Jump 1 vs Jump 2 ships in the CT Imperium

[mbrinkhues]

On the surface, yes, you can interpret the rules Hal's way. Until you look at and realize all of the "holes" his interpretation causes and realize there are no holes if you interpret the rules Hans' way.* That alone is a very strong indication that Hans' interpretation is probably correct.

Oh, and nothing in the Traveller trade rules "matches reality quite nicely". It really doesn't matter which interpretation you use. The rules are merely a quick facilitator for adventures. They don't match anything even close to reality. (And, in fairness, aren't intended to.)


First, would someone tell me were in the rules anyone said anything about a "flight plan"? Or it mattering what type of ship the players have? Or that passengers rolled actually have alternatives? All of that is outside the rules and (quite frankly) irrelevant to the discussion I am having with Hal.

What matters is this: You roll for available cargos. The cargo(s) you select determine your destination. You get passengers for that destination. You go to that destination. That is pretty much the extent of the rules.

The route to your destination does not matter. You do not get cargo or passengers at any point between the origin and destination. As a matter of fact, nothing is said at all about what happens at any intermediary points between the origin and the destination.

Sure, you can always make stuff up to cover that. No problem; go for it. But none of what is made up is actually in the rules. You made it up.

And that is my point.

* (Actually, there are still holes. This is Traveller, after all. But all of the holes caused by Hal's interpretation of the rules go away.)

Sorry but this is a ROLE PLAYING GAME not an exercise in "Math for failed barkeepers" (aka MBAs) and it SHOULD have some resemblance of real life no matter wether there is a hard rule or not. The game universe must make sense and that does mean published routes and all.

 

[aramis]

First, would someone tell me were in the rules anyone said anything about a "flight plan"? Or it mattering what type of ship the players have? Or that passengers rolled actually have alternatives? All of that is outside the rules and (quite frankly) irrelevant to the discussion I am having with Hal.

What matters is this: You roll for available cargos. The cargo(s) you select determine your destination. You get passengers for that destination. You go to that destination. That is pretty much the extent of the rules.

The route to your destination does not matter. You do not get cargo or passengers at any point between the origin and destination. As a matter of fact, nothing is said at all about what happens at any intermediary points between the origin and the destination.

You pick & announce destination.
You then roll for passengers and freight based upon said destination.
It's in the Traveller Book that way.

It doesn't say "single jump", either, last I checked. (5 min ago) It does state that they pay the listed rate for travel to the stated destination, it does not state per jump. So, if you post you're jumping to WYpoc from Regina, then they pay KCr8 for the trip, without regard for whether you're J2+ or J1. (See page 53).

Note that speculatives are done separately from freight, too. If you already have a destination in mind, you need not roll freight for all the worlds, either. (Which is made more clear in The Traveller Adventure.).

Realistic would price out each trip based upon available carriers and demand, or established "Reasonable and Customary" that account for both differences in expenses by ship's range and the time factor.

Plain and simple, pricing per parsec is as bad as pricing per jump; per parsec fails to account for the priority costs incurred by J3+ ships, and actually overpays J2 ships.

 

[far-trader]

It doesn't say "single jump", either, last I checked. (5 min ago) It does state that they pay the listed rate for travel to the stated destination, it does not state per jump.

Better check again, pg 49 TTB (bold mine) "Interstellar travel... prices cover a trip from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length."

Pretty clear isn't it?

So, if you post you're jumping to WYpoc from Regina, then they pay KCr8 for the trip, without regard for whether you're J2+ or J1. (See page 53).

So no actually if you jump to Wypoc on J2+ they pay KCr8 for a mid passage. And if they book the same trip via J1* they will have to pay KCr16 for the same mid passage. But I would argue that such a "trip" would fall outside legal commerce for the J1 ship since the only tickets you can offer are starport to starport in one jump regardless of length. Now said passenger could charter the J1 ship and make the trip, but seriously, have you looked at the charter rates? You think you're getting screwed trying to make a go of it as a free trader, try making money on a charter. But I'm getting off topic

* presuming you carry extra fuel aboard and make an empty hex jump first

EDIT - Unless (didn't occur to me at first) you're talking about going round the horn, via Jenghe, Dinom, and Dinomn, then it's going to be legal to offer tickets for each leg and the passenger will have to buy 4 and it will cost Cr32,000.

Plain and simple, pricing per parsec is as bad as pricing per jump; per parsec fails to account for the priority costs incurred by J3+ ships, and actually overpays J2 ships.

