Rules for Used Ships

[Adam Dray]

I'd like to offer my group a bunch of used, beat-up, starships. So terrible, that no one has bothered to try to fix them up.

What MgT1 or Cepheus Engine rules exist for presenting beat-up ships at bargain prices?

I'm aware of Mark S. McCabe's "Starships for Sale" article in Freelance Traveller.

 

[Timerover51]

I'd like to offer my group a bunch of used, beat-up, starships. So terrible, that no one has bothered to try to fix them up.

What MgT1 or Cepheus Engine rules exist for presenting beat-up ships at bargain prices?

I'm aware of Mark S. McCabe's "Starships for Sale" article in Freelance Traveller.

There are no rules for used ships in the Cepheus Engine SRD. I seem to remember a discussion on the forum regarding the subject. My view would be is if the ships are in that bad a shape, the current possessors might pay the PC to take them off of their hands. If not, then the selling price should be no more than 10% of the original cost of the ship, and more likely 5% of the price. That probably would be close to the scrapping cost.

 

[Adam Dray]

I'm obviously looking for some rules in a supplement somewhere.

Yeah, these would have to be ships that no one thought were worthy of the time or effort to fix. The kinds of problems that, even if you fix them, they don't stay fixed. The kinds of problems that it's probably more efficient to buy new.

The only people who take those kinds of opportunities are desperate PC types.

 

[Condottiere]

Once it's off the lot, you can write off twenty percent of the sales price.

In theory, a well maintained spaceship should default to the construction price, minus cost of rectifying quirks, which is due to the annual maintenance rule.

A very old spaceship, with well maintained engines and complete hull integrity, should probably still command fifty percent construction cost.

 

[McPerth]

MGT1 has rules for old ships, though they are quite simple. See page 136 on the Core Book.

Basically, you get 1d6 ship shares (so 1d6% discount) per 10 years the ship is old, and have to roll in a table of quirks (that can be positive, negative or none).

 

[Adam Dray]

Once it's off the lot, you can write off twenty percent of the sales price.

Like a BMW or Audi.

In theory, a well maintained spaceship should default to the construction price, minus cost of rectifying quirks, which is due to the annual maintenance rule.

A very old spaceship, with well maintained engines and complete hull integrity, should probably still command fifty percent construction cost.

I was reading MJD's "Sector Fleet" (Avenger Enterprises, 2010), which talked about the various classes of starship capability, from 1 to 6:

CAPABILITY
Capability is a general measure of the vessel’s capabilities within its class. Obviously a third-class capital ship is still vastly more capable than a second-class destroyer, and even a first-class tanker is capable only of defeating a handful of fighters.

. . .

5 – Fifth-Class vessels are very old and not in good repair, for the most part. Some world governments and colonial forces operate these very elderly ships, often with some of their original systems replaced by civilian electronics or lower-tech items. Fifth-Class vessels represent the oldest and least capable vessels that any Subsector Fleet would field outside of an extreme emergency.

6 – Sixth-Class vessels are barely serviceable and are more likely to be found in the hands of private users – such as down-at-heel pirates, impoverished noble houses and world governments that afford nothing better – than the Imperial services. A significant proportion of the systems aboard a Sixth-Class vessel will not function, or are in marginal condition.

7 – No official Seventh Class exists; the term is slang in the Navy for something so utterly useless that not even the Scouts would want it.

I think the ships the PCs will find in the scrapyard are in this Sixth-class or Seventh-class. If they're lucky, they might find a Fifth-class ship that someone thinks is worse-off than it really is.

 

[Adam Dray]

MGT1 has rules for old ships, though they are quite simple. See page 136 on the Core Book.

Thanks for that reminder! If I end up writing my own charts, this will give me ideas.

Basically, you get 1d6 ship shares (so 1d6% discount) per 10 years the ship is old, and have to roll in a table of quirks (that can be positive, negative or none).

I am pretty sure I saw a really detailed system somewhere, with lots of tables of systems that break and problems that occur. I want all that color and I don't want to reinvent the wheel, if I don't have to.

If it turns out that I imagined all this and it doesn't exist, I guess I know what Verdigris Press's next product is gonna be!

 

[Condottiere]

For all intents and purposes, as long as you pay the annual maintenance fee, our spaceships are in almost pristine condition.

This differs from warships, where you expect that not only have they taken major structural damage, the systems are routinely run to and over their limits.

