Cargo costs

[Straybow]

Supplement Four quoting from Starter Traveller:
There, it says, "The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on the jump number), and roll for each such world on the cargo table."

The same sentence as in LBB2. Jump number only precludes rifts that a lower jump number can't cross. So you could roll for cargo for 3 destinations along a 3 jump path.

Page 30 also says: 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).

IN OTHER WORDS...

This says that a J-1 and J-3 ship charge the same, the difference between the two being that a J-3 can take you farther than the J-1 ship for the same price.

The same paragraph, word for word, I've quoted from LBB2 that says J3 = 3×J1???

It specifically says the J3 and J1 charge the same for going to the same destination, even if it is three hexes away. J3 in one, J1 in three. Note again that you can book passage for a multijump trip, so again, accessible isn't one jump only.

I freely admit that LBB7 (8 years after LBB1-3) and A13 (also 8 years after) show a revised or clarified position on per jump pricing. I don't know if Special Supplement 1, titled Merchant Prince, from 1982 is the same as LBB7, but if so it is 5 years after Trav came out. If this is a clarification, what took so long? Should have been corrected in the reissue three years later. If revision, then per parsec is valid RAW if you aren't playing by LBB7/A13 rules.

Y'know, all this back and forth makes me wonder, just what is best for playing the game? What makes more sense economically?

I think if the ref has to make shipping unprofitable to get the adventurers off the trade route, the problem isn't in the economics. I think making bad economics a rule can't be "best for playing the game." It isn't like nobody makes it per parsec IMTU...

 

[creativehum]

I honestly can't believe you're circling back to this. But since you are...

The same sentence as in LBB2. Jump number only precludes rifts that a lower jump number can't cross. So you could roll for cargo for 3 destinations along a 3 jump path.

With this logic, one could (and should) find the route for a 4 jump path, a 5 jump path, a 10 jump path...

It is your thesis that the Referee is suppose to be rolling for all endless combinations the ship could possibly make?

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

There are two ways of reading this:

1. The "worlds" in question are those immediately accessible to the ship from the world of departure
2. The referee needs to determine potential cargo to all worlds that are accessible to the ship eventually

I honestly can't tell anymore whether you

• actually believe the game assumes 2
• you're trolling
• you are so dug into your position you can't even see you are contorting the meaning of the texts completely out shape in order to support your point

But reading the text as number 2 is clearly outlandish.

 

[Supplement Four]

I freely admit that LBB7 (8 years after LBB1-3) and A13 (also 8 years after) show a revised or clarified position on per jump pricing. I don't know if Special Supplement 1, titled Merchant Prince, from 1982 is the same as LBB7, but if so it is 5 years after Trav came out. If this is a clarification, what took so long? Should have been corrected in the reissue three years later. If revision, then per parsec is valid RAW if you aren't playing by LBB7/A13 rules.

Is it more likely that its a revision, or you've read the rule incorrectly?

But, the real proof is in the rule itself.

-- The Ref rolls up all cargoes a ship can reach in one trip. That's the origin world to the destination world.

-- If you're talking about a J-1 ship, then you roll up cargoes for worlds that are 1 parsec away.

-- If you're talking about a J-3 ship, then you roll up cargoes for worlds that are 1, 2, or 3 parsecs away.

-- And, the ship is paid Cr1,000 per ton.



It is impossible for the J-1 ship to make the world 3 parsecs away, so it must make 3 jumps. That's three origin worlds and three destination worlds, and each time, the cargo is Cr1,000 per ton.

Or, on other words, J-1 vessels are paid Cr1,000 per ton per parsec.



But, a J-3 ship can make the world 3 parsecs away in one trip--one jump. Thus, it is paid Cr1,000 per ton for that trip.


Look, I am done trying to show you that this is RAW.

Believe what you want.

 

[aramis]

It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be, S4. And you're pushing well past the bounds of polite. [m;]Dial it back, S4.[/m;]

 

[pendragonman]

snip...
But, the real proof is in the rule itself.

-- The Ref rolls up all cargoes a ship can reach in one trip. That's the origin world to the destination world.

-- If you're talking about a J-1 ship, then you roll up cargoes for worlds that are 1 parsec away.

-- If you're talking about a J-3 ship, then you roll up cargoes for worlds that are 1, 2, or 3 parsecs away.

