Making a Jump 2 freighter profitable

[GBoyett]

Hearing everyone's "betatesting" of the T20 trade rules, I decided to do the same thing tonight. So here's my result.

The main PC is a Belter 4 / Merchant 9. With some luck at the casinos and bonuses his starting cash was $360,000. Instead of a Trader he gets a 10 year old standard Seeker (J-2, M-1, 35dtons cargo).

Because of the limitation of the mortgage spreadsheet(See below reason for this spreadsheet) I used the ship has a 30 year mortgage. Please note this is a 10 year old ship with a new mortgage, not in the middle of an existing one.

Anyway, I did a 6 month run in the Beta Quadrant of the Gateway Sector. The primary stopovers were Varan's Belt and Vestra, with couple of sidetrips to Oceanis and Polacci.

In summary, after 6 months I ended up with 2.22MCr. Cargo runs caused minor profits or loses while the speculative trade was the real money maker.

So well my business was going I started to add extra principal begining with the 4th payment. The extras prinicipal totaled 2.25MCr, which reduced the project schedule by 68 payments. It was variable extra principal per payment that made me select this mortgage spreadsheet.

Here's the breakdown.
Cargo - Except for Polacci all the systems had almost similar populations (7) and tech levels (A & B). Having a good Laision skill helped

Speculative - The clincher was a very high Broker skill (18 = +4 Int +12 Rank +2 Barter). This will virtually guarrenty something is available to buy. With Calculating Eye feat you can easily get +3 brokerage bonus for the actual value table. The broker bonus help offset any negative or nonexisting trade mods. Most trade goods actually had no applicable mods for the visited worlds.

One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.

In summary, with a good set of skills, feats, and systems, the t20 rules do work. You can get some very wacked-out selling prices with the ACT. The worse was +11 (+3 Broker, +8 Rich) when selling coffee and tea to Oceanis. Though most had +3 - +5 mods.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by George Boyett:
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.

I don't know what the intent of the rules was, but I find that unbalancing in actual play. IMHO it's best to limit that bonus to either sales or purchases. Well, unless they've got a really unprofitable ship but you want them to break even on trade anyhow.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better.

Do note, of course, that a world cannot be both High Pop and Rich. (High Pop is population rating of 9+. Rich must have a population of 6 to 8.)

So you can't have a route between two worlds that are both High Pop and Rich.

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Morte:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George Boyett:
One note regarding the broker bonus. It seems it can be used to lower the price, especially for buying. If this is wrong, please let me know.

I don't know what the intent of the rules was, but I find that unbalancing in actual play. IMHO it's best to limit that bonus to either sales or purchases. Well, unless they've got a really unprofitable ship but you want them to break even on trade anyhow. </font>[/QUOTE]Check the latest errata for THB. It gives it as +/- brokerage bonus.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually travelling between two High Pop, Rich Worlds overall works better.

Do note, of course, that a world cannot be both High Pop and Rich. (High Pop is population rating of 9+. Rich must have a population of 6 to 8.)

So you can't have a route between two worlds that are both High Pop and Rich. </font>[/QUOTE]I klnew there was a problem with that combination. OK Rich World Pop 8 would be best or Hi-Pop, Industrial. In all reality though since the rolls are so randomly distributed, at least in CT and T20, the trade classification matters less than the Population Digit, Tech Level and Starport type. All three have a bigger, consistent economic impact.

 

[JAFARR]

IMHO,what this whole topic boils down to is this: The origional rules were a good starting place. Out of them grew LBBs 4 - 8 just because of glitches like this. Then MT was supposed to put all the revisions and updates in place, but their fix for commerce didn't completly fix it, so IMTU I resolved it by charging by the parsec and stopped worrying about it.

