Cargo costs

[mike wightman]

Loren wrote a JTAS article on speculative trade without a starship. Issue 5.
It has this little nugget:

The cost of shipping the cargo is Cr 1000 per ton or 1 % of the base price of the goods per ton, whichever is greater.
Thus, the cost of shipping 12 tons of textiles would be Cr 12000, while the cost of shipping 2 tons of cybernetics parts would be Cr 5000 (250000 x .O1 = 2500 x 2 = Cr 5000).

 

[aramis]

Loren wrote a JTAS article on speculative trade without a starship. Issue 5.
It has this little nugget:

Which said nugget makes for more viability of trade... but I suspect that it's counting a markup for keeping the hauler honest. And it makes playing the carrier a lot more hassle.

 

[aramis]

Looking at the risks in a Bks 1-2-3 '81 universe... Reactions table unchanged.

So, encounters
A port 3/36. Naval only at A 3/36 * 15/36 * 30/36, scout only at A 3/36 * 21/36 *6/36, both 3/36 * 15/36*6/36 of systems


A Port, no base: encounter 6+, pirates none. So 26/36 * 141/1296 = 3666/46656 ≅ 7.86%
A Port, Scout Base: encounter 5+, pirates none. 30/36 * 141/1296 = 4230/46656 ≅ 9.07%
A Port, Naval Base: encounter 4+, pirates none. 33/36 * 141/1296 = 4653/46656≅ 9.97%
A Port, both: encounter 3+, pirates none. 35/36 * 141/1296 = 4935/46656 ≅ 10.57
B Port, no base: encounter 6+, pirates none. So 26/36 * 141/1296 = 3666/46656 ≅ 7.86%
B Port, Scout Base: encounter 5+, pirates none. 30/36 * 141/1296 = 4230/46656 ≅ 9.07%
B Port, Naval Base: encounter 4+, pirates none. 33/36 * 141/1296 = 4653/46656≅ 9.97%
B Port, both: encounter 3+, pirates none. 35/36 * 141/1296 = 4935/46656 ≅ 10.57

Just right here, I can tell you, CT-81 is VERY VERY different from CT-77 in the universe it models.
Pirates in '77 are in the busy systems. In '81, they're in the slower ones.
I'm too lazy to do the rest of the math, but, suffice it to say, the reaction table is the problem.

It's wilder than the Wild Wild West as seen on TV. Thank you, reaction table, you just make my next TU grimdark psychos... (maybe not...)

 

[whartung]

The price of repair suggests to me that merchants would be more passive to attack than not. Similarly, pirates would happily comply in simply lifting cargo for the asking, and "throw the fish back" rather than take another one out of the economy. Less traders, less targets.

It's simply cheaper to give in to the pirates than risk bankrupting damage to the ship.

Similarly, if ships and goods are insured, an insurance company may well mandate a ship go UN-armed for exactly the same reason. Better to cover a 20KCr cargo loss than a 4MCr M-Drive loss, or the entire ship itself. Missiles as ammo aren't cheap either. Even if the trader "wins" the battle, it can lose economically from sustained damage.

Insurance companies may well mandate refined fuel for the same reasons.

It makes for good hunting by pirates. Pirates are then considered friction on the economy, but not necessarily dangerous. They should be hunted and dealt with harshly by the authorities, but even then, as long as they don't HURT anybody, you could let the Pirates fight among themselves for territory.

Heck, even the Pirates can "sell insurance".

"Free Trader Beowulf -- shut down your drives, and prepare to be matched and boarded."

It is in Imperial interest to deter piracy. Piracy deters trade. Why would a trader go to a system known to be frequented by pirates? Patrols can readily prevent piracy within the 100D limit, especially with some defined space lanes. System with longer trips to jump would be more problematic.

All of these factors tend to make isolated system even more isolated. When the law abiding, insured traders are deterred, if not outright forbidden, from going to them, it makes those systems even more desperate for trade.

 

[aramis]

Piracy is a drop in the overall bucket - most of the issue is hotheads in other ship who aren't pirates,,,

 

[ffilz]

My comparison document calls out the encounter table differences between 1977 and 1981. I should put some of this analysis up there also.

