Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Isn't it interesting how the way the trading game "inverts" as range per jump gets longer?
Sure, as the range goes up the revenue tonnage goes down, so ton for transported ton, ships with more powerful drives become less economical on the financial balance spreadsheet (more expensive to construct, lower capacity to move stuff). You'll usually "hit a wall" in the J3 to J4 range on viability, depending on how big (and therefore, expensive!) the ship design is, with respect to profit potentials.
It makes for quite the interesting Traveling Salesman Problem ... especially when you can "design the salesman" who will need to be doing the traveling!
There are pros and cons to specialization, but every time to you increase specialization you reduce your Total Addressable Market potential ... narrowing the roles your starship design is well suited for. Specialize too much and you wind up with a design that will "struggle to survive" in less than optimal conditions or when placed under stress (financial, bad luck, piracy, misjumps, etc.).
This is why I maintain that the legacy J1 Free Trader, J2 Far Trader, J1 Fat Trader and J3 Subsidized Liner from CT (all 1G merchants ships) are all "optimized" for running routes in "well settled" star systems with an effective constabulary system defense force that has eradicated piracy in their territory, and which can reliably provide refined fuel from shore support facilities. That's a LOT of responsibility to offload onto others in order to maximize your own revenue tonnage and profit potential. It "works better" as a business model for the J1 merchant ships than it does for the J2 merchants, because drives and fuel increase expenses pretty dramatically while simultaneously reducing revenue tonnage ... but at the same time, that J1 range really limits the number of routes that can be SAFELY run at minimal risk.
Needless to say, there are plenty of merchants out there willing to accept risk levels higher than minimum in order to make a profit, but still ...
Which is a rather roundabout way of saying You Get What You Paid For, I guess.
If you scrimp and skimp on self-defense and the reliability of (refined) fuel supplies, you can build absurdly cheap starships (such as the J1 Free Trader @ MCr37.08 that takes 44 weeks to build). But without those self-defense and reliable refined fuel supplies running routes between type A/B starports only ... the odds of being able to "hold onto" such a starship for 40 years become almost vanishingly remote.
If you want a starship that can "fend for itself" in poorly patrolled star systems, survive on "wilderness refueling" and not be at the mercy of life support replenishment expenses everywhere you go ... well ... that's going to cost you.
Ships that are designed such that you can expect to hold onto them even when going potentially dangerous places will have higher construction costs than those designed for more ... permissive ... environments. At that point, the real question becomes ... at what price security? ... because putting all your eggs in one basket isn't worth much if the basket you're using won't last for the long haul.
must mean that "I'm on to something" 
with the direction this bit of design research is going. The "negation" of the life support costs and fuel expenses is making a pretty big difference, as are the salary requirements for a small but still highly skilled crew.
