Slow boat to Regina

[san*klass]

Recently rereading CT for the first time in over 20 years (The Traveller Book version) I am finding myself querying and trying to rationlise some of the rules.

One that does not make sense to me is that price for passage to a given destination remains the same regardless of how many jumps it takes.

So if I wanted to get to a world that was three parsecs away on a Mains (for example) I would pay the same fixed price regardless of whether the journey took one week on a J3 transport, or three weeks on a J1 one.

Now, if I were just wanting to wander and see the universe this would not be a problem. But (going by my experience in the real world) most people want to get a journey over and reach their destination asap. Given this and market forces, should not faster J ships be able to charge more for the luxury of a quicker voyage?

So, assuming the above to be true (although opposite views invited) what does a CT GM do?

I suggest two possible ways of house-ruling this.

One, that the price indeed is fixed, but the higher J ship gets the first (and so widest) range of customers. So, maybe a -2 DM on the Passengers table, for each additional week that the journey will take over and above the ideal.

So a two parsec journey in one week is no DM, but if it takes two weeks then a -2DM. But a 1 parsec journey would have no DM, since all ships take one week.

Or, secondly, that the price is based on a one week journey and each week beyond beyond that suffers a cr 500 price reduction. This is based on the assumption that the best commercial ship jump that you are likely to routinely encounter is J3.

So a five parsec (two week) trip in a J3 ship will have no reduction, as would a three parsec trip in the same ship. But a five parsec trip in a J1 ship (so 5 weeks) would suffer a cr 2,000 reduction and to be honest probably not happen! While a three parsec trip in a J1 ship (so three weeks) would suffer a cr 1,000 penalty.

All thoughts welcome - especially if you have tried to house-rule this yourself.

 

[robject]

One that does not make sense to me is that price for passage to a given destination remains the same regardless of how many jumps it takes.

... most people want to get a journey over and reach their destination asap. Given this and market forces...

Even the Mongoose Traveller rules change this. And price per parsec has a strong following.

I think the original assumption must have been that few enough people travel (one in a million, say), so that sometimes they have to take what they can get. Seen from the other side, few enough people travel, so that Free Traders sometimes have to accept long-distance passengers just to fill up empty staterooms.

 

[ffilz]

Actually, reading the rules, the J-1 ship that takes three jumps to get to that world 3 parsecs away requires 3 tickets:

The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it.

BUT, that's the 1981 rules...

1977 is missing the parenthetical note...

With a reading of the implied setting as having travel uncommon and dangerous, these rules seem OK, and that passengers and captains alike accept the system, though it still does seem like a longer jump SHOULD have a higher ticket price.

Frank

 

[whulorigan]

Actually, reading the rules, the J-1 ship that takes three jumps to get to that world 3 parsecs away requires 3 tickets:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it.

[/FONT]

BUT, that's the 1981 rules...

1977 is missing the parenthetical note...

With a reading of the implied setting as having travel uncommon and dangerous, these rules seem OK, and that passengers and captains alike accept the system, though it still does seem like a longer jump SHOULD have a higher ticket price.

I think the general idea was that since jump travel took a week of time regardless of distance traveled *, that the cost was based on the travel time of 1 week (and hence the attended usage of consumables and resources), rather than the distance traveled. The hold and staterooms were either filled for the jump, or they weren't - and it was a single jump of 1 week per ticket. Of course, the fuel cost would still be variable . . .

* (i.e. a J-3 ship took just as long to do a J-1 Jump as it did a J-3 Jump, rather than in 1/3 the time for the J-1 Jump)
​

 

[Condottiere]

The variable cost would be the difference in price between the required engineering, and the opportunity cost of volume that could have been used for cargo and passengers.

 

[kilemall]

I'm arguing that the time value of higher jumps is even greater then the per parsec model captures. Read up on the clipper rules we are discussing in another subforum here.

This is the thread-

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=536096#post536096

 

[Timerover51]

Considering that a Jump-3 capable ship is going to cost considerably more per Traveller dTon than a Jump-1 ship, the ticket on the Jump-3 ship should be higher in cost. If you want to get there fast, you pay more.

 

[mike wightman]

I would love it if MWM, FC or LKW could clarify what the intention behind the ticket price and price for freight in CT was.

People have been arguing for a per parsec ticket/freight rate for decades now, but the rules remain you pay for the jump, regardless of distance.

If you want to get to a world 4 pc away book passage on a jump 4 liner, it will cost you Cr 10,000. If you travel by jump 1 merchant it will cost you 4x Cr10,000 or shipping freight will be Cr 1000 per ton on the jump 4 trader while it is 4x Cr 1000 per ton if moved by jump 1 ship.

The jump 4 ship costs more, has higher operating costs, has less cargo and passenger space and charges the same for its 4 parsec jump as a jump 1 merchant charges for a 1 parsec.

 

[DaveCrow]

Pay per Jump makes a certain sense to me. More than Pay per Parsec does.
One jump is one jump, doesn't matter how far it is, it still takes a week of time and consumables. Traveling three parsecs in a J3> ship is one jump, in a J1 ship it is 3 jumps. A pay by parsec model would have both trips cost the same. 1 jump=1 ticket, 3 jumps=3 tickets.

Where I think there should be a price adjustment factor is in the fuel consumed by the different ships. A ship that consumes more fuel should charge more for the same jump than a ship which consumes less fuel.

