CT Ship Errata Discussion : Akerut Heavy Merchant

[far-trader]

...brought to you by the friendly folks at Tukera. We like Aramis subsector so much we bought the company!

My take yada yada yada... if you've read this in the other threads skip to the good stuff. If you haven't read it before please pardon the interruption. If you didn't read it before, and you're still not reading it, why am I typing it? Maybe I'll slip a secret contest in here... sometime. But for now, to kick things off my take follows, weigh in with your own ideas, suggestions, questions and whatever and we'll hammer out a best solution for Don.

The idea is (as I understand it) to seek the lowest possible change with the greatest possible match to the description while ensuring it works with the 1981 set of Book 2 design rules.

No totally redesigned "better, faster, stronger..." versions of "the way it should have been done"

Tukera is proud to present the Akerut Heavy Merchant from The Traveller Adventure...

 

[far-trader]

Akerut Heavy Merchant (The Traveller Adventure):

+5000tons Hull-Custom                            MCr500.000
            Streamlined                              50.000
 -110tons Jump Drive W1                             210.000
  -41tons Maneuver W1                                84.000
  -64tons Power Plant W1                            168.000
 -500tons Fuel x1parsec
  -10tons Fuel x4weeks
 -100tons Bridge                                     25.000
   -2tons Computer Model/2bis                        18.000
   -4tons Hardpoints x4                               0.400
            Triple BBB x4                            16.000
  -60tons Staterooms x15                              7.500
   -5tons Lowberths x10                               0.500
-2911tons Cargo
  -40tons Slow Pinnace                               18.000   *1

=3842tons Total                                 MCr1096.900   *2

Cost with 10% discount is MCr987.21                           *3

*1 I just picked the Slow Pinnace as better suited.

*2 Lots of tonnage left over, 1158tons. Add it to cargo?

*3 Price is close but not quite there I think

And it’s another one with far too few crew per the rules, depending on the interpretation of the large ship crew rule.

 

[DonM]

My TTA says this ship has no low berths. To lower the cost more, you could double occupancy some of the crew, but that puts the cargo even more out of whack.

And I do think you need to add all that wasted space to cargo.

Do you want a crew larger than 15 for this thing? Book 2 seems to indicate that we need a real captain and XO, and some admin personnel, but that seems odd given the nature of the ship; same with the suggestion that it should have a crew of 50 -- if it was a warship, perhaps. But it's not a military ship.

 

[atpollard]

Back it down to 4000 tons?
That will lower cost, crew and excess tonnage.

 

[DonM]

Any other thoughts? The crew is the questionable part...

 

[Cryton]

looks to me like it had more cargo, and required a smaller crew than the mis informed reporter put in his initial review.

 

[DonM]

Draft errata for this ship:

Page 140, Akerut Heavy Merchant (type AH) (correction): The Hercules is correctly described as a heavy merchant. Cargo capacity should be listed as 4069 tons, and the ship cost is MCr989.01 (including 10% volume production discount).

 

[rancke]

No totally redesigned "better, faster, stronger..." versions of "the way it should have been done"

Tukera is proud to present the Akerut Heavy Merchant from The Traveller Adventure...

Since this thread is now almost three years old, I assume I can no longer be accused of derailing it when I say that although it may not need to be redesigned as better, faster, or stronger, it does sorely need to be redesigned as a jump-2 ship.

Short argument: Jump-1 ships are quite unsuitable for the work TTA claims Akerut's Hercules class heavy merchants perform. Not only are many of the links involved in their routes two-parsec links, where jump-2 is cheaper per parsec than jump-1, but some of the links actually crosses empty hexes where jump-1 is even more expensive than along mains.

There are a few routes that only span one parsec and would be better served by jump-1 ships, but the bulk of a merchant fleet servicing Akerut's trade network would consist of jump-2 ships.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Since this thread is now almost three years old, I assume I can no longer be accused of derailing it when I say that although it may not need to be redesigned as better, faster, or stronger, it does sorely need to be redesigned as a jump-2 ship.

