How to address the problem of the numbers

[Carlobrand]

...
On the second point though.

Book 2

"The government may subsidize larger commercial vessels (built on type 600 hulls or larger), primarily to assure consistent service to specific worlds. These subsidized merchants are generally assigned a specific route connecting from 2 to 12 worlds of varying characteristics. The route will generally be determined before a subsidized merchant is purchased, to allow tailored design features as may be necessary. When a subsidized merchant is ordered, the character himself must make the 20% down payment, with the government assuming responsibility for the payments upon delivery, and taking 50% of the gross receipts of the ship while in service. The character is responsible for all expenses and costs of operation."

So the govt pays the bank repayments but takes 50% of the gross revenue.

My calcs (assuming full capacity and with no monthly bank payment) comes to roughly

cost: 197k
revenue: 369k
-> 50% revenue is 184.5k

so only a gap of roughly 12.5k a jump

That's without the bank payments - it's massive with the bank payments of course. I've probably missed something though. Will go look at Aramis' data again.

(I think the assumption of full capacity is reasonable on hub-hub runs like Glisten-Lunion or Glisten-Mora as it's both cheaper and faster on a J3.)

Ayup, subsidy.

Let's look at that. Assuming full capacity:

21 high passengers: 210k per trip
20 low passengers: 20k per trip
131 dTon cargo: 131k per trip
361K per trip, or 722k per month assuming two trips a 4-week month.
Gub'mint takes half, so 361k revenues for the (4-week) month

Costs:
Pilot at 6k per month
Navigator at 5k per month
3 Engineers, 2 at 4k, chief draws 10% bonus so 4.4k, 12.4k for the engineering department
3 Stewards, 2 at 3k, head draws 10% bonus so 3.3k, 9.3k for the purser department
Medic 2k (ok, he's technically purser department too)
Total crew salaries: 34.7k per month
Life support for 30 rooms, 2k per room per trip, 120k per month
Fuel, 30 dTon for the month plus 180 dTon per trip, at Cr500 per dTon, 195k per month
Mortgage is covered
Maintenance, 0.1% of base cost of MCr 245.97 (as amended in CT Errata) annually, pro rate over 25 trips, average 19,678 per month
TOTAL EXPENSES: Cr368,678

Revenue less expenses, assuming I crunched that right: -Cr7678 per month

One way to break even is to buy a fuel purification plant: Cr42,000 and 10.5 dTons at TL8, cheaper and smaller at higher tech levels, reduces cargo revenue by 21,000 credits a month but reduces fuel costs by 156,000 credits a month. In fact, you probably want to include that in the deal when you negotiate the mortgage: neither the government nor the bank should worry too much about such a small expense when it greatly improves your odds of completing the subsidy contract.

(And I think I discovered an error on the database I used for another post. Drat!)

 

[mike wightman]

Why carry the purification plant?

They are cheap enough to buy one for each world on the subsidy route.

 

[Enoki]

Why carry the purification plant?

They are cheap enough to buy one for each world on the subsidy route.

Then you have to either pay somebody to operate and keep it secure or you have to worry continuously that it might end up being looted / stolen by the locals.

 

[Carlobrand]

Why carry the purification plant?

They are cheap enough to buy one for each world on the subsidy route.

Then you have to either pay somebody to operate and keep it secure or you have to worry continuously that it might end up being looted / stolen by the locals.

Yup, what he said. If you can get a ground operation going for under Cr21,000 a month, then that's the route to go, but that involves hiring staff and renting space for each of your stops.

And if you're on subsidy, you may not be consistently filling your hold in the first place.

 

[salochin999]

Ayup, subsidy.

