Jump 1 vs Jump 2 ships in the CT Imperium

[spank]

Alright

I went back to the start of this thread and want to make some points,

1) all small ships under, 975 Dton, automatically pay a penalty in the form of the extra space they have to allocate for their bridge. So the truely efficent designs will be over this amount.

There's an issue here: exactly what force is preventing the person with a J2 ship from charging Cr2000 per ton? The buyer doesn't care -- paying Cr2000 for one jump vs paying Cr1000 twice for two jumps makes no difference to his bottom line. The owners of other J2 ships have no motivation to force him to lower his rates. The owners of J1 ships can only force him to lower his rates by charging less than Cr2000 for two jumps

This is really the meat of the issue, why don't higher jump number ships get to charge more? It makes sense from the stand point of "my ship is faster so I can charge more", but the intent of the cargo and passenger system is to find passengers going from planet A to planet B, and {this is the important part} desiring arrival in 1 week, not 2 not 6--- 1 Week.

If they wanted to be there in a longer time they would pay a different {lesser} rate. That is how the freight industry works lower priority cargo will pay the lesser rate. The same is true for passengers. The rate is capped at 1000/dton/jump.

The reverse of this would seem to be true, If your J-1 ship is going to be at world C in 2 jumps he should have the same cargo and passengers options as the J-2 getting there in 1 jump, but he doesn't. The cargo going to world C wants to be there in 1 week, not 2.

If you are running a scheduled service the passengers going to world C will not present themselves for travel from A->B->C unless they have to go to world B they will simply look at the schedule, see when the next J-2 is due in and take it instead. If you are running an unscheduled service you will have the same thing.

 

[spank]

Time.

The thing to remember here, is that the table for determining what cargoes are available for shipment from any given world to another world does not imply that the world has to be within ONE jump.

The table generates cargos desring to go to the destination world at a rate of 1000cr/dton. Not 1000 Cr/jump/dton.
To continue the prvious A->B->C vs. A-C example If the shipper wants it there sooner than 2 weeks he will pay to have it shipped direct. eg 1000cr A-C in 1 week vs 1000cr A->B->C in 2 weeks, and this cargo will simply not be available to the lower jump number ship, because he can't get it there in time. But regardless shipment is from origin to destination for 1000cr.

The text on page 9 makes it clear ships of a higher jump number charge the same per jump, {vs per trip} as a lower jump number. It also offers what I read to be a hypothetical situation a passenger wanting to go from A->D he can take a j-3 ship for a 1 week trip and 1000cr {assuming low passage} or a j-1 ship going A->B->C->D for 3 weeks and 3000cr. If you were making this trip which would you choose?

 

[Icosahedron]

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.

As I said in my post, Daryen, trade is a background side issue for me, it's not something I want to spend months devising rules for, I'd rather get a set of ready made rules and tweak them.

...So it's not about the rules anymore, it's just about having a good argument?

 

[Icosahedron]

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.

I'd be interested to see your houserules, Rust, MTU is a non-canon ATU frontier region too. They might give me a useful head start on local economics.

 

[Anthony]

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.)

Actually, had the current trade system never been published, I don't think it would be that difficult to get rough agreement. The basic assumptions of a realistic trade system are as follows:
1) Rational merchants will generally choose the cheapest method, unless for some reason reducing transit time is very important.
2) Rational sellers of goods transport will charge enough to make a profit and a reasonable ROI under normal operating conditions (based on loan rates, a reasonable ROI is probably ~6% per annum). They will charge more if they can, but see (3).
3) Unless the supply of shipping is artificially constricted or subject to some form of monopoly, competition will force the price of goods transport down until the ROI is modest (i.e. pretty close to the estimate above).
4) Unless shipping is limited, competition will force commodity prices down until the average profit from picking up a load of a commodity on one world, jumping to another world, and selling that commodity, will not significantly exceed the amount a captain would be paid to transport those goods.

The current Traveller trade system ignores (1), violates (2), ignores (3), and violates (4).

 

[daryen]

...So it's not about the rules anymore, it's just about having a good argument?

I wouldn't say that.

In my discussion with Hal, we resolved (or, more properly, Dan resolved) the rules issue, and we moved on. That particular discussion was over.

On a discussion about "realistic trade" rules, I don't expect to see anything new if it is raised again. However, there is always the chance that this time is different and something useful will result. But, at worst we should at least get a nice flame war to watch ...

 

[far-trader]

Actually, had the current trade system never been published, I don't think it would be that difficult to get rough agreement...

:rofl:

A right raving lunatic optimist I like it!

OK, now I 'spose I should read the rest of the post, but I'm wiped, I'll catch up in the morning...

 

[daryen]

Actually, had the current trade system never been published, I don't think it would be that difficult to get rough agreement.

You are way more optimistic than I.

First, I don't know that agreement with your principles would be as universal as you think.

Second, the current trade system has been published, and there is a certain vocal portion* of the fan base that is so emotionally invested in the published system that they will do everything they can to shout down any possible alternatives.

