LBB 3 Tech level

[Spinward Flow]

Destination TL - Origin TL ...? Seem to give the correct DM.

Okay, good. Nice to get that ironed out satisfactorily.

 

[atpollard]

What about the possibility of converting used Scout ships (seekers) into Passenger/Freight micro-traders?

I never ran the numbers, but always wondered about the possibility of a VERY SMALL merchant to cover the Low Pop/Low Trade backwaters.

 

[spank]

This is one area the LBBs could use some improvement in,
The example is on page 8, and the table is on page 11.
IMHO, IT's be better to have them on the same page, or facing pages.

 

[Spinward Flow]

What about the possibility of converting used Scout ships (seekers) into Passenger/Freight micro-traders?

I never ran the numbers, but always wondered about the possibility of a VERY SMALL merchant to cover the Low Pop/Low Trade backwaters.

This is also a part of my Pondering Starship Evolution thread, specifically post #394 ... where by using 2x 16 ton Boxes and a 32 ton hangar bay, a redesigned Scout/Courier could become a viable "micro merchant" mail transport/tramp.

Ah ... but ...
If you "pull a Seeker" and reduce the (main) fuel tankage from 40 down to 30 tons, and then put a 10-12 ton collapsible fuel tank into the Cargo Box, you get this ...

• 15 tons for A/A/A drives (code: 2/2/2, Scout)
• 30 tons for fuel (10 tons for J1, 20 tons for PP2)
• 20 tons for bridge
• 1 ton for model/1bis
• 1 ton for turret fire control
• 32 tons for internal hangar bay
  1. 16 tons for Stateroom Box (4 staterooms)
  2. 16 tons for Cargo Box (4 ton air/raft, 12 tons cargo hold)
     • 12 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank
• 1 ton for cargo hold

15+30+20+1+1+32+1 = 100 tons

This is where things get a bit "house rules" for the Referee, but I would personally rule that it's possible for a 100 ton starship with 30 tons of fuel to execute a 2 parsec jump, leaving 10 tons of fuel remaining. During the jump, the 10-12 tons of fuel in collapsible fuel tank could be pumped into the starship's "main" fuel tanks, so the ship would exit jump with 20+ tons of fuel in its fuel tanks.

However, a 2 ton additional margin in fuel capacity would mean that a 100 ton starship has 30+12=42 tons of fuel available onboard, without needing to refuel. That means that such a starship COULD execute J2+2 within a reasonable time frame ... giving the starship a "2 parsec round trip" fuel endurance capacity before needing to refuel (20 days of EP: 2 output, costing 0.1 tons of fuel per day @ EP=2).

I'm thinking that such a marginal/minor tweak to the endurance profile could have some rather remarkable mission capability implications in terms of flexible tasking for exploration and survey missions, because the starship wouldn't be "required" to refuel at the destination or be lost due to fuel exhaustion.

If you have a crew of 2 ... Pilot/Gunner, Steward/Medic ... that leaves 2 staterooms available for high passengers.
If you retain the air/raft and allocate 5 tons of the Cargo Box towards a Mail Vault, you have 6.88 tons of cargo capacity remaining inside the Cargo Box and an additional 1 ton of cargo capacity inside the starship (although I would recommend that this space be dedicated towards life support reserves consumables, which are 1 ton for 150 person/weeks for Cr150,000 as per CT Beltstrike, p3).

• 100 ton standard hull starship with streamlining (armed)
• 2 crew (Pilot/Gunner, Steward/Medic)
• 2 high passengers (Cr20,000 revenue)
• 6 tons cargo (Cr6000 revenue)
• 5 tons mail (Cr25,000 revenue)

100% manifest revenue: Cr51,000 per single jump destination

Crew salaries ... 9075+4125 = 13,200 / 2 = Cr6600 per 2 weeks
Life support (4 persons): Cr 8000 per 2 weeks
Berthing fees: Cr100 for 6 days every 2 weeks
Overhead expenses (not including annual overhaul maintenance): Cr14,700 per 2 weeks

I'm thinking that a "relatively reliable" profit of 51,000/2-14,700 = Cr10,800 every 2 weeks ought to be sustainable, more or less indefinitely ... until the bills for repairs (due to old age) get too high. Something of an "air bnb to the stars" kind of experience, but hey ... it's J2!

