CT Ship Errata Discussion : Akerut Heavy Merchant

[aramis]

Things that could make the Herc work:
1: Bk2 style lot pricing with Bk7 numbers of lots.
2: multiple factors warehousing for a given ship to fill the holds with spec trade goods.
3: Price per parsec flat rate at KCr1/Pc.

In re #1: if we presume the standard Bk2 (or T20) roll is a minor lot, an incidental is divide by 5, and a major is multiply by 2. If we instead assume it's major, then minor is divide by 2, to minimum of 1Td, and incidental is divide by 10 to minimum 1Td.
If we instead flesh out the Bk7 types table with different base costs by type, we get entire new areas of vagueness...

method #2 is a widely accepted house rule...

#3 with a herc isn't any good by itself, but when combined with #2 can be enough to make up for much of it. Note that a herc needs 11 cargos average for a 3Pc gap... and can easily carry that many.

 

[Ishmael]

If setting trumps rules, then there are hidden setting based reasons why Akerut and its parent corporation are okay with the situation. It wouldn't take much imagination to come up with various reasons and plot hooks for things*, especially if the rules are a simplification of a much more complex reality.

*( Tukera privately upset leading to corporate power struggles and changes of CEO, CFO, etc....... Hidden purpose for daughter company where the board composed of nobles and Imperials value the hidden service more than the lost profits, or else the profits lost here lead to greater profit elsewhere*.... stock market manipulations or embezzlement or other adventure hooks. )

Also consider that the bk2 trade rules are geared toward PC level ships; a tramp steamer plying the Ivory Coast would not operate in any manner like Yan Ming or Maersk.

Or consider the rules for pricing to be broken and house-rule a better alternative where price is proportional to distance and inversely proportional to time; cargo transported twice as far would cost twice as much to transport and cargo transported in half the time costs twice as much again. Otherwise, why would any transport company bother with hi-tech drives when they don't earn profits?

 

[Carlobrand]

That's because the logic is flawed. ...

Logic:

Hercules J1, MCr 999.999, Annual expenses:
Mortgage1 at 1/20 x 999.999: MCr50
Crew costs2 at Cr50,000 x 12 months: MCr0.6
Life support at Cr30,000 per 2-weeks x 25 trips: MCr0.75
Jump fuel at Cr250,000/trip x 25 trips annual: MCr6.25
Power Plant Fuel3 at Cr5000/4 weeks x 12.5: MCr 0.0625
Annual maintenance: MCr1
Total annual costs: MCr58.6625
Max Annual income, 4069t x Cr1000 x 25 trips: MCr101.725
Max income vs costs: 173%

Hercules J2, MCr 1049.242 (1037.6+11.642 for the missing architect's fee), Annual expenses
Mortgage1 at 1/20 x 1049.242: MCr52.4621
Crew costs2 at Cr50,000 x 12 months: MCr0.6
Life support at Cr30,000 per 2-weeks x 25 trips: MCr0.75
Jump fuel at Cr500,000/trip x 25 trips annual: MCr12.5
Power Plant Fuel3 at Cr10,000/4 weeks x 12.5: MCr 0.125
Annual maintenance: MCr1.049242
Total annual costs: MCr67.486342
Max Annual income, 3534t x Cr1000 x 25 trips: MCr88.35
Max income vs costs: 131%

Analysis:
J1 annual expenses are 87% annual expenses of J2
J1 max annual income is 115% annual income of J2
J1 net profits after expenses are 206% net profit of J2

All of which is useful for business decisions. None of which can be inferred from the per-parsec analysis.

Hercules J1, MCr 999.999, Annual expenses over 2 parsec route:
Mortgage1 at 1/20 x 999.999: MCr50
Crew costs2 at Cr50,000 x 12 months: MCr0.6
Life support at Cr30,000 per 2-weeks x 25 2-week periods: MCr0.75
Jump fuel at Cr500,000/trip x 16.67 trips annual: MCr8.33333
Power Plant Fuel3 at Cr5000/4 weeks x 12.5: MCr 0.0625
Annual maintenance: MCr1
Total annual costs: MCr60.746
Max Annual income, 4069t x Cr1000 x 16.67 trips: MCr67.817
Max income vs costs: 112%

1Shipbuyer will charge 20% down-payment separately to profits using the accounting method he/she deems appropriate.
2Charges assume the conventional 12-month year. Players may recalculate to a 4-week/13-month year if they wish.
3Power plant fuel costs assume owner is not responsible for fueling the power plant during the 2 weeks in which it is being overhauled.