 

[selunatic2397]

Thats what i've been doing IMTU too. It works out okay...that and the preference for the non merchants to favor extremely ancient ships [as long as it's paid off they could care less if it's 100 years old]. Currently they're raiding pirates because "They've got all the good stuff already". With the CT prices for turrets and lasers and the like my players are doing okay on the salvage markets.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually the whole topic boils down to can the economic system of paying passage and freight per jump regardless of distance finance a J2+ Starship using the standard freight prices, the standard passenger prices, the standard mortgage, and hopefully, but not neccessarily, one of the standard starship designs? With or without speculative trading.

The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually the whole topic boils down to can the economic system of paying passage and freight per jump regardless of distance finance a J2+ Starship using the standard freight prices, the standard passenger prices, the standard mortgage, and hopefully, but not neccessarily, one of the standard starship designs? With or without speculative trading.

Agreed, on the topic meaning

I'd even add the requirement of 25 trips per year (1 week in port, 1 week in transit) with 2 weeks off for annual maintenance, with paid crew vacations of course.

And no I'm not forgetting the little things like landing and berthing fees either.

Originally posted by Bhoins:
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships.

But here I disagree, at least in part. The standard far-trader design sucks, no doubt on purpose as a means of "encouraging" the player's to "adventure".

I can consistently meet my obligations with "my" standard* TL11 200ton Far-Trader for T20, and turn a profit when speculating. In fact a quick business plan shows a profit of about Cr19,600 per trip assuming maximum expenses and full revenue potential (which should be doable most of the time per the design).

* I say standard because there's nothing special about it, it's just a logical design imo. If it were priced as a custom design it would probably lose money even with speculation. But then as a custom design perhaps I could make an opposed check against the different shipyards until I found one willing to build it for me at a 30% discount

Check the Trader skill notes

So there needs be no change to the rates or shy away from financed J2 ships, you just need the right tools (ship and crew). J3 might be a different story but I did the numbers quite a while back and recall finding it can be made to work too if you build it at TL13 and/or perhaps a little larger, say up to 400tons.

Again I could, should, and want to share my ideas, but it ties into a project I want to propose so I'm loathe to just throw stuff out before it's ready.

I will just say again, it can be done. Belive it or don't.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
The answer is apparently no. At least not consistently. The apparent solution to starship finance is either to charge passage and freight per parsec instead of per jump or to not finance J2+ ships.

But here I disagree, at least in part. The standard far-trader design sucks, no doubt on purpose as a means of "encouraging" the player's to "adventure".

I can consistently meet my obligations with "my" standard* TL11 200ton Far-Trader for T20, and turn a profit when speculating. In fact a quick business plan shows a profit of about Cr19,600 per trip assuming maximum expenses and full revenue potential (which should be doable most of the time per the design).

* I say standard because there's nothing special about it, it's just a logical design imo. If it were priced as a custom design it would probably lose money even with speculation. But then as a custom design perhaps I could make an opposed check against the different shipyards until I found one willing to build it for me at a 30% discount

Check the Trader skill notes

So there needs be no change to the rates or shy away from financed J2 ships, you just need the right tools (ship and crew). J3 might be a different story but I did the numbers quite a while back and recall finding it can be made to work too if you build it at TL13 and/or perhaps a little larger, say up to 400tons.

Again I could, should, and want to share my ideas, but it ties into a project I want to propose so I'm loathe to just throw stuff out before it's ready.

I will just say again, it can be done. Belive it or don't. </font>[/QUOTE]Well I personally have yet to make it more than 6 months, in a dozen attempts. Not in T20 at any rate. CT doesn't stand a chance because you only get one roll per week and it is too easy to get fragged. And that is without the nice plot devices like hijacking, corrupt officials, piracy, quarantines, shifty loads, etc. (Those are to encourage adventuring.

)

Now I know I am not the only person that tried to make this work. And remember it has to work, not just for Player Characters but for the general merchant population as well. Has anyone besides Far-Trader made it work, consistently, not just some fluke load?

 

[JAFARR]

Actually there are hints here and there that there may be reasons to charge/earn more than the "standard" prices. It would seem that in the SM these prices would certanly be welcome. I haven't done much adventuring in other sectors, but "Knightfall" shows a much more likely area to try.

