• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

How to address the problem of the numbers

Query: Is T5 second survey data different from GURPS data? Will it mean that the map is no longer completely applicable to the GURPS setting, or are there any plans to make the thing so a person could switch between pre-second-survey and post-second survey data?

T5 Second Survey attempts to correct some of the more absurd outcomes of the earlier system generation. Specifically worlds with size 4 or smaller and a real atmosphere (2+) all got upgraded to size 5.I know that many worlds got a downgrade of either population or TL or both. And there were some other changes in sectors not explicitly detailed to generate better data (e.g. Delphi got a good redo for example). Overall there is a broad swath of small to moderate changes throughout all of the published sectors. (I.e. all of the Imperium).

If you look at the T5 Second Survey as errata, it means the existing GURPS books should be fixed. But beyond that there are no large scale difference that should cause campaign invalidation.
 
...Per ton of freight shifted. ...

That's what I don't get. I'm as familiar as any of us with the rules of thumb, but I see a table of per parsecs costs to operate that says a J1 ship takes a 1 and a J2 ship takes a 0.6, and I know a J2 ship isn't cheaper on a one-parsec jump. This table means - cost to operate at their maximum jump range?

Aramis is a master with the tables. I know he did one evaluating cost and profitability, and I remember one that did jump ranges, but I'll be danged if I can find them. I wish he'd put that stuff in the reference library.
 
That's what I don't get. I'm as familiar as any of us with the rules of thumb, but I see a table of per parsecs costs to operate that says a J1 ship takes a 1 and a J2 ship takes a 0.6, and I know a J2 ship isn't cheaper on a one-parsec jump. This table means - cost to operate at their maximum jump range?
Yes. J1 is obviously cheaper than J2 across one parsec. But J2 is cheaper per parsec across two parsecs (and twice as fast). So if you want to ship something one parsec, you send it in a J1 ship. But if you want to ship it two parsecs, you send it on a J2 ship, because that's cheaper than sending it on a J1 ship. And if you want to ship something 3 parsecs, you send it by J3 ship, becaue that's cheaper than sending it by J1 ship and also cheaper than sending it by J2 ship and transshipping to a J1 ship for the second leg.

Now, what may be controversial is whether you send something by J3+J3 or by J2+J2+J2 if you want to ship it six parsecs (astrography permitting both options).


Hans
 
Last edited:
Okay, here's some data Aramis worked up regarding operating costs for Book 2:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=27116&highlight=jump+cost+table

and Book 5
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=342050#post342050

I think they're operating costs per ton of cargo space, but I'm not sure; I'll have to have him explain them.

If I understand them right, under Book 2 the jump-2 cargo haulers are only profitable in the 3000 dTon and up range, and there are no profitable cargo haulers for higher jump - assuming the standard freight fee. Book 5, there was no profit above jump-1 in the standard freight rates. The classic argument for maintaining trade was that the haulers were in fact speculators, buying the cargo outright and hoping to take profit at the delivery world, ergo the trade economy would only see cargo that had a profit potential above those numbers getting shipped.

It was in fact a good argument for scrapping the Book-2 cost structure (or assuming they only described the situation as seen by players in jump-1 ships), since - barring regulation imposing such cost or some other such constraint on trade - someone would eventually show up and say, "Hey, I'll ship your stuff for X credits to the ton and let you take the profit if you'll guarantee me a steady flow of cargo." One way or the other though, it does set an effective bottom for shipping costs and might be useful for comparing with GURPS.

He also did one once for Mongoose:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=341923#post341923
 
That's what I don't get. I'm as familiar as any of us with the rules of thumb, but I see a table of per parsecs costs to operate that says a J1 ship takes a 1 and a J2 ship takes a 0.6, and I know a J2 ship isn't cheaper on a one-parsec jump. This table means - cost to operate at their maximum jump range?

Aramis is a master with the tables. I know he did one evaluating cost and profitability, and I remember one that did jump ranges, but I'll be danged if I can find them. I wish he'd put that stuff in the reference library.

