Examining CT Bk5 Economics

[salochin999]

Interesting. I want a big ship universe and small ship universe in the same space and I'm attempting to do this by dividing the systems in a sub-sector into alpha systems (based on population and TL) and the trade routes between them - which becomes the BSU - and the beta systems with their trade routes - which becomes the SSU - with a few systems connected to both creating the links between the two.

I'd specified the BSU trade routes as J-3 (for no particular reason) and the SSU routes as J-1 and J-2 so your results are kinda cool. Would large J-3 mega merchants between the "Coruscants" of the sub-sector make sense according to the numbers? Ideally I'd like massive J-3 merchant ships moving along the main routes supplying the alpha systems and swarms of little ships supplying the beta systems.

edit: To be clearer I'm interested if the numbers provide a logical basis for two universes side by side i.e. one where large, long range merchant ships are optimal between the "Coruscants" and small ships are optimal between the "Tattooines."

 

[aramis]

Interesting. I want a big ship universe and small ship universe in the same space and I'm attempting to do this by dividing the systems in a sub-sector into alpha systems (based on population and TL) and the trade routes between them - which becomes the BSU - and the beta systems with their trade routes - which becomes the SSU - with a few systems connected to both creating the links between the two.

I'd specified the BSU trade routes as J-3 (for no particular reason) and the SSU routes as J-1 and J-2 so your results are kinda cool. Would large J-3 mega merchants between the "Coruscants" of the sub-sector make sense according to the numbers? Ideally I'd like massive J-3 merchant ships moving along the main routes supplying the alpha systems and swarms of little ships supplying the beta systems.

edit: To be clearer I'm interested if the numbers provide a logical basis for two universes side by side i.e. one where large, long range merchant ships are optimal between the "Coruscants" and small ships are optimal between the "Tattooines."

No. The cost savings of the SSU 5KTd J1's and J2's is so much that there won't be any ability to compete, and the SSU 2KTd J3-J6 are so much cheaper as to shut down the Large Ship side there as well. In other words, in a mixed universe, EVERYTHING moves on either 5k Td J1 or J2 letter-drive craft, or on 2kTd J3-J6. The bigger ships are so cost ineffective as to render the whole issue moot save for military freighters as fleet resupply vessels for the big ship battlewagons. Even then, the ScoutRons, DesRons and EsRons will use 2kTd letter-drive hulls for their auxiliaries.

 

[DonM]

So my 'tinker' tin-foil hat on, if we want these numbers to approach something more reasonable, what needs to change, either ship-design wise, or freight/fuel-cost wise?

 

[Carlobrand]

So my 'tinker' tin-foil hat on, if we want these numbers to approach something more reasonable, what needs to change, either ship-design wise, or freight/fuel-cost wise?

Item 1: the High Guard ships are expensive compared to their CT counterparts. The mortgage is the biggest impact on costs. For example, at TL15, the ubiquitous free trader is MCr42+ in quantity; at lower tech, it's worse, owing to the power plant increasing in size and the price being based on size. It has to be built at TL15 to be practical, and even then it needs to run 90% full consistently to make the payments.

Let's see if I can do this right:

item	Bk-2 mass	Bk-2 cost	Bk-5 mass	Bk-5 cost
Hull	-	10	-	16
Bridge	20	1	20	1
Comp	1	2	1	2
P. Pl.	4	8	6(TL9)/2(TL15)	18(TL9)/6(TL15)
M. Dr.	1	4	4	6
J. Dr.	10	10	4	16
Fuel	30	-	22	-
Scoops	-	-	-	0.2
Hardpt.	2	0.2	2	-
Staterm. x10	40	5	40	5
Low B. x20	10	1	10	1
Cargo	82	-	91(TL9)/96(TL15)	-
Total	200	41.2	200	65.2(TL9)/53.2(TL15)
In Qty.	-	37.08	-	52.16(TL9)/42.56(TL15)

One thought is to re-introduce the Book 2 standard hull; it would bring down the cost of the scout, free trader, subsidized merchant and subsidized liner.

