Merchants Run

[boomslang]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Which raises a point about how low berths will be handled in this exercise per MTU. First, no low lottery, how macabre. The things are really very safe in MTU. Only a roll of 12 on revival presents a problem and an attending Medic grants a -1DM. So any ship with a Medic will never* have a problem.

* barring other issues, such as damage to the casket or an overly long time in it before revival

I'm all for this (I do it IMTU), but be advised that this pretty much kills the market for anything but Low Passage, since not only is it now the most profiable way to haul people around, it's also the safest for the owner, since typically Low Passengers don't attempt hijackings...

Insurers and bank loan officers are gonna loooooove that part... to the point of economically encouraging it on the back end.

FWIW, I introduced a "Low Lag" to offset the high survivability: all skills & characteristics at half value for one day afterwards... which makes Low Berths unsuitable for routine crew use (since they are going to be hampered in an emergency situation) and nixes the Frozen Watch concept...

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Which raises a point about how low berths will be handled in this exercise per MTU. First, no low lottery, how macabre. The things are really very safe in MTU. Only a roll of 12 on revival presents a problem and an attending Medic grants a -1DM. So any ship with a Medic will never* have a problem.

* barring other issues, such as damage to the casket or an overly long time in it before revival

I'm all for this (I do it IMTU), but be advised that this pretty much kills the market for anything but Low Passage, since not only is it now the most profiable way to haul people around, it's also the safest for the owner, since typically Low Passengers don't attempt hijackings...

Insurers and bank loan officers are gonna loooooove that part... to the point of economically encouraging it on the back end.

FWIW, I introduced a "Low Lag" to offset the high survivability: all skills & characteristics at half value for one day afterwards... which makes Low Berths unsuitable for routine crew use (since they are going to be hampered in an emergency situation) and nixes the Frozen Watch concept...

 

[far-trader]

That's a fair point boomslang, I just figure the numbers show there is a larger population using low berth travel and that's the reason. There's still the trust issue as regards the merchie actually having a competant Medic to make some consider other travel. And there's also the fact that some will consider the jounery a thing to experience rather than sleep through. Some may even have medical conditions precluding them from using low berths, and more than a few have probably seen the horror tri-vids about low berth zombies and body trade and unscrupulous merchies who freeze and space the low berthers after taking their money

I don't think I've ever known a player character who would travel low

Of course they are a more than reasonably paranoid lot.

I do like your low lag idea, and generally have it in the back of my mind. Picked it up from MT I think. Low berths require a moderate time to go in and revival comes with a moderate recovery time. Emergency low berths allow rapid time in but revival comes with a long recovery time. Frozen watch berths trade a long time in for a rapid recovery time.

 

[far-trader]

That's a fair point boomslang, I just figure the numbers show there is a larger population using low berth travel and that's the reason. There's still the trust issue as regards the merchie actually having a competant Medic to make some consider other travel. And there's also the fact that some will consider the jounery a thing to experience rather than sleep through. Some may even have medical conditions precluding them from using low berths, and more than a few have probably seen the horror tri-vids about low berth zombies and body trade and unscrupulous merchies who freeze and space the low berthers after taking their money

I don't think I've ever known a player character who would travel low

Of course they are a more than reasonably paranoid lot.

I do like your low lag idea, and generally have it in the back of my mind. Picked it up from MT I think. Low berths require a moderate time to go in and revival comes with a moderate recovery time. Emergency low berths allow rapid time in but revival comes with a long recovery time. Frozen watch berths trade a long time in for a rapid recovery time.

 

[cheepicus]

Originally posted by far-trader:
... the numbers point out something I noticed very early in my Traveller playing, lowberths are the best thing you can put in for revenue

No need for crew, no worries about hi-jack, and with that low lottery a chance for a little pocket change...

They are nice! I am sort of new to Traveller so I'm just finding my way; I apologize for going over stuff which appears to be a dead horse fully whipped, but, it's interesting to me

Originally posted by far-trader: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Genjuro:
I have this suspicion that even on a dream (J2) route they can't actually turn a profit on freight and passengers (and I think almost certainly not on freight alone).