I copied all the CT tables into a reference thread. Note that the originals are still where they were; reference threads cannot be posted to, (Even I don't get a post button)... I did make note that you requested the migration in the top of the new thread.
 
That's what I don't get. I'm as familiar as any of us with the rules of thumb, but I see a table of per parsecs costs to operate that says a J1 ship takes a 1 and a J2 ship takes a 0.6, and I know a J2 ship isn't cheaper on a one-parsec jump. This table means - cost to operate at their maximum jump range?

Aramis is a master with the tables. I know he did one evaluating cost and profitability, and I remember one that did jump ranges, but I'll be danged if I can find them. I wish he'd put that stuff in the reference library.

The table above in this thread is simply the relative costs of cargo as a multipler of the cost for J1. Not prices to charge mind you, but the operational costs, counting standard mortgage, expressed as a multiple of the cost of a J1 ship's cost per cargo ton, given the cheapest shipping method available.

For purposes of adjusting the GTFT methodology, we need to know these multiples for GT ships. All the numbers were done using standard crewing, with a basic box, plus 1 turret to enable mail, and nothing but minimum computer, M1, J(whichever), standard fuel, and only staterooms for crew.

Note that I don't use GURPS nor T5, so I've never looked hard at the numbers, and haven't built the needed ship worksheet to crank the big list of ships needed for the analysis.

We can then look at which editions have a lower slope (and thus longer range) and which have higher slope (and thus shorter ranges), for the distance computation, without having to actually know what the formula they used was... we just average the non-J1 entries for each edition, and divide the ranges for each modifier step by the relative slope (edition/GT), and then round to make the needed steps.

For use with T5, we probably also should add a factor from Importance...
 
The problem is that the numbers don't match between any two editions. Even in CT, the costs per ton are different between '77 and '81 editions... and HG is a totally different set of numbers. In a mixed Bk2/HG universe, per parsec, 5000Td J1 is the cheapest way to go; even TL15 HG designs cannot compete. The 2000Td J6 Bk2 is cheaper than the 50KTd HG one... So you get hiccups. (I was mistaken about the 800Td being the cheapest in CT. That's for the MGT core book, and was a math error in the spreadsheet, now fixed.)

Since the relative price varies widely between editions (both in terms of ROI and in terms of cost per ton per parsec), any set of routing maps are going to be only vaguely suggestive of other versions. The Closest to each other will be "pure HG CT", HeroTrav and T20 - because all use the same HG design system baseline.

So any set of routes is only going to be relevant to the game iteration, and the economics, of a particular tech set which defines the numbers for that version/setting? Is it possible to have a set of generic trade maps, with route profitability for hull size varying from version to version? Could we have the same routes marked on a map, but list some of them as profitable for vessels between X and Y dTons?
 
So any set of routes is only going to be relevant to the game iteration, and the economics, of a particular tech set which defines the numbers for that version/setting? Is it possible to have a set of generic trade maps, with route profitability for hull size varying from version to version? Could we have the same routes marked on a map, but list some of them as profitable for vessels between X and Y dTons?

Only one set of routes can be true for any one universe. I will repeat my suggstion of using GT figures to establish trade and passenger volumes (because that's the only system we have), then draw routes based on the rules of thumb that I posted earlier:

1) On one-parsec routes J1 ships are cheapest.

2) On longer routes J2 and J3 in whatever combination makes for the smallest number of jumps (2: J2; 3: J3; 4: J2+J2; 5: J2+J3; 6: J3+J3; etc., etc.) are cheapest.

3) For passenger lines and where using it will reduce the number of jumps, J4 is competitive.

4) Sometimes other considerations than cost can affect the solution. Example: On a J4+J3 route, a J4 ship may service both legs of the route, jumping short on the J3 leg, if enough passengers appreciate the convenience of not having to transship at the intermediate world.​
And I'll add one more:

5) Special conditions will apply to individual worlds. For example, Yori exports a great deal of salt over and about the average trade figures and Alell has a lot of extra tourists.​

Hans
 
For purposes of adjusting the GTFT methodology, we need to know these multiples for GT ships. All the numbers were done using standard crewing, with a basic box, plus 1 turret to enable mail, and nothing but minimum computer, M1, J(whichever), standard fuel, and only staterooms for crew.

