Fixing Book 2 Starship Economics

[far-trader]

Thanks thrash. I was just curious what the reasoning was behind the numbers and how close it came to my own.

Not very close it seems. Unless I'm missing something in the way your average was calculated. I just simply use the line for Pop 7 for the average tons generated by one check. I get the idea that a lot of people do the rolling wrong. Roll for number of cargo lots. Roll for number of units per cargo lot. Multiply units by the size factor.

My "averaged" cargo roll comes out to:

1d+3 Major cargos = 6.5 Major cargos

Each Major cargo is 1d units of 10tons = 35tons

Total Major cargo available = 227.5tons

1d+4 Minor cargos = 7.5 Minor cargos

Each Minor cargo is 1d units of 5tons = 17.5tons

Total Minor cargo available = 131.25tons

For a total freight available of 358.75tons averaged. Considerably more than your average.

As for what this actually means for cargo volume, well that depends on a whole bunch of undefined and often undefinable OTU stuff.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Cymew:
Well, sorry but *that thread* makes my head spin.

What I was trying to ask was basically if the proposed fix to

"charge all cargo and passage rates as per parsec rather than per 'jump'"

would yield the same effect like you propose, but in a much simpler way?

Maybe I'm a bit dense here....

Originally posted by robject:
Oh no, the per-parsec-rate-fix again...

You're not dense, but simply doubling the rate for Jump-2s would create an even worse system than CT currently has (see below).

And it would not solve many of the other problems I identified (too much money to the players, etc.)

The problem is that this solution, while perfectly intuitive and logical, would make high-jump ships far more profitable than they currently are.

The reason is that it doesn't actually cost twice as much to double a ship's jump range. So when you double the revenue, you make the ship much more profitable.

The real economic cost of a jump equals the cost of the starship, plus operating costs. A free trader costs about mcr37. Operational costs and bank payment runs 254k per month. It brings in about 300k per month on passengers and cargo. A tidy profit of 46k per month.

But if you double its jump capacity, your costs and payments will increase to 327k per month -- only a 29% increase. But doubling the payments for jump-2 passages and cargo will increase your income to 536k -- a 79% increase over previous revenue. You don't quite double the income because you gave up some tonnage for bigger drives and more fuel. So now our Far Trader would make 4 times as much money as a Free Trader.

And the numbers get even more hallucinatory as the jump numbers increase.

*This* is why Marc Miller made it cost the same for all jumps, no matter the distance. And considering he didn't have spreadsheet software when he designed Traveller, I think it was a pretty good accomodation.

Some time soon, I'll probably do a more detailed analysis of Traveller's economics. Until then, this fix seems to work okay for jump two ships -- the cost of a Jump-2 passage or cargo is multiplied by 1.5. That would make the Far Trader roughly comparable to the Free Trader in profit. It makes about 68% more profit, but costs 44% more. I'd apply the same scaling to higher jumps...x2 for Jump-3, x2.5 for Jump-4, etc.

--Ty

 

[Cymew]

tbeard1999,

Thanks. Now even I understand.

As you can see in another thread I don't really understand the basics yet, though...

 

[boomslang]

You're not dense, but simply doubling the rate for Jump-2s would create an even worse system than CT currently has (see below).

And it would not solve many of the other problems I identified (too much money to the players, etc.)

The problem is that this solution, while perfectly intuitive and logical, would make high-jump ships far more profitable than they currently are.

The reason is that it doesn't actually cost twice as much to double a ship's jump range. So when you double the revenue, you make the ship much more profitable.

A couple of points here:

High-jump ships are not profitable to begin with under BT cargo & passenger rules. A 3000-dton, Jump-4 Type MT with 1200+ dtons of payload can't pay for itself. (So how does Tukera stay in business, you ask? Volume!)

There are several previously-mentioned methods for reasonably and efficiently separating the players from their windfall profits, and in the particular case of insurance, they are even likely to be willing and enthusiastic about it.

Using either the LBB or B7 tables, I have trouble rolling up enough cargo to even come close to filling a 1200-dton hold, by the way. Tukera presumably uses local factors to line up shipments, but they require salaries or commissions, and that's another profit-eating cost.