 

[rancke]

Oh, and plot points in the book noting that Akerut uses J1 jumps: the Feneteman/Aramanx pair explicitly notes it including a calibration point to make looking for overdue ships easier (TTA, p.112); so does the writeup of Psaydi note that Psaydi's actually just a stopover, normally, not a world served for its own merits, while en route between Towers and Aramanx.

Pysadi lies between Aramis and Aramanx and is a convenient stop for J1 traffic, right enough. It's an equally convenient stopover for J2 traffic between Aramis and Aramanx, and the text doesn't mention the jump capacity of the passing traffic. So that reference doesn't need any amendment to fit a J2 Akerut fleet. But you're right about the calibration point between Feneteman and Aramanx. That doesn't make sense unless there's a good deal of J1 traffic between the two worlds. I've been trying to find an alternative that would work for J2 traffic, but alas, J2 traffic is so much more convenient than J1 traffic that no deep space calibration points are needed. That, indeed, is quite a big part of the advantage J2 has over J1 in the Akerut trade network.

As to profitability... having crunched the numbers, Spec won't make the Herc worth it. It's just too damned big.

You mean that the Book 2 trade system that was meant to let a referee run a campaign with a 200 or 400T free trader doesn't work for the larger ships working for established companies that setting material says exist? Who would have dreamt of such a thing? I'd say that's pretty solid evidence -- indeed, I'm tempted to call if proof -- that the Book 2 trade system is not meant to be applied to regular trade and traffic.-

I snipped the rest of the post. It's quite interesting, but it's irrelevant to the question I'm arguing, which is based on the fact that the bulk of Akerut's operations involves one of its divisions paying another of its divisions for carrying its cargo. Rules that deals with strangers paying a free trader for hauling their goods are thus not applicable.


Hans

 

[rancke]

If setting trumps rules, then there are hidden setting based reasons why Akerut and its parent corporation are okay with the situation. It wouldn't take much imagination to come up with various reasons and plot hooks for things*, especially if the rules are a simplification of a much more complex reality.

They're really not hidden; they're spelled out in TTA. Akerut is in a position to buy (or barter for) enough goods from Vargr traders visiting the border worlds to keep 50 5000T ships employed shuttling goods to and from the border [TTA:135].

Which of the worlds in its trade network that produces the trade goods and buy the Vargr goods is not specified, but I suggest that Junidy and Aramanx split the lion's share between them. Aramis is probably the third mainstay of Akerut's operations. Not in itself (it only has 50,000 inhabitants), but for sale outside the subsector. 25% of Akerut's traffic is to worlds outside the subsector [p. 141], so worlds like Rhylanor and Inthe could be involved too. Worlds in Pretoria probably has its own trade stations at the border.

Also consider that the bk2 trade rules are geared toward PC level ships; a tramp steamer plying the Ivory Coast would not operate in any manner like Yan Ming or Maersk.

Very true. One might even be tempted to conclude that the rules that work for PC level ships can't be expected to apply to ships operated by shipping lines.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Let's have a look at one of Akerut's operations. Akerut buys trade goods on Aramanx for Cr2000 per dT, transports it to Jesedispere where they swap it for Vargr goods that are transported back to Aramanx where they sell them for Cr10,000 per dT. (These numbers were chosen to give a J1 ship revenues equal to Cr1000 per jump).

A J1 ship spends four jumps getting to Jesedispere[*] and another four jumps getting back. They have an income of Cr8000 per dT or Cr1000 per jump, and what could be neater than that.

