Damned subtle wordings....

[aramis]

I just noticed a subtlety that escaped me when I last really played CT (in the 1980s), and I'd never gone back and reread it for comprehension...

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no
specific effect on passage prices. A jump-3 starship charges
the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference
is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump,
while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps
(through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three
separate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also
may make otherwise inaccessible destinations within reach.
But for two ships of differing jump numbers going to the
same destination in one jump, each would charge the same
cargo or passage price.​

This is subtly worded so that one can justify either per parsec or per jump pricing.

A jump 3 ship charging the same price for passage as a J1 for the same destination, for a distance of 3 parsecs, means that the prices are per parsec.

 

[far-trader]

No, I think it's not so much subtlety as imprecise language.

A jump 3 ship charging the same price for passage as a J1 for the same destination, for a distance of 3 parsecs, means that the prices are per parsec.

Reread that last bit about "in one jump"

For two ships, J1 and J3 "going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price"... the destination would have to be 1 parsec.

The intent reads pretty clearly to me that the price is fixed at a per jump rate, not a per parsec rate.

 

[FreeTrav]

A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps(through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it.​

​

For two ships, J1 and J3 "going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price"... the destination would have to be 1 parsec.

The intent reads pretty clearly to me that the price is fixed at a per jump rate, not a per parsec rate.

I have to agree with far-trader; see the emphasized stuff (emphasis mine) in the quote from CT (via Aramis). Note especially that the J3 destination via J1 ship requires three tickets, one for each jump (bold), rather than one for the entire trip.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no
specific effect on passage prices. [...]​

This always meant, to me, that per jump (not per parsec) pricing was in effect under a strict interpretation of the CT rules. I didn't like it, but that is what it meant.

 

[aramis]

This always meant, to me, that per jump (not per parsec) pricing was in effect under a strict interpretation of the CT rules. I didn't like it, but that is what it meant.

Poorly worded, in any case, but it can be seen either way. It says they charge the same for passage, but the J3 makes it in one jump... if I'm going to a system 3 Pc away, and the passage cost is the same for either, all I'm losing on the J1 is the time.

Also, in looking at the Bk2 designs (using Bk2-81) J1-J4 CAN make a profit at KCr1/ton/Pc...

The light went on due to doing the following...
Bk2 800Td series hulls pricing study
Bk2 J2 Study 100Td to 1000Td

The combination makes per parsec look to be THE most correct way to do it.

 

[mike wightman]

The key to understanding this is to remember there are only three types of passage, low, medium and high each with their own particular cost which are set in tablets of stone - read the first two sentences with that firmly in mind.

A ticket for passage allows you to travel 1 jump, now that jump distance depends on the jump rating of the ship you are on.

So if you have to travel to a world 3 parsecs away if you embark on a jump 3 ship you are paying for passage once. If you are going by jump 1 ship you need to pay for 3 passages.

 

[mike wightman]

As a follow up - since Aramis has posted a reply since - I also long believed that the quoted passage implies per parsec pricing. But the Traveller community has for some reason stuck with the fixed price model for so long now.

Now I also believe that MWM's jump space article precludes jump masking but again the Traveller community have decided something else.

 

[aramis]

As a follow up - since Aramis has posted a reply since - I also long believed that the quoted passage implies per parsec pricing. But the Traveller community has for some reason stuck with the fixed price model for so long now.

Now I also believe that MWM's jump space article precludes jump masking but again the Traveller community have decided something else.

I'd never run the Bk2 numbers until this week, Mike...

Actually doing the math (I may have forgotten LS - I'm not certain... but it's way too early on the 1st for me to check now...)... Cr1000 per parsec really does make much more sense. I wish I'd run the numbers back in high school.

It would have made a huge difference in how I ran the game.

 

[mike wightman]

Yes, the numbers are better for high jump ships if a per parsec model is used, but unfortunately that's not what the OTU went with.

As with many things in the CT rules a lot is open to interpretation, and there were mistakes made.

My top 4 are:

1- implied per parsec model
2- jump masking
3- typos in SMC such as Regina's TL and the totally trash made due to cut and paste errors on the character generation tables
4- getting the jump drive % and manoeuvre drive % numbers transposed in HG1st edition

 

[far-trader]

OK, I thought I saw where you took the double meaning (by missing the "in one jump" bit) but now I'm not sure. The way it's stated pretty clearly rules out a per parsec interpretation to me. Can you clarify where/how a per parsec meaning comes from? Just curious what I'm missing.

Oh yeah, higher jump can profit at per parsec pricing under the rest of the rules as written, though it doesn't necessarily require it. However, the presumption I've long gone with is that the original CT trade rules are for application to a very limited set of circumstances. Basically that of the PC driven Merchant with a Free-Trader. Secondarily perhaps a PC Merchant outfit who manage to get a slightly larger ship (Fat Trader or Liner) and engage in free-trading with that.

I don't believe the rules were meant to apply to the machinations of Mega-Corp Super Freighters or even the smaller Subsidized Route operations. Both would have so many more advantages to make them profitable... even with the per jump fixed pricing for passage and freight.