Short argument: Jump-1 ships are quite unsuitable for the work TTA claims Akerut's Hercules class heavy merchants perform. Not only are many of the links involved in their routes two-parsec links, where jump-2 is cheaper per parsec than jump-1, but some of the links actually crosses empty hexes where jump-1 is even more expensive than along mains.

There are a few routes that only span one parsec and would be better served by jump-1 ships, but the bulk of a merchant fleet servicing Akerut's trade network would consist of jump-2 ships.

Hans

Gets worse. Akerut shows some jump-3 routes on the map on page 136. The description says they were using demountable tanks to accomplish the longer jumps, but I haven't checked the economics of doing it that way. The story mentions a Hercules on its way from Zila to Aramis - 3 weeks one way, 6 weeks plus the week layover round trip. Maybe there just isn't enough traffic to need to go more quickly, but I can't help suspecting that a smaller ship going more frequently would have worked better.

 

[rancke]

Gets worse. Akerut shows some jump-3 routes on the map on page 136. The description says they were using demountable tanks to accomplish the longer jumps, but I haven't checked the economics of doing it that way.

Jump-2 and jump-3 are roughly equal on per-parsec costs. But if your J2 ship has to lose 10 percentage points of cargo space and jump short on half its jumps, it becomes a lot more expensive than J3. However, most of Akerut's routes can be worked with J2 ships and one can posit a smaller number of J1 and J3 ships to service the one-parsec and three-parsec routes. They're there, they're just not important enough to warrant a writeup (wordage limit). If, OTOH, those 50 J1 Herculesses represent Akerut's one-parsec traffic, one would have to posit a hundred or more J2 ships and a score or two of J3 ships on top of that (Note: numbers are pure guesstimates). Unfortunately, ISTR a mention of Herculesses routinely showing up at Heya, which brings us back to... let's call it a severely inefficient business practice.

The story mentions a Hercules on its way from Zila to Aramis - 3 weeks one way, 6 weeks plus the week layover round trip. Maybe there just isn't enough traffic to need to go more quickly, but I can't help suspecting that a smaller ship going more frequently would have worked better.

A smaller J3 ship, yes.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

So stat up a J2 or J3 version ... this is Classic Traveller, how hard can it be?

 

[Carlobrand]

So stat up a J2 or J3 version ... this is Classic Traveller, how hard can it be?

Can't do a 5000-dT in J3 - there's no jump drive for it. Can step it back to 4000 dT and do a J3, which incidentally brings it in line with the number of hardpoints (I hate wasted hardpoints).

Akerut J3 Heavy Merchant:

+4000 ton Custom Hull                           MCr400.000
            Streamlined                             40.000
 -125 tons Jump Z3                                 240.000
 -39 tons Maneuver V1                               80.000
 -73 tons Power Plant Z3                           192.000
 -1200 tons Fuel x1parsec
 -30 tons Fuel x4weeks
 -80 tons Bridge                                    20.000
 -3 tons Computer Model/3                           18.000
 -4 tons Hardpoints x4                               0.400
         Triple Beam x4                             16.000
 -60 tons Staterooms x15                             7.500
 -2346 tons Cargo
 -1x 40 ton Pinnace                                 20.000

=4000tons Total                                MCr1033.9

Cost with 10% discount is MCr930.51

Crew remains unchanged:
Pilot
Navigator
7 engineers
1 medic
4 gunners
And, I guess, a pinnace pilot.
Total complement: 15

Note that monthly costs run MCr5.167 and that maximum income by transporting cargo for a fee is MCr4.692. Costs are a wee bit lower when it only has to do a jump-1 or jump-2, but this is still a ship that has to do some trading to be profitable.