I wrote this up last night, but the combination of the CotI tokens and Firefox ate it.

The costs for running a ship are in GT:Starships, p. 27. They include the following:

* Ongoing Maintenance Spare parts: 0.1% original ship cost per year
* Annual Maintenance: 0.1% original cost per year
* Fuel : Cr 350 / dton refined, Cr 50/dton unrefined.
* Salaries: Cr1120 / person per month, plus Cr200 per month for Captain and other section heads.
* Fresh Food for passengers and Crew (Cr6 to Cr60 per person per week).

I built a series of 200Dton tramp freigher at each of the J1 - J6 drives, with the other standards given above.

JumpCost (MCr)Cargo (Dtons)Maint/jumpCrew SalariesFuelCost/jumpCost/DTon
J127.9148Cr2232Cr3460Cr7000Cr12692Cr86
J236.6127Cr2928Cr3460Cr14000Cr20388Cr160
J345.9105Cr3672Cr3460Cr21000Cr28132Cr268
J454.584Cr4360Cr3460Cr28000Cr35280Cr426
J563.263Cr5056Cr3460Cr35000Cr43516Cr690
J672.641Cr5808Cr3406Cr42,000Cr51,268Cr1250
 
5) Special conditions will apply to individual worlds. For example, Yori exports a great deal of salt over and about the average trade figures and Alell has a lot of extra tourists.

If you're going to insist this be taken into account, the basic UWP data file needs to have the special conditions included. Please recommend an extension to the trade codes which you think would satisfy your requirements.

For example: "EX:7" -> The export trade largely consists of one type of goods and the average cost of exports is (Cr7,000) vs (Cr10,000 to Cr50,000). The will affect the volume of trade.

"BT:1", "BT:-1" -> There is a special case of additional or reduced volume of trade to and from this world. Apply the modifier / 2 to the WTN for this world.

"PG:1", "PG:-1" -> There is a special case of additional or reduced number of passengers to and from the world. Apply the modifier / 2 to the Passenger WTN for this world.
 
JumpCost (MCr)Cargo (Dtons)Maint/jumpCrew SalariesFuelCost/jumpCost/DTon
J127.9148Cr2232Cr3460Cr7000Cr12692Cr86
J236.6127Cr2928Cr3460Cr14000Cr20388Cr160
J345.9105Cr3672Cr3460Cr21000Cr28132Cr268
J454.584Cr4360Cr3460Cr28000Cr35280Cr426
J563.263Cr5056Cr3460Cr35000Cr43516Cr690
J672.641Cr5808Cr3406Cr42,000Cr51,268Cr1250

Which gives us the following relative cost multipliers (but note that GTFT changes the maintenance.)

SystemJ1J2J3J4J5J6
GT Core Relative per Jn11.863.124.958.0214.53
GT Core $ per Pc868089.33106.5138208.33
GT Core Relative per Pc10.931.041.241.62.42

Actually, those are WRONG... you forgot Mortgage... which GT specifies as 1/240 of purchase price. I'll add them.

Also, you should have labelled those as $ for clarity... the GURPS $ isn't the same purchasing power as the OTU CrImp; it's stronger by about 40%...

Counting Mortgage....
JumpCost (MCr)Cargo (Dtons)Maint/jumpCrew SalariesFuelMortgageCost/jumpCost/DTonCost/PcCost/Pc/DTonRelative Ton-PcRelative, Ton
J127.91482325346070005812570910479.1270910479.1211
J236.612730503460140007625096760761.8948380380.940.81.59
J345.91053825346021000956251239101180.141303.33393.370.822.46
J454.5844541.67346028000113541.67149543.341780.2837385.84445.070.933.72
J563.2635266.67346035000131666.67175393.342784.0235078.67556.81.165.81
J672.64160503460420001512502027604945.3733793.33824.231.7210.32

Remember: in GT, the Mortgage is still the #1 cost...

