CT Only: Multi jump1 ships
- Thread starter infojunky
- Start date
The Type Y Yacht, for one.
True, brain was in the Liner/Freighter mode.
Also thinking along the age of sail mode, in that ships tended to cross oceans in similar times
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
2 weeks?
Even in the age of steam power it would take most of a month to cross the Atlantic ...
Speed realative to each other. Not Traveller terms…
J2 is actually more cost-effective than 2xJ1 on internal tanks, due to being able to make more 2-parsec trips in a given time span.
In the most efficient J1* (2000Td, TL-11) tandem-jumping, 2 parsecs cost Cr2105/Td; the most efficient J2 (1000Td, also TL-11) can do 2 parsecs for Cr1185/Td. (The back-of-the-envelope calculation is to reduce payload by the additional fuel (200Td) and only count 2/3 of what remains, to reflect changing the mission tempo from 1 trip every two weeks to 1 complete trip every 3 weeks.)
2xJ1 is probably cheaper than J2 if you use drop tanks, but if you allow drop tanks into this then all the numbers are different --but it's late and I've already closed the spreadsheet so. . . whatever.
------
* before TL-15 ships with Z drives stomp all over everything else of every size for efficiency. . .
In the most efficient J1* (2000Td, TL-11) tandem-jumping, 2 parsecs cost Cr2105/Td; the most efficient J2 (1000Td, also TL-11) can do 2 parsecs for Cr1185/Td. (The back-of-the-envelope calculation is to reduce payload by the additional fuel (200Td) and only count 2/3 of what remains, to reflect changing the mission tempo from 1 trip every two weeks to 1 complete trip every 3 weeks.)
2xJ1 is probably cheaper than J2 if you use drop tanks, but if you allow drop tanks into this then all the numbers are different --but it's late and I've already closed the spreadsheet so. . . whatever.
------
* before TL-15 ships with Z drives stomp all over everything else of every size for efficiency. . .
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
You're leveraging a cheaper jump drive against an about sixty percent increase in delivery time.
Another advantage is an easier calculation of astrogation and engineering checks, so you should be able to have a lower skilled (and cheaper) crew, possibly a one man show.
Another advantage is an easier calculation of astrogation and engineering checks, so you should be able to have a lower skilled (and cheaper) crew, possibly a one man show.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Delivery times are not the point, utilising the expensive hardware efficiently is. According to LBB2 they charge exactly the same for a 2 Pc route.
J-2 ships are more efficient than 2×J-1 ships, since they can charge for the cargo hold every two weeks instead of every three weeks. J-2 ships are simply cheaper to operate per 2 Pc trip, per Dt cargo hold capacity.
Well, costs for RAW are per jump, not per trip, so a ship making 2 jump 1 would charge them twice...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Please stop repeating this logical fallacy.
It's getting embarrassing at this point.
Costs for RAW are per port of call ... not per jump.
If you jump to deep space in order to transit a gap between star systems, you aren't "charging extra" to drop off (and pick up?) in deep space as if deep space were any other port of call.
Most captains will arrange to jump to a new port of call with every jump, but there are times when that won't happen (such as multi-jumping through deep space with no port of call in deep space).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The rules as written state it is per jump number, not jump range or port of call. A jump 1 ship can only look for cargo that is within its jump number range, even if it has enough internal fuel for 3 x jump 1.
Note that you can buy your own speculative cargo and transport it those 3 x jump 1, and if you have a particularly lucrative trade item and complementary trade codes it may be well worth your while doing so.
Note that you can buy your own speculative cargo and transport it those 3 x jump 1, and if you have a particularly lucrative trade item and complementary trade codes it may be well worth your while doing so.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Not quite that simple, I think.
LBB2'81, p8 says
I would say any destination you can jump to is "accessible". I believe TTA supports that (not that I could be bothered to check for a quote).
If you want to go directly to a world three jumps away on a main, you can do that, but are still only paid once for the cargo. If you want to go off the main, you can't do that with a J-1 ship (without extra fuel), so those destinations will not be accessible.
Payment is per destination, not per jump, as far as I can see.
Edit: I bothered, TTA, p44:
LBB2'81, p8 says
I would say any destination you can jump to is "accessible". I believe TTA supports that (not that I could be bothered to check for a quote).
If you want to go directly to a world three jumps away on a main, you can do that, but are still only paid once for the cargo. If you want to go off the main, you can't do that with a J-1 ship (without extra fuel), so those destinations will not be accessible.
Payment is per destination, not per jump, as far as I can see.
Edit: I bothered, TTA, p44:
So, standard rate for 120 Dt cargo from Natoko to Patinir Belt (in two jumps) would be Cr 120 000, and since it is a subsidised ship half of that or Cr 60 000 goes to the operator.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, that is true in MT, but not in CT, as far as I can see.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It says jump number does it not? Not jump range...
that The Traveller Adventure doesn't apply the rules as written doesn't surprise me one bit, since many elements of the Third Imperium setting are deviations from the rules as written.