Agreed. But it's not supposed to be that. It's just an adventure driver for the ref to use as an imagination tool. And it was originally only meant to apply to one type of ship, the Type A Free-Trader limited to J1. Period. That it was later tasked to other operations without fully thinking about the consequences has and will drive these friendly debates for years, decades even

 

[daryen]

You pick & announce destination.
You then roll for passengers and freight based upon said destination.
It's in the Traveller Book that way.

No, that is NOT true. You roll for cargo first. (Come on Aramis. I expect better of you.)

Actually, you have to roll for available cargo for ALL accessible destinations. (That one item right there should make it obvious that "single jump" is the intent.) Only after all cargos have been determined is destination selected.

And only then, after destination is selected, are passengers generated.

It doesn't say "single jump", either, last I checked. (5 min ago) It does state that they pay the listed rate for travel to the stated destination, it does not state per jump. So, if you post you're jumping to WYpoc from Regina, then they pay KCr8 for the trip, without regard for whether you're J2+ or J1. (See page 53).

No, it doesn't say "single jump". But you will be generating a LOT of cargos if that is not what is meant. Happy rolling.

Good point on the cargo rates, though. So, if Hal were actually correct, and we could chose Glisten as a destination from Regina, then we only get Cr1000 per ton regardless of how many jumps it takes to get there. Cool.

So, while the rules don't say "single jump", you have just provided me with yet another point showing that that is indeed the intent. Thanks. That was quite helpful.

Note that speculatives are done separately from freight, too.

Both Hal and I have taken great pains to state that speculative cargo is an entirely different and separate issue. Neither of us are talking about it and we both have been careful to exclude it from our discussion.

Realistic would price out each trip based upon available carriers and demand, or established "Reasonable and Customary" that account for both differences in expenses by ship's range and the time factor.

Neither Hal nor I are talking about "realistic" either. We are discussing what the rules state and what they handle. It is blatantly obvious to just about anyone that looks at the Traveller trade rules that "realism" was never a design consideration.

Plain and simple, pricing per parsec is as bad as pricing per jump; per parsec fails to account for the priority costs incurred by J3+ ships, and actually overpays J2 ships.

And again, neither Hal nor I are talking about "per parsec" pricing. We are both working from the base assumption that the Traveller trade rules are purely "per jump". And, in addition to being besides the point, I have had my fill of that debate.

 

[Hal]

It should be noted that the paragraph that Dan found regarding interstellar travel regarding interstellar Travel exists in the following:

The Black Book 2 - page 4
The Traveller Book - page 49 (as he pointed out so nicely)
Traveller Starter Edition - page 28.

I missed seeing that - funny how that works *snort*

Ok, where's the crow. Anyone got suggestions for how to eat it?

 

[far-trader]

...Ok, where's the crow. Anyone got suggestions for how to eat it?

White wine with fowl isn't it

Save a bite for me, I'm sure to be having some more eventually.

No worries about missing it, there's much I've missed, and probably still have, coupled with what I've forgotten so I can miss or discover it again

 

[daryen]

Better check again, pg 49 TTB (bold mine) "Interstellar travel... prices cover a trip from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length."

Pretty clear isn't it?

Well, look at that. I was so busy looking at pp52-53, I forgot to reread the prior section. Man, that would have saved a lot of time. I won't forget that reference again.

(Ironically enough, I wasn't following my own advice! I kept saying that the rules had to be take as a whole and I missed including the one piece of the rules that would have ended the discussion instantly.)

 

[daryen]

Ok, where's the crow. Anyone got suggestions for how to eat it?

No crow being served. We all missed it. (Except for Dan, and even then only eventually. )

 

[aramis]

And, in addition to being besides the point, I have had my fill of that debate.

THen, might I suggest, avoid other issues which are closely tangential, as well.

I did miss the statement that a J1 requires three separate destinations be posted and thus three tickets, on 53, rt col. Though I have always run it that way.

Also, in TTA, there is mention that one need only roll freight for the trip being taken when on route. Lots of rules clarification in that monster volume. (Like not needing a system in hex to jump to the hex, etc.)

 

[daryen]

THen, might I suggest, avoid other issues which are closely tangential, as well.

Why? Just because I have decided not to argue about "per parsec" vs "per jump" means I can't talk about any aspect of the Traveller trade system? That's an odd assertion.

The debate between Hal and I was on what the trade rules said and meant. That is completely different from debating what the trade rules should be. I fail to see why one topic must necessarily involve the other.

 

[aramis]

Because when one is discussed, and problems are found, the natural inclination is to discuss how to "fix" them.

 

[Kyle Aaron]

I would be interested to hear about the game session in which this sort of thing has come up as an issue in-character.

 

[Icosahedron]

Heretic warning: Canonmongers read no further.