 

[McPerth]

I (and most, if not all, people I've played with) have always understood it as cost per jump, not per parsec. The Hight Passages earned in mustering out (or as TAS dividend) being usable for any jump (regardless of jump number) or sold by Cr 9000 (90% face value) seem (IMHO) to hint also this direction.

 

[aramis]

It implies the cost of passage is the same via J1 or J3, just differing in how long it takes (and needing to negotiate 3x instead of once).

Couple that with a flat operation cost per parsec for J1-J3 under the Bk2 design system, and a cost for J4 that's just high enough that you must make 3j4 per month to profit, but at 3j4 you make a profit doing 3J3,3j4, or some combination of Nj4+(3-N)j3...

It eliminates the long needed price-fixing, it justifies the canonical J4 Bk2 liners, and it means the wording "no specific effect on passage prices" means "you pay the same no matter how far you're going."

Note that Bk2 operation costs are pretty flat per ton-parsec. Bk5 isn't - Bk5 costs per ton-parsec at TL9 run well over Cr1000/td, due to the larger, more expensive PP's.

Not touching the bk3 dig... but I will say Bk7's flat cost for goods is even MORE broken, and no more informative of the macroecon...

 

[aramis]

I (and most, if not all, people I've played with) have always understood it as cost per jump, not per parsec. The Hight Passages earned in mustering out (or as TAS dividend) being usable for any jump (regardless of jump number) or sold by Cr 9000 (90% face value) seem (IMHO) to hint also this direction.

It's also worth noting: No canonical J2 merchant ships were present until 1980 or later - Leviathan and S7:T&G came out then.

The Leviathan is J3 hybrid - Bk2 drives, Bk5 components (FPP, hull, required crew) - and the A2 a pure Bk2 design.

The leviathan op costs, presuming replacement schedule, not payments - cutting the per month costs almost in half - and unrefined fuel, runs to about MCr3/mo with either MCr0.15 per jump in incomes, or MCr0.45 per jump using per parsec. But one can save quite a bit by dropping the Type W backup maneuver and jump drives - 174 tons, losing 2 engineers, and shaving some MCr294.4 off the cost of the ship... adding making per jump model MCr0.324 or per parsec model MCr0.972 - she loses money either way unless running a route at 3J3/mo and per parsec prices... at which point (no backups, 3 jumps per month on route) she just about turns a profit. Since the class is successful, according to the books, pulling those backups in construction must standard, as must be per parsec pricing.

The A2 makes a profit - just a hair better than a type A - under per parsec, but must non-scheduled speculate, run a 3J2 per month route, or lose money under per jump.

 

[mike wightman]

Wil - this argument has been going on for over 30 years.

The powers that be long ago ruled that you pay per jump, not per parsec.

You have just discovered what a lot of people have been basing their arguments on for an awfully long time now.

Fact remains until MWM retcons it - the OTU passage costs are per jump not per parsec.

 

[McPerth]

Fact remains until MWM retcons it - the OTU passage costs are per jump not per parsec.

Well, in truth, until MGT, as it has made the costs for passages and freight parsec dependent (higher jump, higher cost).

I'm not sure if MWM is involved in this.

 

[LeperColony]

My question is what sort of economic model has to exist in order for speed to be of no added value?

I recall someone suggested that tickets were actually vouchers, and that prices were centrally set. This would at least fit the pricing model, but the very concept of Traveller is that Imperial rule is too light for that kind of micromanagement. Even if such a system were mandated, in practice enforcement would seem to be difficult.

 

[mike wightman]

Well, in truth, until MGT, as it has made the costs for passages and freight parsec dependent (higher jump, higher cost).

I'm not sure if MWM is involved in this.

I know - there still has to be the retcon that "it was always meant to work this way".

Note that MgT changes quite a few CT/OTU paradigms, especially with regards to ship weaponry.

Now there's just jump masking to fix...

 

[McPerth]

Now there's just jump masking to fix...

I wish you luck on that, you'll need it .

 

[robject]

So, should I be able to buy high passage from Regina to Rhylanor for Cr10,000? Presumably the ticket prices are the same, regardless of whether I take a jump-1 ship or a jump-6 one. The only difference is time spent in travel and the number and nature of stops.

 

[rancke]

So, should I be able to buy high passage from Regina to Rhylanor for Cr10,000? Presumably the ticket prices are the same, regardless of whether I take a jump-1 ship or a jump-6 one. The only difference is time spent in travel and the number and nature of stops.

My suggestion for a viable retcon: High, Middle and Low Passage are not tickets, they're vouchers. You should be able to exchange two high passage vouchers for tickets from Regina to Echiste and from Echiste to Rhylanor[*]. The organization that issued the vouchers will be charged by the company for two five-parsec tickets[**].

[*] Provided, of course, that there's a passenger service that goes between Regina and Rhylanor via Echiste.

[**] Assuming passage vouchers can be exchanged for five- and six-parsec tickets. I can't make up my mind whether or not to make jump-4 the legal limit. If they can, the Imperium is definitely subsidizing long-distance travel in a major way.​

Hans