Thus my rather pessimistic view of the chances of such a discussion.

* I was going to say "vocal minority", but I have no idea if they are even a minority. Who knows; maybe I am in the minority on the issue.

 

[R_Chance]

I suspect most of us are interested in some rough trade off between playability and realism... with the decision on which side to come down on being the question. I teach economics and history and I don't want to even think about how complex a truly realistic economic / trade simulation for a multi system economy would be... gives me a migraine just to think about it. Some basic principles and a playable system sufficient to allow the suspension of disbelief is all that should be required. Save the really complex thought for the construction of starships using a postulated system of faster than light travel

 

[Ishmael]

How about this?

Listed cost of various equipment is the purchase price where supply=demand
Actual price is price*(demand/supply)

initial supply and demand is related to world type, law level, manufacturing base, etc.
supply and demand fluctuates, independently of each other in a manner similar to Pocket Empires or some other ruleset, such as a simple stock market game where dice rolled to determine if market goes up/down and how much.
Supply will eventually try to equal demand.
For imports, supply is only what gets shipped in.
( I need to think how this part should work )

the farther its shipped, the more it costs to ship it
the faster its shipped, the more it costs to ship it
the less traffic to that world, the more it costs to ship.

 

[rust]

How about this?

It looks good, like a both simple and realistic system - which probably means
that no one will like it ...

Seriously, the main problem would probably be the lots of tables for world type,
law level, manufacturing base, etc., and the rules to adapt the system to dif-
ferent setting situations (e.g.: one agricultural world near two industrial pla-
nets is a completely different situation from two agricultural planets near one
industrial world).

However, if you intend to work on the idea, I would be very interested in the
results.

 

[Ishmael]

I hate tables...I much prefer equations
the fewer tables, the better
I"ll work on it
I'll use info from MT and anywhere else that might be helpful.
No promises if I'll get something decent done in a decent amount of time.

if I get something cobbled together worth showing, I'll start a new thread for economics

 

[far-trader]

Actually, had the current trade system never been published, I don't think it would be that difficult to get rough agreement. The basic assumptions of a realistic trade system are as follows:

1) Rational merchants will generally choose the cheapest method, unless for some reason reducing transit time is very important.

2) Rational sellers of goods transport will charge enough to make a profit and a reasonable ROI under normal operating conditions (based on loan rates, a reasonable ROI is probably ~6% per annum). They will charge more if they can, but see (3).

3) Unless the supply of shipping is artificially constricted or subject to some form of monopoly, competition will force the price of goods transport down until the ROI is modest (i.e. pretty close to the estimate above).

4) Unless shipping is limited, competition will force commodity prices down until the average profit from picking up a load of a commodity on one world, jumping to another world, and selling that commodity, will not significantly exceed the amount a captain would be paid to transport those goods.

The current Traveller trade system ignores (1), violates (2), ignores (3), and violates (4).

I disagree with each point. Traveller currently:

Applies 1 - Rational merchants do not ship with Free-Traders, only the desperate ones who have been unable to find better transport will ship with Free-Traders. That's what the trade tables show.

Applies 2 - (if I understand you mean the ship loan for Free-Traders) Rational Free-Traders will have a business plan (when's the last time a ref required that of a player?) but most PCs don't and they act quite irrationally. Hoping to pay the bills by speculation (gambling) or "adventures". And under the (CTB2) build and loan a Free-Trader can make a good return at the rates listed.

Applies 3 - THERE IS a monopoly in place, in the Imperium. The Nobility run Mega-Corps, supported by the Imperium. They compete among themselves and control everybody smaller by imposing the restrictions on "free commerce" that are the rules of per jump trade at listed rates. And the result is that as you desire the ROI is down around the minimum, for J1 small traders, which is all the Mega-Corps will allow. Because they aren't serious competition and serve a useful role in clearing the leftover clutter of commerce that the Mega-Corps don't service. Kind of like scavengers after the predator makes the kill and eats their full. Important to the ecology, but the predator is going to assert itself if some of the scavengers start challenging their dominance.

Applies 4 - And given the long time the Imperium has been around it's all pretty steady now. The exception is speculative goods, and that's because of momentary shortages or surpluses of a specific item. There should not be as much speculative trade as even B2 suggests, and B7 is totally out to lunch.

But that's all my opinion, and proof enough, that you'll never find two Traveller refs who can agree on every point of what makes even the basics of a working trade system for the OTU.

 

[Anthony]

I disagree with each point. Traveller currently:

See my point about "if the current trade rules had never been published". The current trade rules are worthless as evidence.

Applies 1 - Rational merchants do not ship with Free-Traders, only the desperate ones who have been unable to find better transport will ship with Free-Traders. That's what the trade tables show.

The tables don't comment on the subject.

Applies 2 - (if I understand you mean the ship loan for Free-Traders) Rational Free-Traders will have a business plan (when's the last time a ref required that of a player?) but most PCs don't and they act quite irrationally.

True but totally irrelevant. Even if the PCs are irrational, the competition is not.

