adjustment for jump distance this is a serious problem. It becomes uneconomical to take cargo if you are jumping more than about J2 or have more than an M1 drive on a ship.
This could be extended to other "add ons" the ship might have like armament (if truly necessary), or the like.

I think there should be an adjustment for cargo based on jump distance, cost of down porting it if you can't land, cost of maneuver drive time (if greater than some norm for whatever reason), etc.

Sure, there is some economy of scale. But, for most Traveller play and groups we're talking ships under 1000 tons and operating on pretty thin profit margins.

An example might be raising the cost of cargo per ton to 100 Cr per Jump number greater than 1 and 25 Cr a ton for a maneuver number greater than 1. If the ship is paying for full delivery without landing add 50 Cr to cover that cost.
Those are just some preliminary numbers, not something I calculated out exactly.

Your thoughts?

 

[kilemall]

I just go with 1000Cr per parsec and we're done.

Another direction is time value factored in- all things considered a J4 crossing 4 parsecs in one week will usually be more desirable for the shipper then 4 J1 x 4 weeks.

Maybe something like 500 Cr baseline + 500 Cr per parsec travelled in one week. So a J-1 trip gets the usual 1000 Cr, but a J-4 gets 2500 Cr- not fabulously profitable, but compensation for the greater fuel and engineering/crew ship cost/payment.


Still another would be charging at the 1000Cr per jump rate and adding more die per jump number past 1, signifying the greater traffic demand shipping at a faster/cheaper rate.

 

[Supplement Four]

I haven't played around with the economics rules in a long, long time, but from discussion here and there, there are two points to consider.

1. The rules were designed not to make PCs filthy rich but to always keep them adventuring--the Ref using the sorely needed income as a "push" to keep the players constantly striving for more, never quite getting so much ahead that they can retire.

2. Several people have argued that the economic rules are broken. I don't know about all that. I'm inclined to think it just takes a smart and lucky PC captain to pay his crew what they are owed--sometimes having to take the odd job (thus...adventuring!) from a patron encounter in order to get by. But, as I said, I'm not expert, either. I haven't looked at the economics rules in decades.

 

[Supplement Four]

I just go with 1000Cr per parsec and we're done.

What I do remember--and I'm sure those more knowing will post--is that what you're doing is a House Rule and not intended by the game rules.

Cargo is paid for per Jump, not per parsec. Whether a J-3 starship makes a one parsec jump, or a J-1 starship makes the jump, the income is the same.

Also, a J-3 ship going 3 parsecs makes the same as a J-1 ship going just one parsec.

Remember, it still takes a week for either ship to make its destination. One ship is just faster than the other, with more range.

 

[Spartan159]

MgT2 has a passage and freight chart by distance. For freight, it goes

1) 1000
2) 1600
3) 3000
4) 7000
5) 7700
6) 86000

If you want it to get there fast, you pay for it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Ah. My perspective is that of CT. I'm fairly sure that I am correct in what I say above from that POV. I haven't read MGT.

 

[Enoki]

What I do remember--and I'm sure those more knowing will post--is that what you're doing is a House Rule and not intended by the game rules.

Cargo is paid for per Jump, not per parsec. Whether a J-3 starship makes a one parsec jump, or a J-1 starship makes the jump, the income is the same.

Also, a J-3 ship going 3 parsecs makes the same as a J-1 ship going just one parsec.

Remember, it still takes a week for either ship to make its destination. One ship is just faster than the other, with more range.

While the rules won't make the players rich, they can make the players broke if they're not extra careful.

As for the above, a J3 ship consumes double the fuel for a jump a J1 ship does. That fuel isn't free, even if you skim it. That's because you have to have paid for a fuel processing plant, and the maintenance on it. A J3 ship will also be larger than a J1 ship for the same cargo capacity. That translates to a higher cost to buy and a higher cost to maintain. It also means possibly a larger crew is necessary. That means more pay and more expenses like food for the crew.

So, if you're already operating a marginally profitable ship... Let's say your margin is 5%, then by jumping further each time you may well be using up your profit margin in fuel, maintenance, and crew costs because of fixed prices for passengers and cargo.

 

[kilemall]

What I do remember--and I'm sure those more knowing will post--is that what you're doing is a House Rule and not intended by the game rules.