Let's look at that. Assuming full capacity:

21 high passengers: 210k per trip
20 low passengers: 20k per trip
131 dTon cargo: 131k per trip
361K per trip, or 722k per month assuming two trips a 4-week month.
Gub'mint takes half, so 361k revenues for the (4-week) month

Costs:
Pilot at 6k per month
Navigator at 5k per month
3 Engineers, 2 at 4k, chief draws 10% bonus so 4.4k, 12.4k for the engineering department
3 Stewards, 2 at 3k, head draws 10% bonus so 3.3k, 9.3k for the purser department
Medic 2k (ok, he's technically purser department too)
Total crew salaries: 34.7k per month
Life support for 30 rooms, 2k per room per trip, 120k per month
Fuel, 30 dTon for the month plus 180 dTon per trip, at Cr500 per dTon, 195k per month
Mortgage is covered
Maintenance, 0.1% of base cost of MCr 245.97 (as amended in CT Errata) annually, pro rate over 13 4-week periods, 18,921 per month
TOTAL EXPENSES: Cr367,921

Revenue less expenses, assuming I crunched that right: -Cr6921 per month

One way to break even is to buy a fuel purification plant: Cr42,000 and 10.5 dTons at TL8, cheaper and smaller at higher tech levels, reduces cargo revenue by 21,000 credits a month but reduces fuel costs by 156,000 credits a month. In fact, you probably want to include that in the deal when you negotiate the mortgage: neither the government nor the bank should worry too much about such a small expense when it greatly improves your odds of completing the subsidy contract.

(And I think I discovered an error on the database I used for another post. Drat!)

Cool it is close then. I was thinking of earmarking some cargo tonnage for speculative trade but whatever makes it a viable option..

I don't think I ever read the subsidy rules properly before.

That seems to fit then - Imperium subsidized J3 ships on hub-hub runs like Glisten-Lunion weighted towards passengers, where being faster and cheaper than the alternative make it likely they'd get full capacity of passengers each trip. Plus there's possibly a tonnage where the crew / engine etc numbers are optimal which might even make a profit.

I don't think it works for mostly freight but that's ok.

The Imperium gets in return
- ship mobilized to merchant marine in war time
- encourage trade between hubs*
- faster passenger service hub to hub
- sales tax?
- steer colonists and trade to frontier zones

(*Glisten-Lunion is around 20+ parsecs but only six jumps at J3 or 6,000 cr to ship a ton hub to hub, but a lot more at J2 or J1 so some commodities might only be profitable if sent this way e.g. ammunition, base 30k, say on average bought at 80% or 24k and on average sold at 120% or 36k at the other end -> 12k potential profit with 6k used up by shipping. The same commodity sent by J1 would have all the potential profit eaten up by shipping costs.)

So a chain of J3 space stations between hubs is viable again.

edit:

just to stress, the condition of needing full capacity of high passage passengers ideally going the full journey would limit this to those systems that would have a lot of high passengers imo so makes it perfect for hub-hub ships.

#

The key here is the two costs: 1) the cost to the ship operator and 2) the cost to the shipper. A J1 has lower operating costs for each jump so in trading planet to planet it wins but in hub to hub trade over multiple jumps the J3 wins because J1 takes 24 jumps to get from Glisten to Lunion adding 24k per ton to the shipping costs to the shipper while the j3 takes six jumps and only adds 6k - but the J3 can only do that if it can make money for itself also and it looks like the subsidy rule is how it could be done.


J3s out compete J1s in shipping costs over multiple jumps if they can somehow make money

 

[Carlobrand]

Cool it is close then. I was thinking of earmarking some cargo tonnage for speculative trade but whatever makes it a viable option. ...

I would note that the analysis presumes we're stuck at the Cr1000 per dTon cargo rule. If we allow prices to float, then the ship may be able to make a profit by charging Cr1500/dTon. However, there's also an argument that raising the rate may reduce the cargo available by a bit, since the higher price may make some cargoes unprofitable to ship that weren't before. Needless to say, we don't have rules on that.

(On the other hand, if you're a subsidized liner, the subsidizing agency may restrict you from raising your rates above Cr1000, since the whole point of subsidizing you was to encourage trade.)

 

[salochin999]

I would note that the analysis presumes we're stuck at the Cr1000 per dTon cargo rule. If we allow prices to float, then the ship may be able to make a profit by charging Cr1500/dTon. However, there's also an argument that raising the rate may reduce the cargo available by a bit, since the higher price may make some cargoes unprofitable to ship that weren't before. Needless to say, we don't have rules on that.

(On the other hand, if you're a subsidized liner, the subsidizing agency may restrict you from raising your rates above Cr1000, since the whole point of subsidizing you was to encourage trade.)

Yes indeed. I think there's a lot of good reasons to change a lot of it - and I will personally - but it's good having as much of a common foundation as possible as I think that's good for the game.

