Cargo costs

[Straybow]

Cut n paste from a dusty, forgotten thread:

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. 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 seperate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three seperate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also make otherwise inaccessable destinations within reach. But for two ships of differening jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price." (Book 2 pg. 9 also copied directly into MT and T20 rules)

(the typos may be from LBB2, or maybe the original poster's skill)

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices" either means prices are per jump or per parsec. It is unclear.

It doesn't say it has no effect on ticket prices, a term which is not the same as passage prices.

"Going to the same destination in one jump... charge the same" means either per jump or per parsec.

However, "the jump-1 ship would take three seperate jumps... requiring three seperate tickets" means that it would cost three times as much to travel slow as it would to travel fast using per jump standard, which is plainly nonsensical. If anything it should cost more to travel quickly.
__________
I'm frequently amazed how people can write a whole paragraph, with illustrative examples, and yet explain the point so poorly that 4 or 5 game versions later we're still confused what they meant.

The only canonical reference to actually be clear is GT:FT which is clearly per parsec. I've never read anywhere about LKW saying this was a revision or correction from prior versions. To me, that implies that it was always a valid interpretation (even if it wasn't what MWM was originally thinking).

 

[Supplement Four]

Cut n paste from a dusty, forgotten thread:

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. 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 seperate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three seperate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also make otherwise inaccessable destinations within reach. But for two ships of differening jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price." (Book 2 pg. 9 also copied directly into MT and T20 rules)

(the typos may be from LBB2, or maybe the original poster's skill)

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices" either means prices are per jump or per parsec. It is unclear.

It doesn't say it has no effect on ticket prices, a term which is not the same as passage prices.

"Going to the same destination in one jump... charge the same" means either per jump or per parsec.

However, "the jump-1 ship would take three seperate jumps... requiring three seperate tickets" means that it would cost three times as much to travel slow as it would to travel fast using per jump standard, which is plainly nonsensical. If anything it should cost more to travel quickly.
__________
I'm frequently amazed how people can write a whole paragraph, with illustrative examples, and yet explain the point so poorly that 4 or 5 game versions later we're still confused what they meant.

The only canonical reference to actually be clear is GT:FT which is clearly per parsec. I've never read anywhere about LKW saying this was a revision or correction from prior versions. To me, that implies that it was always a valid interpretation (even if it wasn't what MWM was originally thinking).

It looks like the per parsec model came into the game in later rule editions.

As I said immediately above, if you consider how the rule is played, it is clear that cargo is paid for just like passengers--per jump.

How is the rule played? The Ref rolls cargoes and passengers for every possible destination from the source planet. These cargoes are paid for at Cr 1,000 per ton.

In other words, that's Cr 1,000 per ton, per jump (regardless of jump number).

 

[Enoki]

Cut n paste from a dusty, forgotten thread:

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. 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 seperate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three seperate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also make otherwise inaccessable destinations within reach. But for two ships of differening jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price." (Book 2 pg. 9 also copied directly into MT and T20 rules)

(the typos may be from LBB2, or maybe the original poster's skill)

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices" either means prices are per jump or per parsec. It is unclear.

It doesn't say it has no effect on ticket prices, a term which is not the same as passage prices.

"Going to the same destination in one jump... charge the same" means either per jump or per parsec.

However, "the jump-1 ship would take three seperate jumps... requiring three seperate tickets" means that it would cost three times as much to travel slow as it would to travel fast using per jump standard, which is plainly nonsensical. If anything it should cost more to travel quickly.
__________
I'm frequently amazed how people can write a whole paragraph, with illustrative examples, and yet explain the point so poorly that 4 or 5 game versions later we're still confused what they meant.

The only canonical reference to actually be clear is GT:FT which is clearly per parsec. I've never read anywhere about LKW saying this was a revision or correction from prior versions. To me, that implies that it was always a valid interpretation (even if it wasn't what MWM was originally thinking).

This shows the same problem. The J3 ship uses twice the fuel the J1 ship does for a single jump. The J3 ship is also larger for the same amount of passengers and cargo than the J1 ship meaning annual maintenance costs are much higher. In addition, the J3 ship also may have additional crew resulting from the larger power plant and jump drive (at least in MT).
Yet, it gets compensated at the same rate as the J1 ship per jump.

What I see is the canon model makes accessing remote systems cheaper when it should be more expensive as well as discouraging longer jumping merchant ships entirely.

If on the other hand, the cost of shipping cargo or passage rises with the distance of a single jump then longer jumping ships are not only viable, but often desirable. The J1 vessel is used only in clusters of systems where everything is J1 accessible.
Systems that aren't J1 accessible end up having higher prices for goods simply because those goods cost more to ship to them. The rise in price is commensurate with the distance that system is from other ones.
That makes inherent sense to me.

