CT Ship Errata Discussion : Akerut Heavy Merchant

[aramis]

<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

No, retconing it to J2 is NOT a "good retcon" - is as brutal a bad change as "Jump takes 5 days" - because the slow plodding pace of the Akerut freight is a plot point.

Should they have some J2 liners? Possibly - but they'd only be working the J2 links, and unless they tramp (buy lots and only then look for destination), they are unlikely to maintain that big a ship.

Also note: Bk2 numbers are FAR more forgiving than Bk5 for smaller ships, but in the 2K-20Ktd range, really, it's pretty flat at any given TL - but costs drop per TL Category (9-12, 13-14, 15)
Quickly using my SS to calc the KTd5 versions, it needs a 4/bis...

Model	J1 5000Td TL9	J3 5000Td TL12	J1 5000Td TL13	J3 5000Td TL13	J1 5000Td TL15	J3 5000Td TL15
Cargo	3899	2383	3953	2541	4003	2695
MCr	1,337.2	2,639.2	1,186.7	2,188.2	1,036.7	1,737.7
Per Td	814	2,720	721	2,170	633	1,690
Per Td per Pc	814	907	721	710	633	584

[tc=6]Bk 5 versions of a 5000Td j1 and j3[/tc]

 

[rancke]

No, retconing it to J2 is NOT a "good retcon" - is as brutal a bad change as "Jump takes 5 days" - because the slow plodding pace of the Akerut freight is a plot point.

It is? What plot point would that be? What part of the Traveller Adventure would be changed significantly if Akerut's ships were mostly J2? Significantly for the worse, that is, for having J1 ships make regular trips to Zila is a Bad Thing, for reasons mentioned above. Indeed, having them make ANY trips to Zila except for some exceptional rare reasons ("we need to send this cargo NOW and none of our J2 ships will be ready for many weeks") is Bad.

Should they have some J2 liners? Possibly - but they'd only be working the J2 links...

What I've been trying but evidently failing to make clear is that most of Akerut's routes are J2 links. Both logically (Unless J1 is cheaper than J2 across two parsecs, in which case some of the routes (the ones that goes through systems with refuelling facilities) would be composed of J1 links). And also according to the canonical map of Akerut's trade network, which features mostly J2 links.

...and unless they tramp (buy lots and only then look for destination), they are unlikely to maintain that big a ship.

That goes just as strongly, if not more strongly, for J1 ships, though. Regardless of jump number, Akerut is unlikely to maintain that big a ship unless there is traffic enought to keep them employed, tramping or regular.


Hans

 

[aramis]

That goes just as strongly, if not more strongly, for J1 ships, though. Regardless of jump number, Akerut is unlikely to maintain that big a ship unless there is traffic enought to keep them employed, tramping or regular.


Hans

No, it doesn't. The use of the multiple lots of freight at a profitable rate makes J1 on a route profitable. Note that under the Bk2 design, it's making Cr175 per ton profit if full of freight - and that's using refined fuel, and having to make payments. The later two are unlikely for a megacorp (even if it is only a quarter-sector line). Plus, a megacorp can afford to have a warehouse with ready cargo, and a factor who has two cargos - and if either has losses for the next route on jump, he freights them elsewhere for sale by an agent of the corp, possibly a broker with a deal for a small retainer for such sales. This doubles the number of available lots, and drastically improves profitability of non-corporate-generated cargo.

Note that, per the rules as written, J2 can only profit on spec trade. We both know that's broken, but that's the way it is. (And a J2 version, under book 2, can't profit on a J1 route at book rates.)

The 5000Td ships under Bk2 are kind of wonky, due to the bad fuel formula...

Also, Hans - Bk 2 is NOT superseded by Bk5; Bk2 is still allowed for the OTU in addition to Bk 5, with the addition of the minimum TL for Jx. (And note: the Akerut 5KTd design is TL 15 under the Bk2 design system. That limit is not explicit in designs, but is on the TL tables.)

 

[rancke]

No, it doesn't. The use of the multiple lots of freight at a profitable rate makes J1 on a route profitable.