 

[spank]

What about the possibility of converting used Scout ships (seekers) into Passenger/Freight micro-traders?

I never ran the numbers, but always wondered about the possibility of a VERY SMALL merchant to cover the Low Pop/Low Trade backwaters.

Ultimately it is about getting enough freight to cover your expenses,
Certainly do-able, but a scout is going to pay more of a penalty in terms tonnage for of required systems and crew memebers vs availble freight volume. A type S scout for example has 3 tons of cargo, 3% of the ship's mass, VS 82 for a Free trader or 41% of the ship's mass. Or 61 tons -- 30.5% for a Far Trader.
Either trader will have a far easier time than a scout,

Ship	Cargo Capacity	Payment	Required profit
Scout	3 tons	122,625 Cr	40,875Cr/Ton
Free trader	82 tons	154,500 Cr	1884.14 Cr/Ton
Far Trader	61 tons	245,834 Cr	4030.06 Cr/Ton

In fact I think it's be near impossible to make a Type S profitable as a Trader.
You could gain about 10 tons by down grading to a J-1, I think you'd still be hard pressed.
You'd still need about 9,500 Cr per ton.

I think players with a scout are going to be playing a very different game than a trader. Much more agents of a patron focused, on intrigue and skullduggery.

 

[kilemall]

Ultimately it is about getting enough freight to cover your expenses,
Certainly do-able, but a scout is going to pay more of a penalty in terms tonnage for of required systems and crew memebers vs availble freight volume. A type S scout for example has 3 tons of cargo, 3% of the ship's mass, VS 82 for a Free trader or 41% of the ship's mass. Or 61 tons -- 30.5% for a Far Trader.
Either trader will have a far easier time than a scout,

Ship	Cargo Capacity	Payment	Required profit
Scout	3 tons	122,625 Cr	40,875Cr/Ton
Free trader	82 tons	154,500 Cr	184.14 Cr/Ton
Far Trader	61 tons	245,834 Cr	4030.06 Cr/Ton

In fact I think it's be near impossible to make a Type S profitable as a Trader.
You could gain about 10 tons by down grading to a J-1, I think you'd still be hard pressed.
You'd still need about 9,500 Cr per ton.

I think players with a scout are going to be playing a very different game than a trader. Much more agents of a patron focused, on intrigue and skullduggery.

Seekers are the better micro trader model.

 

[spank]

Observations:
Looking at the high passage results you should plan for atleast 3 High passages,
The average result is ~3.48, if you skip POP 0 & 1 worlds, it rises to ~3.96.

The dice rolls themselves could use some improvement, on average there is no effective difference between 1D-1D and 2D-2D, or between 3D-2D and 2D-1D.
This means that even though there are 6 different dice roll possibilities, there are really only 4 results.




It might be better to 1D-1D and 2D-2D with 1D-4 and 1D-2,
Then replace for 2D-1D and and 3D-2D with 2D-3 and 2D-1
That'd give you an average of:
-1.5 for Pop 2 worlds,
1.5 for Pop 3,
4 for Pop 4 and 5,
6 for Pop 6 and 7,
7 for Pop 8 & 9

 

[spank]

I get about 4.64 Middle passages,
up to about 5.17 if you avoid Pop 1/Pop 2 worlds.

And 8.56 for Low passages
Up to about 9.56 if you avoid Pop 1/Pop 2 worlds.

So, with the ~3.5 high passages, a Free Trader needs ~14 staterooms,
5 crew, Pilot, Engineer, Navagator, Medic, and Steward.
Plus ~3.5 High passages, and 4.5 High Passages,

And 8 low berths, because they come 4 to a ton.

 

[spank]

I'm on to calculating cargos,
which looks like it'll be super fun.
roll a number of d6 equal to the cargo table dice roll+mods
So leaving a High Pop, TL20 world , going to a high pop low TL world,
roll up to:
1D6+7
+1 for Pop 8+,
Plus up to 20 for TL difference,
so up to 34D6!
The hard part will be getting excel to total a variable number of dice, but I think I have a rough idea how to get that, to work.

