Cargo costs

[Straybow]

Interesting, that's the first anyone here has mentioned that the rule was clarified in 1981. And the first anyone has quoted MWM saying that the economics should make sense... but then he writes an adventure in which his description of how it works sabotages the economics.

But here is the things: Straybow isn't hanging his hat on the Type M. He's looking at the sentences alone and saying it is by parsec.

Now, if your answer to my question about the cost of Middle Passage for a Jump 3 journey is the same as Straybow's, I'm curious how he squares that answer with the quote I posted, a quote that makes it explicit and clear that a Jump 3 Middle Passage journey will cost Cr8,000.

Leaving aside the shenanigans of the 1977 Type M I'm not sure how anyone can assume a single jump, no matter what the distance, is going to cost Cr24,000.

Of course, I havne't heard from Straybow yet, and am curious what he will say about this.

Actually, that's only half. I'm hanging my hat on 1) what makes sense, economically, and 2) what the actual words of the sentence are. Words have meaning, sentences organize meaning, and hopefully convey ideas.

Regarding the former, it never occurred to us (a handful of players who never went beyond 3 LBBs, and I don't think we played after 1981) that it wouldn't be per parsec. And, as I said previously, the latter is a specific and clear example. I give weight to specific over general, I interpret anything general that is unclear in the light of what is clear.

The specific example is for a destination 3 parsecs away, and says the J3 and J1 charge the same passage price. J1 always charges per parsec, therefore J3 also charges per parsec. If middle passage is listed as kCr8, then middle passage to the destination 3 parsecs away is kCr24. The last sentence of the paragraph lumps cargo in with passenger service, so cargo is carried and charged per parsec as well.

 

[creativehum]

This conversation is clearly off the rails.

But since I'm in this far, I wanted to finish.

Here is a magic trick:

When reading either the 1977 rules or the 1981 rules define two words thusly:
Passage: The conveyance of a passenger from one world to another in one jump.
Destination: A world that can be reached by a starship from a given world in a one jump.

If one reads the text of either the 1977 rules or the 1981 rules and uses those definitions every time one reads the words "passage" or "destination" an amazing thing will happen:

Everything falls into place.​

There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity. There are no explanations or Talmudic readings required. The rules (even for the 1977 edition!) make perfect sense:

"Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance…" (1977)

So, what is the cost of High Passage wether one is jumping 1 parsec, 2 parsecs, or three parsecs? Cr10,000. Always.​

"The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump that would take the jump-1 ship three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations) to reach." (1977)

If a passenger is going to a world three parsecs away via Middle Passage on a jump-3 ship what how much will he pay? Cr8,000. If he travels to the same world via middle passage on a jump-1 ship in the example above, how much does he pay? Cr24,000. Because each jump to each of the three destinations requires the purchase of a new passage.​

"Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. That is to say, a starship with a jump drive of 3 charges the same passage price as a starship with a jump drive of 1."(1977)

In the example given, both ships are traveling to a world 1 parsec away. (A 1 parsec trip is the only type of passage a jump-1 ship can make.) Despite the fact that the jump-3 ship has a higher drive capacity, the fare is the same, because passage prices are set by single jump to a single destination, not by the drive capacity of the ship.​

"Starship masters may inquire at a starport to determine the size and number of shipments awaiting transportation, and their destination. The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number)..." (1977)

Destination is defined as worlds a starship can reach in one jump. The number of worlds a ship can reach will depend on its jump number. (Jump-2 ships will be able to reach destinations that a jump-1 ship cannot, and so on.)​

The Referee rolls for the finite number of destinations for a given ship. The starship master picks one, announces it will be shipping off for that destination in the next few days. Passengers present themselves, paying the fare of a particular passage price for the journey to that world. The journey will take one week's time in jump space. The distance traveled will not affect the price (per the first quote above). "Cargo is shipped at a rate of CR 1000 per ton" (1977) with no other mention of any variance in price due to any other factor. So the cargo is loaded onto the ship, the ship makes one jump to the destination world, the cargo is unloaded on that destination world, and that's that.