Another thought: PC's are actually free lancers trying to make it on what the bigger boys leave lying around. If these ships were owned by a megacorp with long term contracts in place, would they be profitable? I suspect so. In actuality PC's trying to pay off a ship by carrying freight and passengers are Free Traders no matter what they may think of the idea. Maybe the question should be: Can a Free Trader make the rules work ...?

 

[RickA]

Re: 8 pages of trade discussion

My brain hurts.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by RickA:
Re: 8 pages of trade discussion

My brain hurts.

Congratualtions, you have passed your entry test to the Merchant Academy of Regina.

Welcome aboard

That is presuming you actually read the material and didn't just mean you hurt your brain from the very fact that there are 8 pages of trade discussion

 

[Maynard]

The costs of operation are badly skewed. If you look at the tramp freight rates here on Earth versus the cost of operations, yes, then plenty of businesses will fail, especially small start ups.

The large container ships can't be touched for rates. The little guy has to offer express service and excellent customer service as well, to justify higher prices. Same in trucking; the big guys have trucks all over the place, hence regular accounts and semi-regular routes, while the little guy either has only a few customers, or has to take what's offered on the spot market, where brokers rake off the cream.

The real question is, how can anybody sink some 40,000,000 Credits into such an operation, much less actually find banks stupid enough to make loans to such little operations, with such high failure rates? So, the game rules must be fudged, and interstellar flights have to be cheaper, to justify the kind of volumes of traffic supposedly going on in the settled areas and all those class A and B starports and shipyards, and there should be fewer settled planets in reality, than is the case in the OTU.

This kind of makes the Annic Nova's solar panels and capacitors make a lot more sense than the standard Imperial approach to ship design, eh? at least it would if it weren't for the long charge up times.

 

[RickA]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Congratualtions, you have passed your entry test to the Merchant Academy of Regina.

Welcome aboard

That is presuming you actually read the material and didn't just mean you hurt your brain from the very fact that there are 8 pages of trade discussion

Oh, no, I have read it all, and all such threads I can find on the subject. I'm about to start a T20 Traveller campaign (my first Traveller work in nigh 20 years) and it will be a classic sort of campaign starting with the Stoner Express module.

So, trade is an important issue and knowing now (before the bedamned post office even gets me my rule book I ordered last week) that a parsec system for cargo fees should be considered instead of a per jump system is a big help.

Frankly I don't see how distance isn't a factor in pricing, but hey, maybe they just didn't think it through all the way. /shrug/

I'd not jump in a make such a profound change for my campaign myself, not until after we struggled mightily with the existing rules and likely had a few players give up in disgust.

So, if nothing else, this thread has saved me that.

Meanwhile, carry on gentlebeings. There are those of us with little to add to your discussion who are nevertheless benifiting from it.

 

[Maynard]

I would think tweaking the drive and power plant fuel requirements, and also the cost of refining fuel, in order to increase freight capacity and lower operating costs would be the 'realistic' way to go, and having jump tenders available on the regular routes and the occasional irregular route, getting 'bulk rates' for several Traders going to the same destination, kind of like the equivalent of taking the bus or train, getting on and off at various stops along the service routes.

In medieval times, they used to have 'Fairs' on regular dates, so this could be the case with, say A, B, and C starports, so traffic can travel at a 'discount' on such dates, along with larger amounts of freight on a semiregular basis, and hence not subject to the normal traffic rules for those ports on 'Fair Weeks'. This also gives a more 'Techno-Medieval' feel to an empire based on fuedalism.

Thus, you can bend some of the trade classification effects to increase profits based on the smaller off route worlds coming to the local area's major'market day' for their shopping, also, as the market demand is now clustered for ,say, the D and E type worlds nearby, and their pop and trade classification figures can be used also, especially if they are a hi pop world. This would also allow more freight contracts for the little guy, who will haul for the special niche markets the big frieghters ignore.