 

[aramis]

It looks like the per parsec model came into the game in later rule editions.

Only in MGT and GT, formally.

It does, however, make the canonical Bk2-77 ships work quite well.

And yes, the math is done assuming pop 5 C-ports... not Pop A A-ports.

 

[kilemall]

Cut n paste from a dusty, forgotten thread:

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. 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 seperate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three seperate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also make otherwise inaccessable destinations within reach. But for two ships of differening jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price." (Book 2 pg. 9 also copied directly into MT and T20 rules)

(the typos may be from LBB2, or maybe the original poster's skill)

"Difference in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices" either means prices are per jump or per parsec. It is unclear.

It doesn't say it has no effect on ticket prices, a term which is not the same as passage prices.

"Going to the same destination in one jump... charge the same" means either per jump or per parsec.

However, "the jump-1 ship would take three seperate jumps... requiring three seperate tickets" means that it would cost three times as much to travel slow as it would to travel fast using per jump standard, which is plainly nonsensical. If anything it should cost more to travel quickly.
__________
I'm frequently amazed how people can write a whole paragraph, with illustrative examples, and yet explain the point so poorly that 4 or 5 game versions later we're still confused what they meant.

The only canonical reference to actually be clear is GT:FT which is clearly per parsec. I've never read anywhere about LKW saying this was a revision or correction from prior versions. To me, that implies that it was always a valid interpretation (even if it wasn't what MWM was originally thinking).

MT and T20 may say something different, I don't know, I'm just telling you what CT says which is what you were referencing.

The bit you are quoting settles the issue for passengers, it's per jump, not parsec. Which is what I said, it just doesn't reference cargo explicitly.

 

[Supplement Four]

This shows the same problem. The J3 ship uses twice the fuel the J1 ship does for a single jump.

Maybe this is why J-1 ships exist. There's a market for them. Different economics.

Yet, it gets compensated at the same rate as the J1 ship per jump.

Just playing Devils Advocate here: Could it be that the J-3 vessels also get more business than J-1 ships? They're certainly more versatile, with much wider range.

They're also the only way to go (well, J-2 ships) if cargo or a person wants to leave a "landlocked" cluster.

If you're on Aramis, and you want to leave the Aramis Trace, a J-2 or J-3 vessel is going to get your business. A J-1 can only take you to a finite number of close worlds.





Question: Has anyone looked at the bigger vessels? Like the 5,000 ton Hercules class from TTA? Are they profitable?

What I see is the canon model makes accessing remote systems cheaper when it should be more expensive as well as discouraging longer jumping merchant ships entirely.

What about the use of bots? An Engineering bot. A Gunnery bot. A Pilot bot.

Expensive at first, but cost saving later.

If on the other hand, the cost of shipping cargo or passage rises with the distance of a single jump then longer jumping ships are not only viable, but often desirable. The J1 vessel is used only in clusters of systems where everything is J1 accessible.
Systems that aren't J1 accessible end up having higher prices for goods simply because those goods cost more to ship to them. The rise in price is commensurate with the distance that system is from other ones.
That makes inherent sense to me.

Sure, I see the sense it in. I just don't see that in the CT rules.

 

[kilemall]

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.

Yes, but I have been combat trained by the most verminous rules lawyers, many who became actual lawyers, so I am VERY literal about what is actually written vs. interpretations.

It's an interpretation I agree with but not a literal.

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.

Agreed.

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

Not agreed. It's potential range of the ship for one single jump, which could be 1 2 or 3 for a J3 ship. So yes it's per potential week/single jump, not jump number.

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

That's an interpretation I agree with, but let's not forget it's an interpretation.

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.

Exactly, which is why the J-3 ship should get a premium shipping rate OR if the rate stays 1000 Cr per jump, then get more potential cargo die for tonnage available for their greater desirability.

That would have the effect of keeping J1 ships at a certain size, and larger ships HAVE to be J2+ and/or large scale speculators.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yes, but I have been combat trained by the most verminous rules lawyers, many who became actual lawyers, so I am VERY literal about what is actually written vs. interpretations.

It's an interpretation I agree with but not a literal.

I think its perfectly literal.

---> The Ref rolls cargo and passengers for every world the ship can visit.

---> The worlds the ship can visit are all within Jump range of the ship.

---> Ships with different J Drive numbers will probably have different worlds they can reach (depending on the stellar map). Some destinations will be farther, in parsecs, that others.

---> The ship's crew is paid Cr 1,000 per ton for a Jump.

---> Since different ships can jump farther than others, distance does not factor into payment for cargo.



There really isn't any other way of looking at it. It's literal.

 

[kilemall]

We'll have to disagree on what literal means. Perhaps what I mean more is explicit.