#

my current thinking on the "scenery" after all this is

1) The distance effect on trade would turn the nearby hinterland around each major hub into a cluster imo and these clusters would be the real honey pots of Imperium space with lots of short distance trade involving swarms of mostly J1 ships, big and small but defaulting to 5k where appropriate, going to and fro around the cluster hub.

2) Firefly type space around the edges of the clusters and in between them with lots of Free and Far Traders and some Type Rs here and there.

3) Each cluster then forms a higher tier hub for a ribbon of long distance J3 trade going hub to hub following specific routes determined by the subsidized routes (as they will have facilities and protection along the route). So trade going Overnale to Glisten, Glisten to Lunion, Lunion to Capon rather than Overnale to Capon

The trade model has inverted from what i was imagining initially to become swarms of short distance ships in the individual clusters and ribbons of long distance ships hub to hub.

 

[rancke]

Critical parts of the trade rules apply to long distance trade patterns i.e.

1) only high value goods can be profitably transported long distances
2) this distance is modified by favorable or unfavorable purchase and resale DMs

1) And since a lot of the entries in the CT Merchant Game tables have low base values, they don't work for long distance trade.

2) Fluctuations become less and less important compared to transportation costs the longer the trade route.

(*Glisten-Lunion is around 20+ parsecs but only six jumps at J3 or 6,000 cr to ship a ton hub to hub, but a lot more at J2 or J1 so some commodities might only be profitable if sent this way e.g. ammunition, base 30k, say on average bought at 80% or 24k and on average sold at 120% or 36k at the other end -> 12k potential profit with 6k used up by shipping. The same commodity sent by J1 would have all the potential profit eaten up by shipping costs.)

Of course, such mundane commodities as ammunition wouldn't fluctuate in value to that extent. A tramp trader might luck into a seller on Glisten that got stuck with far too much and is willing to sell at 80%, but the likelihood of lucking into a world-wide dearth of ammunition on Lunion is practically non-existent. No, scratch the qualifier. It's non-existent.

Especially since Lunion's regular ammunition importers will be getting their TL15 ammunition from Mora, 13 J1s away. And buying at wholesale prices (somewhere around 50% of base price), which is what enables them to sell for base price¹ in the first place.

¹ Plus transportation, of course.​

A trade model for tramp trading just doesn't work for regular traffic.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

1) And since a lot of the entries in the CT Merchant Game tables have low base values, they don't work for long distance trade.

Yes hence the inversion of the trading model
- "dense" short distance trade in the clusters
- "thin" ribbons of high value trade long distance

2) Fluctuations become less and less important compared to transportation costs the longer the trade route.

Yes, which increases the distance effect.

Of course, such mundane commodities as ammunition wouldn't fluctuate in value to that extent. A tramp trader might luck into a seller that got stuck with far too much and is willing to sell at 80%, but the likelihood of lucking into a world-wide dearth of ammunition on Lunion is practically non-existent. No, scratch the qualifier. It's non-existent.

Yes, which increases the distance effect.

Especially since Lunion's regular ammunition importers will be getting their TL15 ammunition from Mora, 13 J1s away. And buying at wholesale prices (somewhere around 50% of base price), which is what enables them to sell for base price¹ in the first place.

Yep, another limit on long distance trade.

A trade model for tramp trading just doesn't work for regular traffic.

It's not a tramp model. It's a profit margin - distance model. As you say the regular traffic loses a lot of the randomness of the tramp model - which increases the significance of distance and shipping costs.

#

Imo the modern day earth trading model only fits the Traveller OTU in the hub-hinterland clusters. The long distance trade model is more like the Age of Sail model.

Lunion and Strouden in the Lunion cluster are the equivalent of modern day China and America not Lunion and Glisten. Lunion and Glisten are more like China and America in the Age of sail.

(Simply because operating costs don't scale with higher jump values - they get worse with higher jump values.)

(Only if you want the OTU to be compatible with CT. If you don't then it doesn't matter.)

Personally I prefer the way it has come out as it gives the space more geography. For example if you figure out the cluster boundaries then if your players cross from Firefly space into cluster space they might suddenly start seeing a lot more ships and naval vessels.