Which gives us the following:
SystemJ1J2J3J4J5J6
Bk2-81:1.00.70.60.81.21.7
Bk2-77:1.00.70.60.70.41.2
HG-TL15:10.840.91.091.512.73
MGT:1.001.001.201.602.7013.70
GT Core10.80.820.931.161.72
Bk2-7711.321.892.772.227.29
Bk2-8111.341.953.015.7710.02
HG11.692.74.367.5716.38
MGT1.002.003.506.3013.6082.40
GT Core11.592.463.725.8110.32
[tc=7]Minimums per parsec[/tc] [tc=7][/tc] [tc=7]Per Jump N[/tc]

It's close enough to be valid for Bk2-'81 universes as well... but not for Bk5 ones, and thus not T20, either. It's a bit short for Bk2-77 universes....

Edit: Fixing the mortgage where I got it Wrong
 
Last edited:
Actually, those are WRONG... you forgot Mortgage... which GT specifies as 1/240 of purchase price. I'll add them.
I realized that shortly after posting this, but I'm not as quick at updating my message. And Dinner needed to happen.

Remember: in GT, the Mortgage is still the #1 cost...

Followed quickly by fuel costs. Adding a fuel purifier seems like a small cost to pay (at least in the GT universe) for the cost difference between refined fuel and unrefined fuel.
 
I realized that shortly after posting this, but I'm not as quick at updating my message. And Dinner needed to happen.



Followed quickly by fuel costs. Adding a fuel purifier seems like a small cost to pay (at least in the GT universe) for the cost difference between refined fuel and unrefined fuel.

It wasn't a hard fix, anyway...

And dinner is a good thing. I wonder what ours is going to be...

It's rather interesting to note that the GT numbers look very close to Bk 2.
 
I wrote this up last night, but the combination of the CotI tokens and Firefox ate it.

The costs for running a ship are in GT:Starships, p. 27. They include the following:

* Ongoing Maintenance Spare parts: 0.1% original ship cost per year
* Annual Maintenance: 0.1% original cost per year
* Fuel : Cr 350 / dton refined, Cr 50/dton unrefined.
* Salaries: Cr1120 / person per month, plus Cr200 per month for Captain and other section heads.
* Fresh Food for passengers and Crew (Cr6 to Cr60 per person per week).

I built a series of 200Dton tramp freigher at each of the J1 - J6 drives, with the other standards given above.

JumpCost (MCr)Cargo (Dtons)Maint/jumpCrew SalariesFuelCost/jumpCost/DTon
J127.9148Cr2232Cr3460Cr7000Cr12692Cr86
J236.6127Cr2928Cr3460Cr14000Cr20388Cr160
J345.9105Cr3672Cr3460Cr21000Cr28132Cr268
J454.584Cr4360Cr3460Cr28000Cr35280Cr426
J563.263Cr5056Cr3460Cr35000Cr43516Cr690
J672.641Cr5808Cr3406Cr42,000Cr51,268Cr1250

Okay, so comparing this data to the Book 2 data and recalling some of the other information we've discussed, we have GURPS ships operating at much reduced cost, able to deliver cargoes much more cheaply, and those cargoes average a higher value to begin with. It's practical for a ship to deliver cargo profitably even at jump-6: with planning, the cost of a jump-6 transport is 24% of the average cost of the cargo.

Put another way, cargo can travel 4 or 5 times as far in GURPS for the same price - as a percentage of its value - that it costs to move one parsec in CT. So, what we need to do is figure a way to calculate the BTN numbers as if the ranges were five time what they were in GURPS. Near as I can figure, that chops things by something between an order of magnitude and an order and a half. There's also that very-long-range strangeness, but trade drops away pretty quickly with distance.

Which means CT trade volume is? The 1-parsec traffic's 1/10 the GURPS volume, the 2 parsec and 3 parsec traffic's 1/100 the GURPS volume, based on multiplying the ranges on page 15 of Far Trader by 5, 4 to 5 parsecs gets to 1/316 the GURPS value, and above is small enough not to bother counting - there'll be some high value stuff, but it's a very tiny percentage of the overall volume. Now I know GURPS does long-ranges, but if I have the system right, about 58% of the traffic was jump-1, a bit under 32% jump-2, a bit over 10% jump 3-5 or higher. I read the end result as CT being a bit under 6% of the GURPS trade volume.

