Piracy Redux

[far-trader]

...Why do you think the 9-11 terrorists enter via Canada ?

I do seriously hope you are joking and are not so badly misinformed as that.

And let's not be dragging another topic into the pit so soon, ok.

EDIT - Just to educate a bit, and then let this point die here, please direct further discussion of it to this thread...

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=257878#post257878

 

[aramis]

As to US-USSR cross border: lots, actually. The natives tend to only marginally respect it, and the Inupiaq and Yupic cross in the winter... most of it, however, is simply family reunions.

Oh, wait, yeah, there is smuggling of bluejeans for guns that went on in the 1980's and 1990's... I know several who did so.

 

[far-trader]

As to US-USSR cross border: lots, actually. The natives tend to only marginally respect it, and the Inupiaq and Yupic cross in the winter... most of it, however, is simply family reunions.

Oh, wait, yeah, there is smuggling of bluejeans for guns that went on in the 1980's and 1990's... I know several who did so.

I always wondered how and where the kids in the USSR got all those bluejeans back then...

 

[R_Chance]

This is what is technically known as a discrepancy. You're quite right when you ask why people would give a damn about mains (once they'd invented jump-2). They wouldn't. Yet canon mentions the importance of mains in several places. So jump-1 must be better than jump-2 for trading along mains. Only, if the ship-building rules even remotely reflect the realities of the Traveller Universe, jump-1 is not, in fact, better than jump-2 and jump-3 for trading along a main.


Hans

My point is that BOTH jump 1 and Jump 2+ ships are useful on a main. If it's a jump 1 connection you take davantage of a jump 1 ships larger cargo capacity / lower costs. If it's a jump 2 cargo run you use a jump 2 ship. Along a main with plenty of worlds to trade both types of ship will survive, and in fact thrive. Of course there is one thing about the jump 1 / 2 thing that occured to me... you could build a jump 2 capable ship only capable of jump 1 on internal fuel and use either drop tanks or fuel bladders to do jump 2 when necessary. This would only work for established shipping lines with outposts along the way or a very common type of ship wich would allow for the bladders / drop tanks to be readily available...time to hit the design charts, and check around on the cost of drop tanks / fuel bladders

edit: Not as good on a jump 1 connection as a true jump 1 ship (higher costs, slightly less cargo space), a bit more awkward on a jump 2 connecti0on than a regular jump 2 ship... but flexible.

 

[Icosahedron]

As I understand it, this is the J1/J2 situation:

If we have 5 worlds, ABCDE along a main, and assuming adequate trade potential between them all, If C wants to trade with A or E, it will employ the services of a J2 ship, but if it wants to trade with B or D it will use a J1 ship.

Once a J1 ship has travelled from C to D, it then has a choice whether to return to C or move on to E, depending on the freight that D has waiting (on spec or pre-booked) for each destination.

The actual local economics of freight volume and exchange rates might influence this, but in general I see plenty of room for both J1 and J2 ships on the main.
Both ships can travel from C to E, but they will be carrying different cargo. The J2 ship will be carrying C's cargo directly to E, while the J1 ship will be carrying C's cargo to D and D's cargo to E.

I see no conflict or competition. Am I wrong?

 

[R_Chance]

As I understand it, this is the J1/J2 situation:

If we have 5 worlds, ABCDE along a main, and assuming adequate trade potential between them all, If C wants to trade with A or E, it will employ the services of a J2 ship, but if it wants to trade with B or D it will use a J1 ship.

Once a J1 ship has travelled from C to D, it then has a choice whether to return to C or move on to E, depending on the freight that D has waiting (on spec or pre-booked) for each destination.

The actual local economics of freight volume and exchange rates might influence this, but in general I see plenty of room for both J1 and J2 ships on the main.
Both ships can travel from C to E, but they will be carrying different cargo. The J2 ship will be carrying C's cargo directly to E, while the J1 ship will be carrying C's cargo to D and D's cargo to E.

