Cargo costs

[Condottiere]

When there's spare capacity, freight rates usually go down.

Might even have a spot market brokers can bid on.

 

[Whipsnade]

When there's spare capacity, freight rates usually go down.

Might even have a spot market brokers can bid on.

That's the general idea behind GT:FT with player-scale vessels servicing that spot market.

The players handle what little falls outside of the big boys' business plans and forecasts.

 

[welsh]

Cr.1000/ton is simply a rule imposed to simplify play.

In the real world, freight rates are set by the carrier. You charge what you need to charge to make a profit, and nobody goes out of business hauling freight unless they fail to control their costs and can't compete with those that do. If you want to get your stuff to its destination faster, you pay more. But if you want your cargo hauled three parsecs by my Type A, and you don't care how long it takes, I'll happily take a full hold at a reduced rate rather than gambling that I can fill that hold on the next world.

This makes gameplay complex, because you have to think about not only what it costs the players to haul a ton of freight, but also about all the other players in the market. So, arbitrary, universal freight price.

I feel freight rates ought to reflect the distance, and the number of jumps: say, making a 2-parsec jump in an A2 would cost Cr.2000/ton, while the same distance in a type A would run you Cr.800/ton/parsec, or Cr.1600/ton. And this should be further modified by questions like whether you're on a trade route, tech levels, population, and so forth. I was testing an alternative, but I set it aside in favour of other things.

(Same applies to passengers, btw.)

I feel the idea that the Imperium would set freight rates is counter to the freewheeling spirit of the game. And the Imperium is, after all, essentially a system whereby megarich nobles and megacorporations suck money out of worlds, so why would they cap rates?

If the players don't have a ship, the point is moot. I can impose freight rates and passenger rates without worrying about whether they're profitable. It's only for groups that decide they want to be traders that balance matters.

 

[Straybow]

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.

Except it doesn't. There can be (and is) a difference between passage and ticket. You could book passage to a world 3pc away with 3 J1 tickets. You could take three different ships to get there. You still booked passage only once (presumably through an agency of some sort).

My rules-lawyer fu is strong. There is a difference between express service and routine service. Express service should cost more than routine service. But that is clearly not what the rule says, it says it costs the same.

I think its perfectly literal.

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

The ship can visit a destination more than one jump away, if there is a linear J1 connection. Perfectly literal reading.

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

Doesn't say that. That is an assumption. If you had a J3 ship, obviously the ref would roll cargoes for 2pc and 3pc jumps. But ordinarily the ref wouldn't waste time rolling for more distant points, since the PCs probly don't want to commit to a schedule unless they have the more distant destination already in mind.

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

Unless you are looking at it to interpret it in a way that makes economic sense. Then the passage vs ticket difference reading is still literal, and the example would extend to cargo.

Well, there's nothing quite like adding house rules to complicate things. Like adding a formula for crew donut and beer consumption... :file_21:

Technically, per parsec isn't a house rule, just an interpretation of a poorly written rule.

 

[kilemall]

Like I said, where there is a will and non-explicit rules, there is a way.

 

[Supplement Four]

The ship can visit a destination more than one jump away, if there is a linear J1 connection. Perfectly literal reading.

Like I said, where there is a will and non-explicit rules, there is a way.

Except that Straybow isn't following the rules. It's not a perfectly literal reading because he's making a mistake in assuming multiple origin worlds.

If you reconcile the text on page 53 with the charts on page 55 (and the typical activities list on page 55), all in TTB, then there is still only one literal description to how the rules are meant to be played: From the origin world to all worlds the ship can reach in one jump.

Exactly like I illustrated above.

 

[mike wightman]

The rules clearly state the ref rolls cargo for each world within jump range of the ship.
Passengers present themselves once the cargo destination is known.

I know why Straybow is being pedantic, the actual text says:

Cargo: Starships may inquire at a starport about the number, sizes, and destinations of cargos awaiting transportation. The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number), and roll for each such world on the cargo table.

He is arguing that any world on a jump 1 main is accessible to a jump 1 ship...

As to passenger ticket price, the major costs apart from mortgage are fuel, crew salary and life support.

Ok, you have a trip that is a distance of 3 pc, on a jump 1 main so a jump 1 ship can do it.
Jump 3 ship pays the fuel cost for 3pc, 1 week life support, 1 week crew salary
Jump 1 ship pays the fuel for 3pc, 4 weeks life support, 4 weeks salary (assuming it takes some time to refuel and take on life support provision)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

LBB2'81, p9:

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. 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. Higher jump numbers also may make otherwise inaccessible destinations within 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.

I'm not sure if I understand the discussion here, but of course you can take passage to a distant destination, and of course you pay for each jump separately?