Wow. Well, that's a number. Might be a bit of fudge factor in there, but I think it's pretty good. Even gives us a rough idea of how much Jump-2 and Jump 3 traffic there is, assuming we're still applying the GURPS paradigm, which is to say if I read it right that 99.4% of traffic overall is jump 1, about 0.5% Jump 2, and 0.1% Jump 3. I don't know that I want to take it that far, but mathematically it seems to work.

So:

1) Those red routes are doing an average 50-60 dTons of cargo weekly, seeing 1 to 2 ships every 4 weeks. The subsidized liner might have a route taking in three stops.

2) The yellow routes are doing on average 5-600 dTons of cargo weekly, enough to support a couple of 4-600 dTon ships and maybe a couple or three free traders, seeing about 2 ships a week.

3) The green routes are averaging 5-6000 dTons weekly, which will support a few large freighters and some smaller freighters and free traders, and see about 3 ships a day.

4) The aqua routes are averaging 50-60,000 dTons weekly, which is maybe 40-50ish large freighters of varying sizes and a large number of smaller freighters and free traders. The port is active, with 20-30 ships a day.

5) The big blue routes are averaging more like 5-600,000 dTons weekly, which supports a few megafreighters and a large number of large freighters and smaller ships.

This all presumes a 1 parsec jump. 2-parsec routes and 3 parsec routes drop two levels from their current. Mora's once-blue connection with Fornice, for example, becomes a green route. The green 2-parsec routes out of Porozlo become red. A lot of places become pretty isolated, seeing only the occasional adventuring free trader or far trader.

That seems to be what we get if we apply GURPS paradigm to CT's shipping costs. Thoughts?

Add: oh crud, it changed. I gotta recalculate this?

Add: no, I think I'm OK. Shipping cost comparisons are based on the fees charged in GURPS Far Trader, Page 22. As long as the GURPS ships can move cargo profitably at those rates, the comparison still applies.
 
Last edited:
...
Actually, those are WRONG... you forgot Mortgage... which GT specifies as 1/240 of purchase price. I'll add them.

Also, you should have labelled those as $ for clarity... the GURPS $ isn't the same purchasing power as the OTU CrImp; it's stronger by about 40%...

Counting Mortgage....
JumpCost (MCr)Cargo (Dtons)Maint/jumpCrew SalariesFuelMortgageCost/jumpCost/DTonCost/PcCost/Pc/DTonRelative Ton-PcRelative, Ton
J127.9148232534607000116250129035871.86129035871.8611
J236.612730503460140001525001730101362.2886505681.140.781.56
J345.910538253460210001912502195352090.8173178.33696.940.82.4
J454.5844541.67346028000227083.332630853131.9665771.25782.990.93.59
J563.2635266.67346035000263333.333070604873.9761412974.791.125.59
J672.64160503460420003025003540108634.3959001.671439.071.659.9

....

Okay, if I understand this correctly, these are per jump costs - but the mortgage looks like it's per month. Am I not reading it right?
 
...
Counting Mortgage....
JumpCost (MCr)Cargo (Dtons)Maint/jumpCrew SalariesFuelMortgageCost/jumpCost/DTonCost/PcCost/Pc/DTonRelative Ton-PcRelative, Ton
J127.91482325346070005812570910479.1270910479.1211
J236.612730503460140007625096760761.8948380380.940.81.59
J345.91053825346021000956251239101180.141303.33393.370.822.46
J454.5844541.67346028000113541.67149543.341780.2837385.84445.070.933.72
J563.2635266.67346035000131666.67175393.342784.0235078.67556.81.165.81
J672.64160503460420001512502027604945.3733793.33824.231.7210.32
...

Okay, the jump-1 through jump-4 revised costs are still within the GURPS table of fees; the jump-6 can't make a profit and the jump-5 is marginal. I presume larger ships would do better, but I don't think J5 or J6 affect my analysis enough to make a difference.
 