 

[kilemall]

Observations:
Looking at the high passage results you should plan for atleast 3 High passages,
The average result is ~3.48, if you skip POP 0 & 1 worlds, it rises to ~3.96.

The dice rolls themselves could use some improvement, on average there is no effective difference between 1D-1D and 2D-2D, or between 3D-2D and 2D-1D.
This means that even though there are 6 different dice roll possibilities, there are really only 4 results.


View attachment 5602

It might be better to 1D-1D and 2D-2D with 1D-4 and 1D-2,
Then replace for 2D-1D and and 3D-2D with 2D-3 and 2D-1
That'd give you an average of:
-1.5 for Pop 2 worlds,
1.5 for Pop 3,
4 for Pop 4 and 5,
6 for Pop 6 and 7,
7 for Pop 8 & 9

Change the effect as you like, but it’s not zeroed out.

The 1d6-1d6 range is 0-5, the 2d6-2d6 range is 0-10, and 3d6-3d6 is 0-15. The bell curve tendency is for 0-1. Anything higher is a bonus. But there are higher highs baked into the RAW rolls, improbable as they may be.

The key effect is that for lower pop planets the vast majority of your passengers are Medium passage, basically coach. Makes sense given these are power of 10 pops lower then a millions pop planets. Likely off the beaten path so your ship might be the first in months, deferred service to pent up demand.

Almost guaranteed some mid and low passages.

You could do the same Spinward Flow trick and announce multiple destinations to fill up your staterooms. Extras can’t get onboard, too bad so sad, high passages get preference and first come first served.

Interesting play potential, doing one of these low pop multi destination numbers especially on an E or X starport. Likely to be excess passengers and being intermittent service I would expect many are desperate to get offworld to a more populous place with more opportunity and transport.

Whatever the fiscal laws one has for the underlying ticket purchase mechanics, the E and X ports likely have unique nonstandard arrangements.

Instead of high/medium outbid/first come order based on interstellar banks/ticket service, perhaps more hard cash, under the table bribes, charging more then the standard, favoring the multi destination passengers or pleading hard cases affects who gets on board.

Not something amenable to spreadsheet treatment but play opportunity to make something more interesting and functional.

The other point about low pop planets is they get a speculative roll same as the big planets. They may not be great with the low cargo and passenger thresholds, but some of the best big payoff sources are NI worlds such as Radioactives, Gems and Petrochemicals. Maybe not a regular stop but good enough to transit market zones while escaping the tender mercies of enemies and local LE.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Observations:
Looking at the high passage results you should plan for at least 3 High passengers,
The average result is ~3.48, if you skip POP 0 & 1 worlds, it rises to ~3.96.

This is where things start getting fun when you start computing the economic throughput ... and their implications for starship designs intended for "load balancing" of supply vs demand in an idealized way.

If you go as broad spectrum as possible, you're going to want 3-4 high passengers and no more so as to meet your accommodations capacity of 3-4 staterooms. However, 3-4 high passengers gets hard to justify in terms of crew salaries+life support overhead expenses. This is going to require a bit of modeling, so bear with me for a moment.

Keep in mind that subsidized operations have a 50% ticket revenue "rake" by the subsidizing government, while all overhead expenses are borne in full by the operator. This causes various asymmetries to occur at a variety of breakpoints between subsidized and non-subsidized operations (so straight multiples of 1:2 don't work properly when guesstimating profit differentials, because the details matter).

• Steward + 3 high passengers = 4 staterooms (16 tons), Cr30,000 ticket revenue, Cr1500 per 2 weeks crew salary, Cr8000 life support overhead
  • Net revenue: Cr5,500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr20,500 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 16 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr343.75 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1281.25 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
• 4 middle passengers = 4 staterooms (16 tons), Cr32,000 ticket revenue, Cr8000 life support overhead
  • Net revenue: Cr8000 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr24,000 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 16 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1500 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
• 16 tons of cargo = Cr16,000 ticket revenue
  • Net revenue: Cr8000 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr16,000 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 16 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1000 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)

What this means is that at low numbers of high passengers to stewards (3-4:1) you are reducing profit margins.
So for comparison purposes, what happens if you double the number of high passengers, making the "uptime" of the Steward "more efficient" in operational terms?