A J2 ship spends two jumps out and two jumps back. Does Akerut now sell the goods the J2 ship brough back for Cr6000 per dT because a J2 ship is only allowed to charge Cr1000 per jump for freight? No, it does not, because it's not freight, it's speculative cargo. So the goods sell for the same Cr10,000 for an income of Cr8000 or Cr2000 per jump.

Comparing the relative profitability of the two kinds of ship is left as an exercise for the reader. Hint: For a proper comparison you have to chose a period of time that allows both to complete a whole number of round trips. I suggest 30 weeks. The J1 ship spends 10 weeks on a round trip (three intermediate stops that only take 1 week each) and the J2 ship spends 6 weeks on a round trip (one intermediate stop).

[*] We'll ignore the roadblock that the interdicted Zykoca would represent; IIRC Zykoca wasn't interdicted until quite recently, so it wouldn't have been a factor back when Akerut decided on the nature of their custom-designed ships.​

Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Let's have a look at one of Akerut's operations. Akerut buys trade goods on Aramanx for Cr2000 per dT, transports it to Jesedispere where they swap it for Vargr goods that are transported back to Aramanx where they sell them for Cr10,000 per dT. ...

In other words, they've established a Jesedispere/Aramanx trade route providing Cr 8000 per round trip. The company in that instance has a market and a source, and he needs to calculate the most cost-effective and profitable way to get the goods to market - which is to say he needs to balance the need to maximize the number of circuits run annually against the increasing costs that attach to speed. In that instance, it might actually be profitable to use a J4 transport, doubling the number of circuits annually over a J2 transport of similar size (which in this case means falling back on a smaller transport since there's no Book-2 J4 engine for a 5000 dTonner). However, that depends on an expectation of the trade route remaining profitable over decades, or of other 4-parsec trade routes opening up if that one dries up. If one is unsure, then the safer choice is the fastest ship that can still find profitable use after the trade route dries up - which is the J2.

That trade route, being based on the Vargr at one end and a reasonably close market for Vargr goods at the other, is likely to have no resemblance at all to the trade route between Aramis and L’oeul d’Dieu, or the one between Regina and Yori, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. In other words, we're analyzing a route and trying to find the ship that best fits it, rather than comparing ships within their own ideal routes. Were the profits not sufficiently high, it might not be worthwhile to take a J2 on an 8-parsec round trip for those trade items.

We have, in short, established that making many jumps to deliver a cargo across a large distance is less profitable than taking the same route more quickly in fewer jumps, when the price is right. This should not come as a surprise: given a sufficient disparity between cost at source and sale price, even a J6 on a 6-parsec route can be made profitable. The real question is: what is the right price?

 

[rancke]

In other words, they've established a Jesedispere/Aramanx trade route providing Cr 8000 per round trip. The company in that instance has a market and a source, and he needs to calculate the most cost-effective and profitable way to get the goods to market - which is to say he needs to balance the need to maximize the number of circuits run annually against the increasing costs that attach to speed. In that instance, it might actually be profitable to use a J4 transport, doubling the number of circuits annually over a J2 transport of similar size...

As I've been pointing out over and over again during this discussion, it's not a question of being profitable. It's a question of being MOST profitable. Which turns on the question of operating expenses per dT per parsec.

... (which in this case means falling back on a smaller transport since there's no Book-2 J4 engine for a 5000 dTonner). However, that depends on an expectation of the trade route remaining profitable over decades, or of other 4-parsec trade routes opening up if that one dries up. If one is unsure, then the safer choice is the fastest ship that can still find profitable use after the trade route dries up - which is the J2.

And here I've been trying to explain why J2 would be a better fit for the situation TTA describes for Akerut than J1.

That trade route, being based on the Vargr at one end and a reasonably close market for Vargr goods at the other, is likely to have no resemblance at all to the trade route between Aramis and L’oeul d’Dieu, or the one between Regina and Yori, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.

It does, however, fit the description of Akerut's operations that we see in TTA: "Akerut maintains a fleet of Hercules class bulk carriers of 5000 tons displacement [...]. There are perhaps 50 in the Akerut fleet, and they are constantly occupied in shuttling cargos to and from the border." (Emphasis mine).