 

[creativehum]

Just right here, I can tell you, CT-81 is VERY VERY different from CT-77 in the universe it models.
Pirates in '77 are in the busy systems. In '81, they're in the slower ones.
I'm too lazy to do the rest of the math, but, suffice it to say, the reaction table is the problem.

It's wilder than the Wild Wild West as seen on TV. Thank you, reaction table, you just make my next TU grimdark psychos... (maybe not...)

Can you tell me more about "CT-81 is VERY VERY different from CT-77 in the universe it models." What are the differences? What are these two universes?

And this: "suffice it to say, the reaction table is the problem." What is "the problem"? What is the reaction table doing that causes the problem? (Especially since the reaction table is unchanged between the two editions.) [I ask in part because what you consider a problem might not be what I consider a problem, so I'd like to hear more.]

I'm interested in your take on these matters and the conclusions you are drawing.

Thanks!

 

[vegas]

... I do [sic: "don't" was meant] think think there is a need to monkey around with cargo cost or per parsec rates

As a game mechanic emphasizing playability, cost per jump is fine I suppose, and I do tend to agree that it is the RAW in CT (ambiguities notwithstanding.) But to try to justify rule in economic terms is to overbake the argument.

In the long run, in a competitive market, price has to equal average cost (the economist's definition of "cost", not the accountant's.) If there is one price per jump regardless of distance or destination everywhere and always, that is an amazing coincidence. Most people around here haven't supposed such perfect matching of costs. Instead they assume the opposite, that this isn't a market price, and instead there is some kind of Imperial price-fixing to make it happen. As a proto-Traveller guy yourself, that may not be a very appealing explanation, but as weak an explanation as it is, it is better than an appeal to market pricing.

Even your own argument is self-defeating on this point:

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...

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.

I think it is a good argument that it less safe (and therefore higher cost for the merchant) to leave the A & B routes, but then the price should be based on the destination starport type, right? It shouldn't always be fixed, it should vary with where you are going.

The economic reality is that each pc of jump consumes 10% of the hull costing the opportunity to haul cargo in the space and cash equal to that much fuel. When a big component of cost varies like that, price has to vary similarly for things to make economic sense.

Keeping 1 price for all jumps regardless of destination is economic handwavium. Fine if you want it of course, but supply and demand doesn't justify it, it refutes it.

 

[creativehum]

As a game mechanic emphasizing playability, cost per jump is fine I suppose, and I do tend to agree that it is the RAW in CT (ambiguities notwithstanding.) But to try to justify rule in economic terms is to overbake the argument... [and more]

This entire post is an apology. It is sincere.

I wasn't trying to justify the rule of Cr 1000 per ton of cargo. I was specifically addressing 'bow's comment that it made no sense for people to pay more credits to take longer to go the same distance on a faster ship. Looking at how all the rules fit together I drew a conclusion that makes sense in the setting implied by the rules in Books 1-3.

Of course the fixed price is arbitrary.

Listen, here's a thing: None of this is real. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I mean it in a concrete, real way. I mean it in the sense that even the notion of an interstellar empire is suspect. We're blowing smoke up our own asses if we try to take this stuff too seriously.

What I work at is the level that make sense for fiction -- which is the source of the game Traveller. Not trying to create an actual, running interstellar empire. But something along the kinds of SF novels and short stories that inspired Miller to create Traveller in the first place. (The works of Vance, Anderson, Tubb, Piper, Pournelle, Norton, Bester, and others.)

If anyone wants, one could begin extrapolating any of the details of any of those stories by those authors and discover that none of them make any sense. But the thing is this: Those stories aren't supposed to be "real." But the settings are consistent within themselves, adding just enough details that the reader can follow along with the actions of the characters -- their efforts, their failures, their successes, their closing in on their goals, their falling back from their goals.

The settings of the stories are sketched lightly, with a few key details and descriptions and suggestions of logic that allow the reader to go, "Oh, okay, got it." In short, they possess verisimilitude.

ver·i·si·mil·i·tude
noun
the appearance of being true or real.
"the detail gives the novel some verisimilitude"
synonyms: realism, believability, plausibility, authenticity, credibility, lifelikeness
"the verisimilitude of her performance is gripping"

So you know where I am coming from, I think the word appearance is really important in that definition. If one looks at it, but doesn't look too close it will probably hold up. But if you knock it, bang it, push too hard, it will fall apart.