There are two things wrong with that argument: Firstly. since brokers are free to negotiate different freight rates (as Ulrich Baseru does in the chapter In search of longer legs), jump-2 ships are free to charge, say, Cr1800[*] for carrying freight two parsecs, thus underbidding jump-1 ships and delivering in half the time to boot. Secondly, the description of Akerut's operation says that the 50 Hercules class ships are "constantly occupied in shuttling cargos to and from the border" [p. 135]. So they are not, in fact, engaged in earning their keep by carrying freight between Junidy and Aramanx and whatever other places they can find freight contracts for 2900T a go. They are engaged in buying and selling goods to the Vargr and transporting those goods to and from the border. Where the gaps between the Towers Cluster and the Aramis Trace will make J1 highly inefficient.

[*] Guesstimate.​

Note that under the Bk2 design, it's making Cr175 per ton profit if full of freight - and that's using refined fuel, and having to make payments. The later two are unlikely for a megacorp (even if it is only a quarter-sector line).

I suppose you mean that Akerut will refine its own fuel and serve as its own banker, which is perfectly true. But the same advantage applies to all its ships, regardless of jump capacity, so as far as comparing their relative profitability it's a wash.

Plus, a megacorp can afford to have a warehouse with ready cargo, and a factor who has two cargos - and if either has losses for the next route on jump, he freights them elsewhere for sale by an agent of the corp, possibly a broker with a deal for a small retainer for such sales. This doubles the number of available lots, and drastically improves profitability of non-corporate-generated cargo.

Yes indeed. Factors and warehouses are a major advantage for shipping companies over free traders. But again the advantage applies equally to all the company's ships.

Note that, per the rules as written, J2 can only profit on spec trade. We both know that's broken, but that's the way it is.

I don't accept broken rules as proof of setting details. Never have, never will. Evidence of intent, sure. Proof that black is white in setting, no way.

However, it's not an issue here, because a company that buys stuff and ships it is engaged in speculation not freight, so the broken rules about freight charges doesn't apply. Company buys stuff for X credits, ships it to a world two parsecs away by J1, sells it for Y credits, makes a profit of Y minus (X+2000). But if it ships by J2, it makes a profit of Y minus (X+1800) (and a quicker return on the investment, which I understand has a certain value in itself in the financial world).

(And a J2 version, under book 2, can't profit on a J1 route at book rates.)

I've always mentioned that J1 is cheaper than anything else across 1 parsec. But there aren't many J1 routes (as in 'pick up 2900T of freight, jump one parsec, unload all of it') in Akerut's trade network.

Also, Hans - Bk 2 is NOT superseded by Bk5; Bk2 is still allowed for the OTU in addition to Bk 5, with the addition of the minimum TL for Jx.

Possibly the worst mistake GDW ever made, since some Book 2 designs are incompatible with the Official Traveller setting[**] (The TL issue, if nothing else). But I mentioned HG simply to explain why I'd never done my homework for Book 2 traffic.

[*] And not just the current OTU, but also the CT OTU.​

(And note: the Akerut 5KTd design is TL 15 under the Bk2 design system. That limit is not explicit in designs, but is on the TL tables.)

Doesn't that make them more efficient?


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Let's play numbers!

Akerut 5000 dT liner
Mortgage: MCr989.01 in volume, therefore ~MCr4.121 per month. For the purpose of this exercise, we will arbitrarily declare that a month is 4 weeks and every 13th month, coinciding with the maintenance month, is a morgage holiday. No debate, please: it makes the math easier. Buying into the declaration for the purpose of this exercise shall not be construed as waiving your right to argue about the length of the month or the structure of the mortgage payment in another thread at a later date.
Crew cost: Cr45,000 per month plus whatever a pinnace pilot earns. Call it Cr50,000?
Fuel costs: Cr5000 for the power plant for a month. Cr250,000 per jump
Life support: Cr30,000 per two week period, or Cr 60,000 per month.
Routine maintenance: Cr989,010 annually. Spread over 52 weeks, comes to Cr76,084 per 4-week "month".
Berthing costs: HowdaheckshouldIknow. We will consider it insignificantly small for this exercise.

Total monthly costs, normally: 4,121,000+50,000+5,000+jump1x2jumps500,000+60,000+76,084=Cr4,812,084

Total monthly costs, 2 parsec jump: 4,121,000+50,000+5,000+average4xjump1severy3monthsis666,666permonth+60,000+76,084=Cr4,978,750

Total monthly costs, 3 parsec jump: 4,121,000+50,000+5,000+jump1x3jumps750,000+60,000+76,084=Cr5,062,084

The Hercules must make a bit over 2.4 million credits per normal jump (1 week in jump space, 1 week in port) to break even. For a 2 parsec jump, figure 4 jumps in 3 months, about 3.73 million credits per jump (2 weeks in jump space, 1 week in port). For a 3 parsec jump, a bit over 5 million credits per jump (3 weeks in jump space, 1 week in port).