A player ship arriving in a system on one of the long distance routes might see a steady stream of ships arriving and then heading from their entry jump point to the space station orbiting the gas giant and a second stream leaving the station and moving away from it to their exit jump point.

Out in the sticks they might see just one Free Trader or nothing at all.

 

[rancke]

It's not a tramp model.

Yes it is. Prices don't normally fluctuate from week to week on the scale they do in the Merchant Game. Nor is available goods normally limited to one kind each week. Nor are goods normally limited in quantity the way they are in the MG.

Note that there are occasional exceptions, but they are just that, occasional.

Regular trade mostly consists of a company contracting to buy a specified amount of goods on a regular basis, shipping it to a known market, and selling them at a fairly constant price. Again, there are exceptions, but regular trade tends to be regular.

Even when a regular company engages in tramp trade, the business model is different. They have factors on each of their worlds who buy when prices are low and warehouse it until a company ship comes along to fetch it. That does involve price fluctuations, but they seldom, if ever, range from 40 to 400%.

Regular importers also compete with other regular importers, which tend to damp out (and reduce) profit fluctuations.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Yes it is. Prices don't normally fluctuate from week to week on the scale they do in the Merchant Game. Nor is available goods normally limited to one kind each week. Nor are goods normally limited in quantity the way they are in the MG.

Note that there are occasional exceptions, but they are just that, occasional.

Regular trade mostly consists of a company contracting to buy a specified amount of goods on a regular basis, shipping it to a known market, and selling them at a fairly constant price. Again, there are exceptions, but regular trade tends to be regular.

Even when a regular company engages in tramp trade, the business model is different. They have factors on each of their worlds who buy when prices are low and warehouse it until a company ship comes along to fetch it. That does involve price fluctuations, but they seldom, if ever, range from 40 to 400%.

Regular importers also compete with other regular importers, which tend to damp out (and reduce) profit fluctuations.


Hans

Hans is right. It looks more like spot-trading. Most of your cargo transport is cargo from companies that are either filling orders made weeks or months before or companies shipping cargo that they will sell out of their own off-world subsidiaries, reaping the profits themselves. Those companies plan far in advance and depend on predictions of long-term market behavior, not on week-to-week fluctuations. Think of the train and ship companies shipping autos from here to there: the autos either go to some fleet buyer or some auto dealership with an arrangement with the auto manufacturer. It isn't train companies buying cars in Detroit and hoping to make a profit off them in Mexico City. The model you're using, buying at 80% and selling at 120%, looks more like the old Spice Trade.

 

[salochin999]

Yes it is. Prices don't normally fluctuate from week to week on the scale they do in the Merchant Game. Nor is available goods normally limited to one kind each week. Nor are goods normally limited in quantity the way they are in the MG.

Note that there are occasional exceptions, but they are just that, occasional.

Regular trade mostly consists of a company contracting to buy a specified amount of goods on a regular basis, shipping it to a known market, and selling them at a fairly constant price. Again, there are exceptions, but regular trade tends to be regular.

Even when a regular company engages in tramp trade, the business model is different. They have factors on each of their worlds who buy when prices are low and warehouse it until a company ship comes along to fetch it. That does involve price fluctuations, but they seldom, if ever, range from 40 to 400%.

Regular importers also compete with other regular importers, which tend to damp out (and reduce) profit fluctuations.


Hans

The model is: (profit margin x base value) - distance

The profit margin is a percentage of the base value and so is proportional to the base value.

If you define the average profit margin to be 40% then the value of that profit margin on
- commodity A of base value 1000 is 400
- commodity B of base value 10,00 is 4000
- commodity C of base value 100,000 is 40,000


So if the profit margin is a proportion of a commodity's base value and if the shipping costs increase by distance then low value goods won't be traded long distances (unless subsidized).


The same model is always going to apply.

The difference between the modern day version of this model and the age of sail version is that shipping costs were much higher then so only high value goods were shipped.

Which is where it connects to Traveller.

If ship operating costs were cheaper or linear over higher jump ships then you'd get a dense pattern of trade all over (which from what people have said seems to be what GURPs generates). However if ship operating costs are expensive and not linear i.e. the costs go up with higher jump ships, then you'd get dense clusters of short distance trade connected by ribbons of long distance trade.

 

[rancke]

The model is: (profit margin x base value) - distance.