I haven't gamed this idea yet, but it would make more sense than just wandering around randomly, picking up the odd lot here and there. Just like when the railroads were built, the towns along the rail became centers for a network of haulers from there to the outer reaches and smaller markets.

 

[far-trader]

Before I went anywhere near changing the trade rules or ship rules as they are, especially since they work for J1 and in my design even J2 and possibly even limited specific J3 designs, I'd look at exploiting the rules as they are or making minor interpretive expansions in them.

For example, "buying" used ships is allowed and they come at a discount of 10% plus as much as 1% more for every year of age. So if a design can't make money as a "free-trader" it was probably originally a cash purchase (good for another 10% off for the original buyer) by a small line, and now it's 40 years old and being traded off for newer ships, the PC's can have one for 50% of the original new (and 20% discounted originally if a standard design) cost. If they still can't make money on it then they are hopeless

Sure it'll have a few quirks and need constant attention from the Engineer(s) but that's part of the fun.

Or maybe it was a subsidized ship now being taken off route and sold by the government that contracted it. Of course it comes with a rider that still binds the purchaser to the "subject to mobilization as an auxiliary in the event of emergency or hostilities" clause, deeply buried in the fine print if you like

Personally I've always felt the ship acquisition rules (barring TNE) were backwards. The first roll of ship should be for a 40 year old ship with a second mortgage. Each roll after that should be to add or subtract (player's choice), 10 years from the age of the ship, but the mortgage will still be for 40 years, just the price of it will change based on the depreciation. And let them pick any ship they want (that you can live with) that fits their character and your game. So if they want a 70 year old Type M Cruiser for their 4 ship rolls, fine, the cost is discounted 45% (being kept in good repair) and it has some maintenance issues and quirks. Or maybe they'd rather have that newer 10 year old Type A Trader that wasn't too well cared at 20% off the already lower standard design cost. If the repairs don't mount up they'll make the payments easily and probably be able to pay it off early. Likely long before the 40 years.

Or here's another idea if you want to stretch the rules to allow more revenue potential without straying too far from the OTU rules. Canon has examples of approved designs charging more for passage rates, and now with T20 even for freight. So double the size of the staterooms, I call them luxury passage suites, and charge more. I explain them in my posts/design INSIDE the Grand Traveller (click the link). They are interpolated from the standard rates so they should not be too upsetting while still adding some revenue. Might not make much difference on a small ship though.

Or add some new classes of "traveller". Like the "priority passenger". Similar to priority cargo these passengers want to get there sooner than later and will pay for it. Same rules apply as for priority cargo. Priority passengers would be regular High passage but pay Cr10,000 per jump distance if on time, or nothing if late.

You could also have "hazardous passengers". Perhaps people suffering from serious rare medical conditions requiring treatment only available offworld. Hazardous passengers travel in Low Passage but pay Cr10,000 for the trip for the added risks of contamination.

And lastly how about "security passengers". They might be criminals being transported offworld for Imperial prosecution or incarceration, or perhaps security conscious VIP's travelling on important business. Again the same rules apply as for the cargo type of the same designation. Security passengers will book Middle passage at a Cr40,000 premium for the presumed risks and required ship security minimum of being armed and crewing a gunner.

In the above special passenger cases I would just use the numbers on the Bulk Cargo table to determine how many of the special types of passengers there are. And I'd use the Modifiers (based on destination world) from the cargo table for these special passengers.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Dan, Why not just charge per parsec? It makes the system work and is a simple fix. GT did it. (And many people claim, contrary to what MWM said that it is ATU, not OTU, that it is canon as long as you stick before the Rebellion.) Besides if you look at that one paragraph, that keeps turning up in each bersion of Traveller, that a Jump 1 ship would charge the same as a Jump 2 ship going to the same destination even though you would have to purchase two tickets on the Jump 1 ship to get there in two jumps instead of the one Jump of a Jump 2 Ship. (Or however the direct quote reads, it is late and I am not looking it up tonight.

)
As long as you don't rules lawyer or Munchkin the ship design rules, the proportion of profit margin between similar ships with different jump capacity will remain proportional to the price difference. WIll there be exceptions, sure there will be, but over all it works.

