So there's a lot of different ways to cross-compare these results. For simplicity (and to avoid burying these forums in a shambling mound of "senate subcommittee reporting") I'll look at the 25 destinations per year on a trade week/single jump operational tempo (double jumping makes things more complex and will come later).
The first thing to notice is the break even points for the two classes and how fuel expenses change things for the Fat Trader (refined vs unrefined) compared to the wilderness refueling = refined fuel for the Long Trader.
Type-R Fat Trader
Volume Production break even profit points in credits per port of call when using wilderness refueling
| DPY (tempo) + vacation days | Subsidized CPD (in Cr) | Paid Off CPD (in Cr) | Bank Financed CPD (in Cr) |
| 25 (6+8 days) = 350 + 1 | 62,466 refined, 46,066 unrefined | 176,501 refined, 160,101 unrefined | 290,536 refined, 274,136 unrefined |
| % of Manifest Capacity | 43.23% . 31.88% | 61.08% . 55.40% | 100.54%, 94.86% |
Long Trader
Volume Production break even profit points in credits per port of call when using wilderness refueling
| DPY (tempo) + vacation days | Subsidized CPD (in Cr) | Paid Off CPD (in Cr) | Bank Financed CPD (in Cr) |
| 25 (6+8 days) = 350 + 1 | 21,952 | 152,784 | 283,616 |
| % of Manifest Capacity | 24.40% wilderness | 84.88% wilderness | 157.57% wilderness |
In an "apples to apples" comparison between the two classes (stock trims), we get the following output:
| J1/1G Type-R Fat Trader (unarmed) | Subsidized CPD (in Cr) | Paid Off CPD (in Cr) | Bank Financed CPD (in Cr) |
| Break even expenses | 62,466 refined, 46,066 unrefined | 176,501 refined, 160,101 unrefined | 290,536 refined, 274,136 unrefined |
| 100% manifest revenue potential | 144,500 | 289,000 | 289,000 |
| Maximum profit margin | 82,034 refined, 98,434 unrefined | 112,499 refined, 128,899 unrefined | -1536 refined, 14,864 unrefined |
| | | |
| J2/2G Long Trader (armed) | Subsidized CPD (in Cr) | Paid Off CPD (in Cr) | Bank Financed CPD (in Cr) |
| Break even expenses | 21,952 wilderness | 152,784 wilderness | 283,616 wilderness |
| 100% manifest revenue potential | 90,000 | 180,000 | 180,000 |
| Maximum profit margin | 68,048 wilderness | 27,216 wilderness | -103,616 wilderness |
One of the really interesting results from this cross-comparison between the two classes is how they're actually optimized for different market segments.
- The Fat Trader requires higher ticket revenues in order to break even, but has a higher "revenue tonnage" fraction to accomplish this with.
- The Long Trader has lower operational overhead expenses and is thus better suited to operate between world markets with very limited demand for interstellar transport services.
- The tonnage needed for J2 range severely increases the balance sheet loss margins for the Long Trader when operating under bank financing, even when running at 100% manifest capacity, forcing speculative goods arbitrage to make up a shortfall of approximately MCr2.59 per year(!) ... which looks unsustainably BAD for an operator.
However, what this "spreadsheet in a vacuum" analysis CANNOT incorporate and quantify is ... THE LOCAL MAP and astrogation factors between mainworlds with various trade codes and populations that provide the necessary context for how these two ship classes ought to operate in practice (as opposed to just "in theory") as merchant ships. This analysis also cannot account for the difference that
jump mobility can make when it comes to quicker turnarounds on profits from speculative goods arbitrage, such that
jump range can become a "hidden asset" that defies "spreadsheet in a vacuum" quantification and analysis.
Another factor that defies spreadsheet analysis is the "at what price security?" factors of being unarmed vs armed in addition to the refined vs unrefined fuel consideration for misjumps.
Unrefined fuel, if used consistently, yields an unacceptably high probability of misjumps per year, particularly when jumping 25 times a year.
1-(1-1/36)^25 = 0.505531546238378 = 50.55% chance of at least 1 misjump per year
Increase that to 40 years @ 25 jumps per year and you're looking at:
1-(1-1/36)^1000 = 0.999999999999417 = 99.99% chance of at least 1 misjump during 40 years of operations
So for long term security for a capital intensive asset like a starship, refined fuel IS A MUST ...
NOT AN OPTION.
In the context of Traveller's original CT format, where you didn't have ongoing "campaigns" with characters (as such), but rather a sequence of individual "one shot" episodes that didn't require a continuing cast of characters, that's not a problem ... since PC Travellers were unlikely to jump 25 times in a single year of game play (so, lampshade goes THERE).
But when you're taking a longer view of things and thinking that starships need to "survive" through 40 years of operations without "getting lost" (by misjumping) then ... playing roulette ... with unrefined fuel becomes a compounding risk that is unacceptable the more often you try your luck with it.
Fortunately, it would be an almost trivial thing to do for a shipyard to install a TL=9 fuel purification plant into an otherwise stock trim Fat Trader (and thus stop needing to buy fuel at starports because wilderness refueling becomes a viable option). Point being that ANY operator who wants to "keep their ship(s) in service" NEEDS to have a fuel purification plant (which will basically "pay for itself" in avoided expenses) in order to consistently operate using refined fuel for EVERY jump.
The other concern for "at what price security?" is ... piracy.
This is where the difference between unarmed vs armed comes in ... and the Cost Of Doing Business™.
For some merchants, a better option is to surrender and "hope for the best" rather than putting up a fight. If pirates "demand a toll" but otherwise leave your starship intact, then payment of bribes to pirates can become just another Cost Of Doing Business™ in a particular region of space. So long as the "toll(s)" being paid out in bribes to pirates don't force an operator into bankruptcy, they're survivable ... you just need to turn over a portion of your "profits" to the pirates in order to keep operating. Note that this kind of "business relationship" to pirates, particularly if repeated, can turn into a "don't bite the hand that feeds you" kind of symbiosis, in which it isn't in the pirates' best interest to drive compliant merchants into ruin ... only the ones who "resist" and make life difficult ... so surrender and bribery can become important strategies for survival.
The alternative, of course, is to invest in a more robust defense, which the Long Trader plus Laser Fighter does, creating a "block and tackle" strategy of "evasion tanking" while the starship executes a Break Off By Acceleration maneuver from the "reserve" away from the melee between the Laser Fighter and an attacking pirate craft. The matchup ought to be "unfavorable enough" to deter intercept attempts by pirates (who know what they would be getting themselves into) attempting to match vectors with and board a Long Trader. That deterrence factor is something that must be invested in up front, but which pays itself off over time through avoidance of both "unwanted encounters" and the occasional "imperial entanglements" that some clients would rather not deal with.
Again, a possible expense which simple spreadsheet math in a vacuum cannot account for over multiple years of operations, particularly since the piracy risk is something that varies widely depending on which regions a starship is being operated in.
Next up ... the "Hidden Advantage" of double jumping when dealing in speculative goods arbitrage!
on the price of the hull metal. The only other "bargain" of comparable magnitude is the 100 ton standard hull, which costs MCr2 for the hull and MCr1 to streamline it ... but if it were bought custom would cost MCr10 for the hull metal and MCr1 to streamline it into Configuration: 2 (Cone).