 

[MCEvans]

Just some "Peanut Gallery" remarks

The Peanut Gallery is now in session:

I don't see Akerut using any of there 'own' ships for for true J2-4 jumps. The AH was 'designed' to cover these routes as needed. Now, with Akerut being an wholly-owned subsidiary of Tukera, I can see Akerut having in the fleet some older, very older, Tukera freighters (Type AT) a 3000 dTon J4 ship with 1259 tons of cargo. Which by the way is still less than an AH with 3 sets of demountable tanks 1411 tons cargo.
So the question then comes to how many ships are on a given route.
J3 routes about 6 ships
J2 routes about 4 ships
J1 routes about 2 ships
Does that = 50 ships, I doubt it.

As for the description of Akerut the only ships mentioned are the AH, Patrol Cruisers and Type S* (Trade-war). It does not mention others, but others are not necessary to the plot of the Campaign or for the overall view of the total fleet of Akerut for economic purposes as Akerut's economic well being is not part of the campaign.

Does this make a case for an updated AH that is J2 or J3, I hope not.
Dose this make a case for other ships that will do J2 or J3, I hope so, just don't call them the new improved AH.
Dose TTA need more big ships, only if you want them for YTU. Don't get me wrong I like big ships, but to create them for a non-existant problem** is to me a waste of time and effort.


* A J2 ship (S) showing up on a route stop for J1 ships is a very lame plot devise.

** Traveller economics is a topic for another thread but, I feel that the tables and system given in the game reflect a mico-scale (1-10 ships) not the macro-scale of worlds, sub-sectors*** or the Imperium and any attempt to capture that scale short of several textbooks is, to me, a waste of time, energy and effort to try and defend it.

*** I understand that "Pocket Empires" tries to do this (I don't have the book) but does it also not have an upper limit before everything gets messed up (10-15 worlds?).

Just shooting off sand canisters in the cargo hold

The Peanut Gallery is now dismissed.

 

[rancke]

I don't see Akerut using any of there 'own' ships for for true J2-4 jumps.

TTA specifically states that the Herculesses are routinely used for two- and three- parsec jumps:

"Because its jump-1 drive makes larger distances difficult, Akerut maintains a supply of 500-ton demountable fuel tanks (valued at Cr500,000; can be mounted in two weeks) at its starport locations within the subsector. Hercules ships can be fitted with one, two, or even three sets of tanks in their cargo holds, thus displacing cargo capacity." [TTA:140]​

The description of Akerut's ship movements elsewhere in the book clearly shows that the author considered J1 shipping across two- and three-pasec gaps to be competitive. Visits to Zila by Herculesses, for example, are describes as 'regular'.

The thing is, the author is wrong. It's a peculiarity of the ship design system that J1 traffic across two- and three-parsec routes are not even competitive if there are intermediate systems to refuel in. Increase the inefficiency by reducing cargo capacity by 10 or 20 percentage points and it becomes even worse.

I don't blame the author for failing to realize that. It's not intuitively obvious. But then, I'm not proposing to go back in time and tell him to revise his manuscript. I'm talking about a small, simple retcon now that we DO realize that J2 and J3 ships are cheaper than J1 ships (across two and three parsec routes, that is; J1 is, of course, cheaper for one-parsec routes).

The AH was 'designed' to cover these routes as needed.

That's just makes it worse. If Akerut (or Tukera) had just happened to have 50 J1 ships lying around doing nothing, it might make sense to use them, even in cases where they're hopelessly inefficient, rather than pay good money to build new J2 and J3 ships (I'm ignoring that possibility because IMO it's a highly implausible scenario). If they're custom-designed to fit Akerut's needs, even that explanation won't work at all.

If you're transporting goods manufactured on Junify to Rugbird to be sold there, a J1 ship is cheapest.

If you're transporting goods from Junidy to Jesedipere, a J2 ship is cheapest.

If you transporting goods from Junidy to Lablon, either a J2 to Jesedipere and transhipping to a J3 or a J3 from Junidy to Lablon via Jesedipere would be cheapest (depends on how much delay and cost transshipping would cause).

And if you're buying lots and lots of Vargr goods at Jesedipere and transporting them to Aramis (for transshipment to ships going further rimwards), J2 via Nasemin, Aramanx, Lewis, and Pysadi would be cheapest.