I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept</font>[/QUOTE]Good design. A definite proof of concept. Looking at my calculations that made it look grim for a design of any size, I see I counted the bridge tonnage twice, and assumed refined fuel.

 

[cheepicus]

Originally posted by far-trader:
... the numbers point out something I noticed very early in my Traveller playing, lowberths are the best thing you can put in for revenue

No need for crew, no worries about hi-jack, and with that low lottery a chance for a little pocket change...

They are nice! I am sort of new to Traveller so I'm just finding my way; I apologize for going over stuff which appears to be a dead horse fully whipped, but, it's interesting to me

Originally posted by far-trader: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Genjuro:
I have this suspicion that even on a dream (J2) route they can't actually turn a profit on freight and passengers (and I think almost certainly not on freight alone).

I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept</font>[/QUOTE]Good design. A definite proof of concept. Looking at my calculations that made it look grim for a design of any size, I see I counted the bridge tonnage twice, and assumed refined fuel.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by far-trader:
There's still the trust issue as regards the merchie actually having a competant Medic to make some consider other travel.

Well, this isn't that big an issue; the passenger is already trusting that the Merchie has a competent Engineer who isn't going to misjump them to oblivion...

And there's also the fact that some will consider the jounery a thing to experience rather than sleep through.

1. Honeymooners.

2. Bookworms.

3. Inveterate gamblers.

4. People who really, really like staring at stateroom walls for days on end.

5. ???

Some may even have medical conditions precluding them from using low berths,

Yeah, I'll give you that one.

and more than a few have probably seen the horror tri-vids about low berth zombies and body trade and unscrupulous merchies who freeze and space the low berthers after taking their money.

"I was a Teenage Low Berth Zombie for the IISS IB"?

I don't think I've ever known a player character who would travel low

Of course they are a more than reasonably paranoid lot.

Combine 100% reliability and the cost savings, and I'll bet you could talk 'em into it.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by far-trader:
There's still the trust issue as regards the merchie actually having a competant Medic to make some consider other travel.

Well, this isn't that big an issue; the passenger is already trusting that the Merchie has a competent Engineer who isn't going to misjump them to oblivion...

And there's also the fact that some will consider the jounery a thing to experience rather than sleep through.

1. Honeymooners.

2. Bookworms.

3. Inveterate gamblers.

4. People who really, really like staring at stateroom walls for days on end.

5. ???

Some may even have medical conditions precluding them from using low berths,

Yeah, I'll give you that one.

and more than a few have probably seen the horror tri-vids about low berth zombies and body trade and unscrupulous merchies who freeze and space the low berthers after taking their money.

"I was a Teenage Low Berth Zombie for the IISS IB"?

I don't think I've ever known a player character who would travel low

Of course they are a more than reasonably paranoid lot.

Combine 100% reliability and the cost savings, and I'll bet you could talk 'em into it.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Genjuro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
... the numbers point out something I noticed very early in my Traveller playing, lowberths are the best thing you can put in for revenue

No need for crew, no worries about hi-jack, and with that low lottery a chance for a little pocket change...

They are nice! I am sort of new to Traveller so I'm just finding my way; I apologize for going over stuff which appears to be a dead horse fully whipped, but, it's interesting to me

</font>[/QUOTE]No apology needed

It is cool to see you discover it yourself, that was all I meant. Such issues are never dead as long as there are new Travellers, which reminds me, unless I've been beaten to it...

Welcome aboard Genjuro

Originally posted by Genjuro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Genjuro:
I have this suspicion that even on a dream (J2) route they can't actually turn a profit on freight and passengers (and I think almost certainly not on freight alone).

I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept</font>[/QUOTE]Good design. A definite proof of concept. Looking at my calculations that made it look grim for a design of any size, I see I counted the bridge tonnage twice, and assumed refined fuel. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. Yep, corners will have to be cut to make it work, like unrefined fuel, with it's inherent risk of misadventure. Of course with a fuel purifier from Book 5 or a generous ref allowing Naval rated drives per Book 2 you're golden.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Genjuro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
... the numbers point out something I noticed very early in my Traveller playing, lowberths are the best thing you can put in for revenue

No need for crew, no worries about hi-jack, and with that low lottery a chance for a little pocket change...