That's like saying that the model is buy low, sell high. It's true, but it's true of all models, so it fails to account for the differences. It is, for instance, true even if there are no fluctuations at all ("We buy quillnips for 60 credits per crate on Regina, take them to Efate, and sell them for 125 credits per crate. As did my father before me and his mother before him.")

Which is where it connects to Traveller.

If ship operating costs were cheaper or linear over higher jump ships then you'd get a dense pattern of trade all over (which from what people have said seems to be what GURPs generates). However if ship operating costs are expensive and not linear i.e. the costs go up with higher jump ships, then you'd get dense clusters of short distance trade connected by ribbons of long distance trade.

Differences of transportation costs will affect what kind of ships carry the goods, but the distances the goods travel and the worlds the trade is between depends on supply and demand and will go by the cheapest route. Which means that the goods going from the near side of one of your trade hubs to the near side of another wouldn't add extra jumps to get to the hubs first; they'll go as directly as they can.

That is, unless shipping by big ships is substantially cheaper than shipping by small ships. Then you may get the pattern you're talking about, provided the savings on the hub-to-hub ships is enough to compensate for the extra jumps added to the journey.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

Going back to the original question of how many merchant ships.

If the trade ratings GURPS assigns are based off the world stats then I assume they could still be used as a foundation.

The key difference (if you want to go with Aramis' data) would be the distance cost - with a base cost per parsec where J1 is possible and a higher cost per parsec where a J2 or J3 is needed.

That would get you a different trade pattern to the GURPS one with the same base data.

If GURPS provides a tonnage estimate with the calculated end result then it might be good to go. The only difference might be reversing any tonnage / value assumptions i.e. short distance = bigger ships, long distance = smaller ships.

(So say after re-jigging the distance costs you used GURPs to calculate Glisten's hub-hinterland trade at x dtons and Glisten's hub-hub trade with Mora, Lunion and Trin collectively also at x dtons then the distribution of that tonnage might vary even if it came to the same total.)

#

For example if GURPS says one system has a value of 8 and four systems each two parsecs away and each with a value of 4 then :

a) if you add the bilateral values and subtract 0.5 per parsec then you'd get four lots of 11.

b) if you add the bilateral values and subtract 1.0 per parsec then you'd get four lots of 10.

c) if you take the smaller of the two - on the assumption it has to balance - and a cost of 1.0 per parsec each smaller system would have a final value of 2 and the bigger system 16 (8 + four lots of 2).

Then see if the values generated seem about right.

 

[salochin999]

That's like saying that the model is buy low, sell high. It's true, but it's true of all models[/I])

Yes, except the fuller version is buy low, add shipping costs, sell high.

The key difference between the way this universal model works today and how the same model worked in the Age of Sail is shipping costs. Aramis' data speak to the shipping costs and they imply the hub-hinterland clusters are closer to today's version of the model but cluster-cluster is more like the Age of Sail version.

Differences of transportation costs will affect what kind of ships carry the goods, but the distances the goods travel and the worlds the trade is between depends on supply and demand

And given any value of supply and demand the shipping costs will also act as a filter on which goods can be shipped profitably. If shipping costs 10k a ton then a commodity that can only be sold for a max of 2k a ton cannot be profitably shipped.

and will go by the cheapest route. Which means that the goods going from the near side of one of your trade hubs to the near side of another wouldn't add extra jumps to get to the hubs first; they'll go as directly as they can.

Not when you consider there are *two* cost equations that need to be solved simultaneously.

1) The operating cost equation
2) The shipper's cost equation

A 20 jump J1 route solves the operating cost equation easily but it adds 20k to the shipper's cost equation (or c. 12-14k if you ignore the 1000cr rule and say it's operating cost plus a profit).

A 6 jump J3 route doesn't solve the operating cost equation but it only adds 6K to the shipper's cost equation.

Hence why subsidizing the J3 routes - solving the operating cost equation - increases trade.

It's potentially cheaper (and faster) for a shipper to use the J3 route to the hub and then a J1 from the hub.

That is, unless shipping by big ships is substantially cheaper than shipping by small ships. Then you may get the pattern you're talking about, provided the savings on the hub-to-hub ships is enough to compensate for the extra jumps added to the journey.

Other way round.