• Steward + 8 high passengers = 9 staterooms (36 tons), Cr80,000 ticket revenue, Cr1500 per 2 weeks crew salary, Cr18,000 life support overhead
  • Net revenue: Cr20,500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr60,500 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 36 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr569.44 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1680.56 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
• 9 middle passengers = 9 staterooms (36 tons), Cr72,000 ticket revenue, Cr18,000 life support overhead
  • Net revenue: Cr18,000 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr54,000 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 36 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1500 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
• 36 tons of cargo = Cr36,000 ticket revenue
  • Net revenue: Cr18,000 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr36,000 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 36 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1000 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)

So on a "purely Evil Bean Counter™" basis, high passengers are not economically competitive (in profit per ton "density" terms) until you've got accommodations for ~6 high passengers. The profit per ton "revenue density" threshold to beat is Cr500 per ton (subsidized) compared against middle passengers/cargo ... and Cr1000 per ton (non-subsidized) compared against cargo or Cr1500 per ton (non-subsidized) compared against middle passengers.

• Steward + 5 high passengers = 6 staterooms (24 tons), Cr50,000 ticket revenue, Cr1500 per 2 weeks crew salary, Cr12,000 life support overhead
  • Net revenue: Cr11,500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr36,500 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 24 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr479.17 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1520.83 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
• Steward + 6 high passengers = 7 staterooms (28 tons), Cr60,000 ticket revenue, Cr1500 per 2 weeks crew salary, Cr14,000 life support overhead
  • Net revenue: Cr14,500 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr44,500 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized) for 28 tons
  • Profit per ton: Cr517 per 2 weeks (subsidized), Cr1589.29 per 2 weeks (non-subsidized)

Incidentally, the stock J1 Free Trader and J2 Far Trader are designed and crewed for ... 6 high passengers ... although the J2 Far Trader is capable of hosting a 7th high passenger if there is sufficient ticket demand.

The net upshot of this factor is that starships designed (and crewed) to accommodate high passengers will tend to set a minimum floor of 6-8 high passengers "expected" to be onboard at all times, in order to justify the capability to transport them in profit/loss terms of jump to jump operations. This factor then skews the preferences for routing among tramps and free traders, since they need to "go" where the demand is high enough to justify the voyage(s) ... which then pushes them towards worlds with higher populations (increasing ticket demand) or towards declaring multiple destinations in advance and committing to a course plot in order to "work through" a region of low population (to get to the other side).

The real challenge is working out how to build a starship in detail that can "thrive" in even regions of low population (4-) by making a profit where competitors are "naturally deterred" by the poor prospects of return on the voyage expenses. In business economics, just like in nature, if you can survive where others fail and fall, you can both "corner the market" and let the "harshness" of the economic environment deter/prevent competitors from encroaching on your (business) territory. Needless to say, this has all kinds of knock on (social) consequences for such low end penny ante operators, grinding out profits at the the extreme low end that no one else will touch (because they can't make a profit there without "changing horses starships" to try and compete.

My current sense is that low population worlds (4-) are best served by sub-200 ton starships operated by minimalist crews (1 or 2 at the most!). It then turns into a "price is right" type of deal, where you want the "biggest sub-200 ton hull" as can be practically designed in order to maximize revenues while minimizing expenses (annual overhaul costs, mortgage financing, etc.) in an attempt to keep the business model in the black.

Needless to say, for security reasons, this quickly turns into an "interstellar delivery van" type of business model, where passengers are a security risk for minimalist crews (because hijacking is a thing) and the REAL money to be made is in speculative goods arbitrage instead of in ticket revenues. So the smarter play is to dump the passenger capacity entirely, have a crew of 1-2 (pilot/gunner or pilot+gunner) and fly around with the largest cargo hold you can fit into 199 tons or less while still having enough drive performance to get appreciable interstellar range and have enough maneuver acceleration/agility to outrun pirates (or customs enforcers, depending on what's in your cargo hold). You use mail delivery as guaranteed revenue to pay the bills (and turn a small but consistent profit) while wheeling and dealing in speculative goods and playing catch as catch can on any freight tickets "going your way" as necessary to keep your cargo hold filled along the way. Very much a "low end" penny ante type of "courier" operation, but one that can be incredibly lucrative when operating in regions where there is a good mix of trade codes (preferably all of them) so as to maximize returns on speculative goods arbitrage.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The dice rolls themselves could use some improvement, on average there is no effective difference between 1D-1D and 2D-2D, or between 3D-2D and 2D-1D.