As for speculation, it belongs to the ship. He can carry it in his hold as long as he wishes until he finds a world that he considers the best shot for making a profit.​

This reading has no concern for the Type M not working, or the feeling someone has that the rules don't make sense. Those are separate issues, and if one has concerns about the Type M or the economics not making sense, one can certainly (and should) shift whatever elements around until one is content.

But as to the rules as written using the definitions of Passage and Destination described above, it has one strong advantage over other interpretations offered so far on this thread: it simply works. No interpretive-shenanigans have to be performed. No contradictory sentences have to be tossed out or ignored. There is nothing subtle about the wording, nor anything lacking precision. Moreover, definitions are found within the text and made explicit by the fact that when using these two definition the whole makes sense.

Try it!

That's all.

Happy Gaming!

 

[warwizard]

Having just read all 19 pages of this discussion in one sitting I find that I have been drawn to rather extensive ship design efforts to make ships that could indeed be profitable with higher jump numbers using the 1000 CR per displacement ton per entry into jump space. The per parsec pricing model removes this incentive to come up with innovative ship designs.

I have always looked at the published subsidized trader as a flawed design that is a white elephant, somebody buys it and goes broke, sells it on to the next sucker. Eventually it is bought at a price that allows it to be successful in some niche, or the subsidizing government nationalizes it and crews it and it no longer cares about something as crass as profit.

I have done things like using the crew rules to build 100 Dt starships with one crewman and external demountable cargo modules having the volume of 200 Dt, doing J-1 at minimal tech level... some 210 Dt of cargo shipped with costs around 50k. Or a larger ship at TL-15 using a much larger drive to allow flexibility to carry external cargoes and drop tanks such that you pick the ship's jump performance to match the next destination's distance, with a lighter service to bring a fully loaded set of cargo modules and drop tanks and haul off the inbound ones, allowing a turn around time of a day or three instead of a week, (depending on the navigator doing well or poorly on the navigation roll, you may get over 40 jumps a year...).

Obviously these designs represent a fringe the first of someone that is a shoestring single owner aboard, and the other of the trading empire PC group that has made SO much money on trade and speculation they have these purpose built ships to squeeze every credit out of markets others cannot service.

I do this because the economic rules, (as stated previously), are not written for use with different size ships in mind, so I was interested in seeing the limit of what could be supported, at each extreme of smaller and larger and longer legs, and I've tried this with each successive set of rules that comes out, so I'm not a CT or MT or T4 or T5 specific, I've designed in all, but T4 FF&S gives the most bells and whistles to detail weird designs.

Sure I'll carry your cargo in my hold from Glisten to Egypt for CR 1000 per Dt. because I'm just using your cargo to fill in the holds that were not filled with my speculative or contracted cargo (mail perhaps).

Now someone mentioned up thread that fuel purifiers were a thing but they took up valuable cargo space and raised the ship's costs for both financing and engineering and maintenance crew. T4 FF&S you can design the purifier installation to take a week to purify a fuel load instead of the standard 6 hours so only 1/24 th. the size and cost (subject to minimum sizes per each tech level), so you can build larger ships with a modular fuel purifier with the difference being the time it takes to refine the fuel. I can see a 1000 Dt design intended for frontier world service set up as a mothership / jump frame with the riders providing the refueling and cargo delivery/ force protection. The challenge is to make it profitable under the 1000 Cr/ jump entry.

 

[Straybow]

Warwizard:
You can set your page length to 50 if you like. Then this thread is only 4 pages.

creativehum:
Yes, fine and good. Except those terms were not so defined. While a specific mention of per jump pricing appears in a later revision, those terms were left undefined. To make it work you have to apply Talmudic-style reading, separating one sentence out from the paragraph, and reordering sentences to say things differently.

Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance…

Your interpretation means that passage is sold on the basis of jump distance, not on reaching the destination.

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. That is to say, a starship with a jump drive of 3 charges the same passage price as a starship with a jump drive of 1. A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship wold take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets).

Again, with per jump pricing, the jump drive capacity has a specific effect on passage price. Passage to any destination farther one jump for a given jump drive costs more than a passage for a jump drive that can reach the destination in one jump.

Again, the specific example given in the text is for a destination three parsecs away, and the difference cited is the time and number of jumps, while specifically saying the charge would be the same. Which means a destination can be more than one jump away, and the charge would be per parsec.

If you read the paragraph as written, it reads per parsec. If something else was intended, it was not well written. It isn't holy scripture, it is a game, and that happens.

 

[creativehum]

Your interpretation means that passage is sold on the basis of jump distance, not on reaching the destination.

Ha ha ha ha... no.

First, I never reordered the sentences, but simply quoted them on their own for clarity as an exercise. If one reads the paragraphs as written with the applied definitions it still all fits into place.

Second, once I got to this...

Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance…
-- Book 2, 1977

Your interpretation means that passage is sold on the basis of jump distance, not on reaching the destination.

I knew I could stop reading, right? Because I said:
A "destination" is a world you can reach in one jump regardless of jump distance.
And a "passage" Is a journey to one destination regardless of jump distance.

You pay a passage price based on one jump to one world regardless of the distance of the jump.

And thus, obviously, passage is not paid on jump distance. Which is EXACTLY what the quoted text from the rules says!

And then you declare I must conclude an interpretation that is opposite of what I stated and what the rules state.

I don't know what your deal is... but happy gaming!

 

[Straybow]

I don't know what your deal is... but happy gaming!

My "deal" is that people keep quoting those words. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Unless language is just a vague, wibbly-wobbly thing that can mean whatever you want.

First, I never reordered the sentences, but simply quoted them on their own for clarity as an exercise. If one reads the paragraphs as written with the applied definitions it still all fits into place.

You quoted each in isolation from the sentence or phrase that came before it. The preceding part establishes the context of use and therefore its meaning. You are pretending the parts that contradict your position don't exist. It is essentially the same as reordering. In its entirety:

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. That is to say, a starship with a jump drive of 3 charges the same passage price as a starship with a jump drive of 1. A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets).

It begins by declaring there is "no specific effect," which means any interpretation of the example in which jump number imposes a distinct effect upon price is an incorrect interpretation. If J1 charges per parsec, then J3 charges per parsec. If J1 and J3 charge per jump, that means drive capacity is exclusively defining the cost, which is barred. Only per parsec pricing is equipotentially the same regardless of jump capacity.

I knew I could stop reading, right? Because I said:
A "destination" is a world you can reach in one jump regardless of jump distance.
And a "passage" Is a journey to one destination regardless of jump distance.
...
And then you declare I must conclude an interpretation that is opposite of what I stated and what the rules state.

Of course. You can always stop reading and ignore what I say. I'm just a guy on a forum who thinks that reasonably constructed sentences can be clearly understood.

Your definitions are valid interpretations based on later corrections issued. It just isn't what the actual rules say. The terms "destination" and "passage" are not defined anywhere, even in 1981 rules in which there is (elsewhere) a clear statement of per jump pricing. You have imposed those definitions, and insisted that I and every other sophont reading those sentences must use your definitions, even if they are contradicted by the example given and don't work.

Specifically, the example of a destination given to us is one that is three jumps away by J1. The example of passage includes the person desiring to go three parsecs away, and traveling either by J3 in one jump or by J1 through two intermediate destinations. That invalidates your definitions of both destination and passage.

Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance.

But, if "destination" is always limited by jump distance, then passage is sold on the basis of jump distance. Your interpretation makes this primary statement self-contradictory. The only way both passage and destination can be unaffected by jump distance is per parsec pricing.