Another is to introduce a line of low-tech low cost high-consumption civilian power plants - TL9 power plants that are the same size as TL9 military plants but cost half as much and require three times as much fuel.

A third is to do something similar with jump drives: introduce a line of civilian drives that cost half as much but take twice the space.

The net effect would be civilian ships that cost less but sacrifice a bit of space for the privilege - the loss in cargo space would be far offset by the reduction in mortgage costs, allowing them to make a better profit or to run leaner with less chance of defaulting - while military ships spent more to gain a bit more internal space for their needs. It would limit errata to the few Book 5 civilian ships out there.

Item 2: the fixed fee structure cripples freight traffic for anything over jump 1 and about kills it over jump 2. Aramis probably has a better handle on this in terms of what fees pay for what jump.

 

[aramis]

Item 1: the High Guard ships are expensive compared to their CT counterparts. The mortgage is the biggest impact on costs. For example, at TL15, the ubiquitous free trader is MCr42+ in quantity; at lower tech, it's worse, owing to the power plant increasing in size and the price being based on size. It has to be built at TL15 to be practical, and even then it needs to run 90% full consistently to make the payments.

Let's see if I can do this right:

item	Bk-2 mass	Bk-2 cost	Bk-5 mass	Bk-5 cost
Hull	-	10	-	16
Bridge	20	1	20	1
Comp	1	2	1	2
P. Pl.	4	8	6(TL9)/2(TL15)	18(TL9)/6(TL15)
M. Dr.	1	4	4	6
J. Dr.	10	10	4	16
Fuel	30	-	22	-
Scoops	-	-	-	0.2
Hardpt.	2	0.2	2	-
Staterm. x10	40	5	40	5
Low B. x20	10	1	10	1
Cargo	82	-	91(TL9)/96(TL15)	-
Total	200	41.2	200	65.2(TL9)/53.2(TL15)
In Qty.	-	37.08	-	52.16(TL9)/42.56(TL15)

One thought is to re-introduce the Book 2 standard hull; it would bring down the cost of the scout, free trader, subsidized merchant and subsidized liner.

Another is to introduce a line of low-tech low cost high-consumption civilian power plants - TL9 power plants that are the same size as TL9 military plants but cost half as much and require three times as much fuel.

A third is to do something similar with jump drives: introduce a line of civilian drives that cost half as much but take twice the space.

The net effect would be civilian ships that cost less but sacrifice a bit of space for the privilege - the loss in cargo space would be far offset by the reduction in mortgage costs, allowing them to make a better profit or to run leaner with less chance of defaulting - while military ships spent more to gain a bit more internal space for their needs. It would limit errata to the few Book 5 civilian ships out there.

Item 2: the fixed fee structure cripples freight traffic for anything over jump 1 and about kills it over jump 2. Aramis probably has a better handle on this in terms of what fees pay for what jump.

Treble the fuel volume, and you are spreading that cost out amongst fewer tons.

Really, tho, the problem with HG is multifold:
1: The PP cost is per ton, not per rating
2: The PP Cost is higher per rating even at TL15 than Bk2
3: the JD costs are higher per unit volume than Bk2
4: the hull costs aren't quite comparable.
5: The MD takes more space.

Bk2 PP is 200 Tons*Rating in 3 Td. or 66.6 Tons*rating per Ton of Drive
Bk2 PP is 200 Tons*Rating in 8 MCr, or 50 Tons*rating per MCr of drive.

Bk5 TL 15 is 100 Tons*Rating in 1 Td and 3MCr, or 33.3 tons*rating per MCr
Bk5 TL 13 is 50 Tons*rating in 1 Td and 3 MCr, or 16.6 Tons*rating per MCr
Bk5 TL 9 is 33.33 Tons*Rating in 1 Td and 3 MCr or 11.1 tons*rating per MCr

The book 2 drive is worse than TL15 HG PP per ton, and 1.5x as efficient per Cr. It's better performance than the TL13 HG PP per ton and 3x as efficient per Cr. Vs the TL 9, its twice as efficient by volume and 4.5x as efficient per cr.