Hercules available tonnage is actually 4069 dTons. It can make money nicely doing only transport with 1-parsec jumps between worlds. Loses tonnage for a 2-jumper, down to 3569 dTons, which means the 2-jump loses money. And, the 3 jump loses money in a big way.

Now, this can be made up handily by speculation, but ... if you can do that, then you can do it faster and make more money with a ship that can make two jumps per month instead of just one.

So, let's turn the problem upside down and ask the question: what would prompt Akerut to use jump-1 freighters instead of jump-3 freighters?

Top of my list: the ships are mostly free. Something McEvans said makes me think of this: Tukera buys the ships, runs them for 40 years, gives them a recondition job and then "sells" the old refurbs off to Akerut. Akerut hires the kind of spacers who couldn't get in the door at Tukera and are willing to fly an older ship for a chance at a job, pays a bit more in maintenance perhaps, forwards an annual share of profits to Tukera as the purchase price of the ship - and if anything disastrous happens, it's Akerut facing the music, not Tukera. If Akerut goes down into bankruptcy because, say, one of their ships crashed someplace populated, Tukera's primary leinholder on the company's chief assets.

Under that model, the ship need no longer be making 5 million credits a month. It needs only to cover the other expenses and enough to justify the arrangement: whatever value a 40-year old ship might have on the open market, amortized over whatever useful years it has left.

Second on the list: captive market. Whatever's most worth having on this world is already tied up by Tukera, or enough of it that competition isn't economically feasible for an up-n-coming company with a jump-3 freighter. We already know Tukera had most of the market for Zilan wine sewed up, but that's a seasonal market. Perhaps they are also heavily invested in other export commodities. If you have the market pretty much cornered and have an available ship that's close to free, then it may be more profitable to use the old asset and move slowly than to sink a billion credits into a fast new asset.

We know Imperiallines runs a route between Zila and Pysadi and from there to Aramis, but Imperiallines - well, read the entry in TA. Oberlindes runs a route into the area but has only a feeder to Zila, and the story revolves around Oberlindes' effort to alter that state of affairs.

 

[aramis]

Doesn't that make them more efficient?


Hans

No; CT Bk2 drives do not gain performance with TL, nor do MGT OTU ones. (Non-OTU MGT ones may have benefits if built 2+ TL's above minimum for rating, and the GM is using that optional rule. See MGT Bk2 HG.) THe only benefit of higher TL Bk2 drives is that they can be bigger.
TL9 is drives A-D, TL10 is E-H, TL 11 is J-K, TL12 is L-N, TL13 is P-Q, TL14 is R-U, TL 15 is V-Z.

Mistake or not, you're stuck with the reality that a CT derived universe has two semi-incompatible design systems. So does a MGT derived one, tho' it's two are closer to each other. So does a T5 Universe, but again, it's closer than CT's two.

@Carlobrand:

Even if they just buy them cash up front, they're cutting the "montlhy payment" by 50% for an escrow-to-replacement-fund... assuming that they last 40 years, that is.... instead of 40 years (= 480 payments) of 1/240th of the purchase price, they can escrow 1/480th per month.

Also, two weeks of the year (minimum) are lost to annual maintenance, so the annul maintenance needs to be spread over the remaining 50 weeks, not over all 52 weeks.

And, as Hans has noted often before, the best way for a line to maximize profits is to minimize turn around time - 3 days instead of 7 seems plenty reasonable to allow load/unload, customs inspection at port entry, and the up to half day travel each way. (Note that about 1/5th of worlds in the canonical Spinward Marches are deep enough in the solar gravity well to not be within 1/2 day, but that's a whole 'nother issue). Canon is silent on the issues of lines routine operations, other than 3j1 being preferable to 1J2 - which can only be sensible if there is intermediate freight stops on most of the runs.

 

[rancke]

Why do people keep talking about jump-3 ships when I suggested changing the J1 Hercules to J2?


Hans

 

[rancke]

Mistake or not, you're stuck with the reality that a CT derived universe has two semi-incompatible design systems. So does a MGT derived one, tho' it's two are closer to each other. So does a T5 Universe, but again, it's closer than CT's two.