One last note:

Starship masters may inquire at a starport to determine the size and number of shipments awaiting transportation, and their destination. The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number)...

Your analysis is wrong. Note there are two separate actors in two separate sentences. In the first sentence, a PC (or NPC) is taking an action IC. In the second sentence, the referee is acting OOC. What the referee should do, in anticipation of likely inquiries, is not a limitation imposed upon those IC inquiries, nor establishing a limitation on a term not used in the same sentence and not dependent upon the action described.

If the author actually meant what he wrote in the examples, then at that time he was thinking per parsec. If he wasn't thinking per parsec, then he completely bungled the descriptions and the examples given. After corrections were made, the passage in question was not revised to agree with the corrections. It's just a game, and anyone who expects ex cathedra infallability is in the wrong field.

 

[mike wightman]

On page 4 of LBB2 '81 we read:

Interstellar travel is priced on the basis of accomodations; prices cover a trip from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length.
There are four types of passage:
High Passage- The best method of travel is called high passage, which involves
first class accomodations and cuisine. High passengers have the services of the ship's
steward, entertainment and complete attention to their comfort. There is a baggage
allowance of up to 1,000 kilograms. High passage costs Cr10,OOO.

So the ship earns Cr10,000 per high passenger, per jump, regardless of jump distance.

Pretty clearly not per parsec. The example in the book is misleading, contradictory or just plain wrong when compared to this.

The above it not in 77 LBB2

Now let's look at the exact quotes form LBB2 77 edition:

The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number)...

The common sense interpretation is jump-1 ships you look at worlds one jump away, jump2 ships look at worlds jump1 and jump 2 away etc.

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. That is to say, a starship with a jump drive of 3 charges the same passage price as a starship with a jump drive of 1. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump that would take the jump-1 ship three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations) to reach...
But, for two ships of differing jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price.

Notice one very important difference to the '81 version? No mention of buying three tickets.

This is clearly a case of per jump pricing rather than per parsec - a jump-1 ship can only jump 1 pc, a jump 3 ship can jump 1-3 pc. Both ships could offer passage to a world 1 pc away, and both charge Cr10,000, the jump-3 ship can offer a destination 2pc or 3pc and still charge Cr10,000.

So to me 77 edition has always been per jump, not per parsec.
'81 edition is contradictory, the page 4 quote is clearly per jump not per parsec, yet the example, thanks to the inclusion of the "(through two intermediate destinations,
and requiring three separate tickets)" is per parsec.

 

[Condottiere]

It's before the introduction of the jump governor, since all fuel is expended, regardless of how fractional the distance travelled is.

 

[creativehum]

'81 edition is contradictory, the page 4 quote is clearly per jump not per parsec, yet the example, thanks to the inclusion of the "(through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets)" is per parsec.

Mike,
Why is this per parsec? Clearly the Jump-1 ship is making three separate jumps, with each jump costing a separate passage price. That is, a separate ticket for each jump. That is still per jump. (Each leg of the journey is called a "destination." There are two "intermediate destinations" -- each one requiring purchase of a passage.)

The fact that a jump-1 ship's jump is one parsec has no bearing on anything. What matters is the jump itself. (Which the text states in both editions.)

 

[creativehum]

If J1 charges per parsec, then J3 charges per parsec. If J1 and J3 charge per jump, that means drive capacity is exclusively defining the cost, which is barred.

If a jump-1 ship charges per parsec, then a jump-3 ship charges per parsec. You are absolutely correct and I would never say otherwise.

However, I do not think a jump-1 ship charges per parsec. I think a jump-1 ship charges per jump. So I obviously draw the conclusion that a jump-3 ship charges per jump.

You read the text and draw the conclusion that a jump-1 ship charges per parsec. I don't understand how you can do that. I read the text and draw the conclusion a jump-1 ship charges per jump. You don't understand how I can do that.

