Yes, pages 20-21. Shows per trip. Published 1985...
Damned subtle wordings....
- Thread starter aramis
- Start date
Yes, pages 20-21. Shows per trip. Published 1985...
AFAIK canon doesn't tell us to be valid in the Imperium, but neither does it restict to Solomani space. I guess they can be used in Imperium, as Imperial banks may redeem afterwards from Solomani issuers, being them corporations or government. As I said, my guessing, not canon.
As for game use, I guess we could make that they are valid (as an example) on a 8+. Modifiers of +2 for former solomani sphere, -1 per sector from the Solomani border and + Administrative skill. A modifier for starport class could also be in order (A starports are more likely to have a representative of an agency that accepts it than D starports).
Of course, if valid in the Imperium, those using them may expect to be closely wached by Imperial Intelligence.
I know burocrats use to be quite literal in reading, but for long established uses, as those vouchers seem to be, even for they logic use to end prevailing over time. I guess (again my guessing, not canon) that border worlds are seen as from same sectors for this matter, as long as jump starts in the sector the voucher is issued in.
As to put a today's Earth equivalent, most countries have treaties considering border zone as special for many agreements (stamp postage, permision for emergency corps or even police to cross it without being an invasion, etc).
Of course, not all countries have them, but don't forget most sector boundaries are not political borders (in the sense of diferent states, as Imperial/solomani border is), so I foresee some tolerance, as said above, in order to make those vouchers operative for long voyages too.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Are the revenues generated per parsec or per jump 3?
As I said, KCr10 "per trip" per passenger.
Peak income KCr359
50% straight to subsidy
leaves KCr188.5
Fuel is KCr108
LS is KCr62
Maint Share KCr10.173
Salaries KCr17.35
Assuming a full ship (passengers and cargo) the subsidized liner can expect revenues of Cr359,000 per trip. Costs associated with that trip amount to Cr372,123, giving a net loss of Cr12,123. A jump-2 trip turns a profit of Cr15,877. Making the liner profitable is a full-time job. Cargo holds are rarely full; passenger staterooms often carry middle rather than high passengers. The actual business of turning a profit using the subsidized liner requires careful attention to detail.
(p.21)
(p.21)
Even with a subsidy it runs at a loss on full load under per jump. I remember my first reaction to A13... "WTF? No way should these be flying when they lose money all the time!"
And the only reason J2 turns a profit is the subsidy scaling.
Put it in a per parsec model, however, and it makes money - decent money, proportionate to Type A's and near-full type R's.
flamingsasquatch
SOC-1
Hope I'm not necro-ing this thread, but...
...I've never had a problem with the canonical stance on this as I've always understood that the passenger is not paying for distance; they are paying for *time*. One high, middle, or low passage ticket entitles the bearer to spend one week on a ship. If the ship they are on can only do J1, then that is how far they go. If the ship can do J3, then they go 3 times further for the same price.
I live in Canada, and the national train service (VIA Rail) uses this model. It will cost you about $5000 to take the train one way (in first class) from Toronto to Vancouver. The price is high because they are feeding, housing and entertaining you for a week. Compare this to a one way plane ticket to the same destination which costs less than $1000, but your time spent in transit is less than 1 day. In both cases you are paying for time spent in transit rather than distance travelled. You can think of the plane as a jump-6 service whereas the train is a bunch of jump-1's strung together.
Similarly, a one way plane ticket from Toronto to Vancouver (think of this as jump-2) costs almost as much as a one way ticket from Toronto to Regina (half the distance, think of this as jump-1).
Tl;dr version -- canonical makes sense to me 'cause that's kinda how passenger travel works in real life.
...I've never had a problem with the canonical stance on this as I've always understood that the passenger is not paying for distance; they are paying for *time*. One high, middle, or low passage ticket entitles the bearer to spend one week on a ship. If the ship they are on can only do J1, then that is how far they go. If the ship can do J3, then they go 3 times further for the same price.
I live in Canada, and the national train service (VIA Rail) uses this model. It will cost you about $5000 to take the train one way (in first class) from Toronto to Vancouver. The price is high because they are feeding, housing and entertaining you for a week. Compare this to a one way plane ticket to the same destination which costs less than $1000, but your time spent in transit is less than 1 day. In both cases you are paying for time spent in transit rather than distance travelled. You can think of the plane as a jump-6 service whereas the train is a bunch of jump-1's strung together.
Similarly, a one way plane ticket from Toronto to Vancouver (think of this as jump-2) costs almost as much as a one way ticket from Toronto to Regina (half the distance, think of this as jump-1).