Each MCr of cost is Cr4166.667 per month, or Cr2083 per 2 weeks.
For a 400Td J1 ship...

The proposal is 1/2 cost PP at 3x fuel
Both have the same tonnage overhead:

Td	MCr	Td	MCr	Td	MCr	System
–	17.6	—	32	—	32	Flattened Sphere, SL
20	_2	20	_2	20	_2	Bridge
20	_1	20	_1	20	_1	5xSR
_1	_0.3	_1	_0.3	_1	_0.3	Single Turret in hardpoint
15	20	_8	32	_8	32	JD1
_5	12	_8	12	_8	12	MD1
10	24	_4	12	_4	6	TL15 PP
40	—	40	—	40	—	Fuel, 1J1
10	—	_8	—	24	—	Fuel, 4 weeks PP
279	—	291	—	279	—	Cargo
—	76.9	—	91.3	—	85.3	System
—	160208	—	190208	—	177708.	Mort/J
—	3204	—	3804	—	3554	Maint/J
(45)	22500	(44)	22000	(52)	26000	Fuel, refined
—	9000	—	9000	—	9000	Crew/J
—	194912.5	—	225012.5	—	216262.5	Total/J
—	698.611	—	773.24	—	775.13	per Td/J

[tc=2]Book 2[/tc][tc=2]Book 5[/tc][tc=2]proposal[/tc] [tc=5][/tc] [tc=5][/tc]

Given the reduction in the PP, yes, combined with a standard hull, it should be in the same range for a TL15 based one...
But the TL9 one would be triple cost and volume...
so +12 MCr and -8 Td, for the increased PP. 241762.5/J, Cr892/T/J
Still beaten out by the TL15 by some 10%. which means pricing wars lost.
Going to a standard hull saves MCr14, so it would be close...
But lots of military designs would use it, and if it can be done at TL9, it should still be doable at TL 15...

Really, the best fix for HG is to simply make the price based upon the rating, not the size of the plant.
And to cut the price on the JD and hull. But those also break compatibility with prior efforts...

 

[Carlobrand]

Treble the fuel volume, and you are spreading that cost out amongst fewer tons. ...

Td	MCr	Td	MCr	Td	MCr	System
–	17.6	—	32	—	32	Flattened Sphere, SL
20	_2	20	_2	20	_2	Bridge
20	_1	20	_1	20	_1	5xSR
_1	_0.3	_1	_0.3	_1	_0.3	Single Turret in hardpoint
15	20	_8	32	_8	32	JD1
_5	12	_8	12	_8	12	MD1
10	24	_4	12	_4	6	TL15 PP
40	—	40	—	40	—	Fuel, 1J1
10	—	_8	—	24	—	Fuel, 4 weeks PP
279	—	291	—	279	—	Cargo
—	76.9	—	91.3	—	85.3	System
—	160208	—	190208	—	177708.	Mort/J
—	3204	—	3804	—	3554	Maint/J
(45)	22500	(44)	22000	(52)	26000	Fuel, refined
—	9000	—	9000	—	9000	Crew/J
—	194912.5	—	225012.5	—	216262.5	Total/J
—	698.611	—	773.24	—	775.13	per Td/J

[tc=2]Book 2[/tc][tc=2]Book 5[/tc][tc=2]proposal[/tc] [tc=5][/tc] [tc=5][/tc]

...

You've created a chimera. The proposals taken together were intended to create a ship that more closely approximated the Book 2 ship, that could be built in a TL9 yard and flown profitably, not to create something that was better than a TL15 ship. Thus, to be correct, the hull price needs to be the same as the book-2 value (where did you get 17.6?) and the jump drive needs to be larger and reduced in cost. And 4 weeks fuel for a PP-1 in a 400dT hull would be 12 dTons, not 24. And the power plant should be the same size as a TL9 model and half that cost - yes, I know that makes things a bit worse, but note that the power plant change and fuel more closely resemble the Book-2 plant.