 

[kilemall]

I would love it if MWM, FC or LKW could clarify what the intention behind the ticket price and price for freight in CT was.

People have been arguing for a per parsec ticket/freight rate for decades now, but the rules remain you pay for the jump, regardless of distance.

If you want to get to a world 4 pc away book passage on a jump 4 liner, it will cost you Cr 10,000. If you travel by jump 1 merchant it will cost you 4x Cr10,000 or shipping freight will be Cr 1000 per ton on the jump 4 trader while it is 4x Cr 1000 per ton if moved by jump 1 ship.

The jump 4 ship costs more, has higher operating costs, has less cargo and passenger space and charges the same for its 4 parsec jump as a jump 1 merchant charges for a 1 parsec.

Only thing I can figure is the higher jump ships allow more highpop to highpop direct trips for higher profits as opposed to the 'every bus stop' economics of a jump-1 Main, and so it's a balancing mechanism to stop players from getting millions 'too fast too easy'.

That depends very much on the layout of a subsector.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's worth noting that in the first edition, any Jump burned all of the ship's Jump fuel requirement (a J5 ship doing a J1 still used half its tonnage in fuel rather than just 10% of it).
In that context, a flat rate per Jump for passengers and cargo makes slightly (but only slightly) more sense -- shorter Jumps than a ship was capable of didn't reduce its operating costs significantly.

Then again, I'm pretty sure the fact the cargo and passenger rates were unrealistic within the game universe was considered a feature rather than a bug. PC tourists got cheap passage to the next star system, and starship owners had to take speculative cargo to make a profit. The ordinary cargo and passenger rate rules were a game element for background and atmosphere rather than an economic model. The fact that the second edition further broke the economics of ordinary cargo and passenger rates didn't matter, since they weren't really expected to be used as the means for PCs to earn revenue in the first place.

The realistic way to construct cargo and passenger rates is to start with the optimally efficient available ship at J1 (say, the game-universe starship analog of a Panamax freighter), work out its operating cost per ton of cargo, then from that determine the opportunity cost of carrying a passenger instead of 2-4 tons cargo (stateroom space and cost, life support/food costs, marginal cost in salary and the crew berth space for part of a steward for each passenger, and so on). This would be the baseline, to be adjusted for how close to optimal efficiency the actual cargo/passenger fleet in the region is. Repeat this exercise for each Jump Number, and there's your set of rates.

This has, of course, been done.
It's not canon, however, for what that's worth.

 

[aramis]

It's worth noting that in the first edition, any Jump burned all of the ship's Jump fuel requirement (a J5 ship doing a J1 still used half its tonnage in fuel rather than just 10% of it).
In that context, a flat rate per Jump for passengers and cargo makes slightly (but only slightly) more sense -- shorter Jumps than a ship was capable of didn't reduce its operating costs significantly..

At flat rate per parsec, instead of per jump, J1-J3 all make money on 400 ton hulls and up under Bk2 1st ed.
At flat rate per parsec under Bk2 2nd ed, J1-J3 make money at 600Td plus.

I've done the math a few hundred times.
Hell, I've done it so often, I went ahead and optimized it. http://www.travellerrpg.com/tools/shipecon0_2.shtml

 

[atpollard]

I've done the math a few hundred times.
Hell, I've done it so often, I went ahead and optimized it. http://www.travellerrpg.com/tools/shipecon0_2.shtml

:rofl:

 

[Selandia]

The LBB gave the overall impression that beside few bold free trader operating ship with limited commercial volume, about anything else needed to be subsidized. At that point, things do not have to make sense beyond the political sense that the subsidizing autority make for it.

The game concept concerns seems to have been to create a harsh economic for the free trader, forcing them to seek risk. To do so, free market economic was tempered with using subsidies and psg/cargo availability tables. Do not try to earn a living with a J-3 non subsidized trader unless you find a two way highly imbalanced trade route to milk on speculative trade.

For traveller travelling on others' ships, the formula was simple and effective.

have fun

Selandia

 

[pendragonman]

Hell, I've done it so often, I went ahead and optimized it. http://www.travellerrpg.com/tools/shipecon0_2.shtml

Well, it is just a math problem for business. And all of those are optimization problems. :coffeesip:

 

[robject]

Only thing I can figure is the higher jump ships allow more highpop to highpop direct trips for higher profits as opposed to the 'every bus stop' economics of a jump-1 Main, and so it's a balancing mechanism to stop players from getting millions 'too fast too easy'.

That depends very much on the layout of a subsector.

And that might be on purpose. Consider what the layout of a subsector does to interstellar travel.

These days, I'd call that "geopolitics", and it's useful for thinking about "the big picture". If Traveller's tools were intended to be a "spur to the imagination", then this is a success.

 

[mike wightman]

If the original rules in 77 edition for space lane/jump routess and jump cassettes (LBB2 p32) had been retained then the layout of a subsector has an even bigger impact on interstellar travel.

The worlds of a subsector are connected by the charted space lanes, which mark the regular routes travelled by commercial starships. While it is possible for starships to travel without regard to the lanes charted, individuals who do not own or control starships are generally restricted to commercial travel on ships which ply to routes which are mapped.

Ships which do not have the generate program are restricted to buying jump cassettes for worlds that are on the charted routes.

In cases where a generate program is not available, starports have single-use flight plans (in self erasing cassettes) available for all worlds within jump range, and for which space lanes exist.