That may be how you see it. The way I see it that you are stuck with the reality that two mutually contradictiory facts cannot both be true in the same universe, and no amount of rules can make them. As Marc Miller once said "It also has to make sense."


Hans

 

[rancke]

Akerut 5000 dT liner
Mortgage: MCr989.01 in volume, therefore ~MCr4.121 per month. For the purpose of this exercise, we will arbitrarily declare that a month is 4 weeks and every 13th month, coinciding with the maintenance month, is a morgage holiday. No debate, please: it makes the math easier. Buying into the declaration for the purpose of this exercise shall not be construed as waiving your right to argue about the length of the month or the structure of the mortgage payment in another thread at a later date.
Crew cost: Cr45,000 per month plus whatever a pinnace pilot earns. Call it Cr50,000?
Fuel costs: Cr5000 for the power plant for a month. Cr250,000 per jump
Life support: Cr30,000 per two week period, or Cr 60,000 per month.
Routine maintenance: Cr989,010 annually. Spread over 52 weeks, comes to Cr76,084 per 4-week "month".
Berthing costs: HowdaheckshouldIknow. We will consider it insignificantly small for this exercise.

Total monthly costs, normally: 4,121,000+50,000+5,000+jump1x2jumps500,000+60,000+76,084=Cr4,812,084

Total monthly costs, 2 parsec jump: 4,121,000+50,000+5,000+average4xjump1severy3monthsis666,666permonth+60,000+76,084=Cr4,978,750

Total monthly costs, 3 parsec jump: 4,121,000+50,000+5,000+jump1x3jumps750,000+60,000+76,084=Cr5,062,084

Lovely. Can you do the same for a 5000T J2 version?

The Hercules must make a bit over 2.4 million credits per normal jump (1 week in jump space, 1 week in port) to break even. For a 2 parsec jump, figure 4 jumps in 3 months, about 3.73 million credits per jump (2 weeks in jump space, 1 week in port). For a 3 parsec jump, a bit over 5 million credits per jump (3 weeks in jump space, 1 week in port).

The rules say 14 days per jump and does not make an exception for ships that just has to refuel. It makes sense that your Jump-1 ship can do the intermediate jump in only a week, but if I have to stick to the rules, you have to stick to the rules!

(Indeed, the text sort of implies that Akerut installs and removes the demountable tanks as the ship crosses each gap, but I won't insist on that.)

Hercules available tonnage is actually 4069 dTons. It can make money nicely doing only transport with 1-parsec jumps between worlds.

No one denies it. But the Herculesses are employed shuttling goods to and from the frontier, not carrying freight.

Loses tonnage for a 2-jumper, down to 3569 dTons, which means the 2-jump loses money. And, the 3 jump loses money in a big way.

Only if they're not allowed to charge the actual cost of carrying freight. A J2 ship carries less than a similar sized J1 ship, and at a greater cost. But it moves two lots of freight every time the J1 ship moves one. That makes J2 ships cheaper than J1 ships on two-parsec routes.

And even if there really were a regulation that forbade them from charging the true cost (as the instance I referred to in a previous post shows is not the case), since Akerut is both the shipper and the ship, for all practical purposes they are allowed to do so. The ship charges Cr1000 for a jump-2, shows a loss at the end of the year and Akerut covers the shortfall out of the money it saved by "paying" Cr1000 instead of Cr1800. At the end of the day it's the same pocket.

So, let's turn the problem upside down and ask the question: what would prompt Akerut to use jump-1 freighters instead of jump-3 freighters?

Top of my list: the ships are mostly free. Something McEvans said makes me think of this: Tukera buys the ships, runs them for 40 years, gives them a recondition job and then "sells" the old refurbs off to Akerut.

Text makes it clear that this is not the case. The ships are built for Akerut, although a few have made it into Tukera service.

Second on the list: captive market. Whatever's most worth having on this world is already tied up by Tukera, or enough of it that competition isn't economically feasible for an up-n-coming company with a jump-3 freighter.

You still have the situation where Akerut's board of directors deliberately choose to earn a smaller profit than they could have.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Why do people keep talking about jump-3 ships when I suggested changing the J1 Hercules to J2?


Hans

I'm looking at the Zila-Aramis run. Contrary to logic, the trade map shows the Hercules making a jump straight to Aramis instead of going by way of Pysadi.
There is specific mention of two Hercules transports passing through Zila on their way to Aramis, which by the trade map is a jump-3 leap. That's one of three jump-3 leaps that Akerut has to manage among its routes.