-- And, the ship is paid Cr1,000 per ton.[\quote]

and snip again

It is impossible for the J-1 ship to make the world 3 parsecs away, so it must make 3 jumps. That's three origin worlds and three destination worlds, and each time, the cargo is Cr1,000 per ton.

You are correct. Three origin worlds and 3 destination worlds.

At origin 1 I pick up a TD of Slurm to take to destination one, as Slurm is rolled as cargo from O1 to D1. KCR 1 for the cartage.

At D1 (Now origin 2) I get a new ton of cargo. Now it is a TD of Vargr nail clippers. The clippers are going to Destination 2. KCR 1 for the cartage.

At D2 (now origin 3) I get a new ton of cargo. Oh look! A TD of Kargle shell, this time to destination 3. KCR 1 for the cartage.

The thing is, for a J1 freighter you roll cargoes for Destination 1 while at Origin 1, cargoes for Destination 2 are rolled for at Origin 2 (which is Destination 1), or at least a game week later than the first cargoes were rolled, with different mods for the different situation.

And, of course, cargoes for Destination 3 are rolled at Origin 3 (which is Destination 2), again at least a week game time later.

So even if Destination 3 wanted Slurm when the J1 left Origin 1, there is small chance they actually still want it 3 weeks later given the intervening rolls. On the other hand, if the carrier can get the Slurm there in one week, Destination 3 will take it.

If the J1 ship picks up the Slurm for Destination 3 as they leave Origin 1, they really are taking it on spec that Destination 3 will pay them for their trouble three weeks later.

 

[Supplement Four]

You are correct. Three origin worlds and 3 destination worlds.

You think RAW is a per parsec pricing model too???

At origin 1 I pick up a TD of Slurm to take to destination one, as Slurm is rolled as cargo from O1 to D1. KCR 1 for the cartage.

With the rule, the Ref is supposed to roll all available cargoes for a ship, then let the players decide which cargo they want to take.

Going by what you say, by rolling multiple new origin worlds, there's no stopping point. A Ref would just keep rolling and rolling.

That's not how the rule is meant to be used. You take one cargo to one destination world, then you roll again--all cargoes that the ship can hit, and so on.

 

[creativehum]

You think RAW is a per parsec pricing model too???

With the rule, the Ref is supposed to roll all available cargoes for a ship, then let the players decide which cargo they want to take.

Going by what you say, by rolling multiple new origin worlds, there's no stopping point. A Ref would just keep rolling and rolling.

That's not how the rule is meant to be used. You take one cargo to one destination world, then you roll again--all cargoes that the ship can hit, and so on.

I believe pendragonman is agreeing with you (and me, and the rules). He is saying that there are three separate origin worlds and three separate destination worlds, each determined one after the other as the ship travels from one world to the next.

Three [separate] origin worlds and 3 [separate] destination worlds.

The ship is not carrying, in his example, any given cargo for more than one jump.

The exception he offers is when the ship's crew buys a product on spec and carries it for three jumps on their own. But it it no longer cargo in this case.

 

[pendragonman]

That's not how the rule is meant to be used. You take one cargo to one destination world, then you roll again--all cargoes that the ship can hit, and so on.

Which is what I was saying, if you were reading exactly what I wrote and not what you wanted me to say.

 

[pendragonman]

I believe pendragonman is agreeing with you (and me, and the rules). He is saying that there are three separate origin worlds and three separate destination worlds, each determined one after the other as the ship travels from one world to the next.



The ship is not carrying, in his example, any given cargo for more than one jump.

The exception he offers is when the ship's crew buys a product on spec and carries it for three jumps on their own. But it it no longer cargo in this case.

Exactly.

 

[Spartan159]

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into the works here and ask what happens when you have a J1 Fat trader with a fuel bladder/demountable tank making two jump 1's across an empty hex? Or the mammoth cargo ships that can do up to 4 jump 1's across empty hexes?

 

[pendragonman]

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into the works here and ask what happens when you have a J1 Fat trader with a fuel bladder/demountable tank making two jump 1's across an empty hex? Or the mammoth cargo ships that can do up to 4 jump 1's across empty hexes?

Apply the rules as written. KCR 1 per destination in these cases as while the ship has the fuel range to reach the destination but not the jump range to get there in one jump, it is paid the same as a ship with the proper jump range to get there in one jump.

The ship with the fuel bladder is using a bladder for 1 of 2 reasons:
---to get over a "rift" for which its own jump can't cross
---cheap fuel to increase profit margin.
Either way, it is eating up valuable cargo space to use that bladder, so the destination world better be special or paying a premium for the service.