Most of Akerut's other routes are best served by J2 ships.

As for the description of Akerut the only ships mentioned are the AH, Patrol Cruisers and Type S* (Trade-war). It does not mention others, but others are not necessary to the plot of the Campaign or for the overall view of the total fleet of Akerut for economic purposes as Akerut's economic well being is not part of the campaign.

To me the verisimilitude of the campaign setting is very much a part of the campaign.

Does this make a case for an updated AH that is J2 or J3, I hope not.

Why? I can understand why TPTB would prefer just to reprint the old manuscript without spending time and money on revising it, but what interest do you have that would be adversely affected by a retconned (not updated) Hercules?

Does this make a case for other ships that will do J2 or J3, I hope so, just don't call them the new improved AH.

I want to call them the old AH that always was J2. (I.e. retcon the AH).

Does TTA need more big ships, only if you want them for YTU.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that the J1 Hercules (not in itself, but being described as the mainstay of Akerut's operations) detracts from the verisimilitude of the setting and adversely affects the willing suspension of disbelief of anyone who has realized that is is the case.

Don't get me wrong I like big ships, but to create them for a non-existant problem** is to me a waste of time and effort.

It's my time to waste. Not that I consider it a waste. It would be if the problem was non-existant. But since it isn't, it isn't.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

Can't do a 5000-dT in J3 - there's no jump drive for it. Can step it back to 4000 dT and do a J3, which incidentally brings it in line with the number of hardpoints (I hate wasted hardpoints).

Akerut J3 Heavy Merchant:

Good job.
I like it.

 

[Carlobrand]

...As for the description of Akerut the only ships mentioned are the AH, Patrol Cruisers and Type S* (Trade-war). It does not mention others, but others are not necessary to the plot of the Campaign or for the overall view of the total fleet of Akerut for economic purposes as Akerut's economic well being is not part of the campaign. ...

Point the first: I did not create a ship for a non-existent problem. I created a ship for fun. I have no reasonable expectation that it will be inserted into errata because errata's for important game elements, not some storyteller's lapse that isn't relevant to the main play action. Those kind of mistakes are rife throughout canon; even Shakespeare didn't get his facts 100% right all of the time and likely didn't care one way or another so long as his audience was entertained.

Point the second: it IS a lapse. Having an Akerut that makes lousy business decisions takes a wee bit of the believability out of the story. If I land on a planet inhabited by 6" tall winged humanoid sapients, I'm likely to take the DM aside privately and have a word about believability in science fiction. I get a little irritable when someone doesn't do his homework. Taking three weeks one-way to deliver a cargo that could go more profitably in one is one of those you-didn't-do-your-homework moments for me. However, as you point out, it's not relevant to the play action. It's just one of those 6"-tall-winged-humanoid things that I quietly grumble about while moving on with my buddies to the main action.

 

[mike wightman]

Think of it this way.

Akerut, like Tukera, isn't shipping freight. They are shipping cargo they know they can make a profit on even if it takes 3 weeks to get it to the destination.

The trade rules in the book don't model this though, they are designed for PC scale speculative trade and shipping other people's speculative trade as freight, not for megacorps carrying their own manufactured goods or luxury items to a market where they know they can make a profit to foot the bills.

The cargos Akerut moves could be seasonal - like the wines. So a regular jump 3 ship is a waste of money if it is only use for a few months a year. A PC jump 3 ship carrying a cargo of speculative wine could make a tidy sum by getting it to market first, but Arkerut's factors are going to use every trick in the book to make sure they corner the market. Note this provides an opportunity for adventure, which is where the fun is.

 

[rancke]

Think of it this way.

I can't, because it makes no sense.

Akerut, like Tukera, isn't shipping freight. They are shipping cargo they know they can make a profit on even if it takes 3 weeks to get it to the destination.

And they can make greater profit on it if they use more rational methods to ship the cargo. Also, rival companies can pay more for the goods, ship them, and still make a profit, which means that rivals can outcompete Akerut.