 

[Carlobrand]

That may be how you see it. The way I see it that you are stuck with the reality that two mutually contradictiory facts cannot both be true in the same universe, and no amount of rules can make them. As Marc Miller once said "It also has to make sense."


Hans

And yet, if one intends to apply High Guard to one's setting, the mutually contradictory facts must be tolerated or rationalized in some manner in the name of allowing ships like the Free Trader to fly profitably in the High Guard setting.

 

[rancke]

And yet, if one intends to apply High Guard to one's setting, the mutually contradictory facts must be tolerated or rationalized in some manner in the name of allowing ships like the Free Trader to fly profitably in the High Guard setting.

What mutually contradictory facts are you thinking of?

It's perfectly easy to use rules that does not reflect the reality of the setting for the sake of gameability. You just say "Things aren't actually like that or doesn't actually work like that, but we pretend they are and they do for the sake of the game."

Example: "People don't actually invariably pay Cr8000 for a middle passage and Cr10,000 for a high passage, but we pretend they do to skip gaming the negotiations for passage on your tramp ship. "

It's the other way around that doesn't work: "Jump-4 liners are only allowed to charge Cr8-10,000 for a four-parsec passage, but they nevertheless exist in the setting and somehow don't go bankrupt."


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Lovely. Can you do the same for a 5000T J2 version?

Akerut J2 Heavy Merchant:

+5000 ton Custom Hull                           MCr500.000
            Streamlined                             50.000
 -125 tons Jump Z2                                 240.000
 -41 tons Maneuver W1                               84.000
 -73 tons Power Plant Z2                           192.000
 -1000 tons Fuel x2parsec
 -20 tons Fuel x4weeks
 -100 tons Bridge                                   25.000
 -3 tons Computer Model/3                           18.000
 -4 tons Hardpoints x4                               0.400
         Triple Beam x4                             16.000
 -60 tons Staterooms x15                             7.500
 -3534 tons Cargo
 -1x 40 ton Pinnace                                 20.000

=5000tons Total                                MCr1152.9

Cost with 10% discount is MCr1037.6

Crew remains unchanged:
Pilot
Navigator
7 engineers
1 medic
4 gunners
And, the pinnace pilot. Nice little sinecure for someone's nephew.
Total complement: 15

Monthly costs run MCr5.408. Maximum income by transporting cargo for a fee is MCr7.068.

Total monthly costs, 2 parsec jump: 4,323,333+50,000+10,000+average4xjumpsevery3months is ... either 1,333,333permonth or 1,000,000, depending on whether I can locate that rule about using all the fuel regardless of jump range ... +60,000+88,615=Cr5,531,948-5,865,281

Except of course that Aramis pointed out a couple of flaws in the logic, including a poor job of spreading the maintenance costs. But, this'll do for comparing the two, for the moment. At any rate, I think it can manage a 3-parsec leap profitably.

The rules say 14 days per jump and does not make an exception for ships that just has to refuel. It makes sense that your Jump-1 ship can do the intermediate jump in only a week, but if I have to stick to the rules, you have to stick to the rules!

No I don't, no I don't, nyaa nyaa!

The rules say, "Commercial starships usually make two jumps per month. They spend one week in jump, followed by one week in the star system, travelling from the jump point to the local world, refuelling, marketing cargo, finding passengers, leaving the starport and proceeding to a jump point again. The week in the system usually provides some time for crew recreation and wandering around the planet.

Non-commercial ships usually follow the same schedule of one week in jump and one week in a system. If haste is called for, a ship may refuel at a gas giant immediately, and re-jump right away. This allows the ship to make one jump per week, but makes no provision for cargo, passengers, or local stops."

While there's no gas giant in deep space, I suspect there's also no recreation, cargo marketing, etc., so I believe the refuel-and-rejump-right-away scenario is applicable.

...Only if they're not allowed to charge the actual cost of carrying freight. ...

I am assuming canon rules. I am as eager for that little bit of nonsensical canon to be tossed out the window as you, but inasmuch as this is a discussion of canon elements, my imposition of my own IMTU preferences might create confusion.

...Text makes it clear that this is not the case. The ships are built for Akerut, although a few have made it into Tukera service. ...

Rats! Another good idea goes down in flames.

...You still have the situation where Akerut's board of directors deliberately choose to earn a smaller profit than they could have.
...