I agree that the power plant fuel is a problem. I don't know what to do about that. Book 2's fuel calculation had the 5000 dTon Hercules drawing the same power plant fuel as the 200 dT Free Trader; I know no way to make something like that right. I played with numbers: 5x fuel hits the free trader right and screws up everything larger. 3x fuel seemed like an adequate compromise for the 200-400-600 hulls. The goal here was to turn out ships that more closely approximated existing Book 2 ships without triggering a massive errata campaign on other existing ships - and this does that. It puts low tech worlds in space with ships that can hope to make a profit.

As for TA ships - I haven't a clue. I haven't had a chance to test these ideas on them, and my gut tells me that business about drawing 10 dT of fuel regardless of size makes them pretty much unsalvageable. Whether or not this can be done to them and still leave them profitable - well, I'm not sure they were profitable in the first place, but if it can put them in the ballpark with their Book-2 versions, then that's about as good as I can expect. If I get a chance, I'll run some numbers on those and see what happens.

As to profitability in general, the best solution without turning the entire High Guard world upside down is to alter the assumptions about cargo costs. Higher jump ships need to be able to recover their investment, which means they need to be able to charge more for what they offer - and that needs to be the basis for calculating shipping costs, not an arbitrary Cr1000 that applies regardless of range.

 

[Carlobrand]

Alright, here are my test cases. I think I entered all the data right; these tables are difficult to make:

200dT Free Trader

item	Book 2 mass	Book 2 cost	Book 5 mass	Book 5 cost	Proposed mass	Proposed cost
Hull	-	10	-	16	-	10
Bridge	20	1	20	1	20	1
Comp	1	2	1	2	1	2
P. Pl.	4	8	6(TL9)/2(TL15)	18(TL9)/6(TL15)	6	9
M. Dr.	1	4	4	6	4	6
J. Dr.	10	10	4	16	8	8
Fuel	30	-	22	-	26	-
Scoops	-	-	-	0.2	-	0.2
Hardpt.	2	0.2	2	-	2	-
Staterm. x10	40	5	40	5	40	5
Low B. x20	10	1	10	1	10	1
Cargo	82	-	91(TL9)/95(TL15)	-	83	-
Total	200	41.2	200	65.2(TL9)/53.2(TL15)	200	42.2
In Qty.	-	37.08	-	52.16(TL9)/42.56(TL15)	-	33.76

INCOME q. trip	Orig	HG/TL15	Proposed
High P.	60,000	60,000	60,000
Low P.	20,000	20,000	20,000
Cargo	82,000	95,000	83,000
Total q4 wk.	324,000	350,000	326,000
EXPENSES q.4.wk.	-	-	-
Pilot	6000	6000	6000
Navig.	-	-	-
Engineer	4000	4000	4000
Steward	3000	3000	3000
Medic	2000	2000	2000
Gunner	-	-	-
Life Support	40,000	40,000	40,000
Fuel	25,000	21,000	23,000
Mortgage	154,500	177,333	140,667
Maint. (4/50*0.1%)	2966	3405	2701
Total Exp.	237,446	256,738	221,376
Max. profit	86,534	93,262	104,633
Profit margin	26.7%	26.6%	32.1%

400 dT Subsidized Merchant

item	Book 2 mass	Book 2 cost	Book 5 mass	Book 5 cost	Proposed mass	Proposed cost
Hull	-	20	-	32	-	20
Bridge	20	2	20	2	20	2
Comp	1	2	1	2	1	2
P. Pl.	7	16	12(TL9)/4(TL15)	36(TL9)/12(TL15)	12	18
M. Dr.	3	8	8	12	8	12
J. Dr.	15	20	8	32	16	16
Fuel	50	-	44	-	52	-
Scoops	-	-	-	0.2	-	0.2
Hardpt.	2	0.2	2	-	2	-
Staterm. x13	52	6.5	52	6.5	52	6.5
Low B. x9	4.5	0.45	4.5	0.45	4.5	0.45
Launch	20	14	20	14	20	14
Cargo	225.5	-	228.5(TL9)/236.5(TL15)	-	212.5	-
Total	400	89.15	400	137.15(TL9)/113.15TL15)	400	91.15
In Qty.	-	80.235	-	109.72(TL9)/90.52(TL15)	-	72.92

