Jump 1 ships are pretty useless

[rancke]

If there's a J1 route then for any given volume of trade the optimal ship will be J1 as they'll have smaller, cheaper engines meaning more cargo space and lower monthly repayments.

Provided the route is only one parsec long. If it's two parsecs long, the optimal ship will be J2 as they can deliver two (smaller but not that much smaller) loads of passengers/cargo in the same time J1 ships deliver one.

edit: there's a separate argument about what is the best kind of ship for players but logically J1 ships are optimal for trade between two systems that are J1 apart.

No argument there. It's trivially easy to show that this is the case.

In other words, inherently viable J1 routes are always one parsec long.


Hans

 

[rancke]

What prevents a free trader crew that plans to go to an industrial world, but doesn't find an appropriate cargo, from seeing where the cargoes it does find would make a profit if taken and is nearby?

Nothing but the rules.


Hans

 

[Jame]

Nothing but the rules.


Hans

How do you mean?

 

[rancke]

How do you mean?

The rules says you get one roll to determine the best bargain around. The PCs don't get to buy anything else instead (or in addition to). There's no plausible reason for that (to my way of thinking), but them's the rules.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

If there's a J1 route then for any given volume of trade the optimal ship will be J1 as they'll have smaller, cheaper engines meaning more cargo space and lower monthly repayments.

No argument there. It's trivially easy to show that this is the case.

I'm glad we finally agree on that.

In other words, inherently viable J1 routes are always one parsec long.

Nope.

By extension from the first point: if a single J1 route is optimal then a chain of such J1 routes will be viable (for a given volume of trade).

What I think you're missing is that in a chain of systems A - B - C that are J1 apart there is A-B trade, B-C trade and A-C trade and as the A-B and B-C trade will optimally be J1 then J1 ships (of the right size for the volume of trade) can profitably run the whole route A-B-C.

That doesn't mean they're serving the A-C trade; it means they're serving the A-B trade and B-C trade *sequentially*. The direct A-C trade is more likely (depending on the rules) to use J2 ships.

This is my point about layers of trade. Where it's possible there will always be J1 trade as the bottom layer. Depending on the route there may also be higher Jn layers as well.

#

The size of J1 ship that is viable for such is likely to be limited to the lowest volume of trade in the chain.

example: four systems A - B - C - D each J1 apart where the volume of trade is:

A-B: 1000 units
B-C: 100 units
C-D: 1000 units

then it may be that only ships of the right size for the B-C part of the route are viable for the whole route.

Either way it is still A-B, B-C, C-D trade *sequentially* not the direct A-D trade which might be more likely (depending on the rules) to go in J3 ships.

#

Anyway the main point is there is always a case for Free Traders anywhere there's a J1 route. The question on each route is how many other layers of trade ships might there be in addition.

 

[creativehum]

What prevents a free trader crew that plans to go to an industrial world, but doesn't find an appropriate cargo, from seeing where the cargoes it does find would make a profit if taken and is nearby?

To answer your question: Nothing.

Once a crew buys speculative goods they can tote them around from world to world as long as they like looking for the best sales price. It's theirs, and theirs to do with it what they wish.

The only downside (it's Traveller, so there will be the downside to consider) is that the goods will take up cargo space on the ship... which might bump off paid cargo opportunities on the next port of call or the purchase of an even better deal of speculative goods.

 

[Jame]

To answer your question: Nothing.

Once a crew buys speculative goods they can tote them around from world to world as long as they like looking for the best sales price. It's theirs, and theirs to do with it what they wish.

The only downside (it's Traveller, so there will be the downside to consider) is that the goods will take up cargo space on the ship... which might bump off paid cargo opportunities on the next port of call or the purchase of an even better deal of speculative goods.

I had wondered why the roll, once made with a result of "no cargo," couldn't be made again. Apparently the rules prohibit this. I would either discard this rule or use it as an intro for a patron or other encounter.

 

[creativehum]

I had wondered why the roll, once made with a result of "no cargo," couldn't be made again. Apparently the rules prohibit this. I would either discard this rule or use it as an intro for a patron or other encounter.

Two quick questions:

1) Are we discussing "Cargo" (which is what someone pays you to ship from one world to a specific world) "Speculative Goods" (which is when the crew buys goods, owns them, and carries them in the hope of selling them at a profit.) Each of these things is described in separate sections of the rules, though speculation is mentioned at the end of the Cargo section.