I see no conflict or competition. Am I wrong?

Exactly the point I've been trying to make. Use the best ship for the given run.

 

[rancke]

Yes, IF I want to do that. There are reasons why you don't want that. Including that there is enough trade on EVERY world along that tour.

In a few, very rare places, yes. On most mains you run into a low-population world before you've traveled more than a few systems.

But if there really is enough trade on every world, why would you want to move on to C once you've jumped from A to B instead of going back to A? If there's enough trade for A, why not jump back to where your friends and family live and your company has its HQ?

And, incidentally, if there is enough trade on every world then there's also enough population to support decent system defenses in every system.

Subbies are the equivalent to the Hurtigrouten Postal/Cargo Ships in Norway pre 1980s and similar ships serving St. Helena or the Siberian costal towns. They are there because governments want them to be there, not because every step in the chain is cost effective

They're also there because the government can afford to pay the subsidy. That alone implies a certain level of resources. Ask yourself how many governments are going to pay the mortgage on a subsidized merchant before they can afford a couple of SDBs?

It's all interrelated. You can't pick just one bit and ignore the rest. There are always ramifications.


Hans

 

[rancke]

My point is that BOTH jump 1 and Jump 2+ ships are useful on a main. If it's a jump 1 connection you take advantage of a jump 1 ships larger cargo capacity/lower costs. If it's a jump 2 cargo run you use a jump 2 ship. Along a main with plenty of worlds to trade both types of ship will survive, and in fact thrive.

Yes, but along any main with low-trade worlds (which is almost all of them), the J1 ships will thrive by jumping back and forth between two adjacent worlds while some J2 and J3 ship will thrive by jumping from one end of the main to the other (Some (probably most) J2 and J3 ships will, of course, thrive by jumping back and forth between worlds respectively two and three parsecs apart).


Hans

 

[R_Chance]

Yes, but along any main with low-trade worlds (which is almost all of them), the J1 ships will thrive by jumping back and forth between two adjacent worlds while some J2 and J3 ship will thrive by jumping from one end of the main to the other (Some (probably most) J2 and J3 ships will, of course, thrive by jumping back and forth between worlds respectively two and three parsecs apart).


Hans

Yes. Jump 1 ships, Type R subsidized merchants and the like, will stick with their small "milk run" routes of a couple of worlds. Jump 2+ ships will range further afield. Both have their place. Both make money. Tramps (often with the crews taking shares rather than, or in supplement of, regular salaries), whether jump1 or higher, are more likely to move beyond these regular runs, looking for "the big score". That's Traveller.

 

[Hal]

As a suggestion? Why not take the "economics" talk to a new thread? Mind you I'm not complaining, but having been away for a while, I had to wade through the bulk of the earlier posts only to discover that the thread had diverged badly enough that the discussion warrants its own thread.

Having said that...

My one question for all of this debate stems from "What rules are we discussing when it comes to determining the economic feasibility of J1 or J2 starships and jump mains?

I will open up a new thread to put forth a few thoughts of my own on this topic. Clearly, it does impact on that of the "environment" for pirates.

 

[Anthony]

My one question for all of this debate stems from "What rules are we discussing when it comes to determining the economic feasibility of J1 or J2 starships and jump mains?

While the details vary, to the best of my knowledge J2 is cheaper per parsec than J1 in every version of Traveller, and J4 is inefficient. The balance between J2 and J3 varies with edition and tech level. For example, in High Guard, looking at 1,000T merchants and price per ton of cargo capacity:
TL 12, J1: 0.41 MCr/dton
TL 12, J2: 0.72 MCr/dton (175% as much, or 87% as much per parsec)
TL 12, J3: 1.26 MCr/dton (307% as much, or 102% as much per parsec)
TL 13, J1: 0.36 MCr/dton
TL 13, J2: 0.61 MCr/dton (170% as much, or 85% as much per parsec)
TL 13, J3: 1.01 MCr/dton (281% as much, or 93% as much per parsec)
TL 15, J1: 0.33 MCr/dton
TL 15, J2: 0.50 MCr/dton (152% as much, or 76% as much per parsec)
TL 15, J3: 0.78 MCr/dton (237% as much, or 79% as much per parsec)
TL 15, J4: 1.25 MCr/dton (379% as much, or 95% as much per parsec)