You might very well be familiar with the term, and if so, I apologize. By defining the word I'm not trying to be condescending but precise.

In my post I wasn't trying to create an actual economic model. Nor was I trying to justify the obviously arbitrary elements of the game's rules for commerce. What I wanted to do in that post was layout why someone might well pay more to move slowly by using the rules at hand to justify the thinking with a few details that would give my setting the appearance of being true or real. In the cases of SF pulp fiction, this would true or real enough.

I know there are many people on this board who have players who focus on any and every element of the setting and, from what I have read here, tear things apart because they are not "real." I know that this post -- and posts like it -- often draw from people a strange sort of condemnation: declarations that there is no logic or any sort of consistent setting, a strange notion that there is no consistency and the idea that no one could be satisfied in a setting which doesn't model reality in the confines of a Roleplaying Game of "Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future."

Because of this I apologize upfront for not being able to answer such concerns, and the fact that I would probably frustrate many of the people who post here if you were in my game.

But the kind of underlying logic that many people want here goes beyond what I need (verisimilitude) and enters the realm of modeling fictional reality. Since my play, like the inspiration of the game itself, comes from SF pulp adventure stories, the focus of my Players will be on the challenges at hand -- the adventure, the goals, the failures, the successes.

If a player asks, "But why does it cost more to travel more slowly," I now have an answer. (One that you yourself as being, at least in part, "a good argument.") But more important than being an argument, it quickly sketches lots of color about the setting. As an idea it touches on the dangers of space travel in general, the dangers of space travel to backwater worlds specifically, the contrast between well serviced worlds, the isolated lives of people living on worlds where the PCs' ship might go but not the regular liners, and so on.

I say all this to thank you for taking my post seriously enough to write the response you did, why apologizing for not being able to respond in the manner I think you deserve. Because the lines of arguments you are using are not the lines I am using. And for that I am sorry.

 

[vegas]

Of course none of this is real. How one compromises between playability and realism is a matter of taste. Different issues matter to different people.

Appealing to supply and demand to justify a single price for a service regardless of underlying cost isn't verisimilitude. It is contradiction.

Price fixing is a more believable explanation for the game mechanic, and it is a pretty weak/problematic explanation.

But none of this matters unless it matters to you or your players.

 

[creativehum]

Of course none of this is real. How one compromises between playability and realism is a matter of taste. Different issues matter to different people.

Appealing to supply and demand to justify a single price for a service regardless of underlying cost isn't verisimilitude. It is contradiction.

Price fixing is a more believable explanation for the game mechanic, and it is a pretty weak/problematic explanation.

But none of this matters unless it matters to you or your players.

Again, you're saying I was saying things that I didn't say and wasn't trying to do.
I tried my best.
Good gaming to you!

 

[aramis]

The heart of the economics problem for BOTH '77 and '81 is the Encounters table referencing the reactions table. It means at least once a year, someone goes off half-cocked and opens fire upon you...

Pirates you can strike your colors and surrender... Paranoid delusional captains, not so...

If one does not use it for ship encounters, then only pirate encounters are a risk.

As for the differences in 77 and 81...

Cryton and I have covered that before, but in brief...

In 77, pirates are the bane of populated systems, but are absent in the backwaters. The mains are dangerous for lack of services, not hostiles...

In 81, pirates are the scourge in the fringes - desperate men choking the lifeblood out of minor trade. Meanwhile, the major ports have no pirates, but plenty of law. And patrols are EVERYWHERE.

	77
A	6:5	2:0	4:0	3:0	6:0
B	4:5	0:0	1:0	0:0	2:0
C	1:3	2:3	—	3:4	—
D	0:2	0:4	—	0:5	—
E	0:0	0:3	—	0:5	—
X	0:0	4:5	—	—	—

[tc=6]Patrolirate Ratios, of thirty six chances[/tc] [tc=4]81[/tc] [td]Port[/td][td]—[/td][td]—[/td][td]N[/td][td] S[/td][td]B[/td][/tr]

The "empire" of 81 leaves E and X alone, and to the pirates, but patrols the A and B systems, and the pirates only match with them in the C-ports.

The "empire" of 77 patrols everywhere, but is outgunned by pirates in the systems with good ports...

One is effective; the other not...