And lastly, doubling a ship's range incurs a huge cost to the available payload capacity: a Type A2 has perhaps 60% the payload capacity of a Type A; this is non-trivial to its revenue profile.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
You're not dense, but simply doubling the rate for Jump-2s would create an even worse system than CT currently has (see below).
<snip>
The reason is that it doesn't actually cost twice as much to double a ship's jump range.

If you look at the ratio of cost to cargo space, which is what really matters, it costs close to twice as much (the exact ratio varies with the ruleset). In actuality, you need a special rate for 1 parsec ships, and for distances beyond 1 parsec, no sane merchant company will ever use jump-1 ships.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by boomslang:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You're not dense, but simply doubling the rate for Jump-2s would create an even worse system than CT currently has (see below).

And it would not solve many of the other problems I identified (too much money to the players, etc.)

The problem is that this solution, while perfectly intuitive and logical, would make high-jump ships far more profitable than they currently are.

The reason is that it doesn't actually cost twice as much to double a ship's jump range. So when you double the revenue, you make the ship much more profitable.

A couple of points here:

High-jump ships are not profitable to begin with under BT cargo & passenger rules. A 3000-dton, Jump-4 Type MT with 1200+ dtons of payload can't pay for itself. (So how does Tukera stay in business, you ask? Volume!)</font>[/QUOTE]Well, the idea of making a profit through volume relies on costs being proportionally lower as volume increases. For this to work, the costs cannot be proportional to the income.

Unfortunately, the Traveller economic system shows no such benefit. As a simple experiment, I designed a 5000 ton Jump-2 bulk cargo carrier. I gave it the 90% discount and included no architect's fees. I even put the crew in double occupancy staterooms. Cost was MCr940.

On a typical jump, the carrier loses MCr2.13 per month, after all costs are considered. The owner financed the ship per Book 2 rules and I included a 4.25% interest cost for the downpayment.

Seems to me that for Tukera to make any profit, it would have to be able to charge *more* per ton for shipping bigger cargo lots, rather than less. Hard to see why anyone would pay for that.

Worse, it's difficult to imagine any sane banker financing these ships.

Ther are several previously-mentioned methids for reasonably and efficiently separating the players from their windfall profits, and in the particular case of insurance, they are even likely to be willing and enthusiastic about it.

Using either the LBB or B2 tables, I have trouble rolling up enough cargo to even come close to filling a 1200-dton hold, by the way.

That's another problem with the Traveller starship economic system. Rolling for a flat amount of cargo makes ships beyond a certain cargo capacity unprofitable, with the problem getting worse as the ships get bigger.

I prefer to simply assume a full cargo and passenger manifest, with lower volumes on a per-case basis. If I were gonna roll for it, I'd probably generate what percentage of the character's cargo hold and staterooms can be filled.

Another solution, which seems to be far more effort than its worth is to generate the amount of total cargo and passengers, then divide by total cargo and passenger capability to determine the percentage you can fill a ship.

And I have freely acknowledged that a sufficiently creative referee can conjure up numerous ways to rob the players of their profits. My question, though, is *why* should I let the system *force* me into doing so? The Traveller economic system forces the referee into adopting a "screw the players" attitude. And *my* players are sharp enough to notice this and get resentful.

Therefore...doesn't it make sense to simply fix the economic system?

And lastly, doubling a ship's range incurs a huge cost to the available payload capacity: a Type A2 has perhaps 60% the payload capacity of a Type A; this is non-trivial to its revenue profile.

I must be misunderstanding you. Upgrading a Free Traveller to Jump-2 will reduce its carrying capacity by 18 tons (5 tons from increasing the Jump drive, 3 tons from increasing the Power plant, 10 tons for additional fuel). This is only about a 22% decrease from the 82 tons of the Free Trader.

--Ty

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
I must be misunderstanding you. Upgrading a Free Traveller to Jump-2 will reduce its carrying capacity by 18 tons (5 tons from increasing the Jump drive, 3 tons from increasing the Power plant, 10 tons for additional fuel). This is only about a 22% decrease from the 82 tons of the Free Trader.