@kilemall beat me to it.
1D-1D is not the same as 2D-2D is not the same as 3D-3D.
The minimum stays the same (zero) while the maximum rises (5, 10, 15) ... shifting the bell curve(s) into new shapes of possibilities.
Those changes in dice mixes actually modify the range of possible results, so none of them are equivalent to each other.
The AVERAGE results might be extremely similar and the minimum (zero) might not move at all, but the upper bound potential can change quite a bit ... so avoid the urge to Prematurely Optimize this factor/feature of the passenger and cargo tables

The real insight to be gained here is that there are actually (multiple) "overlapping market segments" that are "best served" by different types of starship designs and classes. Ships that are optimized for "big markets" (Population: 8+) can be highly profitable by "making it up in volume" (as the saying goes) ... while being remarkably unsuitable for "small markets" (Population: 4-) that offer insufficient demand for interstellar transport services. Working out how to design starships in order to meet those "load demand" signals in ways that hit balance points which are "profitable enough" ... reliably enough, to sustain operations indefinitely ... then becomes quite the challenge to the business modelers and the naval architect design offices.

The nice thing is that there is no "One Size Fits All" type solution to this challenge of the "texture" of the economic terrain of subsectors and sectors. Instead, you've got "many different schools of thought, all competing" with each other as different parties pursue different strategies, all in search of profits.
And why do they do that?
Because they have FAITH in the Great Material Continuum ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

So the smarter play is to dump the passenger capacity entirely, have a crew of 1-2 (pilot/gunner or pilot+gunner) and fly around with the largest cargo hold you can fit into 199 tons or less while still having enough drive performance to get appreciable interstellar range and have enough maneuver acceleration/agility to outrun pirates (or customs enforcers, depending on what's in your cargo hold).

Seems familiar.

 

[Rupert]

Trade codes are central to the speculation table, the core of the advanced merchant game.

Ignore LBB7 trade systems, other then a brilliant OTU alien trade DM table it’s wet pasty cardboard useless.

And for some reason MT and TNE used it, so does T5. Why, oh, why? It's boring and puts players to sleep. The original CT system was much more fun, and as long as you used the RAW and didn't let people re-roll result it wasn't too likely to make the players instantly wealthy (and that's fixable anyway).

 

[Rupert]

Short answer:

• Under subsidy, J1 Free Traders and J2 Far Traders can both be profitable on ticket sales alone
• Paid Off/non-subsidy, J1 Free Traders can be dramatically more profitable than J2 Far Traders on ticket sales alone
• Bank Financed, J1 Free Traders can still be profitable (with full manifests), but J2 Far Traders are going to go bankrupt if they can't supplement their revenues with (successful) speculative goods arbitrage from time to time

The key finding though was that both J1 Free Traders and J2 Far Traders don't have a whole lot of "margin" to work with if they can't keep their manifests full of passengers and freight tickets. The amount of revenue they HAVE TO bring in for them to remain profitable is pretty close to their passenger and cargo transport capacity, so going places where there isn't enough demand for their services can wind up being a net loss on the voyage. This in turn means that on the interstellar maps, there are going to be "financial deserts" where low end free trader merchants risk bankruptcy if they venture there, simply because there won't be enough ticket revenues to offset their costs of operations while in those regions.

I think that this is pretty much exactly what MM, et al intended. It explains 'subbies', it explains why J1 free traders exist despite the huge utility increase of j-2, and it provides players in 'tramp freighter' campaigns with a strong motivation to take risks every so often.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Seems familiar.

Considering that my first starship design project on these forums was exactly this type of "interstellar delivery van" idea ... and I even pitted my J2/6G Spinward Flex Courier design against a J2/1G Far Trader running a route through (rimward) Lanth and Vilis subsectors in a Race To Profitability using the same rolls for both ships (in mirror universes) to highlight the effects of the design choices for both starship designs ... it something very familiar.

