CT+ Trade

[daryen]

Originally posted by robject:
Heh heh! And I'm on the other end of that spectrum, Mike -- I've watched ship prices creep in a steady descent down from LBB2 to T4, and I want ships to be back up around their CT-level prices.

Huh? Between Bk2 and Bk5 prices went way, way up! Bk2 was much cheaper. MT prices were indeed lower than either Bk2 or Bk5. (That is only for the stock ships, though. I have no idea what the price for a ship actually made with the MT design system would cost.) I have never actually read anything from T4, so I can't talk to it. The cheapest starships I have found are actually in GT. Regardless, all are mind-numbingly expensive.

I think my fear (and yes, it's an emotional reaction, rather than an intellectual one) is that cheap starships dilutes the value of ownership too much for my comfort. Or something. Or maybe it's just a grognardly feeling.

Dude, a piddly little 100dton scout ship still costs 25-29 million credits no matter the system used. A 200dton trader is going to cost at least 50% more. Honestly, there is no possible way any "adventurer" is going to be able to afford that, even at half price. (Unless, of course, he is independently wealthy. But what GM would allow that for a PC?)

I don't want to reduce the prices to allow more ownership. I want to reduce the prices to allow the level of ownership that is supposed to exist.

Note that I am talking about "PC" ships. You want to say making a 1000+ dton ship causes a dramatic increase in costs because of <technobabble>? Fine. You want to make armoring a ship expensive? Fine. You want to make weapons expensive? Fine. (Well, except for defensive weapons. Things like "pulse" lasers and sandcasters should still be affordable.)

I just want players to be able to afford the ship they are going to go adventuring in. Or at least make the price gap more reasonable.

 

[robject]

Yeah, I agree that military vessels have expensive features that civilians ought not to have access to.

a... 100dton scout ship still costs 25-29 million credits

Eh? Well, those numbers aren't comfortable with me, either. I'm used to the Scout costing around MCr17 (is that right? or is it MCr13?) and the Type A costing MCr37. Is the Scout really MCr25 in Book 2? I've forgotten... anyhow, when you said ships should be 10% of their actual values, I thought "MCr1.7 for a Scout... MCr3.7 for a Free Trader... MCr30 for a Mercenary Cruiser... no."

Per your other post on how per-jump pricing works, I did misunderstand you - sorry about that. Anyway, I suppose it just doesn't ruffle my feathers. I suppose I assume that tramp free traders just aren't numerous enough to vitalize something like the Spinward Main -- the economic force is in megacorps, which must make money some other way. I guess I assume the megacorps make money in bulk trade. Beats me.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by robject:
I suppose I assume that tramp free traders just aren't numerous enough to vitalize something like the Spinward Main -- the economic force is in megacorps, which must make money some other way. I guess I assume the megacorps make money in bulk trade. Beats me.

Oh, I assume that 99% of all trade is done in bulk, too. But the economics is the same. If you can only get x credits per jump, regardless of distance, then you are going to only ship by J1. There are two reasons for this: 1) you get to carry more cargo per jump (less jump fuel needed) and 2) you get to charge for each leg of the jump.

Here's an example (using Bk2 to keep this simple):
- Ship A: 1000 dton, J2M1, 600 dtons cargo
- Ship B: 1000 dton, J1M1, 750 dtons cargo

To take cargo a distance of 2 parsecs, Ship A will generate 600 * 1KCr, or 600KCr, for its owner. Ship B, however, will generate 750 * 1KCr, or 750KCr, for each leg of the trip.

Total revenue:
- Ship A: 600KCr
- Ship B: 1.5MCr

Sure Ship B will incure extra expenses, as it has to make two jumps, but that is completely dwarfed by the extra revenue created. Plus Ship B is even cheaper, too.

(Yes, I know that 1000 dtons isn't much of a "bulk freighter". Doesn't matter; just multiply the size by 10 or 100 and you get the same results.)

So, the worlds are not developed to support free traders. As you mention, there just aren't enough of them to be worth it. However, the bulk freighter traffic will demand the support. And the bulk freighter traffic will require even more support than free traders would; bulk freighters are going to be doing any wilderness refuelling.