And there we are.

 

[mike wightman]

Mike,
Why is this per parsec? Clearly the Jump-1 ship is making three separate jumps, with each jump costing a separate passage price. That is, a separate ticket for each jump. That is still per jump. (Each leg of the journey is called a "destination." There are two "intermediate destinations" -- each one requiring purchase of a passage.)

The fact that a jump-1 ship's jump is one parsec has no bearing on anything. What matters is the jump itself. (Which the text states in both editions.)

It's the "three separate tickets bit". The example clearly states the destination is 3 pc distant - quite why the jump 1 ship is offering passage to a world 3 pc away and charging three times is the mystery.
I think the example is badly worded and /or badly thought out and contradicts the earlier rule (on page 4) that the passage is per jump.
I can see how it can be interpreted as per parsec pricing; I disagree with this interpretation by the way due to the earlier statement in the rules and the way it works in '77 edition.

Under '77 rules the jump 1 ship would never offer passage to a world 3 pc away, while a jump 3 ship could - they both charge Cr10,000 for a high passage for the jump, regardless of distance. Hence pricing is per jump.

 

[Supplement Four]

Mike,
Why is this per parsec? Clearly the Jump-1 ship is making three separate jumps, with each jump costing a separate passage price. That is, a separate ticket for each jump. That is still per jump.

Correct.

I think it confuses people because a Jump-1 starship is paid per parsec when it is paid per jump.

 

[creativehum]

Mike,

Still baffled by your reading.

The text never uses the word "parsec" once on these matters. (The word parsec doesn't even show up in Book 2 1977). In the section under discussion it says the jump on ship will have to make "three separate jumps." As far as I can tell the operative word hear is "jump"

It will have to make three jumps to to deliver a passenger to world that a J3 ship could make in one jump. Since each jump requires a new passage that's three tickets. It's still per jump -- not per parsec.

Significantly the text takes the trouble to define the two intermediate worlds as "destinations." The same word used when a ship check for cargo lots and the same word used in the tables to determine "Destination Worlds."

So -- a PC X needs to travel to a world three parsecs away. There are no J3 ships that service this world so he is going to have to work his way toward it with a J1 ship to the next closest world. The Beowulf is heading to that next world over and he pays his fare and boards it.

The Beowulf arrives in this next system over and unloads cargo and passengers -- including PC X. The Beowulf crew check for cargo and sets a destination. It turns out this destination is in fact the next leg on the journey PC X needs to travel. He pays his passage for this jump and travels a second parsec closer to the world he wants to get to.

Again, the crew unloads cargo and passengers and checks for cargo lots with its range of jump capability. It chooses to go to the world PC X is trying to reach. He buys a final ticket for the passage type of his choosing.

The ship arrives in system and PC X has arrived at his destination with "three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations)."

Now, I'm firmly in the "Obviuosly it is per jump camp" so this makes perfect sense to me. But there it is... I don't see any mystery at all.

I do see how one could walk down the per parsec interpretation based off that one sentence if one ignore every other sentence about these matters in the text.

But once one accounts for the other sentences the way I've unpacked the example is quite clear.

 

[creativehum]

Correct.

I think it confuses people because a Jump-1 starship is paid per parsec when it is paid per jump.

Yeah, I finally figured out yesterday that's what people were doing. It isn't anywhere in the text. But it's a jump I can see someone imposing that onto the text if you arrive with a Payment Per Miles Traveled assumption. (Which Classic Traveller doesn't do.)

 

[mike wightman]

Like I have said, I don't agree with the per parsec interpretation, I can however see how the example in the 81 rules leads to the confusion.
In the example you have a destination 3 pc distant:

A jump3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the
jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it.

The jump 1 ship charges three time to get there - it is black and white in the example.
So that is 3x CR10,000 assuming high passage.

The jump 3 ship charges the same to get to the world as the jump 1 ship, this is also explicit in the example. It therefore charges Cr30,000.