And that ship with J1 but fuel for 4 jumps? That is wasting 30% of the hull (and therefore a crapload of cargo space) for fuel that can be picked up at each J1 stop. Bad idea from the perspective of a freighter captain running along a main. (which 4 J1 systems in a row would be at least part of a main)

 

[creativehum]

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 jumps p 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?

First, thanks for bringing this up! This discussion has been great grist for my understanding about some of the elements of Classic Traveller. (Which is the rules set (along with MegaTraveller) under discussion from the OP.)

The key for me is this, which I brought up in post #102:

Fuel. Refined and Unrefined.

A Jump-3 ship is going to have the reach to get to A and B without having to stop at lower class starports more often than not. This means the ship can regularly use refined fuel. This means the ship is not regularly risking drive failure and misjumps.

A Jump-1 ship will not be able to make it regularly from A and B ports to A and B ports. This means the ship will regularly be buying or skimming unrefined fuel to get to the next jump. A ship using unrefined fuel risks drive failure every week, and a risk of misjump every time the Jump Drive is activated. Drive failure can result in events ranging from lost time for repairs or flushing of the fuel system to a matter of life-and-death if the Power Plant goes out and the emergency life support batteries go out before repairs can be made. All of this, of course, will affect the crew's financial health as well as their literal health in terms of time lost, money lost for repairs, and so on.

I offer, then, that a Jump 3 ship is, in fact, not losing money compared to the Jump 1 ship. Because a Jump 1 ship is going to be dealing with at least the risk of drive issues if not actual drive issues. Moreover, if the drive issues occur, they will most like not be in a A or B class starport system, and instead by in a C class system ("reasonable repair facilities"), or D, E, or X class system (no repair facilities) when things break down.

The Jump 3 ship, in contrast, will most likely be in a A or B class system.

As an example, if we look at the Regina subsector, we can see that apart from the gap in the center of the system that requires a jump to Roup, Whanga, or Knorbes, we see that a Jump 3 ship can safely travel to all the A and B ports in the subsector (and off it), allowing both the crew and passengers the knowledge they don't even risk having drive failures or misjumps.

Meanwhile, a Jump 2 ship can build a nice circuit between several ports offering a solid range of destinations while offering their passengers the same guarantee. But they are limited in how far they can go with that guarantee.

And a Jump 1 ship will never be able to make that assurance outside of the two circuits centered on Pixie and Efate, respectively.

[The gap in the center of the subsector offers a lot of interesting options. Which liner makes that run? Often do ships make it? On what conditions do passengers risk it? Is work being done to get an A or B starport into place? Is someone sabotaging it? Was one there and was it attacked?]

Overall, there is a solid upside to having a Jump 3 ship in the setting of Classic Traveller -- and that is found in efficiency, safety, and reliability of travel. Jump 1 ships will, over time, be dealing with many more problems, if not anything from suffocation as the life supports dies out to "shipwrecking" on a system as the crew wait for parts to arrive, to need to steal or wheedle what supplies they need to keep going. A Jump 3 ship will seldom be in this position.

Because of all of the above, I do think think there is a need to monkey around with cargo cost or per parsec rates. The advantage Jump 3 ships have is their ability to travel from safe harbor to safe harbor again and again.


As to the point of why it costs more to travel more slowly through the stars on a Jump 1 ship, I'll repeat the points I made upthread:

The issue of refined and unrefined fuel alone will be enough to make anyone off the main routes between A-A, A-B, and B-B routes be thankful for the Type A merchant that comes along on an irregular basis. Most Jump 3 ships will never bother visiting most worlds in a subsector due to unrefined fuel, let alone the threats of piracy found in C, D, E, and X starport systems.

One does not always have the luxury of taking a Jump-3 ship. The fact is, getting from one planet to another (and then another and another) when one is off the beaten track will depend on people willing to go to places lots of people won't go and taking risks most people won't take.

Passengers on worlds off the "safe" trade lanes must accept the fact it will take longer and be more costly simply because of the "supply" element of "supply and demand" when it comes to starship availability.

 

[Supplement Four]

Which is what I was saying, if you were reading exactly what I wrote and not what you wanted me to say.

Sorry. I should have read it twice. It looked like you were supporting the per parsec point.