In other words, we're analyzing a route and trying to find the ship that best fits it, rather than comparing ships within their own ideal routes.

That's what I'm doing, yes. I'm analyzing the Akerut trade network and propounding that a fleet of J2 ships fits it better than a fleet of J1 ships. (Mind you, a fleet of mostly J2 ships with a leavening of J1 and J3 ships would fit it even better).

Were the profits not sufficiently high, it might not be worthwhile to take a J2 on an 8-parsec round trip for those trade items.

Except that it's the J1 ships that get unprofitable first, yes. However, the mere existence of a trade fleet implies profits high enough to support it. (Absent statements about conditions having changed for the worse since the fleet was bought).

We have, in short, established that making many jumps to deliver a cargo across a large distance is less profitable than taking the same route more quickly in fewer jumps, when the price is right.

No, that's not what we've established. Higher jump numbers mean smaller cargo holds. J4 ships would not be as profitable as J2 ships across four parsecs, so the Jesedipere-Aramanx run wouldn't be serviced by J4 ships.

This should not come as a surprise: given a sufficient disparity between cost at source and sale price, even a J6 on a 6-parsec route can be made profitable.

Yes, but it would never be the MOST profitable.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

All other things being equal, "the most profitable" would be the best metric to use, but often, all other things are not equal. Perhaps the less efficient design was chosen for political reasons (part of a deal - you fill in the blank) or for logistics reasons (more worlds can build & repair J1/J2 vs J3/J4).

However, net profitability IS a critical metric ... an unprofitable fleet will go bankrupt, a less profitable fleet will not.

 

[rancke]

All other things being equal, "the most profitable" would be the best metric to use, but often, all other things are not equal. Perhaps the less efficient design was chosen for political reasons (part of a deal - you fill in the blank)...

I really, really dislike I-can't-come-up-with-an-explanation-but-I'm-sure-there-must-be-one "explanations". In my opinion, the writer is obliged to fill in the blank if he proffers anything that doesn't lend itself to a ready explanation (You don't have to explain why a Terran-norm world has a high population; you do need to explain why a world with an insidious atmosphere has a high population). After all, if it was easy to fill in the blank, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

...or for logistics reasons (more worlds can build & repair J1/J2 vs J3/J4).

These are Book 2 designs. 5000 T ships require type W jump drives to achieve jump-1 and type Z to achieve jump-2. Both are TL15, so anyplace 5000T J1 ships can be operated, 5000T J2 ships can be operated. Likewise 2000T J3 ships (Jump drive X).


Hans

 

[atpollard]

I really, really dislike I-can't-come-up-with-an-explanation-but-I'm-sure-there-must-be-one "explanations". In my opinion, the writer is obliged to fill in the blank if he proffers anything that doesn't lend itself to a ready explanation (You don't have to explain why a Terran-norm world has a high population; you do need to explain why a world with an insidious atmosphere has a high population). After all, if it was easy to fill in the blank, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

There are two separate issues here.

Let's start with the easier issue:
Sorry if my answer aggravated you. It is not that "I" cannot come up with an answer, it is the simple fact that I have no idea what the author's intent might have been. At best I could suggest an answer, but it would be no more or less valid than any other answer. By all means, rant at the author that he should have explained it. I am simply not the author and, therefore, unqualified to render HIS definitive answer. It would, however, be folly to claim that his failure to explain it means that no explanation is possible. I suspect that neither you nor I believe that.

Now the more complex issue:
Occam's Razor. The adventure postulates a fleet of really large ships with J1 and removable internal tanks that allow it to operate at 2xJ1 to cross a 2 parsec gap. Some people on COTI have a problem with that [to be honest, I don't think that I have ever read the adventure that they appear in, so I don't really know how big of a deal this problem is ... I just like starships.]

Assuming that the problem is real, a possible solution that the ship be slightly modified to allow J2 is a fairly minor change, likely to cause only small ripples in the adventure and few other things that need to be changed.

Assuming that the fleet needs to be converted to smaller ships of J1 to J4 optimized for the expected cargo load and distance of each particular world-pair is a huge change likely to cause large ripples in the adventure and many other things that need to be changed.