It allows, under routine conditions, a Far Trader to make its payments, and about at the same profit porportion to a Free Trader. However it isn't a perfect Universe so sometimes the ship will fall short because it didn't have the right combination for jump and/or full load.

Which, of course, allows for adventuring opportunities without making it a requirement to pay for your ships normal, routine operations.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Dan, Why not just charge per parsec? It makes the system work and is a simple fix.

True enough, to a point. Works fine for a game, but then so does the per jump rule if all the PC's have (and should have) is a Type A. The point I thought we were working out was a functional, and yes easy to play, game model that made some economic sense.

Granted GT has by what I hear addressed all this, but I don't have it so I'm not privy to how they covered all the bases.

But certainly, if you think you have all the consequences accounted for, or they won't come into play in your game, go for it.

What do I fear from a simple per parsec rule? Unintended consequences I can only half imagine and more contradictory rules required to cover them...

How long can I carry freight? Can I sign a shipment to a world 6 parsecs distant even though my ship is just J1? Do I still get paid the full rate even if it takes me 12 weeks to get there? How about 12 months?

How far can I contract freight? 4 parsecs? 40 parsecs? My jump rating? My jump destination?

Will there be the same amount of cargo going 4 parsecs from any world as going 1 parsec? Even if that 4 parsec jump is on the scheduled route of a megaton freighter for some megacorp or a government subbie?

The nice thing about the simple rules is they are geared for J1 which eliminates a lot of the extra complexity. I think the whole badly worded text of how to charge was a terrible idea once it started trying to explain how to charger for jumps over 1 parsec. It should just say this is how it's done for PC's, the big boys (NPC's) have infrastructure to handle longer haulage that you don't and can't compete with.

Further I think I've seen numbers that suggest the profit margin to operational cost increases dramatically with increased range in a flat per parsec model, especially in design systems where the power plant is both smaller and cheaper at higher TL. So why are there any J1 or even J2 Free-Traders if the way to make money is at J6? I have my own limits for this kind of runaway trade but they aren't shared by many from the feedback I've gotten.

And just how are PC's supposed to come up with the 20% down-payment on the much higher priced long legged ships? Is the financing easier because the profit is that much more? Oops there goes the market for the short jump ships again. Either they won't be made becuase no one wants them or they'll be so cheap that it won't pay to build them. That changes the whole Traveller universe. No small traders, everybody is operating big ships and crews. That can be a fine game, but it's not the one we started with, or the one still pictured, even in GURPS, of small PC ships scratching a living at the edges.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Largely my opinion of course so you're welcome to ignore it. Whatever rocks your world is the way to play the game.

Lastly I've said it before, the canon Far-Trader type seems to be the broken bit if you're trying to prove economic sense with the per jump trade rules. Either it needs a redesign or it needs to be dropped altogether as a PC ship, at least as brand new with a first mortgage.

PC's are the bottom of the food chain in interstellar trade. It should be tough to make a go of it independantly and that's what the rules seem designed to reflect. To the point that they can only make a sure business with the lowest end ship possible, a simple J1 trader, and that only if they don't have bad luck. The kind that leads to depserate contracts to cover the unanticipated shortfall. The kind that get the PC's labled "adventurers" by the legitimate merchants

'nuff rambling for now. I'm not trying to defeat the per parsec movement, just make sure any issues are addressed or at least considered by anyone thinking of using it.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by far-trader:
True enough, to a point. Works fine for a game, but then so does the per jump rule if all the PC's have (and should have) is a Type A. The point I thought we were working out was a functional, and yes easy to play, game model that made some economic sense.

Granted GT has by what I hear addressed all this, but I don't have it so I'm not privy to how they covered all the bases.

They charge by the parsec, with a slight adjustment for distances of only jump 1 (they cost slightly more than half of jump 2). After great attempts to save the per-jump pricing, it was found that it was simply impossible to make them sensible.