My mistake. :coffeesip:

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into the works here and ask what happens when you have a J1 Fat trader with a fuel bladder/demountable tank making two jump 1's across an empty hex? Or the mammoth cargo ships that can do up to 4 jump 1's across empty hexes?

I believe the RAW model is a per jump model.

You've touched on a great question not covered by the rules, though.

It's basically a "per week in jump space", time based model, where distance doesn't enter into the equation.

That's what is throwing Straybow. From our usual perspective, shipping costs more the farther you go. With Traveller, it's a time based system. It's basically Cr1,000 per week (also per jump, also per trip).

So, a J-1 vessel, with a fuel bladder, would get paid just like a J-1 vessel without fuel bladder.

...which may be the reason that fuel bladder and demountable tanks are not that common.

 

[aramis]

THe costs to the carrier are different by distance, however...

 

[Supplement Four]

It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be, S4. And you're pushing well past the bounds of polite. [m;]Dial it back, S4.[/m;]

Aramis and I see most things differently, but I've got to say that he was spot on here. I did get a little hot over something very silly.

I mean, so what if Straybow reads the rule differently. Why would I care about that?

The right thing to do is apologize, and that's just what I'm doing. Straybow, I'm sorry for the harsh tone.

You're still misinterpreting the rule, though. :devil:

 

[aramis]

I am thinking that, perhaps, CT was intentionally unclear on the issue... at least until ST in 1984.

It allowed GM's to tailor either way and claim the rules supported them. (Straybow's argument was the same argument I used in the 90's... until I got A13 in 1996...)

By 1984, the momentum industry-wide was towards clearer rulesets... even in D&D... Mentzer rewriting Moldvay for clarity.

Now to work up the risks under CT-81.

 

[Whipsnade]

I am thinking that, perhaps, CT was intentionally unclear on the issue... at least until ST in 1984.

It allowed GM's to tailor either way and claim the rules supported them.

Bingo! Give the man a cigar!

Proto-Traveller is open to interpretation. CT "post-Proto" is governed by A:13.

Most importantly, however, is the Zeroth law: GMs can do whatever they wish.

 

[Supplement Four]

I am thinking that, perhaps, CT was intentionally unclear on the issue... at least until ST in 1984.

What makes you think that?

I think they meant it one way, and because the various authors understood the rule, little clarification bits came out as things were written.



Again, it's pretty clear that it is a per jump model when you follow the rules.

The Ref rolls all cargoes a ship can take to all possible next destinations, from origin world to destination world.

If you've got a J-3 vessel, then the Ref rolls for all cargoes one to three parsecs away from the origin world.

And, the ship is paid Cr1,000 per ton.

It doesn't say Cr1,000 per ton to one destination and Cr3,000 per ton to another. It says Cr1,000 per ton.

 

[creativehum]

Bingo! Give the man a cigar!

Proto-Traveller is open to interpretation. CT "post-Proto" is governed by A:13.

Most importantly, however, is the Zeroth law: GMs can do whatever they wish.

The problem with this is this sentence:

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

In that sentence "all" either means:

1. All the destination worlds a ship can make from the origin world in one jump based on the the ship's jump number
2. All the destination worlds a ship can make from the origin world eventually, based on the ship's jump number

In the case of (1) the possible accessible worlds are clear, finite, and manageable. The rule read this way is easy to understand and useful at the table.

In the case of (2) the possible accessible worlds are essentially infinite. I have no idea how one is supposed manage such an interpretation at the game table, given that a ship of any Jump number can most likely keep traveling quite a long distance -- even a Jump 1 ship if it is on any kind of main. And even short of that it might be 6 to a dozen or more worlds. Once one adds J2 and J3 (let alone J4) ships into the mix the permutations probably do not stop.

If I am misreading what people are saying I really apologize. (Seriously. If I'm failing to grasp the reading, please inform me of the correct interpretation. I'm more than willing to assume I'm screwing up what people mean by "all.")

But unless one adds some sort of arbitrary limit on "all world accessible to the starship" if one is not using (1) I really have no idea how the rule isn't an invitation to the Players heading off to watch a movie while the Referee rolls up every possible cargo for at least fifty to a hundred worlds every time a trader wants to take on cargo.

This isn't to say that people can't or shouldn't rework the rules to be whatever they want. They should! But unless someone brings a concern to bear that has nothing to do with the sentence itself, that sentence quoted above is very clear -- and not only because of the clarity of the sentence but in the context of any actual play that might occur.