--Ty

That fuel usage looks weird; are book 2 fuel usage numbers totally different from high guard? In High Guard it would be +2 tons jump drive, +2-+8 tons power plant (depending on TL; +6 at TL 12), +22 tons fuel (+20 for extra jump, +2 for extra power plant).

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anthony:

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
[qb]I must be misunderstanding you. Upgrading a Free Traveller to Jump-2 will reduce its carrying capacity by 18 tons (5 tons from increasing the Jump drive, 3 tons from increasing the Power plant, 10 tons for additional fuel). This is only about a 22% decrease from the 82 tons of the Free Trader.

--Ty

That fuel usage looks weird; are book 2 fuel usage numbers totally different from high guard? In High Guard it would be +2 tons jump drive, +2-+8 tons power plant (depending on TL; +6 at TL 12), +22 tons fuel (+20 for extra jump, +2 for extra power plant). </font>

Yep, made a mistake. You'll need 30 tons more fuel, not 10 more. This makes the cost closer to the original post.

--Ty

 

[boomslang]

Seems to me that for Tukera to make any profit, it would have to be able to charge *more* per ton for shipping bigger cargo lots, rather than less. Hard to see why anyone would pay for that.

Worse, it's difficult to imagine any sane banker financing these ships.

The "How do we do it? Volume!" reference is a very old accountants' joke...

I prefer to simply assume a full cargo and passenger manifest, with lower volumes on a per-case basis. If I were gonna roll for it, I'd probably generate what percentage of the character's cargo hold and staterooms can be filled.

With all respect, that is a pretty significant and dubious default assumption; if there's that much shippage to be had, competition will arise, and costs and cargo/passenger availablity will go down along with prices.

So, I'd be willing to grant the mystical 90% of capacity rate as the default assumption -- more than that, and competition is likely; less, and narrow profit margins eliminate competitors... systems analysis tends to converge on 90% as a sustainable maximum rate in real-world traffic systems; YMMV...

I must be misunderstanding you. Upgrading a Free Traveller to Jump-2 will reduce its carrying capacity by 18 tons (5 tons from increasing the Jump drive, 3 tons from increasing the Power plant, 10 tons for additional fuel). This is only about a 22% decrease from the 82 tons of the Free Trader.

You've simply botched the naval architecture a bit.

First, remember to include passenger staterooms as "payload".

Second, going from Jump-1 to Jump-2 performance that Type A2 needs a whopping 60 dtons total fuel: 40 for J-2 plus 20 for the powerplant-B. (Note that an A2's powerplant fuel consumption is only 5 dtons/week, so you seldom need a complete fillup.) That's 20 more that you're figuring on. And now your hold is down at least one-third, towards the 50 dtons mark. Passenger staterooms may remain unchanged; typically 7 at 28 dtons total. Low berths at will.

In practice, the best use of per parsec shipping is to use lower-jump ships to make multiple hops. Note that higher jump numbers are hard to obtain in merchantmen until about TL13 or so; with a tip of the hat to the Type M, the "optimum" "long-haul" freighter is probably about 1000 dtons and using a TL11 J-drive-K for Jump-2 performance with maybe 600 dtons of payload. For longer routes, fit it with interior collapse/demount tanks... at TL15, you can finally build the Type MTs, but they're only worth it if you have lots of stuff to haul a long way on a regular basis.

And one deadeyed corsair gunner can wreck your whole 5-year forecast...

"Route protectors", anyone? Now there's a profit-sink for ya...

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by boomslang:

With all respect, that is a pretty significant and dubious default assumption; if there's that much shippage to be had, competition will arise, and costs and cargo/passenger availablity will go down along with prices.

I don't see any particular reason to prefer a 90% assumption over some random percentage, particularly if the bell curve made 90% the most likely percentage.

In any case, I don't think it really matters at the end of the day. Whether you assume 100% occupancy or 90% occupancy, the system is badly flawed.