 

[Enoki]

Well, there's nothing quite like adding house rules to complicate things. Like adding a formula for crew donut and beer consumption... :rofl:

 

[Condottiere]

Let's not forget the variable of a crayon up Homer's nose.

If the ship owner can figure out a way to charge less than a thousand credits per parsec, and still turn a profit, why not advertize that rate?

Unless there's a cartel.

 

[Supplement Four]

We'll have to disagree on what literal means. Perhaps what I mean more is explicit.

Well, yes, it doesn't spell it out like it does for Passengers...but common sense and the example of the rules should count for something.

Let's tackle it from your perspective. How could those rules and write-up be perceived any other way?

 

[kilemall]

Well, yes, it doesn't spell it out like it does for Passengers...but common sense and the example of the rules should count for something.

Let's tackle it from your perspective. How could those rules and write-up be perceived any other way?

I don't see any reasonable person interpreting it per parsec, but where there is a will.....

 

[mike wightman]

If the ship owner can figure out a way to charge less than a thousand credits per parsec, and still turn a profit, why not advertize that rate?

Unless there's a cartel.

There is - they are called megacorporations in the 3I setting.

CT 77 is pretty clear - you get paid Cr1000 per ton of cargo for one jump. That jump could be of any distance your ship is capable of.

It ties in with the trade lane rules and the rules for jump cassettes.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Note that we only have rules for Free Traders operating in the backwaters of fly-over country transporting small, incidental cargoes.

We have no idea what megacorps charges to transport large, recurring cargoes on the major trade lanes?

 

[mike wightman]

Agree completely - people have been abusing the trade system in CT for years due to the false premise that it models trade and commerce in the 3I - which it clearly does not.

As you rightly state it is a sub-game for tramp traders.

 

[Supplement Four]

There is - they are called megacorporations in the 3I setting.

Another option...government price ceiling. It could be a 3I trade law. Maybe the government had declared that cargo will be shipped at Cr 1,000, no more. Like a lot of governmental laws, it doesn't work in reality quite as well as the intention. People with cargoes to ship think the price is great, but it's hard on those who actually do the shipping.

 

[kilemall]

Another option...government price ceiling. It could be a 3I trade law. Maybe the government had declared that cargo will be shipped at Cr 1,000, no more. Like a lot of governmental laws, it doesn't work in reality quite as well as the intention. People with cargoes to ship think the price is great, but it's hard on those who actually do the shipping.

Or conversely, to prevent megacorporations from destroying the local/tramp ship trade by undercutting the cost structure temporarily to run them out of business.

Any one of a number of reasons to do that- keep megacorps under control, keep marginal profit service up, keep local small shipyards busy, etc.

 

[aramis]

Another option...government price ceiling. It could be a 3I trade law. Maybe the government had declared that cargo will be shipped at Cr 1,000, no more. Like a lot of governmental laws, it doesn't work in reality quite as well as the intention. People with cargoes to ship think the price is great, but it's hard on those who actually do the shipping.

Which is the answer I've always used in play.

Per Jump makes the lack of J2/J3 cargo haulers make a lot more sense, too. Still, at the correct sizes J2 and J3 can make a profit.... under CT-77, but not CT-81

 

[Whipsnade]

I usually approached the 1,000 CrImp/dTon freight rate from a meta-game standpoint: It's an artifact of Traveller's trade mini-game meant to assist/speed play and not an attempt at creating a working macroeconomic model.

On the rare occasions I had to justify or explain the rate in-game I used two approaches.

First, I decided 1,000 CrImps was the "sweet spot". It was the rate most shippers in most situations knew they could successfully offer most of the time and it was the rate most carriers in most situation knew they could request most of the time. The rate could and did vary in time and space, but 1,000 CrImps was the sweet spot.

Second, the Imperium and the governments within it encourage the 1,000 CrImp/dTon rate. Encouraged, not mandated or regulated. There's no freight fee regulation office with an enforcement arm frisking about enforcing an Imperium-wide law. Instead, the Imperium encourages the 1,000 CrImp rate by paying the 1,000 CrImp rate.

When the Imperium in all it's guises ships freight, it usually pays 1,000 CrImps per dTon. When the planetary and national governments within the Imperium ship freight, they usually pay 1,000 CrImps per dTon also.

The Imperium, planetary, and national governments further encourage the 1,000 CrImp rate by subsidizing merchant shipping. IMTU while subbies provide backwater systems with scheduled mail service and engender second order trade, they are also contractually obligated to provide right of first refusal freight allotments to the subsidizing governments.

While the amount of freight each government involved is allotted will vary according to each subsidy contract, when a government does bump other cargoes with it's freight it will pay the 1,000 CrImp rate.