Going by the Royal Navy, a generation is about twenty years, at which point, you have to decide whether to subject the vessel to a major reconstruction, or midlife overhaul.

Trillion Credit prohibits changes to the hull, though in real life, improved armour plating and torpedo bulges can be added.

Civilian ships need only go safely from point ai to point bee, and jump transitions are pretty democratic in duration.

 

[Adam Dray]

IMTU, no bank is willing to loan 35 MCr to a sketchy-looking bunch of rogues and military wash-outs with a terrible business plan.

The best bet for such a crew is to illegally transfer a bunch of ship-shares at a cut rate to a really scary criminal boss who can unload them, maybe take a loan from that same criminal boss, then buy the cheapest "beater" starship the group can find and fix it up themselves. They'll probably have to do odd jobs for the mob as a condition of the loan.

The ship will obviously be a money pit until it's in full working order, which might be never.

So they won't be buying a NEW Scorpion Salvage Hauler at 182 MCr. They'll find an 80-year-old Scorpion hulk sitting in the dirt in a scrap yard, look it over, and figure they can take it off the lot for 9 MCr, but will have to sink a couple more million into it to get it off the ground, and lots more into it to really get it working as it should.

 

[Condottiere]

This I would leave up to the creativity of the players, with the Dungeon Master allowing these schemes to succeed or fail, depending on setting circumstances and mood.

 

[Adam Dray]

@Condottiere: Which "this" are you talking about?

 

[BRover]

Originally Posted by Sector Fleet
CAPABILITY
Capability is a general measure of the vessel’s capabilities within its class. Obviously a third-class capital ship is still vastly more capable than a second-class destroyer, and even a first-class tanker is capable only of defeating a handful of fighters.

. . .

5 – Fifth-Class vessels are very old and not in good repair, for the most part. Some world governments and colonial forces operate these very elderly ships, often with some of their original systems replaced by civilian electronics or lower-tech items. Fifth-Class vessels represent the oldest and least capable vessels that any Subsector Fleet would field outside of an extreme emergency.

6 – Sixth-Class vessels are barely serviceable and are more likely to be found in the hands of private users – such as down-at-heel pirates, impoverished noble houses and world governments that afford nothing better – than the Imperial services. A significant proportion of the systems aboard a Sixth-Class vessel will not function, or are in marginal condition.

7 – No official Seventh Class exists; the term is slang in the Navy for something so utterly useless that not even the Scouts would want it.

Hmmm. These classes sound like the wilderness ships from The New Era, especially those held by TEDs . . .

 

[Straybow]

I think the maintenance costs are too low, probably by an order of magnitude. Annual overhaul would probably be 1-5% of cash price. Initially, 1%, and then increasing by 1% for each decade of service.

 

[Condottiere]

Financing, of course.

As regards to maintenance, warships are about ten percent per annum, one reason that building new ones tended to make more sense.

Politicians are less amiable to this policy, which is why the Royal Navy had their own shipyards, took apart aging warships, and Theseus'd them, which looks better on the books than ordering a new ship.

Which is why that in the short term, naval arms limitation treaties favoured them, and they could overlook cheating by the others.

 

[aramis]

I'll note that the Traveller:The New Era rules have the Wear Value system. It's brutal on the crew, but workable overall...

If you're not looking to publish, it's a good option.

 

[whartung]

I think one of the issues with starship used prices et al is the idea of the 40 years mortgage on the ship.

I was looking at the IRS website talking about depreciation.

And, not being a tax attorney, it seemed that most big things and equipment were depreciated over a 10 years period.

Of note, things like vessels (i.e. boats). I don't know if they're distinguishing between a zillion ton container ship and a dingy or not, frankly. But, as a general rule, boats aren't cheap. They cost a lot of money.

And the deprecation rules don't really care how much something costs. So, in the end, after much decision making etc., over years of use, the IRS depreciates boats on a 10 year schedule.

Starships are boats.

Heck, we can be generous and give them a 15 year schedule.

Now, my corporate accounting is kind of weak, but would a business take a 40 year loan on a 10 or 15 year asset? More importantly, would a bank loan money for 40 years on an asset with a 10 year shelf life?

I don't think that's the case (Traveller CPA's willing to chime in on the relationships between depreciation and load value are welcome).

it's not that the asset goes to zero value, clearly. For example, someone could buy, say a new pickup truck, depreciate it over several years, then sell it to someone else who then depreciates it over several years.