Edit: Corrected X- '81

 

[creativehum]

The differences between the two encounter tables I had always known. I always imagined that in the '77 rules the naval bases were built where they were because the pirates continued to raid the system.

But I had never imaged the two possibilities in such stark and evocative sentences!

In 77, pirates are the bane of populated systems, but are absent in the backwaters. The mains are dangerous for lack of services, not hostiles...

In 81, pirates are the scourge in the fringes - desperate men choking the lifeblood out of minor trade. Meanwhile, the major ports have no pirates, but plenty of law. And patrols are EVERYWHERE.

One empire is effective; the other not...

Thank you for that!

You mentioned "grimdark" in your previous post. Does a guarantee of one violent encounter a year seem that desperate to you? (It doesn't to me, given the fact the weapons are there for a reason, and given the inspirational source material.)

My own taste is probably more for the 1977 rules. It seems to me the Ship Encounter Table was reworked for the '81 rules as the Third Imperium began to take shape: Powerful, stable, and effective.

 

[aramis]

The differences between the two encounter tables I had always known. I always imagined that in the '77 rules the naval bases were built where they were because the pirates continued to raid the system.

But I had never imaged the two possibilities in such stark and evocative sentences!



Thank you for that!

Both of them are also mad-max level "preemptive self-defense" levels of touchy, thanks to the Reaction table.

 

[creativehum]

Both of them are also mad-max level "preemptive self-defense" levels of touchy, thanks to the Reaction table.

I'm not quite seeing it that way... but I'm probably missing something.

If a ship never stops making runs from world to world, that will be twenty six weeks in system (and perhaps encountering ships) every other week.

In both editions there is a chance for no encounter.

The 1981 edition suggest that the interactions be treated as Routine Encounters (not violent; just folks going about their business). He or she can roll on the encounter table, the rules say, for inspiration.

Anyway, if there is an encounter, we roll on the Reaction Table. There's a 3% chance for an automatic attack (a 2 on 2D6), while a roll of 3 requires an additional roll of 5+ for there to be an attack, a roll of 4 requires an additional roll of 8+ for there to be an attack, and a roll of 5 might not involve an attack at all. After that, there are no more presumed attacks.

That means that if there is an encounter there is a 3% chance of a guaranteed attack, a 72% chance of no fight guaranteed, and 25% chance there might be a fight based an another random roll or the Referee's whims.

Given the whole Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future -- I don't think these odds seem oddly dark.

 

[aramis]

I'm not quite seeing it that way... but I'm probably missing something.

If a ship never stops making runs from world to world, that will be twenty six weeks in system (and perhaps encountering ships) every other week.

In both editions there is a chance for no encounter.

The 1981 edition suggest that the interactions be treated as Routine Encounters (not violent; just folks going about their business). He or she can roll on the encounter table, the rules say, for inspiration.

Anyway, if there is an encounter, we roll on the Reaction Table. There's a 3% chance for an automatic attack (a 2 on 2D6), while a roll of 3 requires an additional roll of 5+ for there to be an attack, a roll of 4 requires an additional roll of 8+ for there to be an attack, and a roll of 5 might not involve an attack at all. After that, there are no more presumed attacks.

That means that if there is an encounter there is a 3% chance of a guaranteed attack, a 72% chance of no fight guaranteed, and 25% chance there might be a fight based an another random roll or the Referee's whims.

Given the whole Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future -- I don't think these odds seem oddly dark.

When you apply them (and the base chance of encounter) you get just about 141/1296 encounters are hostile. that's 10.8%. Encounter chances are 90% or so in A ports...
So, overall, about 5-9% chance of a hostile encounter per leg... Let's go with the lesser - a ship "enters system" about once per week; once on takeoff, and once on jump exit. That puts a normal merchant on a 50-encounter per year.
Let's take that low end 5% chance (in a C-ports only run)... and check it against 50 encounters. so that's 0.95^50 chance of no hostiles... which, according to my HP38, is about 0.0769449... call it 7.7% A ship in the best chances is about 7.7% likely to avoid having hostile encounters. It's likely to have about 4.75 hostile encounters per year...

Given the 1d6 "significant" encounters per week metric for long term... and 52 weeks, but 25 of them in space (and so not counting§) that's 3.5 * 27 * 10.8%, that's 10.2 per year. But, that's not the actual CT metric (it's MT's); no CT uses 1 per day... let's ignore 25*7 days... 190 encounters per year, for 20.52 hostile encounters per year...