The setting still has xboats with no power plants and 300t ships with 4 hardpoints...
that The Traveller Adventure doesn't apply the rules as written doesn't surprise me one bit, since many elements of the Third Imperium setting are deviations from the rules as written.
The setting still has xboats with no power plants and 300t ships with 4 hardpoints...
Last edited:
You may have a poinbt on this, as, as AnotherDilber points, rules say per destination. Nonetheless ,this can be also missleading, as destination is not defined. So I looked at the various passages definitions in mustering out benefits (TTB, page 29):
So, again it seems you are right, despite most interpretations I've read have been otherwise.
In fact, MT definition of passages (as per PM, page 21) is:
This seems to point to per jump, as even in the middle of nowere, it's a stop...
Nonetheless, in MT:RM Trade definitions (page 46), under freight:
Probably the clearest reference, and seems to show you are right, and Mike adn myself (among many others) were wrong.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
LBB2.81, p8 ... and I quote:
Repeating for obviousness, since it seems to be necessary ...
ALL WORLDS ACCESSIBLE TO THE STARSHIP.
You use the jump number to determine which worlds are accessible (no S, Sherlock!).
However, the rule is poorly written because built into it is the assumption that ships only have enough fuel to make a single jump (which is often times the case), rather than obviously (and explicitly stating) that the parsec range is what is important, not the jump number itself. In most cases, the jump number IS the range of the ship ... but there are obvious edge cases where the jump number is NOT the limit of a ship's range (Type-J and Type-Y being prime examples of this phenomenon, with the Type-Y existing in LBB2 from the start).
The cargo is bound for the WORLDS ... meaning PORTS OF CALL.
The fact that I have to keep pointing this out to people is getting really depressing.
LBB.81, p10 ... and I quote:
LBB2.81, p9 ... and I quote:
So the procedure is that:
By contrast, if you had Jump-2 (or even a 2-3 parsec range at Jump-1) you could minimize the amount of time you spend "mired in the backwater" region of these low population worlds along this part of the Spinward Main. That kind of navigational freedom allowing you to keep your shipping manifests full more consistently is one of the "hidden advantages" of having a more powerful jump drive which doesn't yield itself easily to simplistic spreadsheet analysis.
Yes, the Jump-1 ship may be more profitable with a full manifest than the Jump-2 or Jump-3 ships will with a full manifest ... but the Jump-2 and Jump-3 ships are more likely to consistently have a full manifest every single time they jump, while the Jump-1 ship may not have access to the same range of options and might ship at less than full more often. It becomes a kind of capacity/uptime comparison.
Which is better?
100 * 1 > 120 * 0.8
Now, as a merchant you can decide that "unprofitable destinations" amount to a "don't go there" barrier for your ship, resulting in a more limited operating range (these worlds ONLY, not those) which then constrains the quantities of opportunities for profit even further in ways that are almost impossible to model via overly simplified "all else being equal" spreadsheet analysis in a vacuum where maps are unimportant and don't factor into anything.
Which is a really long winded way of saying that if you want to ply the space lanes as a Tramp Freighter (subsidized or not), you're going to have a lot easier time of it (and are likely to be far more profitable and successful at it) with a higher jump number (so 2+) maximizing your potential for speculative cargoes (the REAL moneymaker!) and being able to keep your hold full of cargo every single jump.
No it's not obvious at the spreadsheet comparison level.
But it rapidly becomes obvious at the "rubber meets the road" comparison level when you put the ship(s) into actual operational service.
Note that this understanding means that my Race To Profitability was done somewhat improperly, with a "railroad" of destinations under subsidy with my Spinward Flex Courier racing against a Far Trader because the destinations to go to next where chosen in advance before the race even started, rather than being more of a "pick and choose" the next destinations based on what cargoes were wanting to go where (and in what quantity) from each port of call.
What should have been going on is something more akin to what I described as an almost ideal subsidy opportunity for Collace/District 268 where a Jump-3 drive allows the option to pick and choose the most favorable destinations to go to next EVERY SINGLE TIME while staying safely around type A/B starports only (meaning, no pirates) and just hiring people to do all the money raking for you.
All worlds accessible to the starship.
Repeating for obviousness, since it seems to be necessary ...
ALL WORLDS ACCESSIBLE TO THE STARSHIP.
You use the jump number to determine which worlds are accessible (no S, Sherlock!).
However, the rule is poorly written because built into it is the assumption that ships only have enough fuel to make a single jump (which is often times the case), rather than obviously (and explicitly stating) that the parsec range is what is important, not the jump number itself. In most cases, the jump number IS the range of the ship ... but there are obvious edge cases where the jump number is NOT the limit of a ship's range (Type-J and Type-Y being prime examples of this phenomenon, with the Type-Y existing in LBB2 from the start).
The cargo is bound for the WORLDS ... meaning PORTS OF CALL.
The fact that I have to keep pointing this out to people is getting really depressing.
LBB.81, p10 ... and I quote:
So in addition to getting the readout on how much cargo is wanting to go where, local speculative cargo offerings are also determined and made available. If the speculative cargo is purchased, that may influence the decision of which destination world (read: port of call) the ship is going to be bound for next.