'cause it's more profitable to take the cheap hand-me-downs from Tukera than to buy new ships tailored to the route. But then that idea was sitting in the passenger seat of the hypothesis that just went down in flames.

 

[Carlobrand]

What mutually contradictory facts are you thinking of?

It's perfectly easy to use rules that does not reflect the reality of the setting for the sake of gameability. You just say "Things aren't actually like that or doesn't actually work like that, but we pretend they are and they do for the sake of the game."

Example: "People don't actually invariably pay Cr8000 for a middle passage and Cr10,000 for a high passage, but we pretend they do to skip gaming the negotiations for passage on your tramp ship. "

It's the other way around that doesn't work: "Jump-4 liners are only allowed to charge Cr8-10,000 for a four-parsec passage, but they nevertheless exist in the setting and somehow don't go bankrupt."


Hans

Actually, I was thinking more of the design rules that make it impossible to design a High Guard Free Trader that comes anywhere near the price of the Book-2 Free Trader.

 

[aramis]

What mutually contradictory facts are you thinking of?

A HG designed Type R or Type A2 can't make a profit, even if full, except by speculation, due to the changes in drive sizes and drive prices; Bk5 PP fuel rates are lower for small ships, bigger for anything over 1000Td, but not so much that it overcomes the cost being so much higher for all the drives.

Bk2 JDrive is 5Td+(hull * 2.5% xRating), and costs (tonnage-5)*2 MCr. It breaks at the higher end of the drive letters
Bk5 JDrive is Hull*((Jn+1)%), and costs MCr4 per Td

This implies two different methods of building a jump drive. I'm good with two different methods of building a jump drive.

	JMP
Type	Bk2 Drv	Bk 2o Td	Bk 2o MCr	Bk 2n Td	Bk 2n MCr	Bk2 TL	Bk5 Td	Bk5 MCr	Bk5 TL
A	AAA	15	22	15	22	9	14	40	9
							12	36	13
							10	32	15
A2	BAB	20	32	23	40	9	19	57	11
							16	48	13
							13	39	15
R	CCC	35	66	35	66	9	28	80	9
							24	68	13
							20	56	15

[tr][td]
Bk 2o is CT-77
Bk 2n is CT-81

 

[rancke]

Akerut J2 Heavy Merchant:

+5000 ton Custom Hull                           MCr500.000
            Streamlined                             50.000
 -125 tons Jump Z2                                 240.000
 -41 tons Maneuver W1                               84.000
 -73 tons Power Plant Z2                           192.000
 -1000 tons Fuel x2parsec
 -20 tons Fuel x4weeks
 -100 tons Bridge                                   25.000
 -3 tons Computer Model/3                           18.000
 -4 tons Hardpoints x4                               0.400
         Triple Beam x4                             16.000
 -60 tons Staterooms x15                             7.500
 -3534 tons Cargo
 -1x 40 ton Pinnace                                 20.000

=5000tons Total                                MCr1152.9

Cost with 10% discount is MCr1037.6

Crew remains unchanged:
Pilot
Navigator
7 engineers
1 medic
4 gunners
And, the pinnace pilot. Nice little sinecure for someone's nephew.
Total complement: 15

Monthly costs run MCr5.408. Maximum income by transporting cargo for a fee is MCr7.068.

Thank you.

Total monthly costs, 2 parsec jump: 4,323,333+50,000+10,000+average4xjumpsevery3months is ... either 1,333,333permonth or 1,000,000, depending on whether I can locate that rule about using all the fuel regardless of jump range ... +60,000+88,615=Cr5,531,948-5,865,281

Where does the four jumps every three months come from? A J2 ship does two jumps per month.

No I don't, no I don't, nyaa nyaa!

OK, I'll concede that point.

I am assuming canon rules.

But the adventure shows that you don't have to. Or rather, that the canon rules do not apply rigidly at all times. We have a broker that makes the PCs accept less than what the rules says they must charge.

And if the rules don't actually apply to free traders, why should they apply to interstellar companies?

I am as eager for that little bit of nonsensical canon to be tossed out the window as you, but inasmuch as this is a discussion of canon elements, my imposition of my own IMTU preferences might create confusion.