When forced to choose between a small change with small ripples and a big change with big ripples, I tend to favor the small change.

These are Book 2 designs. 5000 T ships require type W jump drives to achieve jump-1 and type Z to achieve jump-2. Both are TL15, so anyplace 5000T J1 ships can be operated, 5000T J2 ships can be operated. Likewise 2000T J3 ships (Jump drive X).

Hans

I yield this point. The 5000 dT size threw me off and, unfortunately, exposed my personal High Guard biases.
Mea Culpa and Sorry.

I just really hate the fixed PP fuel for a 100 dT ship at 2G and a 1000 dT ship at 2G (both 20 dT) ... that alone caused me to forever abandon LBB2 for High Guard IMTU.

 

[rancke]

There are two separate issues here.

Let's start with the easier issue:
Sorry if my answer aggravated you.

Oh, you didn't aggravate me. I just dislike that sort of "explanation".

By all means, rant at the author that he should have explained it.

I trust that I'm not ranting. If I am, it's not at the author. My guess is that he simply assumed that J1 would be cheaper than J2, not having had the slightest notion of doing the calculations we have. It's the same assumption that lies behind the tremendous importance that is ascribed to mains, despite the fact that J2 renders them completely unimportant. I'm simply presenting my arguments in support of retconning the Akerut fleet composition. Because we have done the calculations.

I am simply not the author and, therefore, unqualified to render HIS definitive answer. It would, however, be folly to claim that his failure to explain it means that no explanation is possible. I suspect that neither you nor I believe that.

Someone cleverer than me may be able to come up with an explanation that works. But I find it an impractical fix to lean back and wait for him to come along.

Incidentally, if someone did provide a good explanation, then that would be fine by me. Problem solved. More than fine, even. I'd prefer a plausible solution that preserves the original setup to retconning any day.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

Incidentally, if someone did provide a good explanation, then that would be fine by me. Problem solved. More than fine, even. I'd prefer a plausible solution that preserves the original setup to retconning any day.

Hans

Let me toss something a little 'out of the box' into the mix.

Let's start with the assumption that the starship design rules are biased towards turning out 1 ship at a time, whether unique or using a standard design ... something like the way Rolls Royce built cars until very recently. In this case, most builds would be similar to 'prototype cost' with only small savings possible for a limited run (like the official 10%).

From cars and aircraft and rockets, IIRC the unit cost for larger production runs approaches 50% of the unit cost of a limited run. NASA has a cost estimator that I play with to get a feel for this sort of data if you think that it is worth pursuing in greater detail.

Perhaps the Merchant line did some calculations and discovered that (just to pull numbers out of thin air) a fleet of 25 x 5000 dT J1 ships plus 12 x 5000 dT J2 ships plus 7 x ### dT J3 ships plus 6 x ### dT J4 Ships ... each at 90% of base cost for a limited production run would be more expensive to build and operate than 50 x 5000 dT J1 ships (fitted with extra fuel) each costing 80% or 70% or 60% of base cost. It was cheaper to mass produce one inferior design than to pay for small runs of the more optimized designs.

The rules are not set up to quantify the savings for a mass production, but using LLB2, note how deep the 'potential' cost savings are for a design as widely produced as the standard 100 dT hull vs a custom 100 dT hull.

This hardly 'proves' my point, but it does suggest that it might be somewhat plausible.

Your thoughts?

 

[rancke]

Let's start with the assumption that the starship design rules are biased towards turning out 1 ship at a time, whether unique or using a standard design ... something like the way Rolls Royce built cars until very recently. In this case, most builds would be similar to 'prototype cost' with only small savings possible for a limited run (like the official 10%).

From cars and aircraft and rockets, IIRC the unit cost for larger production runs approaches 50% of the unit cost of a limited run. NASA has a cost estimator that I play with to get a feel for this sort of data if you think that it is worth pursuing in greater detail.

I think this sounds like the recipe for roast moose, which starts "First you cacth a moose...". First you're going to have to persuade TPTB to retcon the ship-building rules.