The trade rules in the book don't model this though, they are designed for PC scale speculative trade and shipping other people's speculative trade as freight, not for megacorps carrying their own manufactured goods or luxury items to a market where they know they can make a profit to foot the bills.

The trade rules are irrelevant. They don't factor into the question. And who is talking about PC-class rivals? Akerut wouldn't be outcompeted by small tramp freighters. But they would be outcompeted by rival companies.

The cargos Akerut moves could be seasonal - like the wines. So a regular jump 3 ship is a waste of money if it is only use for a few months a year.

It doesn't work like that. Akerut would simply have fewer ships and would use them for less profitable runs out of season.

A PC jump 3 ship carrying a cargo of speculative wine could make a tidy sum by getting it to market first, but Akerut's factors are going to use every trick in the book to make sure they corner the market. Note this provides an opportunity for adventure, which is where the fun is.

The main market (as described) is buying goods from Vargr traders and transporting them down to Aramis[*]. There's probably also a good deal of traffic between Junidy and Aramanx (four parsecs, or two jumps-2 apart) and some trade between Aramanx and Aramis[*] (3 jumps-2 or two jumps-3).

[*] Almost all traffic to Aramis would be for transshipment to/from further rimwards.​

Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans:

The Akerut is a Bk2 design - we need to run the numbers, but it's probably not cheaper to ship 1J3 vs 3J1. Actually, 5KTd can't get J3 under Bk2. Cannot be done. Peak is J2 with Drive Z

		Std	Std	Std	Var	Var
	Units	1j1+1wk	2j1+1wk	3j1+1wk	1J2 +1Wk	2J2+1wk
Cargo	2911	2911	2411	1911	2382	1382
Time	Weeks	2	3	4	2	3
Expense
Fuel (1J1)	500Td/1j	250	500	750	500	1000
Fuel (1w P1)	2.5Td/w	2.5	3.75	5	5†	7.5†
Crew Salary (per week)	Kcr13.025	26.05	39.075	52.1	26.05	39.075
LS (per 1 Week)	KCr14/wk	28	42	56	28	42
Annual Maint Share (share=ShipCost x 0.0002/wk)	KCr19.704/Wk	38.408	59.112	78.816	41.372	62.058
Monthly Payment Share (share=0.25 pymt/week)	KCr1026.25 /Wk	2052.5	3078.75	4105	2154.763	3232.144
Total	KCr	2397.458	3722.687	5046.916	2755.185	4382.777
Expense	Cr per Td per trip	823.6	1544.1	2641.0	1156.7	3171.4

The 1j2 version costs:
D Z +15Td MCr+30
PP Z +9 Td MCr+24
PP Fuel +5Td
JFuel +500Td
MCr1034.286
Crew: unchanged

J2 is cheaper. Significantly. But it's only going to be worthwhile IF J2 is most of the runs; note that 2J2 is not practical.

 

[rancke]

The Akerut is a Bk2 design - we need to run the numbers, but it's probably not cheaper to ship 1J3 vs 3J1.

<Sigh>

I've never bothered to work out the figures for Book 2 designs, because HG had long since been published when I began taking an interest in the subject. So I'll take your word for it. But what about 1J2 vs. 2J1? And what about J1 across gaps vs. J2/J3 across two- and three-parsec gaps? (I'll ignore the extra two weeks to install the demountable tanks plus however long it takes to demount the tanks, because surely even Akerut would try to keep ships with tanks busy crossing back and forth the same gap and transshipping when appropriate rather than mount and demount tanks over and over.)

I may not have been clear on this point, but there are very few three-parsec routes in Akerut's net. Jesedipere to Lablon. Focaline to Zila. That's aboutit. Aramanx to Aramis via Zila would be a jump-3 route, but it's not one of Akerut's official ones.

So an adequate retcon would simply be to change the Hercules from J1 to J2. A good retcon would have an extra paragraph or two about a few J1 and J3 ships owned by Akerut, just to cover all bases, but it wouldn't be necessary for verisimilitude.


Hans