Tl;dr version -- canonical makes sense to me 'cause that's kinda how passenger travel works in real life.
Last edited:
selunatic2397
SOC-12
Twilight's Peak
I was going through Adventure 3 Twilight's Peak, running it tomorrow for a friend.
Under rumors, page 11, Dinomn/Lanth mentions a cargo of 20 tons(crates of radio responders) to be hauled to Djinni/Lanth...
"at standard rates (Cr. 1000 per ton per jump)."
This was copyright 1980.
Is this adventure canon? Published by Games Designers' Workshop I would kinda think it is.
Does this mean that standard rates are per jump and not per parsec?
Or does it imply a jump is per parsec?
The ship in the adventure is a far trader only capable of j1 and the two systems are a j2 with a system between them.
This ship has to do the haul in 2 jumps and thus it should get Cr. 20,000 times 2 jumps=Cr. 40,000.
What's everybodys thoughts on this? I could read it both ways.
I was going through Adventure 3 Twilight's Peak, running it tomorrow for a friend.
Under rumors, page 11, Dinomn/Lanth mentions a cargo of 20 tons(crates of radio responders) to be hauled to Djinni/Lanth...
"at standard rates (Cr. 1000 per ton per jump)."
This was copyright 1980.
Is this adventure canon? Published by Games Designers' Workshop I would kinda think it is.
Does this mean that standard rates are per jump and not per parsec?
Or does it imply a jump is per parsec?
The ship in the adventure is a far trader only capable of j1 and the two systems are a j2 with a system between them.
This ship has to do the haul in 2 jumps and thus it should get Cr. 20,000 times 2 jumps=Cr. 40,000.
What's everybodys thoughts on this? I could read it both ways.
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The rules as written are clear - it's 1000Cr per jump.
The distance of the jump is immaterial.
If you need goods transported 6 parsecs you could pay a free trader to make the trip in 6 jumps, total cost 6000Cr per ton of cargo.
If you get a far trader to do it they can do it in 3 jumps and it'll only cost you 3000Cr per ton of cargo.
A jump 3 trader could do it in 2 jumps for a cost of 2000Cr to you per ton of cargo.
A jump 6 courier could do it in one jump and only cost you 1000Cr.
And typing this has just made a whole lot of sense to the system for me... it's like I've been looking at it from the ship perspective too long, looking at it from the trading company perspective its obvious how you keep your costs down.
The distance of the jump is immaterial.
If you need goods transported 6 parsecs you could pay a free trader to make the trip in 6 jumps, total cost 6000Cr per ton of cargo.
If you get a far trader to do it they can do it in 3 jumps and it'll only cost you 3000Cr per ton of cargo.
A jump 3 trader could do it in 2 jumps for a cost of 2000Cr to you per ton of cargo.
A jump 6 courier could do it in one jump and only cost you 1000Cr.
And typing this has just made a whole lot of sense to the system for me... it's like I've been looking at it from the ship perspective too long, looking at it from the trading company perspective its obvious how you keep your costs down.
I don't think that's thread necromancy - the thread is just six months inactive. You should see what other people get up to...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yep, always was in CT.
I see no such implication there.
If the Captain is advertising their services as a Far-Trader that implies J2. If you're only capable of J1 due to breakdowns and you take a cargo on good faith for a destination J2 distant without telling the shipper that it's going to take you 2 jumps to do it you will have two problems. First off they will only be paying you Cr20,000, as they believe it will take you one jump. Second off they will be looking for a refund and putting the word out on you when you fail to deliver on time as they expect you to get it there in 1 week and it will take you at least 2 weeks, possibly 3 weeks.
If on the other hand the Captain is advertising their services as a broken-down, limited to J1, ship then you are unlikely to get the contract to deliver said goods 2 parsecs distant. Unless the shipper is desperate enough to pay double and have it take twice as long or more. They might be... IF there is a serious shortage of true J2 Far-Traders interested in the business.
Personally, it's Scout stuff, it's J2 distant, to an interdicted system. I'm surprised (nay, a bit shocked) that they don't haul it themselves or have the IN drop it off. Ergo it's a silly rumour, imo a false rumour.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
<plink>
The centi-credit dropped
And this is why in MTU I've long allowed extra freight rolls depending on jump range of the ship. Shippers (and travellers) are going to be looking for the ship with the best range for what they need, so the longer legged ships will have more business.
A Free-Trader (J1) and a Far-Trader (J2) show up at the same Starport.
In MTU:
The Free-Trader gets to roll once on the trade and pax tables, for the selected J1 destination. Some of this may be freight and pax continuing on to the next world another J1 distant, though not necessarily with the Free-Trader.