Based upon the way the Traveller PyRoute system generates routes, I can use the data in the table to generate distance weight for each system. In the code these values are scaled (multiplied by 30 and rounded to the nearest 5).

For the A* process to determine a route, considers all possible routes, selecting the one with the smallest sum of weights. The distance weight sets a weight of each link between worlds based upon distance, with other modifiers applied to encourage or avoid using specific links.

So in all cases given a J2 route with a possible intermediate stop, the direct J2 route would be selected, except MGT which would equally select the J1+J1 route.

For a J3 route, with intermediate stops, all of the system except MGT would select the J3 route, the MGT ships preferring to select a J1x3 or J2+J1 route.

For a J4 route, Bk2-77 would equally select either a J2+J2 or the J4 route, over a J3+J1 route. Bk2-81 would select J2+J2, then J3+J1, then a J4 route. HG selects J2+J2, then J3+J1, then a J1x4, then J4 route. MGT would select J2+J2 or J1x4, then a J3+J1, then J4. GT would select a J2+J2 route, J1+J3 route, then the J4 route.

Longer routes would use some combination of the above.
 
Based upon the way the Traveller PyRoute system generates routes, I can use the data in the table to generate distance weight for each system. In the code these values are scaled (multiplied by 30 and rounded to the nearest 5).

For the A* process to determine a route, considers all possible routes, selecting the one with the smallest sum of weights. The distance weight sets a weight of each link between worlds based upon distance, with other modifiers applied to encourage or avoid using specific links.

So in all cases given a J2 route with a possible intermediate stop, the direct J2 route would be selected, except MGT which would equally select the J1+J1 route.

For a J3 route, with intermediate stops, all of the system except MGT would select the J3 route, the MGT ships preferring to select a J1x3 or J2+J1 route.

For a J4 route, Bk2-77 would equally select either a J2+J2 or the J4 route, over a J3+J1 route. Bk2-81 would select J2+J2, then J3+J1, then a J4 route. HG selects J2+J2, then J3+J1, then a J1x4, then J4 route. MGT would select J2+J2 or J1x4, then a J3+J1, then J4. GT would select a J2+J2 route, J1+J3 route, then the J4 route.

Longer routes would use some combination of the above.

Systemslope vs 1Pcslope/GT slope
Bk2-770.77.71
Bk2 811.93
HG-TL151.351.25
MGT3.533.29
GT Core1.071

Multiply the real distance by the height to adjust the ranges... and you should have a relatively accurate scaling for the distance, assuming the GT base value is correct (which, axiomatically, it only is for GT). (Bk 7 specifies the average price of goods travelling for the OTU as around Cr5000/Td...)

Which have a pretty drastic effect on long distance flows, as well. Why? because the cost of shipping is between 2x and 10x the relative cost of the goods. Cr1000/Pc isn't that bad on something that's work Cr10,000 - 10% - about the cost of shipping retail goods. Assuming the manufacturer to retail markups as a typical guideline for what's tolerable... namely, about 500%... with several exceptions going higher...

Given Cr1000 to ship 1 Pc, and that 500% markup limit...
If the goods cost Cr1000, they're only going to go 5Pc.
If the goods cost Cr5000, they're going to be able to go 25Pc
If the goods cost Cr10K, 50Pc.
If the goods cost Cr50K, 250Pc
If the goods cost Cr100k, 500Pc.
If the goods cost Cr500K, 2500Pc

But note also - The more you mark up, the easier it is to be cut off by a closer competitor...

Oh, one other thought happened while discussing this with Cryton... that 10-50Td per week from earth to regina? that's a 3-4 year investment... The opportunity cost for 4 years?
 
Last edited:
Systemslope vs 1Pcslope/GT slope
Bk2-770.77.71
Bk2 811.93
HG-TL151.351.25
MGT3.533.29
GT Core1.071
...

This I don't understand, but you two seem to understand each other so I'll wait to see what evolves from it.

...Oh, one other thought happened while discussing this with Cryton... that 10-50Td per week from earth to regina? that's a 3-4 year investment... The opportunity cost for 4 years?

And this I really don't understand.
 
Back
Top