2) I've always assumed that a new roll for Cargo can be made once a week, based off this sentence: "Commercial starships usually make two jumps per month. They spend one week in jump, followed by one week in the star system, travelling from the jump point to the local world, refuelling, marketing cargo, finding passengers, leaving the starport and proceeding to a jump point again."

But that's clearly an interpretation on my part. After reading the rules it doesn't say how often to check for Cargo. The text seems to assume that the ship will only stay in system for only one week and then move on. But there's no reason to assume that. Other than, of course, the clock is ticking on payments, so getting to another world for a chance at a paying gig often makes the most sense. (Most worlds that will not have Cargo one week most likely won't have Cargo the following week.)

The Speculative Goods rules state clearly that the roll is made once per week. So, in general I assume the PCs can spend a week to see if new Cargo becomes available or new Speculative Goods become available. Of course, each week matters in campaign play, since as the years pass you're moving yourself closer to needing to make Throws to see if any Characteristics drop. (Traveller! Each decision costs you something somewhere else!)

 

[rancke]

I'm glad we finally agree on that.

I've never disagreed on that.

By extension from the first point: if a single J1 route is optimal then a chain of such J1 routes will be viable (for a given volume of trade).

Wrong. The trade is not transitive because the cost of transportation is not transitive.

What I think you're missing is that in a chain of systems A - B - C that are J1 apart there is A-B trade, B-C trade and A-C trade and as the A-B and B-C trade will optimally be J1 then J1 ships (of the right size for the volume of trade) can profitably run the whole route A-B-C.

Yes, but what you overlook is that if you have a route A-B-C-D-E-etc. then sooner or later, and most often sooner than later, one of the worlds in the string will be a low-population world that will interrupt the string of profitable one-parsec links.

That doesn't mean they're serving the A-C trade; it means they're serving the A-B trade and B-C trade *sequentially*. The direct A-C trade is more likely (depending on the rules) to use J2 ships.

Yes, but except in those rare cases where the traffic is low enough that a single J1 ship can carry all the A-B trade and all the B-C trade, the A-B trade will most likely be carried by one set of J1 ships and he B-C trade by a different set of J1 ships.

This is my point about layers of trade. Where it's possible there will always be J1 trade as the bottom layer. Depending on the route there may also be higher Jn layers as well.

The operative clause is 'where it's possible'. Most J1 routes will be interrupted by links in the chain where is isn't possible.

The size of J1 ship that is viable for such is likely to be limited to the lowest volume of trade in the chain.

example: four systems A - B - C - D each J1 apart where the volume of trade is:

A-B: 1000 units
B-C: 100 units
C-D: 1000 units

then it may be that only ships of the right size for the B-C part of the route are viable for the whole route.

More likely you'll have a 1000 unit J1 fleet handling the trade between A and B, a 100 unit fleet handling the trade between B and C, and another 1000 unit fleet handling the trade between C-D. But, sure, a 900 unit fleet between A and B, 3 100 unit fleets between A, B and C, and another 900 unit fleet between C and D is possible. But what happens with the next link where the trade between D and E is 1 unit?

Either way it is still A-B, B-C, C-D trade *sequentially* not the direct A-D trade which might be more likely (depending on the rules) to go in J3 ships.

Even if the rules makes J3 a bit more expensive than J1, the trade between A and D would go by J2+J1 rather than by J1+J1+J1.

Anyway the main point is there is always a case for Free Traders anywhere there's a J1 route. The question on each route is how many other layers of trade ships might there be in addition.

Free traders are tramp traders. They survive in the cracks of the regular trade. As such, their numbers will be small by comparison with the regular trade. And it's the regular trade that makes a trade route.


Hans

 

[Selandia]

A-B-C-D trade patterns

many assumptions were made in that discussion.

No offer driven fluctuation ( such as seasonal on agri-world)
No demand driven fluctuation ( such as major infrastructure contract on a world that has to import nearly all the relevant goods)
No trade imbalance in volume (ore or oil one way and what on the return?)
No triangular trade to offsett lack of return cargo)
No significant cost for cargo handling (moving from A to B on the AB liners, unloading, loading and moving on to C on the BC liners). This not about one J2 vs J1+J1, add some caggo handling if J1+J1 not on the same ship.
No special project

interesting discussion, keep it going, but just remember that you are arguing the crude fundamentals. --The truth is in the cost--. What will happen is what cost the least for the desired result.