If you assume 90% occupancy, you'll still have ships that are absurdly unprofitable or absurdly profitable. To fix it, you'll still have to revise the system. You'll just have to use a different revised cost for passengers and cargo than I do with my 100% assumption. And you'll still have a system that will often generate Merchant characters with millions of credits of net worth.

And 90% occupancy assumptions create thorny math issues -- in actual play -- when the number of staterooms isn't easily divisable by 9. "You make crX this week." "Wait a minute, I calculate that we made crY..." "Well, you see, I'm averaging the numbers for 90% occupancy..." "Yeah, but you said that 11 of the 12 staterooms were full, which means we should have 22,000 more cred..." <Referee pulls .357 magnum revolver> <BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG CLICK CLICK>

I think that real problem remains...the standard designs are economically unsound. They either make an absurd profit or they lose lots of money.

This is because the revenue from transporting stuff is not very well fitted to the costs of transporting that stuff. Until that problem is addressed, quibbling over fill rate assumptions doesn't get us very far, it seems to me.

You've simply botched the naval architecture a bit.

First, remember to include passenger staterooms as "payload".

Second, going from Jump-1 to Jump-2 performance that Type A2 needs a whopping 60 dtons total fuel: 40 for J-2 plus 20 for the powerplant-B. (Note that an A2's powerplant fuel consumption is only 5 dtons/week, so you seldom need a complete fillup.) That's 20 more that you're figuring on. And now your hold is down at least one-third, towards the 50 dtons mark. Passenger staterooms may remain unchanged; typically 7 at 28 dtons total. Low berths at will.

Yup, botched that one good. Teach me to type while on the phone...

The Free Trader carries 30 tons of fuel. 20 for the jump drive and 10 for the power plant.

The Far trader needs 30 more tons of fuel (+20 for the Jump-2 and +10 for the Power Plant-2, per Book 2). And the Jump-2 and Power-2 drives consume 8 more tons. The total cargo capacity of the Free Trader (passenger staterooms, low berths and cargo hold) is:

</font>

• 6 staterooms (single occ)...24 tons
  20 low berths...............20 tons
  82 tons cargo...............82 tons
  Total......................126 tons</font>

The far trader uses 38 tons of that capacity for additional fuel and drive space -- a 30% reduction.

Still, I'm not following your point. I never disputed the fact that the Far Trader had less carrying capacity. What I have noted is that this ship will lose a bloody fortune in the standard CT economic system. (It will lose far more if we only assume 90% usage). And that the typical easy fix -- doubling the fee for cargo and passengers for Jump-2 fails to solve the problem. No sane banker would finance such a ship. And somehow, I suspect that there would be a very limited number of people willing to write a MCr50+ check to build such a ship.

The CT economic system makes anything but a Jump-1 ship a serious money loser. That's fine, if you like that sort of thing. But even then, why would you encounter anything but Jump-1 ships (other than military and communications ships)? If FedEx could only charge the same for overnight delivery as the USPS charges for 3-5 day delivery, there would be no FedEx...

--Ty

 

[far-trader]

One note that seems to be overlooked in discussions of this type is that the trade system in Book 2 is meant for only one thing, to engage the players in adventure. So it is designed to try to keep them going between lean and flush. Lean so they'll do speculative trade or take tempting side jobs. And flush so they can spend money on upgrades like weapons and such, so they get lean again and can take different types of side jobs.

It is not an economic model, and even if it was, or was to be used to formulate one, it has to be used as applying only to small traders (type A generally) in a small ship universe. Trying to extrapolate total trade volume or shippage by MegaCorps, Subsector Lines, or even Interface Lines is a mistake. A case could be made for operating a Fledgling Line on those trade rules, but once it got big enough different rules would come into play.