Even living in the bad part of Anchorage, I didn't get attacked 20 times a year. (Peak was 5 in one year, counting the drive-by shooting.)

 

[kilemall]

Let's put that encounter/reaction probability in perspective- I believe that's several times the relative risk rate for merchant shipping in WWII.

Consider the money sink rate all this implies- I would consider the likelihood of scoring the 'big one' on the speculation table to be twice a year. So, 'two steps forward, one step back'. Adventure fodder.

On the reaction table, I would consider interpreting the various levels of responses that are neutral/not friendly but not attack as having courses/positions that are not conducive to closing. Or perhaps situations onboard the pirate ship.

 

[Carlobrand]

'77 and '81 paint starkly different trade pictures, if you think about the meaning behind the numbers.

Where there's big money involved, that money will try to protect itself, and that clearly is not happening in the '77 universe. '77 is a universe of little trade between planets, with what trade occurs being the result of adventurous souls willing to take big chances to score that big hit. As Aramis points out, it's not a universe where the interstellar forces of goodness and niceness are very effective. Maybe they are more effective somewhere else, but they're not very effective where the players are. It's a universe where anarchy has the upper hand out in the airless void ...

... and as such, it is a small-ship universe. Big ships in trade mean big money and, as I noted, big money tries to protect itself.

By the '81 universe, it seems they're giving thought to an Imperium, or at least some organized effort to protect the trade lanes. There's enough economic activity going on up there to justify a planet putting up enough force to push piracy out to the hinterlands. Could be big ship, could be lots of small ships, but there's enough to warrant a real effective effort, at least where the bulk of traffic is.

 

[creativehum]

Hi Aramis,

I'm having trouble following your numbers (there's a lot happening in those paragraphs). And this is on me, not you.

So, to check:

CT has Daily Encounter rolls: 5 or 6 on D6 for an Encounter. These Encounters occur on planets, not in space. So, if the crew is space for say, half a year, that leaves 180 days, and so 60 encounters across the year.

Of those there is a 28% chance of a Violent or Hostile reaction (2 -5 on the Reactions Table). So that knocks that down to 17 Encounters that might go south right off the bat.

But not all those encounters will become violent.

On the Reactions table:
2: Violent. Immediate attack (1.8 out of 60 Encounters)
3: Hostile. Attacks on 5+
4: Hostile. Attacks on 8+
5: Hostile. May attack.

So, of those 60 possible Encounters we get:

• 2: Violent. Immediate attack
• 1.8 such encounters out of 60

3: Hostile. Attacks on 5+

• 3.4 such encounters out of 60
• 2.8 such encounters out of 60 starting with an attack

4: Hostile. Attacks on 8+

• 5 such encounters out of 60
• 2 such encounters our of 60 starting with an attack

5: Hostile. May attack.

• 6.6 such encounters turning violent at Refreee's discretion

So: 180 days dirtside out of a year.

• 60 Random Encounters.
• 17 of those will be anywhere from Violent to at the least Very Tense
• Of those 17 encounters, 6.6 or so will turn immediately violent, with another 6.6 of those up to the Referee to decide.
• If the Referee decides all the Reaction Table (5) results are violent, the makes 13 immediate attacks out of 180 days.
• Thus, total number of immediate assaults on PCs dirtside across 180 days: anywhere from 6.6 to 13

That's my read of it, anyway.

 

[vegas]

	77
A	6:5	2:0	4:0	3:0	6:0
B	4:5	0:0	1:0	0:0	2:0
C	1:3	2:3	—	3:4	—
D	0:2	0:4	—	0:5	—
E	0:0	0:3	—	0:5	—
X	0:0	4:5	—	—	—

[tc=6]Patrolirate Ratios, of thirty six chances[/tc][tr]
[tc=4]81[/tc] [td]Port[/td][td]—[/td][td]—[/td][td]N[/td][td] S[/td][td]B[/td][/tr]

The "empire" of 81 leaves E and X alone, and to the pirates, but patrols the A and B systems, and the pirates only match with them in the C-ports.

I really like this analysis. It is very illuminating. But my 81 LLB2 says the ratio for X is 4:5 no 0:5, which is a weird progression.

Edit: Corrected X– '81 port