Of course, that suppose that we are talking of a J-1 main. J-3 will at time avoid a roundabout route of 4 or 5 J1

have fun

Selandia

 

[Jame]

Nothing but the rules.


Hans

I also realized that I meant, why can't a roll of no cargo be rerolled? Or is it something that should be roleplayed out?

 

[samuelvss]

I also realized that I meant, why can't a roll of no cargo be rerolled? Or is it something that should be roleplayed out?

The GM can choose to roleplay it, of course, but whole idea is that you don't have a cargo. It's like re-rolling any adverse roll....

 

[kilemall]

I don't know if I have made my post obvious enough.

The Imperium taxes member worlds - that's a given.

But those member worlds will also tax their own citizens. A superrich individual may find it advantageous to pay direct taxation to the Imperium due to living in Imperial owned space rather than paying local taxation.

Hmmm, gonna have to think that one through for my milieu, one immediate thought to 'member world tax evasion via Fed/Imperial taxes only' would be that you would have to be on the move and travelling X percentage of the time per year and not be in residence or have significant property or company resources tied up in the world making you money.

Easy for the average Traveller, maybe not so much for the noble or corporate magnate.

Another might be without a settled residence you don't pay taxes, as a means of subsidizing interstellar trade and personnel. I guess I would make that call based on whether the campaign needs a cash drain or something to upset the players' schemes with or entrepreneurial evasion.

 

[Willie Dewitt]

I agree completely! If you look at the number of world's within J-1 (or even J-2) within the primary worlds along the mains there is a a lot of opportunity for transferring cargo or messages for J-1 ships even on the spur of the moment consignments. These off main worlds are often more adventurous and lucrative than the major worlds on the mains.

My current campaign is totally based on the party having a Free Trader, and started and will probably end with them in a frontier cluster off the beaten track ( mega corps own industry on some suitable rim worlds in the area serviced by large corp ships, but there is always runoff for enterprising small potatoes traders in those cases. Some planets depending entirely on Free trade). Pretty much the kind of games I wanted; way off far from the cores but still with a lot of trade and some corporation presence.

They have already skimmed a system's giant to save fuel costs of an unnecessary stop to get to a desired planet a couple of jumps away. For my noob to CT players, that was an epic little adventure all in itself, knowing of the risks involved. That one jump lifestyle seems to have a nice flavor all it's own. Not sure I ever want to have Far Trader games. No need to traverse the universe. There's plenty to do wherever the characters are.

 

[Willie Dewitt]

Action heroes tend not to drive Pintos.

Heh. Characters in my game are tending more towards the Walter White/Heisenberg style anti-hero over the Han Solo types.

He drove a Pontiac Aztek.

 

[flykiller]

Jump one ships are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.

louzy to sheyou looks kinda fun ....

 

[Condottiere]

I think jump factor one ships are underappreciated.

First of all, you're dealing with technological level nine engines, which depending on the design system, are going to be more resilient, easier to maintain, cheaper and/or smaller, and so on.

If you think about it, it usually comes down to how much time you want to use to cover interstellar distances.

 

[Whipsnade]

It's horses for courses.

Jump1 is absolutely fine in some campaigns and absolutely worthless in other campaigns.

Mike Wightman recently wrote about "long night-ish" settings - one empire or another collapsed centuries ago and horizons have shrunk down to a cluster or so. In a TL9/10 campaign like that, a jump1 is perfect.

 

[aramis]

It's horses for courses.

Jump1 is absolutely fine in some campaigns and absolutely worthless in other campaigns.

Mike Wightman recently wrote about "long night-ish" settings - one empire or another collapsed centuries ago and horizons have shrunk down to a cluster or so. In a TL9/10 campaign like that, a jump1 is perfect.

In such a campaign, Jump 2 is unobtanium and/or research project. My last major traveller campaign was one such game. (And yes, they did succeed in making a J2 drive.)

 

[Whipsnade]

In such a campaign, Jump 2 is unobtanium and/or research project. My last major traveller campaign was one such game. (And yes, they did succeed in making a J2 drive.)

Exactly. In such a campaign, jump1 was fine.

In a trade/economics focused campaign in the Classic Era Marches, jump1 is less useful.

Different campaigns, different needs. Horses for courses.