 

[aramis]

The whole level of ownership thing relates to another interesting (and supposedly heretical) interpretation.

When i got Supp 4, the Library data was not available in my area. So I took it to mean that there was a citizen/subject dichotomy. Somehow, I rationalized that the Barbarians gnerated were of those tribes selected for contact, and hence used for various nefarious purposes by the Imperium.

Likewise, trade need not be long distance to remain essential nor to remain vital. IMTU, the fixed prices forcing shorter ranged trade is a REACTION TO , not the CAUSE OF, the long night. It is fine to be interdependent. It is not fine to be interdependent on long distance sources, as our gas prices at the pumps currently show. Long Distance High Volume trade creates major tradeflows, and strong merchantile houses at the expense of local industry. In this case, forcing local interdependence is a good thing, as it means that a catastrophic failure on som major world will NOT be a major "crash the sector economy" kind of deal.

it is a very different view of the 3I. It is a view that looks past a human lifespan, past even the extended lifespans of the Vilani... one similar to the role of the Bene Geserit in Dune: To prepare society to survive its own fall.

As to the math above: If you factor in the price raises for longer distance given in GT, the net effect is still the same: a clear disincentive to longer distance trade. And GT (The GT Rulebook itself) is LKW, pure and simple. It ay not be canonical to my mind, but it is a clear indication of disincentive.

There will still be J2 shipping. There will be J2 tramps who speculate (3x the worlds), and those who can afford to own the means of transit as well as the goods. Even J3 can break a profit under Bk 2/3 combo, or under T20. J3 has 2x the worlds of J2, and 6x the worlds of J1... for speculation, it is a far better thing.

Interdependency materials will NOT be speculative cargoes as a rule; the government needing it will either contract for self pickup at source, or for delivery by provider. These will probably be maximum of 2 jumps, to minimize crew away times. (5-7 weeks out, 3 back, say?) Few ships operate more than a month's travel out from home port on earth; those that do tend to be engaged in speculative trade on a large scale, with large backing by governments or corporations. It is reasonable to keep the same standards for Traveller.

Likewise, it is not reasonable to assume more than a scant fraction of people have ever left the world of their birth. Many people even now have never been more than 12 hours travel from home; many have never been more than 12 hours drive in the "modern" world, and many have never been more than 5 days walk (roughly 100-150 miles) from home.

To put it bluntly, my assumptions of the nature of spacers and Traveller bears a lot of similarity to the assumptions in SpellJammer.

Lets look at the CG numbers from CT: To make it to 4 terms, the minimum needed to have a chance at a ship, you have a 5+ survival, which 5% will have a DM +2, for a 3+; that's 35/36 success base, so (35/36)^4. We then have Comission (2+ effectively, same reasons), so nigh-auto, then 4 promotions:at 10+, 6/36=1/6. Raise that to the 4th power as well. Then add in the 4+ reenlistment. Of course, we need to account for NOT getting a ship in those six rolls: (5/6)^6.

Ok Surviving 4 terms: (35/36)^4
Making Rank 5 in that time: (1/6)^4
Reenlisting each time: (33/36)^3
(35^4)(1^4)(33^4)/(36^4)(36^4)(6^4)
=((35*33)^4)/(36^8)(6^4)
=(1155^4)/(6^20)
=4.86746602973E-4
=0.000486746602973...
roughly 4 in 10000 merchants get a ship after four terms.
Odds of continuing are slimmer still of making it further, but further terms increase the chances of getting a ship

This does not sound terribly high to me. Having run parties using all the non-gurps economics, and having had parties make a profit with J2 and J3 ships under all models by being tramps, and those profits far outweighing the potential of consistent route runs...

there are not going to be all that many ship-owning folks. Maybe 2% of Travellers. That PC's tend to gravitate around characters with ships, either by ownership (Merchant, Noble, Corsair/Pirate, Hunter) or by assignment (Scout, Scientist) really helps to define the nature of the setting as well. Ships are a precious commodity. Precious enough to bond groups with no common background other than travelling the stars into tight-knit groups.

A fixed fee imperium actually makes speculation MORE profitable by comparison. Those with the wanderlust go for J2 or J3, and follow the odds, living as scoundrels around the fringe. Those who like stability take passenger and cargo runs at J1, moving up in ship size, not ship range. Always going home every few months.