 

[Supplement Four]

LBB2'81, p9:I'm not sure if I understand the discussion here, but of course you can take passage to a distant destination, and of course you pay for each jump separately?

Some are arguing that CT rules allow for Cr 1,000 payment per ton of cargo for each parsec traveled. So, a J-3 starship making one 3 parsec jump would get paid Cr 3,000 per ton.

The rest of us are saying that the rules don't say that.

 

[pendragonman]

I have a question that came to mind reading this.

If I load a ton of wipple feathers onto my type A at Regina for delivery at Phlume (three parsecs away, along the main), will I get paid 1 KCr for the delivery or 3 KCr?

It is three jumps for my ship, so those feathers are making three jumps to get there.

If so, this really makes it clear why J-1 freighters are so prevalent.

 

[Supplement Four]

I have a question that came to mind reading this.

If I load a ton of wipple feathers onto my type A at Regina for delivery at Phlume (three parsecs away, along the main), will I get paid 1 KCr for the delivery or 3 KCr?

By CT rules, you'll get paid Cr 3,000.



The flip-side--

Then again...if your Type A is competing for that same cargo with a Type M (which has J-3), then the person having the wipple feathers shipped will surely shun your Type A in favor of the Type M that will transport the cargo to its destination for a third the cost (Cr 1,000).

If so, this really makes it clear why J-1 freighters are so prevalent.

Sure.

And the reason we've got J-2 and J-3 vessels is that you can get our ton of wipple feathers out of the four worlds that make up the Kinorb Cluster. J-1 can only travel within the Cluster.

Also, J-3's are great for long distance runs. You're on Regina and take on the 1 ton of wipple feathers, you'll get paid Cr 3,000 to take 'em to Zenopit in the Jewel subsector, 9 parsecs away.

 

[Quint]

If we talk Imperial Edict...

Then the Imperium, seeing at least some of the lessons of the Long Night, may have decided that this was one way to insure large numbers of small, Jump-capable ships. It's a safety redundancy in case of collapse.

D.

 

[kilemall]

Some are arguing that CT rules allow for Cr 1,000 payment per ton of cargo for each parsec traveled. So, a J-3 starship making one 3 parsec jump would get paid Cr 3,000 per ton.

The rest of us are saying that the rules don't say that.

Just to clarify, I say the rules say 1000Cr per jump, no matter the parsecs, but should be 1000Cr per parsec OR 500Cr + 500Cr per parsec OR higher jump destinations should get more cargo lot die rolls.

Something does come to mind- in sussing out the whole set of mechanics, there is clearly a progression meant for ship operators.

The software allowance usually means Generate is not in the initial buy.

So the ship operators are running by jump tape initially, until they earn enough to buy or get enough expertise to write Generate.

Then, additional capabilities can be bought/made with better computer programs.

Weapons are likely next, then more programs.

The riches built into the Speculation tables help pay for this (and the pirate encounters will act as a money sink to take away some of the gains because, adventure not Merchant Manor riches).

Then when the players have topped out their ship, they can get a newer ship with greater jump.

The greater jump opens up more worlds, many that were inaccessible, which now expands the speculation to a greater range of Big Money Runs, presumably with enough cash to tide over between profitable cargo.

So maybe the 'unfairness' of the J-3 rates are okay in the context of the full merchant speculation game.

Reach for the stars or go home.

I'm pretty convinced of this intended path for the Trader game, it's not an accident or coincidental game design, too many interlocking elements.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Some are arguing that CT rules allow for Cr 1,000 payment per ton of cargo for each parsec traveled.

Thanks.

That would require an extremely creative interpretation of the rules...

"All cargoes are carried at Cr1,000 per ton." is pretty direct.

But that is clearly not what the rule says, it says it costs the same.

Yes, it costs kCr1/dT.

You might argue that it costs kCr1 regardless of the number of jumps to the destination, you cannot argue that a single jump costs more than kCr1.

It makes no economic sense, but the rules are clear.

As someone has mentioned something like a Hercules-class can make money on longer routes through the magic of the Z-Drive.

 

[aramis]

Some are arguing that CT rules allow for Cr 1,000 payment per ton of cargo for each parsec traveled. So, a J-3 starship making one 3 parsec jump would get paid Cr 3,000 per ton.

The rest of us are saying that the rules don't say that.

The rules can be misinterpreted easily to allow it, but I agree they are per jump RAW.

That said, if one changes from per jump to per parsec, the net effect is that travel becomes MUCH more localized, and J2 and J3 go from just profitable in the right hull on the right trip to quite easily breaking even, and spec cargo lots become less attractive.