Well, that brings us to a bit of my post that you unaccountably snipped. To repeat:

"And even if there really were a regulation that forbade them from charging the true cost (as the instance I referred to in a previous post shows is not the case), since Akerut is both the shipper and the ship, for all practical purposes they are allowed to do so. The ship charges Cr1000 for a jump-2, shows a loss at the end of the year and Akerut covers the shortfall out of the money it saved by "paying" Cr1000 instead of Cr1800. At the end of the day it's the same pocket."​

So for the purposes of the discussion, Akerut charges itself whatever the true cost of transporting its cargo is.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...@Carlobrand:

Even if they just buy them cash up front, they're cutting the "montlhy payment" by 50% for an escrow-to-replacement-fund... assuming that they last 40 years, that is.... instead of 40 years (= 480 payments) of 1/240th of the purchase price, they can escrow 1/480th per month. ...

My bubble done burst.

Aramis points out the major flaw in my logic. I'm calculating profit based on whatever's left after you pay the bills - but that's not really profit. Before you can call it profit, you have to make enough to cover the 50% up-front investment. For example, the Hercules on jump-1 operations runs costs of about MCr4.7 a month and can potentially earn MCr8.138 a month. However, you the buyer put down almost half a billion credits cash to secure that loan, and one presumes you'd like to see that money back. So, the first few years of profits-after-expenses are you earning back the money you put down. Only after that money is earned back can you say you're making money.

In the case of the stock Hercules on a jump-1 route, that occurs after about 12 years if you do very well - longer if you can't keep the hold full, shorter if you are any good at speculative trading. In the case of the jump-2 Hercules variant, that can take 28 years or more. (But if you can turn 14 days into 10 or so, per Hans' suggestion as quoted by Aramis, then you can cut that by a quarter.)

 

[rancke]

OK, going by these figures supplied by Carlobrando:

J1 5000T Freighter

Cost: MCr989.01
Cargo capacity: 4069
Annual operating expenses:

6.25% amortization+profit: MCr61.81
Crew salaries: MCr0.6
Life support: MCr0.72
Annual maintenance: MCr0.99
Power plant fuel: MCr0.06


Jump fuel depends on number of jumps per year. Since intermediate stops only take 1 week instead of 2, this depends on what route the ship is servicing.

Employed on a one-parsec route: 25 jumps per year carrying a total of 101,725 T of cargo. (Assuming full cargo hold every time).

Jump fuel: 25*MCr0.25 = MCr6.25

Total operating expenses: MCr70.43, or Cr692 per ton of cargo moved.

Employed on a two-parsec route with refuelling available at intermediate stop: Each (two-jump) trip takes 3 weeks or 16.67 trips per year carrying a total of 67,830 T of cargo.

Jump fuel: 32*MCr0.25 = MCr8.

Total operating expenses: MCr72.18 or Cr1064 per dT or Cr532 per dT per parsec.


Employed on a two-parsec route going through empty space (i.e. no refuelling) Each two-jump trip takes the same time and and has the same operating expenses (we'll ignore the cost of the demountable tank), but carries 500T less cargo due to the tank, so carries only 59,495 dT of cargo.

Total operating expenses: MCr72.18 or Cr1213 per dT or Cr607 per dT per parsec.




J2 5000T freighter:

Cost: MCr1037.6
Cargo capacity: 3534

Annual operating expenses:

6.25% amortization+profit: MCr64.85
Crew salaries: MCr0.6
Life support: MCr0.72
Annual maintenance: MCr1.04
Power plant fuel: MCr0.12

Employed on a two-parsec route: 25 jumps per year carrying a total of 88,350 T of cargo.

Jump fuel: 25*Cr500,000 = MCr12.50

Total operating expenses: MCr79.83 or Cr904 per dT or MCr452 per dT per parsec.


The costs of the two ships seems awfully close. Also, my sums may be wrong, but I'm too tired to check them again. I'm going to bed now. See you later.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...Where does the four jumps every three months come from? A J2 ship does two jumps per month. ...

Oopsie, that should have said, "3 parsec jump." That was for those situations when you're trying to use your 2-jumper for a 3-parsec route.

...But the adventure shows that you don't have to. Or rather, that the canon rules do not apply rigidly at all times. ...

Which gets to why I snipped that extra bit. Several adventures show that canon rules are not all cast in steel. There's that bit about transporting passengers in the cargo hold, for example. I do not see canon rules as a straitjacket, least of all when a well-considered alternative makes the game more believable or enjoyable, but when I'm discussing canon I tend to stick to canon, simply because it's a consistent framework from which to hold these discussions.