INCOME q. trip	Orig	HG/TL15	Proposed
High P.	80,000	80,000	70,000
Low P.	9,000	9,000	9,000
Cargo	225,500	236,500	212,500
Total q4 wk.	629,000	651,000	583,000
EXPENSES q.4.wk.	-	-	-
Pilot	6000	6000	6000
Navig.	5000	5000	5000
Engineer	4000	4000	(2) 8000
Steward	3000	3000	3000
Medic	2000	2000	2000
Gunner	-	-	-
Life Support	52,000	52,000	52,000
Fuel	45,000	42,000	46,000
Mortgage	334,313	377,167	303,833
Maint. (4/50*0.1%)	6419	7242	5834
Total Exp.	457,731	498,408	431,667
Max. profit	171,269	152,592	151,333
Profit margin	27.2%	23.4%	26.0%

600 dT Subsidized Liner

item	Book 2 mass	Book 2 cost	Book 5 mass	Book 5 cost	Proposed mass	Proposed cost
Hull	-	48	-	48	-	48
Bridge	20	3	20	3	20	3
Comp	3	18	3	18	3	18
P. Pl.	28	72	54(TL9)/18(TL15)	162(TL9)/54(TL15)	54	81
M. Dr.	5	12	12	18	12	18
J. Dr.	50	90	24	96	48	48
Fuel	210	-	198	-	234	-
Scoops	-	-	-	0.2	-	0.2
Hardpt.	3	0.3	3	-	3	-
Staterm. x30	120	15	120	15	120	15
Low B. x20	10	1	10	1	10	1
Launch	20	14	20	14	20	14
Cargo	131	-	136(TL9)/172(TL15)	-	76	-
Total	600	273.3	600	375.2(TL9)/267.2(TL15)	600	246.2
In Qty.	-	245.97	-	300.16(TL9)/213.76(TL15)	-	196.96

INCOME q. trip	Orig	HG/TL15	Proposed
High P.	210,000	220,000	200,000
Low P.	20,000	20,000	20,000
Cargo	131,000	172,000	76,000
Total q4 wk.	722,000	824,000	592,000
EXPENSES q.4.wk.	-	-	-
Pilot	6000	6000	6000
Navig.	5000	5000	5000
Engineer	(3)12,000	(2)8000	(4)16,000
Steward	(3)9000	(3)9000	(3)9000
Medic	2000	2000	2000
Gunner	-	-	-
Life Support	120,000	120,000	120,000
Fuel	195,000	189,000	207,000
Mortgage	1,024,875	890,667	820,667
Maint. (4/50*0.1%)	19,678	17,101	15,757
Total Exp.	1,393,553	1,246,767	1,201,423
Max. profit	-671,553	-422,767	-609,423
Profit margin	-93.0%	-51.3%	-102.9%

(I hadn't realized the liner was such a big money loser.)

Anyway, point is that the proposal brings the ships pretty close to their Book 2 counterparts both in terms of the machinery and profitability.

[add: major corrections to address error in life support, fuel and maintenance costs)

 

[Carlobrand]

And then an analysis of the 5000 dT Hercules by the proposal:

item	Book 2 mass	Book 2 cost	Book 5 mass	Book 5 cost	Proposed mass	Proposed cost
Hull	-	550	-	400	-	400
Bridge	100	25	100	25	100	25
Comp	2	18	2	18	2	18
P. Pl.	64	168	150(TL9)/50(TL15)	450(TL9)/150(TL15)	150	225
M. Dr.	41	84	100	150	100	150
J. Dr.	110	210	100	400	200	200
Fuel	510	-	550	-	650	-
Scoops	-	-	-	0.2	-	0.2
Hardpt.	4	0.4	4	-	4	-
Wpns./Turr.	-	16	-	12	-	12
Staterm.	(15)60	(15)7.5	(18)72(TL9)/(16)64(TL15)	(18)9(TL9)/(16)8(TL15)	(21)84	(21)10.5
Low B. x0	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pinnace	40	20	40	20	40	20
Cargo	4069	-	3882(TL9)/3990(TL15)	-	3670	-
Total	5000	1098.9	5000	1484.2(TL9)/1183.2(TL15)	5000	1060.7
In Qty.	-	989.41	-	1187.36(TL9)/946.56(TL15)	-	848.56