They are nice! I am sort of new to Traveller so I'm just finding my way; I apologize for going over stuff which appears to be a dead horse fully whipped, but, it's interesting to me

</font>[/QUOTE]No apology needed

It is cool to see you discover it yourself, that was all I meant. Such issues are never dead as long as there are new Travellers, which reminds me, unless I've been beaten to it...

Welcome aboard Genjuro

Originally posted by Genjuro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Genjuro:
I have this suspicion that even on a dream (J2) route they can't actually turn a profit on freight and passengers (and I think almost certainly not on freight alone).

I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept</font>[/QUOTE]Good design. A definite proof of concept. Looking at my calculations that made it look grim for a design of any size, I see I counted the bridge tonnage twice, and assumed refined fuel. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. Yep, corners will have to be cut to make it work, like unrefined fuel, with it's inherent risk of misadventure. Of course with a fuel purifier from Book 5 or a generous ref allowing Naval rated drives per Book 2 you're golden.

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept

Don't you need three engineers for this ship since it has 80 tons of drives? Is it not one engineer per 35 tons?

Though it might be by the letter of the rules it is not in the spirit to have one engineer covering two engineer positions. As far as I'm concerned the crew doesn't meet minimum requirements and therefore it is not proof of concept. Opinions vary.

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept

Don't you need three engineers for this ship since it has 80 tons of drives? Is it not one engineer per 35 tons?

Though it might be by the letter of the rules it is not in the spirit to have one engineer covering two engineer positions. As far as I'm concerned the crew doesn't meet minimum requirements and therefore it is not proof of concept. Opinions vary.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept

Don't you need three engineers for this ship since it has 80 tons of drives? Is it not one engineer per 35 tons?

Though it might be by the letter of the rules it is not in the spirit to have one engineer covering two engineer positions. As far as I'm concerned the crew doesn't meet minimum requirements and therefore it is not proof of concept. Opinions vary. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope it's only 36tons of drives, barely requires the second Engineer slot. Ah, I see, you were looking at the MCr costs.

My feeling is a double duty Engineer makes more sense than a Pilot/Engineer and Navigator/Engineer or some other combo that requires attention to be divided by distance and disipline. As you say it's within the letter of the rules, and opinions differ as to the spirit. In mine it's fine, in your's it's not

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm convinced it can, since I've done it...

One Proof of Concept

Don't you need three engineers for this ship since it has 80 tons of drives? Is it not one engineer per 35 tons?

Though it might be by the letter of the rules it is not in the spirit to have one engineer covering two engineer positions. As far as I'm concerned the crew doesn't meet minimum requirements and therefore it is not proof of concept. Opinions vary. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope it's only 36tons of drives, barely requires the second Engineer slot. Ah, I see, you were looking at the MCr costs.

My feeling is a double duty Engineer makes more sense than a Pilot/Engineer and Navigator/Engineer or some other combo that requires attention to be divided by distance and disipline. As you say it's within the letter of the rules, and opinions differ as to the spirit. In mine it's fine, in your's it's not

 

[far-trader]

Quick question. Have I had the TL DM wrong all these years?

Let's take as an example, a trip from Thanber to Faisal:

Faisal is Pop 4 TL3
Thanber is Pop 6 TLC

Passenger DMs are -12 : -3 for low pop destination and -9 for TL difference (Origin TL of 12 -9 to equal Destination TL of 3)

Cargo DMs are -13 : -4 for low pop destination and -9 for TL difference (Origin TL of 12 -9 to equal Destination TL of 3)

so for example we roll:

(3D-2D) High Pass = (12-5)-3-9 = 0 High Pass

(3D-2D) Mid Pass = (9-8)-3-9 = 0 Mid Pass

(3D) Low Pass = (16)-3-9 = 4 Low Pass

(1D+2) Major Cargo = (6+2)-4-9 = 0 Major Cargo

(1D+3) Minor Cargo = (2+3)-4-9 = 0 Minor Cargo

(1D-3) Incidental Cargo = (4-3)-4-9 = 0 Incidental Cargo

I need to be sure I'm doing this right before assessing the designs. This feels like the right way, but that may be because it's the way we always did it. Does anybody know if there is an official example or statement of just what "add (or subtract) difference between origin and desitination" is supposed to mean?