I'm currently doodling my way to a sub-200 ton starship mounting B/D/D drives, yielding J2/4G/PP4 performance with a crew of 2 ... although I'm wondering about the possibility of pulling in my regenerative biome life support laboratory house rules (again) as a way to modulate the overhead expenses for such an extremely low end (yet high maneuver performance) craft.

• Pilot-1, Gunner-1 = 2 staterooms (8 tons)
  • (6000+1000)/2 = Cr3500 crew salary per 2 weeks
  • Cr4000 life support overhead expenses per 2 weeks
    • Cr7500 per 2 weeks overhead expenses = 15 tons cargo revenues (subsidized) or 7.5 tons cargo revenues (unsubsidized)
    • Net construction cost to break even: 8+15 = 23 tons (subsidized) or 8+7.5 = 15.5 tons (unsubsidized)

• Pilot-2/Gunner-2, Steward-1/Medic-4 = 2 staterooms (8 tons), 4 tons regenerative biome life support laboratory for 2 people (Type: V-c)
  • (((6000*1.1)+(1000*1.1))*0.75 + ((3000*1.1)+(2000*1.3))*0.75)/2 = Cr5100 crew salary per 2 weeks
  • Cr0 life support overhead expenses per 2 weeks
    • Cr5100 per 2 weeks = 10.2 tons cargo revenues (subsidized) or 5.1 tons cargo revenues (unsubsidized)
    • Net construction cost to break even: 8+4+10.2 = 22.2 tons (subsidized) or 8+4+5.1 = 15.1 tons (unsubsidized)

So on in pure construction tonnage terms, the Type V-c regenerative life support biome laboratory option is highly comparable to the "standard" staterooms and life support overhead structure. The difference is that the life support laboratory option is cheaper to own and operate, even though the it requires a much more highly skilled crew in order to do so. You're basically trading life support overhead expenses for crew skills (and thus, salaries) on highly skilled crew and increased construction cost ... but you wind up saving more in the long run due to lower overhead expenses in absolute terms (Cr7500 vs Cr5100 per 2 weeks) which increases profit margins when "revenue constrained" to the Cr25,000 per destination while making mail deliveries (which could be subject to a 50% subsidy rake on that revenue).

If you take "standard" life support, you either need 4 tons (subsidized) or 2 tons (unsubsidized) of cargo tickets to offset the life support expenses of 1 person, which in commercial service means 1 stateroom. So one way to think about it is that 1 crew member requires 6-8 tons dedicated to their upkeep when running on "standard" life support ... and those 2-4 tons of cargo tickets require there be a demand for cargo transport (so it's more like an IOU obligation, every time you jump, in order to break even).

 

[whartung]

And for some reason MT and TNE used it, so does T5. Why, oh, why?

Because Book 2 trade is Munchkin level broken, perhaps?

 

[bookwyrm]

For those worried about the larger TL modifiers, you could try a +/-5 cap. (idea from Aramis in another thread)

I used the T20 version of a 100 dton Scout to test the trading system. 4 State Rooms & 20 dtons cargo. I had the Scout paid off in 5 years, I think. 5 dtons for mail and the remaining 15 for bulk cargo and/or speculation, and with only 1 crew, only Middle Passage. I did a trade route on a 3 planet string I rolled up. And they weren't really good planets for trade, so it drove me crazy sometimes.

 

[kilemall]

Because Book 2 trade is Munchkin level broken, perhaps?

The 77 original encounter tables had pirates buzzing around big pop big payoff systems. Clearly you were meant to muck around in the lower pop worlds, arm up to the point you could bet the mail vault contract going and get into high profit space.

The big money armed you up to take risks and lose millions in cost sinks like weapons, computers and computer programs even when you ‘won’.

The later encounter tables went simulationist, better starports had more protection pushing off pirate risk to C starports. Risk and reward lost balance, allowing for munchkin powerup.

The smallest things enabled risk big or go home and undid the ecology. An object lesson for any ATU fiddling.

 

[Rupert]

Because Book 2 trade is Munchkin level broken, perhaps?

If you had money to invest (implying you're already somewhat successful) and if the dice liked you. If not, you could well go broke.