The Far-Trader gets to roll twice on the trade and pax tables, for the selected J2 destination. Some of this may be business stolen from the Free-Trader as through traffic shippers and travellers realize for the same money they can skip the stopover and get to the final destination twice as fast.
It's a quick and dirty solution that works for me
Book 2, page 4, or Traveller Book, page 49, same thing: "Interstellar travel is priced on the basis of accomodations; prices cover a trip from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length."
Book 7, page 39: "Ships receive the following income per trip:..."
and then the well-known prices for passages and cargo.
I have hated this rule with a passion since I first met the game lo the many decades past, but I'm not clear why there's an interpretation debate. You either do it or scrap it and make a more economically rational house rule.
The only argument in favor of it is Imperial Decree. No self-respecting entrepreneur's going to offer the same rate for a jump-2 when the ship to do it is costing him more and carrying less for the privilege, not unless someone's forcing him to. Ergo, Imperial Decree.
Real world experience suggests that such fiat rules tend to stagnate business - which would explain why the Imperium's having to subsidize jump-2 merchantmen when, independent of such restrictions, that should be a wildly profitable venture. However, you the DM are ultimately your universe's Emperor. Either accept it as meddlesome canon (perhaps the megacorps, able to build their own ships at lower cost and without resorting to loans, encourage the rule as a means of stifling competition) or, like many others, toss it in favor of something more economically rational, and make no apologies for doing something sensible.
Book 7, page 39: "Ships receive the following income per trip:..."
and then the well-known prices for passages and cargo.
I have hated this rule with a passion since I first met the game lo the many decades past, but I'm not clear why there's an interpretation debate. You either do it or scrap it and make a more economically rational house rule.
The only argument in favor of it is Imperial Decree. No self-respecting entrepreneur's going to offer the same rate for a jump-2 when the ship to do it is costing him more and carrying less for the privilege, not unless someone's forcing him to. Ergo, Imperial Decree.
Real world experience suggests that such fiat rules tend to stagnate business - which would explain why the Imperium's having to subsidize jump-2 merchantmen when, independent of such restrictions, that should be a wildly profitable venture. However, you the DM are ultimately your universe's Emperor. Either accept it as meddlesome canon (perhaps the megacorps, able to build their own ships at lower cost and without resorting to loans, encourage the rule as a means of stifling competition) or, like many others, toss it in favor of something more economically rational, and make no apologies for doing something sensible.
CT seems very explicit that trip prices are fixed regardless of parsecs per jump.
Interstellar travel being a well established enterprise - a fixed price actually isn't all that unrealistic. Regardless of laws, plenty of markets 'fix' prices - either through collusion or simple market acceptance (consumer and sellers).
Like someone said - you are paying for the time (and 'quality'), not the distance.
As to the economics - they will certainly work for the corporate lines. Do the math without financing costs (as someone also mentioned). Not to mention, one would expect reduced fees and fuel costs.
Regarding independents - well, mimicking the RW, most should fail if they strictly try to compete directly with corporations.
Do the math with a fraction of the standard 'salaries'. Paying the loan off earlier. And possibly even skimping on maintenance and LS costs. That's what real independents would be doing...
Of course, there is the meta-game issue of encouraging speculative trade, and more risky enterprises (and to support the passage 'vouchers').
Interstellar travel being a well established enterprise - a fixed price actually isn't all that unrealistic. Regardless of laws, plenty of markets 'fix' prices - either through collusion or simple market acceptance (consumer and sellers).
Like someone said - you are paying for the time (and 'quality'), not the distance.
As to the economics - they will certainly work for the corporate lines. Do the math without financing costs (as someone also mentioned). Not to mention, one would expect reduced fees and fuel costs.
Regarding independents - well, mimicking the RW, most should fail if they strictly try to compete directly with corporations.
Do the math with a fraction of the standard 'salaries'. Paying the loan off earlier. And possibly even skimping on maintenance and LS costs. That's what real independents would be doing...
Of course, there is the meta-game issue of encouraging speculative trade, and more risky enterprises (and to support the passage 'vouchers').
I have a problem with price-fixing where it runs counter to basic business sense. Price-fixing through collusion is generally intended to maximize profits, not reduce them - and it isn't always successful. OPEC has an ongoing problem with members cheating and pumping more oil than allotted, resulting in increased supply and lower prices than they'd like.
Prices in the U.S. airline industry were regulated, to the profit of the carriers but to the cost of customers, until 1978. Deregulation brought new no-frills carriers that undercut the prices of traditional carriers, the bankruptcy and disappearance of many traditional carriers as profit margins dwindled away, and a lot more people flying at the lower rates.