Instead of endlessly debating different interpretations of a rule set that we all agree bear no resemblance to reality, it might be more helpful if our time were spent devising and posting rules that we all agree DO bear a semblance of reality, and work for PC ships, merchants and liners throughout the Imperium on all routes via all worlds.

If you fail, you're no worse than GDW. If you succeed - Eureka!

This has been my approach for the past 30 years - but I only have to please myself and find a handful of willing players. (and no, I haven't found the magic formula - trade is only a backdrop to my games, so I don't worry about it too much. Maybe the designers thought the same way?)

"I'm only a heretic if canon ISN'T absurd."

 

[rust]

It's just an adventure driver for the ref to use as an imagination tool. And it was originally only meant to apply to one type of ship, the Type A Free-Trader limited to J1. Period. That it was later tasked to other operations without fully thinking about the consequences has and will drive these friendly debates for years, decades even

It has done so already. For at least two decades everyone taking a close
look at the trade system has realized that it could never work as any kind
of economic model or simulation, yet for at least two decades people con-
tinued to discuss about this very point.

We should at least rename the system from "trade system" to "debate sys-
tem" ...

 

[rust]

Instead of endlessly debating different interpretations of a rule set that we all agree bear no resemblance to reality, it might be more helpful if our time were spent devising and posting rules that we all agree DO bear a semblance of reality, and work for PC ships, merchants and liners throughout the Imperium on all routes via all worlds.

Frankly, I do not believe that any such general rules will ever be developed.
One would either have to go for a very simplistic model of the economy, which
would break when looking at the details, or one would have to design specific
models for the various different situations in different regions of the setting.

I do have a working economy model for my setting, but both the setting and
the rules are very far from the OTU canon, and the rules work for the situa-
tion in my setting (a frontier region) only.

 

[daryen]

Because when one is discussed, and problems are found, the natural inclination is to discuss how to "fix" them.

I don't know, I the debate between Hal and I went the whole distance without having that problem

Instead of endlessly debating different interpretations of a rule set that we all agree bear no resemblance to reality, it might be more helpful if our time were spent devising and posting rules that we all agree DO bear a semblance of reality, and work for PC ships, merchants and liners throughout the Imperium on all routes via all worlds.

People already have done that. Many, many times. Several are probably still here somewhere. One was published (GT:Far Trader).

The problem you are going to run into is that you will never get people to agree on what a "realistic" system is. This, of course, results in innumerable flame wars and hard feelings. (See my prior comments.)

But don't let me disuade you. I always enjoy watching a good flame war, and maybe you can do better than everyone that tried it before you.

 

[Hal]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever run an analysis of the "subsidized financing rules" as compared with/against the original Bank Financing rules?

What I did was create a spreadsheet that had as data input, the cost of a single vessle with the 10% discount (if someone made one, chances are, more than 1 were made), the number of "revenue producing staterooms", and cargo bay volume.

Calculations then were:
20% down payment
80% balance owed
Monthly payment per bank mortgage method
MAX Gross Income possible (MGI)
50% Max Gross Income possible
50% MGI/Monthly Payment method

Then I multiplied the the MGI by 480 to see just how much the government got back over a period of 40 years for its "Investment" in the subsidized merchant.

Net result? The government was able to recover its investment and make SOME profit. A government Subsidy has one MAJOR benefit for the ship owner - which was an eye opener for me.

The eye opener? Paying 50% of your gross proceeds - assuming MAX income (which is only possible in theory) can shave off at least 40% of the money you would have had to pay to the Bank if using the Bank Payment system. The biggest problem then, is for any given "entity" to:

A) Secure such a subsidized loan
B) Coming up with the down payment on high cost ships

Originally, it was my thought that Jump-2 shps might be reasonably commonish, but not as common as Jump-1 ships based on the Bank route.

I seem to recall that Subsidized ships had to ply a given route mandated by the government, but that the route only had to be followed a given number of months - or am I mis-remembering again?

What I'm trying to do is figure out just how "Common" jump-3 or higher ships might be in an OTU based environment.

It also occurs to me that Freighters which are subsidized merchants can not truly be considered tramps because they have to service a given set of worlds when first created. It also occurs to me to wonder what is a Subsidized merchant worth on the open market if after say, 20 years, the original owner of the ship wants to sell out? Would it be worth MORE or LESS to another agent to purchase that ship because of the restrictions of use and because of the mobilization issue? Ah well, 'tis naught but a passing fancy I guess

By the by Dan? Looking at how much the Government makes off of the Subsidized Merchant seeing as it gets to take 50% of the gross, it looks as though the government will break even on its investment easily enough. Even if a ship only makes about 80% of its MGI, in one instance where I believe I computed a 1.7x return on the initial 80% downpayment of a ship, would be worth .8*1.7 or 1.36 times the initial investment. While not a big return on the investment, the subsidy does do the following:

A) Insures that there are a few Jump-3 or perhaps jump-4 hulls floating out there that have to follow a given route

B) Insures that if enough hulls are purchased per year, that an auxillary force can be brought into existence reasonably quickly.