Pretty sure 68A is not a CT rule, yet you and many others, including me to a limited extent, use it.

House rules are not bad, and are necessary in this case for the reasons outlined above- the base rate makes higher jump ships economically unviable.

Cargo is paid for per Jump, not per parsec. Whether a J-3 starship makes a one parsec jump, or a J-1 starship makes the jump, the income is the same.

Also, a J-3 ship going 3 parsecs makes the same as a J-1 ship going just one parsec.

Remember, it still takes a week for either ship to make its destination. One ship is just faster than the other, with more range.

Yes I know all this, I can read the rules. I would not have had to make a per parsec statement as a distinction if one sticks to the rules only.

A word about speed- we can have ourselves a grand time playing with the semantics of speed and to what extent it has meaning for jump.

However, for a businessman trying to get 50 tons of fruitcake to Regina before Holiday, he doesn't care about definition, he only cares about price and speed to market.

By the rules, a 3 parsec shipment to Regina can take 3 weeks x J1 at 3000Cr per ton, or 1 week at J3 for 1000Cr. The fruitcake gets there 'faster' as in less shipment time, giving two more weeks to get the shipment together at source or two more weeks in distribution/sales at Regina.

My take is that this is inherently broken and illogical, so there should be something like my parsec rule, the 500+parsec rule, or the J3 1000Cr shipper should be getting a lot more rolls on cargo given his speed+cost-per-parsec advantage.

Same thing for passenger travel.

More importantly, the rule as written breaks the economics of keeping the long jump freighter in that 5% or less margin you want for player motivation in Firefly-like campaigns.

 

[Condottiere]

Time is money; you're likely paying out more in salaries, maintenance and mortgage fees if you monojump to a distant destination.

And unless the starport is stationed over a gas giant, it's cheaper to buy at the pump.

 

[Enoki]

What I figured out so far using CT / MT rules on trade and the cost of fuel, ships, maintenance, etc., is that cargo can still be base priced at 1000 Cr a ton.
Then 5% is added for each additional jump number to that. If it is expected that delivery is door to door rather than to a common delivery point, then 50 Cr per ton is added to that. Another 50 if you want it picked up and taken to the ship.
That makes it compatible with FOB rules shippers use today. Convenience costs.
If you expect faster sub-light delivery too add 10 Cr per maneuver above 1 per ton for the added fuel used.

So, you want to ship something J3 and it is delivered to the ship and will be picked up at the high port? That runs 1150 Cr a ton for you. Want to have it planet side? Add 100 Cr for a cost of 1250 Cr a ton. After all, that means docking fees and such along with a higher fuel cost for the ship, and possibly more down time.

The advantage of this is that a canned design like the CT Book 7 Empress Marava far trader now charges 1050 Cr per ton for cargo or is making about 2200 Cr more for a full hold of cargo being a J2 ship. That could make the difference between breaking even and losing money every jump. If they're having to land that adds another 4500 Cr to the cargo charges for landing at each end of the run. That makes it possible to run that particular ship at a profit... Not much of one, but at a profit if you still carry passengers.

 

[aramis]

I haven't played around with the economics rules in a long, long time, but from discussion here and there, there are two points to consider.

1. The rules were designed not to make PCs filthy rich but to always keep them adventuring--the Ref using the sorely needed income as a "push" to keep the players constantly striving for more, never quite getting so much ahead that they can retire.

A quick mathematical analysis of CT 1E trade rules shows this to be a falsehood. With the right tonnage ship, the freight lots are both profitable and sufficient to clear a nice profit. (~ 20% of income, after reductions for non-full.)

The problem is that the standard designs for freight movers are not optimized to it... they should not be the standards. Excepting (of course) the Type R - which is pretty close to optimized. (It has too many low berths. And some waste space due to the Standard Hull.)

And, further, the system generally does produce surpluses without spec. Spec trade can make or break...

But CT 1E Bk2 general costs and ops can result in quite steady (and boring) profit, even after financing.

 

[Supplement Four]

Pretty sure 68A is not a CT rule, yet you and many others, including me to a limited extent, use it.

Technically...it is a CT rule as the Ref is charged, in CT, with coming up with an appropriate throw for a given situation.

House rules are not bad, and are necessary in this case for the reasons outlined above- the base rate makes higher jump ships economically unviable.