 

[far-trader]

Quick question. Have I had the TL DM wrong all these years?

Let's take as an example, a trip from Thanber to Faisal:

Faisal is Pop 4 TL3
Thanber is Pop 6 TLC

Passenger DMs are -12 : -3 for low pop destination and -9 for TL difference (Origin TL of 12 -9 to equal Destination TL of 3)

Cargo DMs are -13 : -4 for low pop destination and -9 for TL difference (Origin TL of 12 -9 to equal Destination TL of 3)

so for example we roll:

(3D-2D) High Pass = (12-5)-3-9 = 0 High Pass

(3D-2D) Mid Pass = (9-8)-3-9 = 0 Mid Pass

(3D) Low Pass = (16)-3-9 = 4 Low Pass

(1D+2) Major Cargo = (6+2)-4-9 = 0 Major Cargo

(1D+3) Minor Cargo = (2+3)-4-9 = 0 Minor Cargo

(1D-3) Incidental Cargo = (4-3)-4-9 = 0 Incidental Cargo

I need to be sure I'm doing this right before assessing the designs. This feels like the right way, but that may be because it's the way we always did it. Does anybody know if there is an official example or statement of just what "add (or subtract) difference between origin and desitination" is supposed to mean?

 

[RandyT0001]

Dan, I stand corrected, I was looking at the cost of the drives. Apologies. It is 41 tons by the way not 36. Anyway.

As to your question on passenger DM's for tech differences the example you give is how I've read it all these years. Very few people want to go to lower tech worlds where more manual labor would generally be required of them. You don't see people traveling to the Congo where technology is not as abundant as in the US for example. (Other issuses aside.) Not much cargo goes there as well since few on the low tech world can afford nor maintain/sustain high tech items.

 

[RandyT0001]

Dan, I stand corrected, I was looking at the cost of the drives. Apologies. It is 41 tons by the way not 36. Anyway.

As to your question on passenger DM's for tech differences the example you give is how I've read it all these years. Very few people want to go to lower tech worlds where more manual labor would generally be required of them. You don't see people traveling to the Congo where technology is not as abundant as in the US for example. (Other issuses aside.) Not much cargo goes there as well since few on the low tech world can afford nor maintain/sustain high tech items.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Dan, I stand corrected, I was looking at the cost of the drives. Apologies. It is 41 tons by the way not 36.

No problem, at least you added correctly

I blame haste for my error

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
As to your question on passenger DM's for tech differences the example you give is how I've read it all these years. Very few people want to go to lower tech worlds where more manual labor would generally be required of them. You don't see people traveling to the Congo where technology is not as abundant as in the US for example. (Other issuses aside.) Not much cargo goes there as well since few on the low tech world can afford nor maintain/sustain high tech items.

Yep, pretty much my take on it too. Low tech produces, high tech consumes. Besides it seeming to be the way the equation is meant to work. Good to have some confirmation though, thanks.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Dan, I stand corrected, I was looking at the cost of the drives. Apologies. It is 41 tons by the way not 36.

No problem, at least you added correctly

I blame haste for my error

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
As to your question on passenger DM's for tech differences the example you give is how I've read it all these years. Very few people want to go to lower tech worlds where more manual labor would generally be required of them. You don't see people traveling to the Congo where technology is not as abundant as in the US for example. (Other issuses aside.) Not much cargo goes there as well since few on the low tech world can afford nor maintain/sustain high tech items.

Yep, pretty much my take on it too. Low tech produces, high tech consumes. Besides it seeming to be the way the equation is meant to work. Good to have some confirmation though, thanks.