 

[rancke]

Yes, except the fuller version is buy low, add shipping costs, sell high.

Still applies to all models.

The key difference between the way this universal model works today and how the same model worked in the Age of Sail is shipping costs. Aramis' data speak to the shipping costs and they imply the hub-hinterland clusters are closer to today's version of the model but cluster-cluster is more like the Age of Sail version.

I thought Aramis' data showed that (for Book 2 ships) J2 and J3 is more expensive than J1.

And given any value of supply and demand the shipping costs will also act as a filter on which goods can be shipped profitably. If shipping costs 10k a ton then a commodity that can only be sold for a max of 2k a ton cannot be profitably shipped.

Of course. Again, that applies to all models. If purchase price+transportation is less than resale value, it cannot be profitable shipped. That goes without saying.

A 20 jump J1 route solves the operating cost equation easily but it adds 20k to the shipper's cost equation (or c. 12-14k if you ignore the 1000cr rule and say it's operating cost plus a profit).

Oh, I do.

A 6 jump J3 route doesn't solve the operating cost equation but it only adds 6K to the shipper's cost equation.

But since each J3 actually costs Cr3,600 (or whatever it is Aramis' data says), the 6 jump J3 route adds Cr21,600 to the shipper's cost equation.

Hence why subsidizing the J3 routes - solving the operating cost equation - increases trade.

Ah, you're talking about artificial interference with the market. But why stop there, then? A planetary goverment can certainly afford to subsidize a bit of interstellar trade, but why would it? Or rather, there are scores of reasons why a government might want to subsidize a segment of its population, but it's highly unlikely that all governments will want to subsidize the same segment from end of the Imperium to the other.

Why not subsidize J6 travel instead?

It's potentially cheaper (and faster) for a shipper to use the J3 route to the hub and then a J1 from the hub.

But only if the subsidy applies to J3 traffic along the hub-to-hub route and not to the J3 traffic elsewhere. Otherwise it would be even cheaper (and faster) to go directly from origin to destination in J3 ships.

Say you have two hubs lying 18 parsecs apart and two worlds, each lying two parsecs from one of the hubs, 14 parsecs apart. As I understand it, you're proposing that instead of doing 14 J1 jumps from one to the other, the route goes two J1 to the nearest hub, 6 J3 from hub to hub, and finally two J1 from the second hub to the final destination.

Assuming J3 is 20% more expensive than three J1, the hub route will cost the same as 25.6 J1s. As opposed to 14 J1.

I don't see the sense in that. The hub route will be 4 jumps faster than the direct route, but the added cost is rather daunting. Especially since, if speed is a concern, a direct five J3 route will get there 5 jumps faster still at a cost of only 18 J1.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

Still applies to all models.

I know. I've been saying it.

I thought Aramis' data showed that (for Book 2 ships) J2 and J3 is more expensive than J1.

Yes, that's why there's a disconnect between the two cost equations.

1) Higher jump numbers make them cheaper for the cargo owner.

2) Higher jump numbers have higher operating costs (cost per ton per parsec) making them more expensive for the ship owner.

So take Efate-Regina, 6 parsecs and Aramis' data (IIRC) of c. 500cr cpp for a J1 and c. 1000cr cpp for a J3.

Rules as written:
The J1 can charge 6k for the six jumps. The J3 2000cr.

Variable shipping costs:
The J1 breaks even at 3000cr for the trip. The J3 breaks even at 6000cr.

So either way the J1 wins. With rules as written the J3 is preferred by the cargo owners but the J3 goes bust. With varying shipping costs the J1 can outbid the J3 unless the cargo owner is willing to pay a time premium.

On the other hand if the J3's operating costs are subsidized then the operator can stay in business and out compete the J1 for the Efate-Regina cargos (but only up to the subsidized tonnage). J1s get the rest.

Of course. Again, that applies to all models. If purchase price+transportation is less than resale value, it cannot be profitable shipped. That goes without saying.

I know. I've been sayingit.

Oh, I do.

Then if your J3s do the same with their almost double cpp they'd be charging 24-28k for the same trip so they can't compete without a subsidy.

But since each J3 actually costs Cr3,600 (or whatever it is Aramis' data says), the 6 jump J3 route adds Cr21,600 to the shipper's cost equation.