Note that, if you have a 5 parsec route that can be done straight in 5 parsecs, either J2 or J3 must pay for 6 parsecs distance, thus making J1 the preferred option before TL 15, unless you transship at an intermediate star.

 

[Hal]

Anthony,
I have to scratch my head and think "either Anthony knows something I don't (always possible!), or Anthony is using GURPS TRAVELLER for his figures, or Anthony is using his own home brew rules where income is based on a per parsec basis rather than a per jump basis as was the rule for CT"

GURPS FAR TRADER is based on a per parsec philosophy of revenue generation. CT is based on a per jump basis, which is irrespective of how far a ship can jump in that one "jump". The income for a single stateroom high passage is always going to be 10,000 Cr regardless of whether or not the ship jumped 1 parsec or it jumped 2 parsecs. In the actual example given in CT book 2, it states outright that it is NOT a per parsec value.

Personally? I don't like the per jump model. I think it stinks. On the other hand, much of the original history of the Third Imperium put out by GDW was based on the per jump model. Retroactively changing it to include the per parsec rule makes a major change to the foundation of the "universe". It is perhaps ironic that the per jump revenue generation actively gives reason to the possiblity of pirate attacks, while using the per parsec model actively makes piracy more difficult. Arguing that piracy doesn't make sense when using parameters other than the original is perhaps part of the problem?

 

[Anthony]

Anthony,
I have to scratch my head and think "either Anthony knows something I don't (always possible!), or Anthony is using GURPS TRAVELLER for his figures, or Anthony is using his own home brew rules where income is based on a per parsec basis rather than a per jump basis as was the rule for CT"

Or I'm not listing what you think I'm listing. I'm listing how much a given amount of freight capacity costs, not how much it earns. Given a free market, freight rates will rapidly approach freight costs, but per-jump pricing indicates anything but a free market.

 

[R_Chance]

Hmmm... I think this is moving to another thread, but just to be sure...

The per jump cost of freight, IMO, relates to the time, not the distance. Whether it travels 1 parsec in a week or two or three is not the most important factor. A lot of a ships expences are time dependent (i.e. crew salaries, berthing fees, maintenance costs, power plant fuel costs, mortgage, etc.). The only cost that relates directly to distance is jump fuel, which, while it might be significant is only one factor. And one that, given wilderness gas giant / ocean / ice refueling can be mitigated (I know, there are either risks with unrefined fuel or extra costs for onboard refining of fuel, but it's "doable").

 

[Zparkz]

I never really liked the trade model in Traveller (any version). My players need to compete for their cargo/freight and passengers.

If they plan to go to a low pop world, they may ask for a higher price than standard, unless of course someone else happen to go that way to.
Fixed prices do not give room for neither competition or fun as everything will be predictable. However, the difficulty is to find a detail level in the trade that do not bog down the game in too many details.

 

[pendragonman]

Non piracy, trader economics discussion has migrated to:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=15606

 

[rancke]

My one question for all of this debate stems from "What rules are we discussing when it comes to determining the economic feasibility of J1 or J2 starships and jump mains?

I'm using QSDS1.5 (simplified T4 rules) because I think they're the best 'blend' of all those available (Basically, they're HG with realistic power plant fuel consumption)[*].

I'd accept MT and (reluctantly) straight HG rules as the basis, but Book 2 is right out as far as I'm concerned. So is TNE.


Hans


[*] T4 rules have some problems of their own that I didn't stumble across until fairly recently (tonnage for carried subcraft), but they don't affect the issue of comparative transport costs.