The critical flaw in the example - and the reason I think it is wrong - is the earlier statement in the rules that a high passage costs Cr10,000 per jump regardless of distance. The jump 3 ship can not charge more than Cr10,000 for a ticket.

The other flaw in the example is that a jump1 ship would not be able to announce a destination 3 pc distant in the first place since it can not make the journey in one jump.

The example is wrong, contradictory and confuses things.

'77 edition is clearly per jump - the example lacks the critically incorrect "requires three tickets"

'81 edition is per jump apart from the confusing example which should be expunged

 

[creativehum]

So how much would the J1 ship charge a passenger to deliver him to a "destinstion" three jumps away?

 

[mike wightman]

Three tickets, so Cr30,000 by my reading of '77 and '81 (for high passage).

The jump 3 ship would only charge Cr10,000 to the same destination as it can reach it in one jump and has to charge Cr10,000 for the high passage regardless of distance.

{except in that stupid example where it states the jump 3 ship charges the same as the jump 1 ship to the destination - a destination that the jump 1 ship can not reach in one jump and so can not offer in the first place; why write an example of something the rules do not allow?)

 

[creativehum]

The text doesn't say the ships charge the same price going to the same destination.

It says they charge the same "passage price."

As far as I can tell this distinction matters -- a lot.

Which is why I really am encouraging people to read the text with definitions of "passage" and "destination" firmly and constantly in mind.

There's a kind of blurring going on about the terms and word. My own guess is that both passage and destination are used consistently.

I have offered my own take on those two words. And using them allows all the text in both editions to make sense without contradiction.

 

[mike wightman]

Same passage price - the jump 1 ship in the broken example has to charge 3xCr10,000 for passage to the destination three jumps away - it clearly states you need three tickets.

The jump 3 ship charges the same passage price - the jump 1 ship is charging Cr30,000 so the jump 3 ship charges the same (yet it can not since it is limited to charging Cr10,000 for a jump regardless of distance) - to the same destination as explicitly stated.

The example is wrong, a jump1 ship can not make a trip of 3 parsecs in one jump so it can not offer passage to the 3pc distant world in the first place. The statements are contradictory.

I understand how someone could infer from this broken example a per parsec model, I think that interpretation is wrong because the example is broken.

 

[creativehum]

"Interstellar travel is priced on the basis of accommodations; prices cover a trip from starport to starport, ecompassing one jump, regardless of fleets. There are four types of passage..." Book 2, 1981

So, passage is from one world to another world (one jump) -- not three jumps.

In the example the Jump-1 ship travels to three destinations, and thus charges three distinct passages if a passenger travels on that ship to each of the three destinations.

Not one passage, three passages. (Which is why the 1981 edition's addition of the word "tickets" is a clarification of the rules, not a muddying.) The ship is not offering passage to a world three parsec away. (You are correct! It can't!) But it could offer three separate passage to that world. (Hence the need to buy three separate tickets.)

There is a final destination the passenger wishes to reach. But he'll be paying for two addional passage to get there if he goes by a J1 ship. Total cost at High Passage is Cr30,000. (Three high tickets for each of the three jumps, as the text makes clear.)

Per this quote then, "Passage is always sold on the basis of the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance." For the J1 ship there will be three announced destinations. (This, I think is the crux of where you and I differ on this. You are seeing only one destination, whereas I read the call-out of "two intermediate destinations" and see... well, two additional announced destinations.)

The J3 ship, per the quote at the top of this post, charges Cr10,000 for the passage to the world 3 parsecs away.

The fact that the passenger can travel to the same destination via a J3 ship or a J1 ship doesn't change the fact that there are two extra destinations that have to paid for if he takes the J1 ship.

Pricing is per jump.

The example is correct!

:rofl:

Listen, it's all good. You made your case. I've made mine. The book is 35 years old. We both know what we want to do with the game.

I'll be moving on.