Which is why the 1000cr rule and the subsidy between them make J3s viable.

Ah, you're talking about artificial interference with the market.

The clue is in the word "subsidized" merchant.

But why stop there, then?

The exercise was to see if the Book 2 rules could be made to make sense. They can.

A planetary goverment can certainly afford to subsidize a bit of interstellar trade, but why would it? Or rather, there are scores of reasons why a government might want to subsidize a segment of its population, but it's highly unlikely that all governments will want to subsidize the same segment from end of the Imperium to the other.

Make the "government" in question be the Imperium then you only need one set of reasons.

Why not subsidize J6 travel instead?

You can do if you want. I was trying to figure out if the rules as written could be made to make sense.

But only if the subsidy applies to J3 traffic along the hub-to-hub route and not to the J3 traffic elsewhere. Otherwise it would be even cheaper (and faster) to go directly from origin to destination in J3 ships.

Sure. The Book 2 subsidy rules just say a fixed route of from 2-12 systems they don't specify where. However as making a profit with a Book 2 subsidized merchant seems to require lots of high passage passengers then the profitable routes require high passenger demand. So any route that could guarantee that level of demand might work. I stress the hub-hub routes as I imagine they could possibly support hundreds of subsidized merchant liners.

Say you have two hubs lying 18 parsecs apart and two worlds, each lying two parsecs from one of the hubs, 14 parsecs apart. As I understand it, you're proposing that instead of doing 14 J1 jumps from one to the other, the route goes two J1 to the nearest hub, 6 J3 from hub to hub, and finally two J1 from the second hub to the final destination.

Assuming J3 is 20% more expensive than three J1, the hub route will cost the same as 25.6 J1s. As opposed to 14 J1.

I don't see the sense in that.

I wouldn't either but Aramis' figures show the J3 has double the cpp of a J1 so the operating cost would be 200% more expensive rather than 20%.

Again, there are two cost equations: the ship owner's and the cargo owner's, and two options, rules as written or not.

1) With rules as written - subsidized merchants and the 1000cr cargo rule - J3s work (along the specified routes).

2) With varying cargo prices J3s don't work (without premium pricing for speed) because the difference in cpp is so big. They might work on subsidized routes if that brings the operating costs down low enough (but I doubt it as the numbers for the Type M don't work as a freighter only as a (mostly) liner.

 

[salochin999]

Hans is right. It looks more like spot-trading. Most of your cargo transport is cargo from companies that are either filling orders made weeks or months before or companies shipping cargo that they will sell out of their own off-world subsidiaries, reaping the profits themselves. Those companies plan far in advance and depend on predictions of long-term market behavior, not on week-to-week fluctuations. Think of the train and ship companies shipping autos from here to there: the autos either go to some fleet buyer or some auto dealership with an arrangement with the auto manufacturer. It isn't train companies buying cars in Detroit and hoping to make a profit off them in Mexico City. The model you're using, buying at 80% and selling at 120%, looks more like the old Spice Trade.

I was using the Book 2 rules and commodity prices to illustrate the point that only high value goods can be profitably traded long distance. However it seems to have done the opposite so I'll skip it.

 

[salochin999]

Anyway...

I think the type M can be made profitable by

2 tons of reserved fire control to cargo space
adding a turret (using the 3rd reserved ton)
adding a gunner
using 5 tons of cargo for mail
swapping 16 tons of cargo for another 4 state rooms (already have 3 stewards so might as well have 24 passengers)

so that's +2 and -21 tons of cargo = -19k revenue/trip
+1000cr cost gunner/month
+ 8k life support cost/trip
+25k revenue for mail/trip
+30k revenue passengers (+40 -10 for the gunner's state room) /trip

so +36k gross revenue / trip or +72k/month (half to govt.)
revenue +36k / month to operator
costs +17k/month
= +19k/month

(roughly)

#

There's probably an optimal size for subsidized merchant and I might try and work it out one day but for now with rules as written the Type Ms can *potentially* work along subsidized routes with enough passenger demand to be full.

I don't see these as player ships personally - although I guess they could be - for me it's more about having a clear idea of the "scenery" of the OTU.

 

[Aramais]

Was there a set of trade route maps on the wiki? I have, alas, mislaid the link.