The second biggest trade argument, and the one which is really not clear in the text, is "Is the «Trader» in the Spec rules the ship or a character?" If it's ship, then the functional J2 and J3 designs that can afford the KCr1 per cargo ton per jump cannot fill sufficient to profit; it its character, then The purser and stewards go rousting for spec, and you've got a choice to work from, and can easily make even imperfect J2 and J3 designs (such as the A2) profitable.

 

[Whipsnade]

Did Our Absent Friend Don's errata project ever address this?

 

[Supplement Four]

Traveller's Atlas

Check out page 46 of JTAS 20.

There you will find a nifty idea for ship Captains to create a Commerical Atlas for all stops and future stops the ship may make.

In a game, players could use this to make a flight plan that is most likely to earn them money.

 

[Straybow]

But that is clearly not what the rule says, it says it costs the same.

Yes, it costs kCr1/dT.

You might argue that it costs kCr1 regardless of the number of jumps to the destination, you cannot argue that a single jump costs more than kCr1.

It makes no economic sense, but the rules are clear.

Obviously not. If the rules were "clear" then there would never have arisen any debate except "it doesn't make sense." First, you misquoted me by leaving out the context.

There is a difference between express service and routine service. Express service should cost more than routine service. But that is clearly not what the rule says, it says it costs the same.

I was, of course, referring to the specific example given in the rules:

"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." [typos from the online source attempting to quote the LBB]

The focus of the paragraph is on the jump capacity, specifically, that jump capacity alone does not affect passage price. This is important, because under 1977 rules the J3 ship always consumes 30% of hull size in fuel for a single jump, even if less than 3 parsecs. The J3 doesn't get to add a fuel usage surcharge or similar adjustment above the J1 price for a 1 or 2 parsec jump.

He specifies that a J3 ship "charges the same passage price" as a J1 ship. A J1 ship always charges per parsec. MWM then clearly indicated that taking a passenger who desires to go to a location three parsecs distant on a J1 ship requires purchase of three tickets. There is no 3-parsec ticket that forces a J1 ship to take the passenger for the same cost as a 1-parsec ticket. In this context, the J3 ship charges the same passage price as three J1 tickets. If he didn't intend to say that, then he used the worst possible example.

If cost were per jump, then the jump drive does have a specific effect on cost: to lower the cost of the passage if greater than 1 parsec. At no point did he say that a ticket for one jump in whatever ship costs the same however near or far. Perhaps when written MWM had not settled in his mind one way or the other. Perhaps he intended to go back and clarify before publication, but ran out of time. Perhaps he forgot his original train of thought and never came back to it.

In any case, no errata was released to clarify the matter. Some have said that the paragraph was copied verbatum into MT and T20 versions. If so, the editors did not think the matter important enough to clarify. TTH was compiled verbatim with some previously published errata, but I've never seen anyone quote it differently. Lastly, we do know that later versions explicitly said that price was per parsec.

On the other hand, we know that passenger tickets come in three varieties: high (10k), middle (8k), and low (2k). In this light, the statement that cargo cost is always 1k/dT is rightly interpreted to mean that there are no grades of cargo with different prices. Neither do the contents of the cargo alter the shipping costs. At no point did he say that cargo shipping per dT for one jump in whatever ship costs the same however near or far. Later Traveller versions added priority cargo lots that do cost more for higher jump capacity ships that can deliver beyond 1 parsec more quickly than J1, reinforcing that the original distinction of flat cargo cost was referring to grade of service, not distance carried.

 

[aramis]

Straybow makes an excellent point about the lack of clarity...

The counter to his argument is in Adventure 13... where the economics of the Type M are discussed in detail, showing his to not be the official interpretation.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

First, you misquoted me by leaving out the context.

Sorry, I did not intend to misquote you. I used a short quote to address my comments.

Obviously not. If the rules were "clear" then there would never have arisen any debate except "it doesn't make sense."

I don't see anything unclear.


You ignore everything that cannot possibly be interpreted the way you want.

LBB1'81, p23:

High passage includes first class accomodations and excellent cuisine, and allows up to one ton of baggage. High passage costs Cr10,000 when purchased.

LBB1'81, p44:

Every two months, it pays dividends in the form of one high passage to each member. This passage may be used, retained, or sold.

How can we sell it if we don't know how much it is worth?


LBB2'81, p4:

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 Cr10,000.

LBB2'81, p9:

Passengers will pay the standard fare of the class of transportation they choose: Cr10,000 for high passage, Cr8,000 for middle passage, and Cr1,000 for low passage. Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance.

LBB2'81, p11:

SHlP REVENUES
Per High Passage Cr10,000