INCOME q. trip	Orig	HG/TL15	Proposed
High P.	-	-	-
Low P.	-	-	-
Cargo	4,069,000	3,990,000	3,670,000
Total q4 wk.	8,138,000	7,980,000	7,340,000
EXPENSES q.4.wk.	-	-	-
Pilot	6000	6000	6000
Navig.	5000	5000	5000
Engineer	(7)28,000	(8)32,000	(13)52,000
Steward	-	-	-
Medic	2000	2000	2000
Gunner	(4)4000	(4)4000	(4)4000
Pinnace Pilot	?	?	?
Life Support	60,000	64,000	84,000
Fuel	505,000	525,000	575,000
Mortgage	4,120,875	3,944,000	3,535,667
Maint. (4/50*0.1%)	79,121	75,725	67,885
Total Exp.	4,809,996	5,332,248	4,657,725
Max. profit	3,328,004	3,322,275	3,008,449
Profit margin	40.9%	41.6%	41.0%

[add: major corrections to address error in life support, fuel and maintenance costs)

 

[Mark317]

A bit late in reply but

I have been trying to follow the thread, as I am interested in some ways to fix the economics of starships and have some questions about assumptions I am making.
First I noted some text regarding making civilian drives bigger or less efficient, but the reality of it is and (I know the communists out there will get bent), but economics drives innovation so the civilian drives will be just as efficient as the military if not more so, what they won't be is tolerant to abuse. For instance Military aircraft are pulled apart after every flight and maintenance is at least 4 times that of civilian stuff. Ships simliar, a crew doing preventive maintenance. There was a time when planes and ships were built with performance as the main design feature think 80's, Now they are more toward civilian design standard components, and maintenance and operational costs are the primary design goals.
Way too long a note that was to say the Military ships should burn more and take more expense to maintain than the civilian counter parts.

Another Civilian thing is there are like 5-6 manufactures on earth for things like planes or Large ships built in quantity. Megacorps.

So you want a truck, you go and get the chassis, then add the box and twinkly stuff, but the chassis are all with few exceptions made to same specs. This is the cost savings. You want a custom Chassis then you pay and then some.

Another thing I note is that there seems to be some assumption that the 5k and larger ships will be full running to those backwater locations in a sector. Also there seems to be no problem with delivering your widgets up to 10-20 weeks after your competition ships it there in 1 jump 6 ship while yours goes thru the network to get to the same location after no one wants the widgets anymore. Same with burning 20 weeks or your life going 6 parsecs when you can get there in 2, if we were immortal then no worries, but there has to be some premium for cutting these transit times.

The same cost for 1 vs 6 parsec travel is the part I am trying to build a formula to use to fix this, I don't think 6 times is the answer, but some sliding scale and some variance in what is being transported. Ore is not so much worried, will be needed today and next year, iPhones well then it's gotta be there yesterday.

Sorry for the really long entry, but I am struggling adding economics to my campaign and would like it to have some better feel to it.

Mark.

 

[salochin999]

I have been trying to follow the thread, as I am interested in some ways to fix the economics of starships and have some questions about assumptions I am making.

There was a recent thread about this which went sideways a bit but might be useful

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=33575

Another thing I note is that there seems to be some assumption that the 5k and larger ships will be full running to those backwater locations in a sector.

Logically, routes where the volume of trade is too low to keep a large ship's hold consistently full would be an exception to the general rule.