Price-fixing by "market acceptance" is always vulnerable to the entrepreneur who flouts accepted norms to make himself more competitive. Unless there's some strong enforcement mechanism, or unless one market player has an absolutely dominating position, it doesn't really exist for very long. "Market acceptance" is an unstable, ephemeral state of affairs that tends to topple the minute any change impacts the market.
What you are paying for is irrelevant. In any business, the relevant questions are: how much are you willing to pay, how many of you are willing to pay, and how much will it cost to offer you the service? In this instance, the distance means increased cost: a more expensive ship with less space for passengers and cargo. A rule of unknown basis prevents the ship-owner from passing those increased costs on to customers. This is a somewhat unusual state of affairs.
Tell that to Pan-Am, TWA, and Braniff. Sometimes the small guy has the advantages: newer equipment, a willingness to try new ways of doing things, a corporate culture that works together rather than working against each other trying to maintain their entrenched power-bases.
The problem with doing the math without financing costs is that there is still a certain logic to money. I can spend X on a ship that earns profit Y, or I can loan the money or sink it into a different business and earn profit Z. If Y is bigger than Z, I build the ship. If Z is bigger - on average, accounting for those loans that don't pay off - then I loan the money or go into a different business.
Let's take as examples the Megacorp ships featured in the Traveller Adventure: the 1000t jump-4 type-RT Tukera Long Liner; the 1000t jump-3 type-CT Oberlindes freighter; the 2000t jump-2 type TI Imperiallines transport; the 3000t jump-4 type-TA Tukera Freighter. Each hopelessly unprofitable: the RT for example costs MCr526, potential income of MCr 1.008 against fuel and crew costs of MCr 0.5616 - it would take about a century for the ship to recover its initial cost and begin turning a profit. The TI, with jump-2 legs, costs MCr 736, potential income of MCr 2.458 against fuel and crew costs of MCr 0.506 - it would take 31 years for the ship to recover its initial cost and begin turning a profit. Of course, their ships are the only game in town - if anyone tried to buy and run such ships on loans, they'd be bankrupt in short order - but why play the game in the first place if there's no money in it?
Is there a market for Jump 2/3/4 shipping? Certainly - but not at that rate structure, and nobody's ever accused a megacorp of being in business just to give people jobs.
At the point where you're doing the math with a fraction of the standard salaries, you're already non-canon - and you're therefore free to make whatever other house rules you choose. If it works, great, a smaller and more conservative departure fron canon than other ideas - but it's still non-canon.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The megacorp is not shipping freight - it is shipping it's own goods.
The trade system we have in CT are the rules for a pc tramp operation, not the economics that a megacorp operated by.
If you own the goods that are being traded from world to world won save money in the long run if you can ship your good cheaply.
The trade system we have in CT are the rules for a pc tramp operation, not the economics that a megacorp operated by.
If you own the goods that are being traded from world to world won save money in the long run if you can ship your good cheaply.
LeperColony
Traveller Card Game Dev Team
Personally I've never understood why speed (in the form of higher jump values) is not a value worth paying for in OTU shipping and traveling economic models.
Now that the thread has been reoppened and I've reread it, I've seen it from another slightly different prespective.
Those are the words that arise the confusion, if I understood all you well:
Until now, we have kept on Aramis comparison about a 3 parsec jump made by a ship capable of doing it in one jump (1J3) or one that needs 3 jumps for it (3J1.
As I see now, the frase referes to this same 3 parsec trip made by a J3 ship or a J5 ship, spcifing that the cost will be the same, regardless of jump capacity, as both make it in one jump (two ships of differing jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump).
Those are the words that arise the confusion, if I understood all you well:
Until now, we have kept on Aramis comparison about a 3 parsec jump made by a ship capable of doing it in one jump (1J3) or one that needs 3 jumps for it (3J1.
As I see now, the frase referes to this same 3 parsec trip made by a J3 ship or a J5 ship, spcifing that the cost will be the same, regardless of jump capacity, as both make it in one jump (two ships of differing jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump).
Doesn't stop it from happening in the RW - see no reason it should in a game setting.
The most 'basic business sense' is to make enough to stay in business and make a net profit over time. How much (and how long) is not any part of 'basic business sense'.
Not at all. This thread is specifically about what is being paid for - a trip or the distance.
Quite true. CT rules support this. (See below about canon)
Sorry I hear this pat Economics 101 'logic' spouted all the time. It is only 'logical' in an over simplified, isolated model. If it were universally applied, only one thing would ever actually be invested in and sold - the one with the most profit. In practice, things are inter-connected - not to mention, humans aren't universally logical, even on average.