 

[boomslang]

OK, here's a monthly back-of-the-enveloper for "per parsec":

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">monthly payment on a tricked-out Type A2-equivalent
incl. full weapons, closed-source software
1/240th of ~90MCr total "cost", rounded up 375 KCr

salaries
Pilot-2 6.6
Engineer-2 4.4
Medic-2 2.2

life support for 3 crew 12

yearly overhaul put-aside 8

fuel, ~100 dtons
2 J-2
full load for powerplant
bank says A2 needs to be built to use unrefined
due to lower-rated starports visited
no extra cost under B2
added convenience offset by higher hijack risk 10

berthing fees petty cash

ignore insurance for now 0

---- ----

total monthly overhead ~419 KCr



revenue for 2 J-2

56 dtons of freight 2 parsecs twice 224 KCr

6 Middle Passengers 2 parsecs twice
minus KCr1 per passenger/week for life support 180

10 Low Passengers 2 parsecs twice
minus KCR.1 per passenger/week for life support 38

---- ----

total monthly revenue ~442 KCr</pre>[/QUOTE]This seems quite reasonable to me... close to break-even, but meagre enough to encourage speculation... note that running an A2 on unrefined fuel if the drives weren't designated as compatible with it is going to leave the players with much bigger headaches than late bank payments once the drive failures and misjumps start happening...

 

[tbeard1999]

If you want to modify my proposed system to assume a 90% occupancy rate, the income items will need to be revised:

High Passage – cr2775; cr4875 for Jump-2; cr6125 for Jump-3 Note: High passengers do not get a free ton for luggage.
Middle Passage – cr2350; cr3900 for Jump-2; cr5000 for Jump-3
Low Passage – cr390; cr650 for Jump-2; cr800 for Jump-3
Cargo – cr350 per ton; cr 600 for Jump-2; cr675 for Jump-3

--Ty

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by far-trader:
One note that seems to be overlooked in discussions of this type is that the trade system in Book 2 is meant for only one thing, to engage the players in adventure. So it is designed to try to keep them going between lean and flush. Lean so they'll do speculative trade or take tempting side jobs. And flush so they can spend money on upgrades like weapons and such, so they get lean again and can take different types of side jobs.

It is not an economic model, and even if it was, or was to be used to formulate one, it has to be used as applying only to small traders (type A generally) in a small ship universe. Trying to extrapolate total trade volume or shippage by MegaCorps, Subsector Lines, or even Interface Lines is a mistake. A case could be made for operating a Fledgling Line on those trade rules, but once it got big enough different rules would come into play.

I agree that the system was originally designed for player characters. However, I don't think that it really helped. Indeed, I wonder how many Traveller campaigns have run out of steam because the referee (or players) got tired of having to constantly come up with new ways to screw the players out of their money?

In my mind, having *no* economic system is better than having a seriously defective one. For instance, the referee could simply require the captain to make a roll each month to determine the profit or loss, with the average roll being a "break even; all salaries and expenses paid" result.

But *if* an economic system is included, then it shouldn't force the referee into (a) shackling them with a grossly unprofitable starship; (2) letting them get a very profitable starship and keep the money; (3) letting them get a very profitable starship and constantly finding ways to screw them. Nor should it allow merchants to muster out with several million credits.

As for "big ship" economics, well, the CT numbers *can't* work. Traveller's Book 2 starship design system can create 5000 ton ships. High Guard up to a million tons. There's a nice discount for mass produced ships.

The problem is that the big ships can't make enough money unless they stick to Jump-1. And even then, my 5000 ton bulk cargo (with no weapons or gunners, and double occupancy) hauler loses about a million per month.

A rational economic system would *reduce* the per ton cost of shipping for huge ships, making the problem worse, not better. If you're selling $1 bills for 90 cents, you cannot make a profit on the volume because you'll have to sell the $1 for less than 90 cents in bulk.

A related problem is that the system seems designed only to work with Jump-1 ships. In every case I looked at, Jump-2+ ships simply could not make any money. Fair enough, but there should be very few such ships in the Imperium outside of military, scouts, communications and similar special purpose ships. No Jump-2+ traders or liners should be found anywhere because they're bankrupt the day they start operating.

Again, I mean no criticism of Marc Miller. He lacked the tools in 1977 that make such analyses easy today. But now that we have those tools, I think we should put them to use.

And unfortunately, simple and intuitive solutions (like doubling shipping revenue for Jump-2, etc.) make the problem worse, not better.