LBB2.81, p9 ... and I quote:
So the procedure is that:
- The captain/purser are given a readout on ALL of the cargoes going to ALL of the destination worlds (read: ports of call) within the ship's range from their current location. Higher jump numbers means more available destinations means more options means better opportunities to keep your shipping manifest full (basically go wherever you need to go to keep your hold full). Low jump numbers mean fewer destinations means less options means fewer options to keep your shipping manifest full.
- Speculative cargo purchase opportunity is given, which may influence the decision of which destination world (read: port of call) to go to next.
- AFTER a decision has been made to book cargo for a specific destination world (read: port of call) start rolling for passengers wanting to travel to that specific destination.
- Between Rech and Tureded, you have 3 worlds (K'Kirka, Echiste and Pirema) that are all population 3- ... meaning little cargo and hardly any passengers, and consequently you're unlikely to fill your manifests through this stretch of space.
- Between Tureded and Risek you have 3 worlds (Gileden, Fulacin and Macene) that are all population 4- ... meaning little cargo and hardly any passengers, and consequently you're unlikely to fill your manifests through this stretch of space.
- Between Tureded and Inthe you have 5 worlds (Gileden, Fulacin, Macene, Kinorb, Keanou) that are all population 4- ... meaning little cargo and hardly any passengers, and consequently you're unlikely to fill your manifests through this stretch of space.
By contrast, if you had Jump-2 (or even a 2-3 parsec range at Jump-1) you could minimize the amount of time you spend "mired in the backwater" region of these low population worlds along this part of the Spinward Main. That kind of navigational freedom allowing you to keep your shipping manifests full more consistently is one of the "hidden advantages" of having a more powerful jump drive which doesn't yield itself easily to simplistic spreadsheet analysis.
Yes, the Jump-1 ship may be more profitable with a full manifest than the Jump-2 or Jump-3 ships will with a full manifest ... but the Jump-2 and Jump-3 ships are more likely to consistently have a full manifest every single time they jump, while the Jump-1 ship may not have access to the same range of options and might ship at less than full more often. It becomes a kind of capacity/uptime comparison.
Which is better?
- 100 tons 100% of the time
- 120 tons 80% of the time
100 * 1 > 120 * 0.8
Now, as a merchant you can decide that "unprofitable destinations" amount to a "don't go there" barrier for your ship, resulting in a more limited operating range (these worlds ONLY, not those) which then constrains the quantities of opportunities for profit even further in ways that are almost impossible to model via overly simplified "all else being equal" spreadsheet analysis in a vacuum where maps are unimportant and don't factor into anything.
Which is a really long winded way of saying that if you want to ply the space lanes as a Tramp Freighter (subsidized or not), you're going to have a lot easier time of it (and are likely to be far more profitable and successful at it) with a higher jump number (so 2+) maximizing your potential for speculative cargoes (the REAL moneymaker!) and being able to keep your hold full of cargo every single jump.
No it's not obvious at the spreadsheet comparison level.
But it rapidly becomes obvious at the "rubber meets the road" comparison level when you put the ship(s) into actual operational service.
Note that this understanding means that my Race To Profitability was done somewhat improperly, with a "railroad" of destinations under subsidy with my Spinward Flex Courier racing against a Far Trader because the destinations to go to next where chosen in advance before the race even started, rather than being more of a "pick and choose" the next destinations based on what cargoes were wanting to go where (and in what quantity) from each port of call.
What should have been going on is something more akin to what I described as an almost ideal subsidy opportunity for Collace/District 268 where a Jump-3 drive allows the option to pick and choose the most favorable destinations to go to next EVERY SINGLE TIME while staying safely around type A/B starports only (meaning, no pirates) and just hiring people to do all the money raking for you.
Finally ... someone gets it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Then I look forward to seeing your argument that deep space hexes qualify as legitimate "world" destinations to ship cargo and passengers to under the Rules As Written.
And just to be excessively clear, I'm talking about "empty" deep space hexes on the map ... not Calibration Points.
Your go.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Under the rules as written they don't, because the rules as written for CT do not mention calibration points, empty hex jumps or any such things. The rules as written allow for jump travel from world to world, everything after that we make up. Empty hex jumps or whatever are a setting rather than a rules as written occurrence, and don't forget that the setting doesn't allow for empty hex jumps until the ability to do so is discovered sometime during the era detailed in Dark Nebula.
That said empty hex jumps are definitely a thing, and I am not to keen on the eventual explanation arrived at during the GT ISW playtest, but canon is canon.
I even think that port of call makes sense - but in answer to AD's roll for every available destination, good luck with your interpretation if a world is on a jump 1 main 9which shows the obvious fallacy of this interpretation).
That said empty hex jumps are definitely a thing, and I am not to keen on the eventual explanation arrived at during the GT ISW playtest, but canon is canon.
I even think that port of call makes sense - but in answer to AD's roll for every available destination, good luck with your interpretation if a world is on a jump 1 main 9which shows the obvious fallacy of this interpretation).
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Similar threads