Cargo carriers don't need brokers, don't need warehouses, don't need anything other than a route, and the paperwork. They make a meager profit, but a consistent one.

Speculators Live Wild, Live Free, and take passengers and cargo simply as a convenience. Travelers take them to save time. According to JTAS, it can take days or even Weeks to find a J2 or higher passage... (Speculation without a starship). It isn't like they run schedules. The big lines might be able to, but they speculate. AS A COMPANY, they speculate. They don't want competition; they have a near monopoly, and the tramps picking up the crumbs are a good thing, as it prevents the appearance of monopoly.

(I can almost here Thrash, Blue, and Jim cringe at this view...)

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Aramis:
As to the math above: If you factor in the price raises for longer distance given in GT, the net effect is still the same: a clear disincentive to longer distance trade. And GT (The GT Rulebook itself) is LKW, pure and simple. It ay not be canonical to my mind, but it is a clear indication of disincentive.

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Using either system, it costs twice as much to ship something two parsecs as it does to ship something one parsec. Which would only make sense. However, under the per-jump system only J1 ships make that money; under the per-parsec system, all ships make that money.

Yes, there is a disincentive for long-haul trade. That makes sense. However the per-jump system also forces and additional restriction in that it forces the use of only J1 ships.

So, while both systems have costs that are a disincentive to long-haul trade, only the per-jump model works to prevent long-haul trade. (Actually it prevents legal long-haul trade. I am sure there would be a massive black market with a more rational pricing structure.)

There will still be J2 shipping. There will be J2 tramps who speculate (3x the worlds), and those who can afford to own the means of transit as well as the goods.

But that is irrelevant to the trade system as a whole. Unless you have a completely different view of Imperial trade, most trading is going to be bulk freighters, not tramps. Only tramps (for the most part) will be doing speculative trade.

So, yes, a few tramp J2 freighters might be able to make a living with speculative trade. But the bulk of the system is still done by shipping freight. The per-jump model forces all of those freighters to be J1.

And you keep mentioning subisidizing to allow J2+. Who pays for this stuff? Where do they get the money? How can a world afford to subsidize their only route for trade for centuries? Eventually they will run out of money in the course of 1100 years. Subsidizing doesn't work for the long haul.

To make matters worse, I have one more question: OK, let's go ahead and assume the Imperium is completely stupid and beyond all reason imposes a per-jump pricing model. Where does that leave the rest of Charted Space? I am sure they have no particular reason to impose a brain-dead shipping model on their citizens. I doubt the Zhodani, Darrians, Sword Worlds, Vargr or Aslan use something that outright stupid. Especially the latter three, because they don't have a central authority to impose it. They will use what works; the per-jump pricing model doesn't work.

The CT model is presented as the general model of interstellar trade, not the broken model of an irrational Imperium. As such it is completely broken and, if a new edition (e.g. CT+) is to be done, it needs to be fixed.

Lets look at the CG numbers from CT: To make it to 4 terms, the minimum needed to have a chance at a ship, ...

I assume we have, at this point, moved on to the discussion of ship pricing.

I understand how difficult it is for a player to acquire a starship for "free" during CG. That is irrelevant to my point.

My point is that this is Traveller, and to travell one needs a starship. The primary way that players and GMs address that need to travell is by proving the players a starship, either through a lucky CG, or by fiat (e.g. The Traveller Adventure). Unfortunately, this is ridiculous; but since it is desired by both the GM and players, just how ridiculous it is is conveniently ignored.

I just want the system changed (by lowering the price of small civilian starships) to reflect how the game is actually played. Why have rules that are guaranteed to be ignored? Why have rules that prevent players from working the way they want to?

 

[robject]

I don't ignore the small starship prices at all. It drives my small-merchant games. Not that my players ever want to be small merchants. They want to be mercenaries. Talk about boring!

I'm thinking it's because Traveller gives a lot more control to the referee than other, more modern games - and modern gamers like to have control. It's a Crunchy Bits thing.

The complaints that seem to come up over CT, from different people at different times, have to do with either player control or realism. Player control issues pop up over chargen and trade.