Plenty of investors and bankers have invested and continue to invest in lower margin/profit endeavors. A sliver of pie is still a piece of pie... and there is a larger picture that simple logic overlooks. Like the business necessities, such as moving freight, required to realize those higher profit opportunities.
Sure, there are canon ship designs that weren't thought through well. Of course, assumptions are often being made that make no 'sense' and are not covered by the rules (just as there are no rules that apply in the RW) - such as megacorps paying single unit retail costs for starships and on the same loan terms.
Class Traveller Book 2 is not canon?!?
o: my CT Bk 2 pg 8 said:
Then, there is the canon that provides ships shares in char gen that seems to be completely forgotten in these discussions...
Where in canon did you read that?? Library Data A-M: "Tukera Lines operates a vast fleet of passenger and freight vessels throughout the Imperium, following the xboat lines. In some subsectors (particularly the older, more established regions of the Imperium) Tukera Lines has a virtual monopoly on long distance shipping and travel." How does one manage a monopoly on shipping without shipping other people's goods?
That is very true - except perhaps in GURPS, which I understand has a rather complicated system for actually figuring out how much is going from system to system. However, I don't see anything in canon that implies Tukera's rates are different from anyone else's, so any variation in that direction is house rules. But - house rules aren't a bad thing; they fill in many blanks and resolve many an odd discrepancy.
And ...
Doesn't stop it from happening in the RW - see no reason it should in a game setting.
For example ... and I trust you aren't going to point to governments, because we've already suggested that some of the illogical rules stemmed from government fiat. What examples do you have of profit-making private enterprises colluding in ways counter to their self-interests?
What a puzzling assertion.
Not at all. This thread is specifically about what is being paid for - a trip or the distance.
Specifically, it is about WHETHER a trip or the distance is being paid for, based on an analysis of a phrase in Book-2 - to which my reply sums up as: rules say trip, but you should feel free to say otherwise. To which you respond with the assertion that fixed pricing isn't unrealistic, and I respond that it's unusual for businesses to fix prices in ways that hurt themselves (and rendering the Jump-3/Jump-4 market unprofitable is certainly a hurt), and you assert that it happens in life. No problem; now I'd ask that you support the assertion, because it runs counter to the information available to me and leaves me quite curious as to what I might have missed.
Fine, now support your assertion in a manner that speaks to the examples given - namely, how a jump-4 transport comes into existence and becomes "typical of its [Tukera's] fleet" (Traveller Adventure) when it takes up to a century for the thing to earn back the money spent to build it while other alternatives could return the investment in 20 years. Clever debating phrases like "pat 'logic'" do not take the place of evidence, and saying things are "interconnected" and "humans are't universally logical" are handwavium, not explanations. Note my discussion of possible sociological explanations below.
Not to this extreme; most investors expect to at least make the money back in their lifetimes, not their grandchildrens'. Some investments don't pan out, some experiments fail, but something which is described as "typical of its fleet" is supposed to be successful.
This goes beyond design. It is impossible to make a jump-4 merchantman that returns a reasonable profit in a reasonable time - reasonable being interpreted as anything that might persuade a potential investor to put his money there instead of in any one of a billion other potential ventures. Not a case of poor design - it's a case of the rules making it impossible. Whether it's big returns for big risk or small returns for small risk, someone investing for profit does tend to expect a return in their lifetime.
I have entertained the notion of significant cultural differences: that these people make their billions in some other way and then enforce fiat pricing rules and sink money into things like jump-4 merchantment out of some sense of noblesse oblige or "rich man's burden" rather than in pursuit of profit, in an effort to actively promote an interstellar economy and society. In short, they are more social engineers than yankee traders. Perhaps history has taught them that actively promoting interstellar trade results in fewer wars and fewer bombs being dropped from orbit, an unhealthy state of affairs for any billionaire's investments.
Class Traveller Book 2 is not canon?!?
Of course it is:
"Player-characters may bargain for better pay rates, or they may elect to accept worse. In addition, player characters may participate with the owner-captain and accept shares in the proceeds of the ship's activities."
That doesn't preclude a percentage of NPCs from doing anything a player does, but standard salaries are standard for a reason: they are the norm rather than the exception, and I do believe we are discussing the norm rather than exceptions. Arguments which make them other than the norm by definition enter the arena of the non-canon. As I mentioned to Mike above, departing from canon isn't a bad thing if it fixes a problem, but I do believe in calling a spade a spade, not a club.