Applies 3 - THERE IS a monopoly in place, in the Imperium.

If there was as monopoly in place, free traders wouldn't have their rates regulated. They wouldn't exist. It's certainly a viable option to rule "J2 and higher free traders don't exist", but canon doesn't support that claim.

Applies 4 - And given the long time the Imperium has been around it's all pretty steady now. The exception is speculative goods, and that's because of momentary shortages or surpluses of a specific item.

That's not the way the speculative trade tables work, though. The speculative trade tables permit you to reliably make large amounts of money on certain types of run.

 

[far-trader]

See my point about "if the current trade rules had never been published".

I did. But your own points reference them indirectly. My own references are to show that link.

The current trade rules are worthless as evidence.

In your opinion.

The tables don't comment on the subject.

In context they do.

True but totally irrelevant. Even if the PCs are irrational, the competition is not.

The relevance is that the trade tables do support rational free-traders. Simple trade, in the limited context of the original rules, allows profit, as long as one does not operate the way most PCs do. Not saying it's a bad thing to play adventures if that's fun, just saying faulting the trade rules because you have to do this and that instead of spending your time investigating some strange ruins or chasing pirates is false. Agreed the competition is the ones doing the drudgery. The PCs can't complain if they go off having adventures instead of working to pay the bills and then have their ship seized. They can't then start crying "Well the trade rules suck, there's no way we can make money with them." It's BS.

If there was as monopoly in place, free traders wouldn't have their rates regulated. They wouldn't exist. It's certainly a viable option to rule "J2 and higher free traders don't exist", but canon doesn't support that claim.

So you missed my whole predator/scavenger analogy? And I thought is was so clever :smirk:

That's not the way the speculative trade tables work, though. The speculative trade tables permit you to reliably make large amounts of money on certain types of run.

You know, I keep hearing this from some people. Just how do you roll speculative trade anyway that you can exploit it that way?

The way I recall it working is you roll randomly on a table and get what is offered. Once per week. You can take it or leave it. You don't get to choose the thing with an actual value mod of -5 on this world and then jump to a world with a +5 avm for it and make a gazillion credits. You might get lucky but more likely you won't and you'll only make a good profit.

Really. I'm dying to know how I too can make a bazillion credits with no money down and without quitting my day job, all in my spare time. How much does this miracle course cost? Cr1,000? Cr500? No?! Cr100! And if I act now I also get the handy meson slicer and dicer! Incredible!

OK, the last paragraph is just me fading for lack of food and getting silly, lunch time!

 

[spank]

If there was as monopoly in place, free traders wouldn't have their rates regulated. They wouldn't exist. It's certainly a viable option to rule "J2 and higher free traders don't exist", but canon doesn't support that claim.

But the rates are regulated, cargo and passengers prices are limited on a "per jump" basis, not distance. Who are they limited by, and why, likely the Imperium, and the Megacorps. They make the laws, and they do it for their own benefits.

 

[spank]

IThe relevance is that the trade tables do support rational free-traders. Simple trade, in the limited context of the original rules, allows profit, as long as one does not operate the way most PCs do. Not saying it's a bad thing to play adventures if that's fun, just saying faulting the trade rules because you have to do this and that instead of spending your time investigating some strange ruins or chasing pirates is false. Agreed the competition is the ones doing the drudgery. The PCs can't complain if they go off having adventures instead of working to pay the bills and then have their ship seized. They can't then start crying "Well the trade rules suck, there's no way we can make money with them." It's BS.

That is really the root of this whole thing, someone wants to dink with the trade rules so they can have a monty haul campaign, an easy path to being a merchant prince, if it was easy everone would do it.

 

[rust]

But the rates are regulated, cargo and passengers prices are limited on a "per jump" basis, not distance. Who are they limited by, and why, likely the Imperium, and the Megacorps. They make the laws, and they do it for their own benefits.

Ah, well, in fact Marc Miller made those "laws" as rules for a certain roleplay-
ing game, probably with the intention to provide a simple and easy system
for the players to use - neither Imperium nor Megacorps had anything to do
with it ... o:

 

[far-trader]

Ah, well, in fact Marc Miller made those "laws" as rules for a certain roleplay-
ing game, probably with the intention to provide a simple and easy system
for the players to use - neither Imperium nor Megacorps had anything to do
with it ... o:

I think the hints of what was implied and would later become "The Imperium" are clear in many ways in the original "generic" rules.

We have nobles, an interstellar navy, interstellar traders, and other hints at something of an empire of the stars even in the first three LBBs

Much easier to see and better defined in the eventually body of works granted, but I seem to recall even our first games with it being about a stellar empire. Much smaller in scope and a small ship universe, but otherwise very like the Imperium.

 

[spank]

Ah, well, in fact Marc Miller made those "laws" as rules for a certain roleplay-
ing game, probably with the intention to provide a simple and easy system
for the players to use - neither Imperium nor Megacorps had anything to do
with it ... o:

If you want to play it that way, the rules of the simple and easy sytem create a monopoly by limiting what ships the players can afford in a profitable way.