I suspect that GDW's staff looked at expenses from the wrong side of the table. It would be very natural to first decide what people would be willing to pay for a high passage, etc. Unfortunately, this can easily lead to a defective economic system. The better approach is to look at what it actually costs the starship owner to transport cargo and people. Then, apply a reasonable profit and voila, you have your pricing system. Because in a market economy, *no* business will operate at a loss for long. Nor will any business make hallucinatory profits for long; competition will crop up to bring profits down.

Here are some preliminary revisions to the Book 2 system that will reduce the huge profit margin on the Free Trader and make the Far Trader reasonably profitable on a Jump-2 route:

High Passage: 7500/12,000 (gets 1 ton cargo)
Middle Passage: 6000/9500
Low Passage: 900/1400
Cargo: 900/1400

First number is for Jump-1, second is for Jump-2. With full cargos, the Free Trader will make about cr7640 per month after all salaries, note payment, operational costs, etc. The Far Trader will make about 10,640 per month on a Jump-2 route. If you want to assume a 90% occupancy rate, increase the above amounts by 1/9. No other changes to the Book 2 system are necessary. Note that you'll still have millionaire merchants to contend with...

--Ty

 

[Fritz_Brown]

OK, tbeard, I keep hearing you mention mustering out with several million credits. How exactly does this happen? In basic chargen, the max cash from a muster is 40kCr. And, there is a max of 3 rolls on the cash table.

If the issue is the Free Trader, there is no way (in CT, assuming no cheats on the rolls) he can garner a fully paid ship as a muster benefit.

Where is this obscenely rich character coming from? (I really would like to know as I've never managed to come up with one.... )

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
OK, tbeard, I keep hearing you mention mustering out with several million credits. How exactly does this happen? In basic chargen, the max cash from a muster is 40kCr. And, there is a max of 3 rolls on the cash table.

If the issue is the Free Trader, there is no way (in CT, assuming no cheats on the rolls) he can garner a fully paid ship as a muster benefit.

Where is this obscenely rich character coming from? (I really would like to know as I've never managed to come up with one.... )

Ask and ye shall receive.

A merchant character gets a starship when he musters out. Say he rolls a starship 3 times. This means he gets a 20 year old Free Trader with 20 years of payments left on it.

A used starship will lose about 10% of its value per year per the Book 2 guidelines, so this ship is worth 80% of its new value -- MCr37.4 x .8 = MCr29.8. However, the payoff on a starship at the end of year 20 is about MCr24.6. You can derive this by doing a present value calculation of the right to receive the monthly payment for 20 years. Or you can run an amortization schedule.

So the character can sell the starship and pay the bank off, therefore realizing a profit of as much as MCr5.2.

The problem gets much worse if he has 30 years paid off when mustering out. Then the ship is worth MCr26.1, but the payoff is only about MCr14. Profit potential is MCr12.

--Ty

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Ahhh. So, he can be a multimillionaire IFF he wants to stay grounded, or bum rides from another character. And, he has to make 3 6s on his muster after achieving rank 5 or 6 (at 1 promotion per term). He may be rich, but he's gonna be spending all that money on anagathics IMTU.

Seems one way to fix that is to give his ship a "reputation" of some kind. (Hey, why else would he be getting a ship with half the mortgage payments made? ) One of those "you couldn't pay me to take that ship..." reputations

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Ahhh. So, he can be a multimillionaire IFF he wants to stay grounded, or bum rides from another character. And, he has to make 3 6s on his muster after achieving rank 5 or 6 (at 1 promotion per term). He may be rich, but he's gonna be spending all that money on anagathics IMTU.

Seems one way to fix that is to give his ship a "reputation" of some kind. (Hey, why else would he be getting a ship with half the mortgage payments made? ) One of those "you couldn't pay me to take that ship..." reputations

Of course, Mcr5-12 will buy a *lot* of high passages. Heck, at a mere 5% interest rate, he can draw cr20,000 to cr50,000 per month in interest alone.