However, the expectation, as I understand it, of the depreciation schedule is that, indeed, the asset is "consumed" over the schedule of the depreciation. That a 10 year old boat is out of useful life and could be sold for scrap.

And many are, that's where we see fleets of leased vehicles being sold off.

I don't know the lifespan of a container ship. Maybe they only run them for 10-15 years. Seems like a big thing to wad up and throw away, but in the end, it's just expenses and money, and what's the best deal for the company.

 

[Adam Dray]

Modern maritime shipping loans have 8-year pay off schedules, sometimes extended to as much as 18 years. That's not the same as the depreciation schedule, though.

I think we're to believe that, in the far future, starships last many decades without falling apart. Still, I don't buy that risk-based ventures like free trading, subject to poor management, piracy, theft, and probably cannibals, is prime lending material on the bank's actuarial tables. The big shipping companies get billion-credit loans at 8% interest over 8-10 years.

I just ran some compound interest formulas against a 480-month loan at 8% interest on 1 MCr of financed debt. The book-standard mortgage payment on that -- 1/240th of that, as per the CE rules -- is 4167 Cr/mo, for a "truth in lending" total price of 2 MCr. With real compound interest, it should be 480 payments 6907 Cr and a "truth in lending" total price of 3.3 MCr. To get back to the 4167 Cr/mo payment, that assumes 4.002434% interest over 480 months.

 

[Condottiere]

Modern freighting seems rather cut throat, and construction tends to lag business cycles.

At the top end, it's chasing economies of scale, and at the lower end, flags of convenience.

Everything revolves around lowering the cost per tonne shipped, while some nations create barriers to entry to protect their remaining commercial shipping.

Well maintained castles can last for centuries, whereas trailer park housing depreciates like a falling rock; the trick is finding, or at least justifying, the business case for each.

And that would be the point for commercial ventures, getting at a minimum your money's worth out of any particular piece of equipment, so that it not only creates a viable net profit, but also pays off it's investment cost and perhaps it's replacement as well.

 

[Timerover51]

I think one of the issues with starship used prices et al is the idea of the 40 years mortgage on the ship.

I was looking at the IRS website talking about depreciation.

And, not being a tax attorney, it seemed that most big things and equipment were depreciated over a 10 years period.

Of note, things like vessels (i.e. boats). I don't know if they're distinguishing between a zillion ton container ship and a dingy or not, frankly. But, as a general rule, boats aren't cheap. They cost a lot of money.

And the deprecation rules don't really care how much something costs. So, in the end, after much decision making etc., over years of use, the IRS depreciates boats on a 10 year schedule.

Starships are boats.

Heck, we can be generous and give them a 15 year schedule.

Now, my corporate accounting is kind of weak, but would a business take a 40 year loan on a 10 or 15 year asset? More importantly, would a bank loan money for 40 years on an asset with a 10 year shelf life?

I don't think that's the case (Traveller CPA's willing to chime in on the relationships between depreciation and load value are welcome).

it's not that the asset goes to zero value, clearly. For example, someone could buy, say a new pickup truck, depreciate it over several years, then sell it to someone else who then depreciates it over several years.

However, the expectation, as I understand it, of the depreciation schedule is that, indeed, the asset is "consumed" over the schedule of the depreciation. That a 10 year old boat is out of useful life and could be sold for scrap.

And many are, that's where we see fleets of leased vehicles being sold off.

I don't know the lifespan of a container ship. Maybe they only run them for 10-15 years. Seems like a big thing to wad up and throw away, but in the end, it's just expenses and money, and what's the best deal for the company.

My wife is a CPA, as well as an enrolled agent, licensed to practice before the IRS. I have picked up a lot of tax information from her. Buildings are depreciated on a 10-year basis. Buildings are not consumed in ten years, and typically have much longer mortgages. Depreciation schedules can be very complicated depending on what is being depreciated. I had to research aircraft depreciation for one of her clients, and that was on a 10-year basis. Note, the plane did not disintegrate after 10 years, or become useless junk. You still have World War 2 built C-47/DC-3 flying around, which have been depreciated several times by different owners. Software can be depreciated, as can computers used by a business, but those are typically depreciated on a shorter basis.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Modern (or, given their age, relatively modern) airliners can last 25-30 years if properly maintained. They're typically not retired due to age, but cost-effectiveness (newer aircraft are far more fuel efficient) or noise regulations.