Your bit is a clever and - I suspect - not-uncommon business arrangement to explain a ship showing a loss while the company that owns it still manages to make a profit. However, when making comparisons, it is useful to have a consistent basis for comparison. It is simply easier to stick to the conventional income-expense model when analyzing ships. Trying to come up with possible business strategies that might be used to compensate for a given ship's weaknesses can explain why that particular ship is still in business, but it doesn't let us evaluate its strengths and weaknesses in comparison to others.

...And if the rules don't actually apply to free traders, why should they apply to interstellar companies?...

As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't. In my TU, the market rules, not some arbitrary Imperial rule or consortium of monopolists or whatever other rationalization one wishes to make to support sector-wide price-fixing. That aspect of the game is little different than D&D handing you a list of weapon and armor prices as if the blacksmith in this desperate little village and the master armorer in the great city were all bound by some mystic covenant - it is a convenience intended to simplify the gamemaster's job, not a commandment-in-stone intended to tie his hands.

Were I running this set of adventures in my TU, Akerut would either be using three different ships to do what Hercules is doing, or I'd be using that "hand-me-down" rationalization to explain why they seemed intent on doing things the hard way. But, my way of doing things is not canon, and while I'm perfectly willing to share - thus the two alternate Hercules - I do feel that it's helpful to begin with the one framework we all definitely agree on.

 

[rancke]

Which gets to why I snipped that extra bit. Several adventures show that canon rules are not all cast in steel. There's that bit about transporting passengers in the cargo hold, for example. I do not see canon rules as a straitjacket, least of all when a well-considered alternative makes the game more believable or enjoyable, but when I'm discussing canon I tend to stick to canon, simply because it's a consistent framework from which to hold these discussions.

I'm torn between two different lines of argument. One is essentially 'you argument is flawed' and the other is 'your argument is irrelevant'. In the interest of minimizing thread congestion, I'l confine myself to the second line.

The question I'm trying to answer here isn't "How much does the shipowner charge for transporting stuff across so-and-so many parsecs?" but "How much does it cost the shipowner to ship stuff across so-and-so many parsecs?" Not the same question at all, and not one that the answer "The rules say Cr1000" answers.

It's true that if the answers turn out to be, say, "Cr800, Cr1600, Cr2400, and Cr3200", I'd hope to use that to persuade TPTB that the answers to the other question ought not to be "Cr1000, Cr1000, Cr1000, and Cr1000" and how about retconning that, eh? But before I get to that part, I need to establish what the answers to the first question are. And there I'm sticking to rules canon like glue (right here and now, that is). I'm using the Book 2 ship design rules, I'm using the canonical manning rules, I'm using the canonical salaries, I'm using the maintenance rules, I'm using the canonical fuel costs. I'm using the canonical time spent in port. I'm even, may my concience eventually forgive me, using the ridiculous life support costs and power plant fuel consumption rate.

It is simply easier to stick to the conventional income-expense model when analyzing ships. Trying to come up with possible business strategies that might be used to compensate for a given ship's weaknesses can explain why that particular ship is still in business, but it doesn't let us evaluate its strengths and weaknesses in comparison to others.

It may be easier, but it has the negative effect that our conclusions will be rubbish. Which, I venture to suggest, is a strike against it.

For comparison between freighters, I can think of no better yardstick that the actual costs of operating them. If law rolleyes or custom rolleyes:) or good business practice rolleyes:) allows a company to charge Cr1000 for shipping a dT of freight, the company is still going to prefer paying Cr600 per dT in operating expenses to paying Cr800 per dT in operating expenses, a profit of Cr400 usually being deemed preferable to a profit of Cr200.

So I'll return to the problem of determining if my calculations are based on correct designs and if they're correct themselves. Are you sure the costs of your J1 and J2 versions really are MCr989 and MCr1037? I'm surprised that a ship with J2 drive and power plant isn't a bit more espensive than one with J1 drive and power plant than MCr48.

Because at the moment, the results I get is that across two parsecs with refuelling available in between, the J1 version has operating costs of Cr532 per dT per parsec and across two parsecs without intermediate refuelling facilities operating costs of Cr607 per dT per parsec, whereas the J2 version has operating costs of Cr452 per dT per parsec. And those figures (or at least the one for the J2 version) seem suspicious to me, since it would mean that a J2 version would be able to charge Cr1000 per dT per jump and still stay in the black. Quite far into the black, as a matter of fact. And that's including a return on the shipowner's 20% investment.


Hans