Also there seems to be no problem with delivering your widgets up to 10-20 weeks after your competition ships it there in 1 jump 6 ship while yours goes thru the network to get to the same location after no one wants the widgets anymore. Same with burning 20 weeks or your life going 6 parsecs when you can get there in 2, if we were immortal then no worries, but there has to be some premium for cutting these transit times.

The same cost for 1 vs 6 parsec travel is the part I am trying to build a formula to use to fix this, I don't think 6 times is the answer, but some sliding scale and some variance in what is being transported. Ore is not so much worried, will be needed today and next year, iPhones well then it's gotta be there yesterday.

If you're aiming to have trade make sense then I'd say the first step is take the current trade rules as only applying to free trader type trade and looking at bulk trade from scratch.

Doing that I'd say the key points are

1) the operating costs per ton per parsec of different ship types as described on this thread
2) some profit margin on top of operating costs
3) the 5000cr average cargo value per ton specified in "Merchant Prince"

I think the lowest operating cost per ton was calculated to be c. 500cr per parsec per ton so with a profit margin of 50% that would be 750cr per parsec per ton with an average of... who knows but higher than 750cr.

With a premium being charged by higher J ships for those in a hurry.

#

With 5000cr average cargo value and a minimum shipping cost of c. 750cr per parsec per ton this points at the bulk of trade (by volume) only being very short distance.

That 5000cr per ton average value implies that the higher value goods make up a low proportion of the total volume so maybe something like an order of magnitude increase in average value per ton to 50K might involve an order of magnitude decrease by volume and the same for a two orders of magnitude increase so the ratio might be something like 100 dtons of high value (average 50K per ton) cargo and 10 dtons of very high value (average 500K per ton) cargo for every 1000 dtons of average value (5K per ton) cargo.

All together this implied to me

1) high volume, short distance cluster trade of up to c. 5 parsecs radius around each alpha planet
2) low volume / high value long distance trade to planets with a high enough demand for high value goods
3) low volume free trader boonie trade

#

option 2 is take the rules as written and accept the fixed 1000cr per ton per jump shipping cost which encourages more trade but requires subsidized merchants.

 

[Mark317]

Thanks that does help, lots of reading to get through and many more ideas, I am trying to develop something to keep someone from buying a ticket across know space and living for free(10kcr) transporting them for years of time.

I have thought about scratching up some cash to check out the GURPS stuff as well as T5 since I am still back in the 80s resources wise.

 

[rancke]

So my 'tinker' tin-foil hat on, if we want these numbers to approach something more reasonable, what needs to change, either ship-design wise, or freight/fuel-cost wise?

Change the system to fit the HG paradigm. (e.g. change the drives and power plants to some that were built using HGish rules).

(I say HGish instead of HG, because I suggest you change the excessive power plant fuel consumption rates while you're at it, but I admit that it's not necessary to do so for the stated purpose).


Hans

 

[Mark317]

Power usage ideas.

Yeah I always use the HG powering rules, and look at going to jump like when our ship was doing speed trials, the whole ship is humming boilers were, well, boiling and you could feel the ship like it was alive.

Our ship always had both boilers up and running, not at full capacity, but both were always lit when under way.

However civilian ships will only operate all power plants right before Jump, plants 3-6 or 4-12 will only spin up to generate that Huge Jolt of Energy required to jump then they go back to 2 or 4 "boilers" at a time and only running at needed capacity. 1/2 power + some minor amount for non drive stuff, for the rest of the operations.

Note I am not accounting for any power needs for weapons in this guess work, captains may want to bring more on line depending on the threat level where they operate.

I am still playing with the numbers, and not everyone will make profit from the numbers I end up with, but I am focusing on smaller ships being able to come at least close to break even, since the big liners will have the lions share of mass transport. I will also look at playing around with more numbers to look at longer range ticket prices. As we know the concord is no more and this is because it is just too expensive to operate so I am ok with J-5/6 being too expensive for passenger traffic. Those ships are military and couriers.

And as always I am fluid as to the surrounding economy since this is not a simple fly freight game, so if they are going to need to plan for using extra resources to fly into areas, then the compensation will be scaled to allow not only an even break, but extra profit, since they could loose everything (they are adventurers, we hope, after all).