C) Insures that the government gets to decide how many of those hulls are armed and what dtonnage those ships are - since it can set the conditions that subsidized merchant wannabes have to comply with.

Now, that raises a new kettle of fish to consider: If any given world government sets aside no more than say, 1% of its GDP towards subsidized merchant funding - how many such hulls will be out there? The next question is - what would be considered the saturation point where the government feels it no longer needs to invest any further in the program?

Thoughts?

 

[rust]

Now, that raises a new kettle of fish to consider: If any given world government sets aside no more than say, 1% of its GDP towards subsidized merchant funding - how many such hulls will be out there? The next question is - what would be considered the saturation point where the government feels it no longer needs to invest any further in the program?

In my frontier region setting all new merchant ships are heavily subsidized by
the governments of the colonies they supply and serve.
In fact, to finance a merchant ship and find someone willing to run it is an im-
portant part of setting up a colony.
The type(s) and number of ships depends entirely on the (changing) needs of
the colony (or group of colonies) in question. With a growing volume of trade
and an increasing number of trade destinations more and different ships are
needed and subsidized.
After 40 years most of the ship owners stay in the region they by now know so
well, and become free traders, which is comparatively easy since their ships
are now really theirs.

 

[atpollard]

Thoughts?

The Imperial Navy might find a fleet of J4 merchants useful as a wartime Merchant Marine able to keep up with (and supply) the Fleet.

 

[far-trader]

By the by Dan? Looking at how much the Government makes off of the Subsidized Merchant seeing as it gets to take 50% of the gross, it looks as though the government will break even on its investment easily enough. Even if a ship only makes about 80% of its MGI, in one instance where I believe I computed a 1.7x return on the initial 80% downpayment of a ship, would be worth .8*1.7 or 1.36 times the initial investment. While not a big return on the investment, the subsidy does do the following:

A) Insures that there are a few Jump-3 or perhaps jump-4 hulls floating out there that have to follow a given route

B) Insures that if enough hulls are purchased per year, that an auxilliary force can be brought into existence reasonably quickly.

C) Insures that the government gets to decide how many of those hulls are armed and what dtonnage those ships are - since it can set the conditions that subsidized merchant wannabes have to comply with.

Now, that raises a new kettle of fish to consider: If any given world government sets aside no more than say, 1% of its GDP towards subsidized merchant funding - how many such hulls will be out there? The next question is - what would be considered the saturation point where the government feels it no longer needs to invest any further in the program?

Thoughts?

I never ran a complete analysis, just some quick numbers and came the same (gut) conclusions you did. So yes MTU has a goodly number of subbies running to practically every Imperial world worth noting (generally all but starport class X) though the level of service (how many ships and how often they come by) varies greatly.

The government is Imperial of course, and the subsidizing world does so as part of it's Imperial membership requirements.

So:

A - Yes, there are subbies up to J4 though the J1 Fat-Trader is the most common and "profitable".

B - Indeed, with the most common J1 Fat-Trader (my design*) being primarily a (cheap) System Defense Boat

* the cargo hold is designed as a missile bay and the computer is a model 1bis

C - Yep, and dependent on local matters of defense. So the interior is less concerned with arming the ships than the frontier for example.

Not sure how many ships it means, but it would be "enough". Such that you can expect a subbie to be along to any serviced world, going one way or the other, monthly at least and as often as daily.

As for resale value, high, but with the caveat that you are still subject to mobilization and probably restricted to operating on the same route as originally designated, though not obliged to keep a schedule. The world setting up the subbie originally will want to insure that it will be available for service if required. Built in campaign fun right there.

I didn't recall a rule about time off on a subsidized route, and don't see it on a quick look. Maybe you got it from the "2-12 worlds" bit?

But, any route I've made up seldom came out perfect for a one year run with 2 weeks for annual maintenance. So there was often a week or a few open for other activities between annual maintenance and resuming regular route service. A perfect time for the crew to be involved in training maneuvers with the IN to keep them up to speed should they be mobilized. And other sponsored activities. Usually they won't get to just go off wandering on their own. The real owners will find something productive for them to do in the way of an annual shakedown cruise.