--Ty

 

[Fritz_Brown]

OK, so how many different characters can get rich:

1) Merchant has to roll a 6 (after he reaches rank 5 or 6) for each occurrence of Free Trader. At 1 rank per term, the max he can get (without a mandatory re-enlist) is three rolls (3 6s in a row. Hmmmmmm.......), so 50% ownership.

(BTW, a note: this may be IMTU, but I require the muster roll by term. So, you don't get the +1 on every roll, just the ones where you held the appropriate rank. Is this true IYTU? If not, it would be a partial fix for your above dilemna.)

2) Scouts could sell their ship.... But, I don't think most want the hassle that comes along afterward - lawyers, MoJ, IISS, etc. all looking for your behind, and you don't have a way off-planet, now.

3) A Noble could sell his yacht. But, he should have some money to start with, and he should be allowed to be rich. Of course, you should make him play like a Noble, too.

4) Pirates can get a ship. But, Corsairs should be difficult to resell.

5) Scientists can't sell their ships (who wants a ship that smells like funky chemicals, and has who knows what mutated beasties running through the wainscotting, anyway).

6) Belters wouldn't want to sell their ship. Until they make that lifetime strike. In which case, they are already rich, and will probably just buy a nice yacht, anyway.

7) Hunters would be the only problem. But, I wouldn't want to get rid of a Safari ship, as they're pretty .

Oh wait, all the folks except Merchant don't even get the benefit of a second roll for their ship - it counts as nothing.

Of course, all the Supp4 careers don't mention a mortgage (except Scientists, who don't actually own their ship), so its gonna have to be IYTU. (They only mention "possession".)

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
OK, so how many different characters can get rich:

1) Merchant has to roll a 6 (after he reaches rank 5 or 6) for each occurrence of Free Trader. At 1 rank per term, the max he can get (without a mandatory re-enlist) is three rolls (3 6s in a row. Hmmmmmm.......), so 50% ownership.

(BTW, a note: this may be IMTU, but I require the muster roll by term. So, you don't get the +1 on every roll, just the ones where you held the appropriate rank. Is this true IYTU? If not, it would be a partial fix for your above dilemna.)

2) Scouts could sell their ship.... But, I don't think most want the hassle that comes along afterward - lawyers, MoJ, IISS, etc. all looking for your behind, and you don't have a way off-planet, now.

3) A Noble could sell his yacht. But, he should have some money to start with, and he should be allowed to be rich. Of course, you should make him play like a Noble, too.

4) Pirates can get a ship. But, Corsairs should be difficult to resell.

5) Scientists can't sell their ships (who wants a ship that smells like funky chemicals, and has who knows what mutated beasties running through the wainscotting, anyway).

6) Belters wouldn't want to sell their ship. Until they make that lifetime strike. In which case, they are already rich, and will probably just buy a nice yacht, anyway.

7) Hunters would be the only problem. But, I wouldn't want to get rid of a Safari ship, as they're pretty .

Oh wait, all the folks except Merchant don't even get the benefit of a second roll for their ship - it counts as nothing.

Of course, all the Supp4 careers don't mention a mortgage (except Scientists, who don't actually own their ship), so its gonna have to be IYTU. (They only mention "possession".)

My comments did not include COTI characters, but as you note some of them can do even better! Still, merchants do okay because their starship is designed to make lots of money. But a Merchant coming out with a new Free Trader would only be a millionaire, not a multi-millionaire.

Pirates can make some bucks, though. Their Corsairs are worth MCr180, but COTI helpfully notes that they could only bring about 1/4 of that -- MCr45 million! And with no bank payment, it could carry 10 low passengers, 5 middle passengers and 160 tons of cargo per jump. A mighty cr400k per month of income! Of course, you could just invest the money and make nearly the same amount of profit off interest.

Hunters with a Safari Ship are well off as well -- MCr 69.

Belters aren't paupers -- MCr 20

My proposed economic system would mitigate a lot of the damage these characters could do to a campaign, seems to me. I'd also use the Merchant rules for payments (in the case of Pirates, they owe the money to Jabba the Hutt, Fat Tony or some other underworld figure...).

--Ty