 

[salochin999]

An interesting page of someone trying to engineer interstellar trade from scratch which some people may have seen but could be useful to others

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/stellartrade.php

 

[Timerover51]

One of the things that bugs me about the economics of trade in Traveller is you have no cost for ship insurance, and your maintenance costs are ridiculously low. Also, freight costs are fixed, regardless of distance, whereas there should be a distance-cost factor in there as well.

 

[aramis]

One of the things that bugs me about the economics of trade in Traveller is you have no cost for ship insurance, and your maintenance costs are ridiculously low. Also, freight costs are fixed, regardless of distance, whereas there should be a distance-cost factor in there as well.

The numbers work out such that the costs of shipping should be Cr1000 per parsec under Bk2 (either edition), but noting that no jump 2 merchants are provided in CT-77, and only 2 kinds of higher jump merchants are presented in all of GDW's CT: the A2, and the M. A jump 2 merchant, and a jump 3 liner. Neither is going to make money on per jump book rate (and even on subsidy, the Type M is a hair's breath away from disaster, unless it's pulling 3 jumps per month.

 

[Timerover51]

The numbers work out such that the costs of shipping should be Cr1000 per parsec under Bk2 (either edition), but noting that no jump 2 merchants are provided in CT-77, and only 2 kinds of higher jump merchants are presented in all of GDW's CT: the A2, and the M. A jump 2 merchant, and a jump 3 liner. Neither is going to make money on per jump book rate (and even on subsidy, the Type M is a hair's breath away from disaster, unless it's pulling 3 jumps per month.

One parsec makes sense, but the passengers accommodations still do not. As for insurance, prior to World War 1, cargo ship insurance was running at 1% per voyage. Also, based on current ship and aircraft maintenance costs, a charge of 5% of the space ship every two years would be reasonable, along with charge of 0.1% of the ship costs in routine maintenance on every jump.

 

[aramis]

One parsec makes sense, but the passengers accommodations still do not. As for insurance, prior to World War 1, cargo ship insurance was running at 1% per voyage. Also, based on current ship and aircraft maintenance costs, a charge of 5% of the space ship every two years would be reasonable, along with charge of 0.1% of the ship costs in routine maintenance on every jump.

Prior to about 1700, insuring of vessels was practically non-extant.

Insurance is not a given; even now, many vessels operate uninsured, and many more solely with liability coverage, not replacement coverage. (Much of the commercial crabbing industry is uninsured, for example, aside from the federally mandated workman's compensation.)

 

[Carlobrand]

Prior to about 1700, insuring of vessels was practically non-extant.

Insurance is not a given; even now, many vessels operate uninsured, and many more solely with liability coverage, not replacement coverage. (Much of the commercial crabbing industry is uninsured, for example, aside from the federally mandated workman's compensation.)

Must give the banks the screaming heebie-jeebies.

 

[Timerover51]

Prior to about 1700, insuring of vessels was practically non-extant.

Insurance is not a given; even now, many vessels operate uninsured, and many more solely with liability coverage, not replacement coverage. (Much of the commercial crabbing industry is uninsured, for example, aside from the federally mandated workman's compensation.)

Commercial shipping lines are required to have insurance, even if they only have one ship. I know that a lot of fishing boats operate without insurance, which in the Bering Sea area would be quite high. You cannot carry freight in the Great Lakes without have insurance coverage both the ship and the cargo.

All cruise ships operating out of US ports are required to carry insurance. If fact, there is a current court case over a cruise line trying to argue that they are not responsible for the medical malpractice suit filed against the staff on one of their ships. The argument is that the staff are independent contractors and not cruise line employees, but the trial court did not buy that argument, and it looks like the appeals court will not either.

Given the costs of space ships, do you seriously expect me to believe that banks loaning money for the construction are not going to demand insurance coverage on them? Do you think that the airlines are not required to have insurance on the passenger and cargo jets that they operate?