Calm down, dude! I wasn't sticking my nose up at you for using House rules. I was just trying to answer your question. Wasn't trying to ruffle your feathers.

 

[Supplement Four]

A quick mathematical analysis of CT 1E trade rules shows this to be a falsehood. With the right tonnage ship, the freight lots are both profitable and sufficient to clear a nice profit. (~ 20% of income, after reductions for non-full.)

The problem is that the standard designs for freight movers are not optimized to it... they should not be the standards. Excepting (of course) the Type R - which is pretty close to optimized. (It has too many low berths. And some waste space due to the Standard Hull.)

And, further, the system generally does produce surpluses without spec. Spec trade can make or break...

But CT 1E Bk2 general costs and ops can result in quite steady (and boring) profit, even after financing.

Is this all under perfect conditions? High TL worlds with high Pops and quality Starports? Where the ship's hold is filled to capacity each jump, and capacity is achieved, with passengers, within a week, for the ship's next jump?

Or, does it take into account the less profitable routes where passengers and cargo might sometimes be scarce?

 

[Condottiere]

At that point you lobby the local politicians for a government subsidy.

 

[Supplement Four]

At that point you lobby the local politicians for a government subsidy.

I was just thinking that an economic system that produces 20% profit in the best of conditions is pretty good game design when the players will not always find themselves in optimal circumstances.

 

[kilemall]

Is this all under perfect conditions? High TL worlds with high Pops and quality Starports? Where the ship's hold is filled to capacity each jump, and capacity is achieved, with passengers, within a week, for the ship's next jump?

Or, does it take into account the less profitable routes where passengers and cargo might sometimes be scarce?

Zactly.

Not to mention the phenomenal costs of a pirate or planetside merc encounter, which can cost millions in repair even if a defense is 'successful'.

Which if we are going to go hard by CT ship encounter rules and rolls, is going to happen fairly frequently at C starport systems.

 

[Straybow]

Somewhere there is a discussion about this. I can only paraphrase from the LBB: Freight costs the same no matter what the jump number is.

That means a destination 3 hexes away costs the same whether 1×J3 or 3×J1, which implies cost is per parsec, not per jump. The fuel consumed is the same, but the J1 uses 3+ weeks of travel and stops with associated costs, while the J3 pays only for a week of overhead.

If this weren't so, then players could buy 100 dT of speculative cargo and pay somebody else CR1000 per dT to ship it 3 parsecs. They make the trip in their low overhead detached scout and take custody of the cargo on their arrival. The scout becomes the most efficient trading ship in the game!

 

[kilemall]

I literally just reviewed all CT entries, 77/81/TTB/TSE, for the cargo revenue rules.

They do not explicitly say per jump or per parsec.

However, the passenger rules explicitly say each passage is starport to starport, ticket charged the same as is regardless of jump distance, and the charter rules are 900 Cr per cargo ton per two week bloc, both indicating strongly that the per jump interpretation is correct.

No relevant CT errata.

So you are welcome to use a per parsec model, I certainly am for some form of that, but there is no evidence that it was intended in any of the CT rules.

 

[Straybow]

The "two week bloc" didn't exist in 77, only the mention that travel or cargo to a destination always cost the same regardless of jump number employed.

 

[Supplement Four]

I literally just reviewed all CT entries, 77/81/TTB/TSE, for the cargo revenue rules.

They do not explicitly say per jump or per parsec.

Actually, it does say it. It's just not spelled out as clearly as with Passengers, though it's the same concept. Cr 1,000 per ton, per jump (that's per week), regardless of distance.

So you are welcome to use a per parsec model, I certainly am for some form of that, but there is no evidence that it was intended in any of the CT rules.

Look closely at the rules. The Ref rolls cargo for every world accessible to the starship. That's every world in range of Jump. In other words, that's every place the ship can travel to in a week. Cargos are carried at Cr 1,000 per ton to each of these destinations.

It's based on Jump number (per week), not on parsecs or distance covered.

It also makes sense that Passengers and Cargo are handled the same way--price per jump, regardless of distance jumped.

Given this light, it's obviously a by-the-week model. Price based on Jump. J-3 vessels have an advantage over J-1 ships when passengers and cargo are needed to be transported farther than one parsec. The same price on a J-3 vessel gets them farther than the J-1 could take them in one week, the entire 3 parsec trip costing third the time and a third the cost.