Perhaps the Merchant line did some calculations and discovered that (just to pull numbers out of thin air) a fleet of 25 x 5000 dT J1 ships plus 12 x 5000 dT J2 ships plus 7 x ### dT J3 ships plus 6 x ### dT J4 Ships ... each at 90% of base cost for a limited production run would be more expensive to build and operate than 50 x 5000 dT J1 ships (fitted with extra fuel) each costing 80% or 70% or 60% of base cost. It was cheaper to mass produce one inferior design than to pay for small runs of the more optimized designs.

(No J4 ships. They're not competitive with J2 ships (except across three-parsec gaps)).

As for the rest, I very strongly suspect that 40 J2 ships at 70% discount will be more effective (on Akerut's trade network) than 50 J1 ships at 60% discount.

(Note: 50 J2 ships will be able to shift a greater absolute number of dT per year than 50 J1 ships. I'm ignoring this because the original text doesn't specify how much cargo Akerut's fleet shifts, so upping the number from one unknown figure to another unknown figure doesn't bother me. But Akerut's management, who do know the figure (more or less) would be weighing X J1 ships vs. Y J2 ships.)

And this ignores the obvious possibility of piggy-backing on some other production run and buying a handful of standard ships also being produced for some other company (like Tukera or Keratu or Trakeu or Eakrut or Urkaet or...) and getting the high discount anyway. Frankly, I expect all the members of the Tukera family get the highest available discount for all their ships.


Hans

 

[MCEvans]

To understand the reasonings for Akerut's decision to have just J1 ships as there ship. You need ask why was Akerut created or bought in the first place by Tukera.

Akerut has by observation only one main route

Junidy-Feneteman-Aramanx-Carsten-Zila-Aramis

The other routes do one of two things, connect Vargr Trading Stations to this or connect Lewis to the main route.

Note also that the only two systems that have both a Akerut & Tukera stations are Junidy & Aramis.

If the reason is to move cargo/freight between these two areas the Tukera AT freighter would be a better choice (3kdT J4).

I think that finding out the reason for Akerut's existence would go farther in explaining the reasoning behind the Hurc's creation.

I have ideas that make sense to me but are not logical.

 

[Carlobrand]

As I've been pointing out over and over again during this discussion, it's not a question of being profitable. It's a question of being MOST profitable. Which turns on the question of operating expenses per dT per parsec. ...

No it doesn't.

:devil::devil::devil:

 

[rancke]

No it doesn't.

:devil::devil::devil:

Do feel free to refute my argument with something a bit more substantial than that. Otherwise I regret that I don't have a six year old relative that I can give the task of responding appropriately.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Do feel free to refute my argument with something a bit more substantial than that. Otherwise I regret that I don't have a six year old relative that I can give the task of responding appropriately.


Hans

Aww, c'mon, you can't borrow a 6-year old from someone?

The question of what's most profitable is and will always devolve to a basic income versus expenses analysis. That will always come down to how much the route pays off and how much it costs to run the route - not half of it or a third of it. I just don't see much benefit in knowing how much it costs to get halfway there.

 

[atpollard]

Incidentally, if someone did provide a good explanation, then that would be fine by me. Problem solved. More than fine, even. I'd prefer a plausible solution that preserves the original setup to retconning any day.


Hans

They got a good price on 50 W drives that were part of a cancelled government contract for a warship. Rather than install them in a smaller J2 ship, they opted for the large J1 designs.

Is that plausible?

 

[Ishmael]

Most profitable for Akerut?
Or most profitable for its parent corporation, Tukera?
( like MS made its hardware division sell xboxes at a loss so that the software division could rake in the dough after penetrating the market. )

Who knows what sort of power games were being played in the boardrooms when Akerut was being spun off?
What sorts of deals were made?

Perhaps the ships were built with future projections for needs in mind, and perhaps those projections were simply wrong but its now too late to change.

All of this based on the assumption that PC level trade rules and costs, which were never meant to model a megacorp's fleets or market manipulations, work for all ships and trade regardless of business size and scope.
How can anything meaningful be said about the state of SM's economics when reasonable economic models don't exist for CT.