Starship Economics in T20

[BetterThanLife]

I may be doing something wrong. It is obvious that a Far Trader and a Sub Liner can't make their payments on standard financing with full loads. I have tried to build a 2000T Jump-2 Freighter and it still won't break even. Scaling up doesn't work. Scaling down doesn't work. (You can olny fit so much on a 100T hull.

Is there a way to build a Jump-2 or Jump-3 ship that can pay its own way within the T20 rules with standard financing? (Payment is to a destination regardless of distance vs. Classic Traveller where payment is on a per Parsec Basis.)

 

[far-trader]

I seem to recall having a light freighter design for CT that worked and it was with per trip pay. afaik the per parsec has only ever been a house rule, do you know where it was printed as per parsec?

I'll give the T20 design a quick and dirty run at it. Should work out much the same.

 

[daryen]

No, your observations are probably correct.

BTW, all prices in CT were "per jump", NOT "per parsec". While this is not specifically hammered home with cargo, it is with passengers. But reading the cargo description in Bk2, it is pretty clear that costs are per jump, not per parsec.

As far as I can tell, the only place where prices are per parsec instead of per jump is GURPS Traveller: Far Trader. Everything else (including the little blurb in the GT sourcebook) puts the prices at per jump.

This basically means that if you want to try and make money carrying freight (i.e. not speculating), you must use a J1 ship. The Free Trader doesn't cut it, but the Fat Trader does. (At least in CT.)

 

[far-trader]

OK, a quick build and economic analysis of my old light freighter built with T20 shows it coming up short by about cr350,000 annually with 25 ports of call and 2 weeks off for maintenance/holiday. That's figuring always:</font>

• full cargo hold</font>
• fuel skimming</font>
• no salary (owner/operator for profits)</font>
• middle passage level life support</font>
• 6 days at class A ports with full cargo handling</font>
• routine and annual maintenance</font>

This is for a 200T J2 1G 107T cargo ship with a model/2 computer suite and one stateroom for the owner/operator built at TL11 and running freight only at cr1,000 per T per trip. It could make a profit by jumping to TL13+ (cheaper and smaller power plant), or come closer by avoiding class A ports and cargo handlers (maybe a robot or grav sled) and squeezing in two more runs each year. Could always get by with a small stateroom too but the space is nice and you never know when you might stop for a nice looking hitchhiker

 

[Hecateus]

In T20, there is a trick with building the ship computers at a lower TL by a higher TL manufacturer, which reduces cost, power, and weight, with a mild improvement in performence. I dunno if you used that. There may also be similar tricks for other ship components, but I doubt it.

I suspect that it is also possible to build cheap all robotic bulk ships; these would only transfer lower value goods in well patrolled and supported routes; leaving the risky and more profitable routes and goods/passengers to manned ships.

 

[womble]

A different approach which helps with break-even is to assume that a Free Trader (one who has to take out a loan to buy their ship) will not buy a new ship, but one that's old and has depreciated (to, say, half its showroom price). The lower monthly payments make it possible, though still marginal, to run a standard Far Trader and still make the loan payments. The converse of this is that the large concerns which can afford to buy for cash can make a profit using new ships because they don't have the interest payments to make.

However, it's largely moot, since the rules as they stand are well-designed to encourage 'entrepreneurial' activity by Free Traders as opposed to bread-and-butter runs (cos scheduled freight deliveries make poor adventures).

Robot ships are decidedly non-canon; the rules aren't designed around that concept being the profit route. Canon has a minimum flight crew of one. Even X-Boats have a pilot/astrogator and all they do is Jump between well-charted locations.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Ok, here is the source of the Per Parsec, vs. Per Jump.

Book 2 Classic Traveller Page 9. "Differences in starship jump capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. the difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach the destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three seperate jumps(through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three seperate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers may make otherwise inaccessable destinations within reach. But for two ships going to the same destination in one jump each would charge the same cargo or passage price."

That implies that a Jump three ship doing a three parsec jump charges the same as a jump-1 ship making three jumps. (Or Cr30000 for a high passage.)

MegaTraveller Page 90 of the Imperial Encyclopedia uses the same quote.

Not exactly clear, but relativly clear.Adventure 13, Signal GK, spells it out more directly. On pg 21 shows that a Jump-1 hop nets a loss of Cr12,132 but a Jump-2 hop shows a net profit of Cr15,877. (I haven't done the full math on it to figure out why it is only a Cr30,000 swing but I will assume they can do the math.) I actually think the loss is higher on a jump-1 with a Sub liner.

I seem to remember another example, besides Signal GK, but I can't find it off the top of my head.

There are definitely sections where it appears to contradict this. But the Starship economics on a Freighter with a Jump Drive higher than Jump-1 just don't work the other way.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by daryen:
No, your observations are probably correct.

BTW, all prices in CT were "per jump", NOT "per parsec". While this is not specifically hammered home with cargo, it is with passengers. But reading the cargo description in Bk2, it is pretty clear that costs are per jump, not per parsec.

As far as I can tell, the only place where prices are per parsec instead of per jump is GURPS Traveller: Far Trader. Everything else (including the little blurb in the GT sourcebook) puts the prices at per jump.

This basically means that if you want to try and make money carrying freight (i.e. not speculating), you must use a J1 ship. The Free Trader doesn't cut it, but the Fat Trader does. (At least in CT.)

The per jump vs. per parsec plan, which for years I thought was correct, (The rules are definitely contradictory or unclear.) make less sense when you actually do the math. Using the quote I posted from Book 2, it seems to make clear that it is per parsec. When I bought "The Classic Adventures" In adventure 13 there it was, plain as day when describing the Ad Astra (Subsidized Liner). I seem to remember reading it elsewhere as well but I am not sure where.

I guess we should send the whole mess to Mark and get his opinion.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Ok, So I buy a depreciated starship. Who bought the new one in the first place? It was the evil bankers and this is now a repossesed starship? Sell the same ship 6 times and all the payments are profit? Now that almost makes sense. (Kind of like a Buy Here Pay Here Car lot.

You can look at the Trade and Speculation as the primary means, but since it is so random, it can not be a primary means of paying for a Starship. (With the capital required, you might as well just buy the ship outright.) Trade and speculation as written will net you a great profit occasionally. But more than half the time you will find you are better off shipping empty, or carrying the 1000Cr per ton cargo.

Show me please how a Far Trader can consistently make more than Cr300,000 (Actually with all expenses closer to MCr0.35) per month. Under CT or T20 please. I admit you can do it occasionally but consistently. (Oh and without shelling out more than the 20% down you had to scrape together to buy the ship in the first place.

Originally posted by womble:
A different approach which helps with break-even is to assume that a Free Trader (one who has to take out a loan to buy their ship) will not buy a new ship, but one that's old and has depreciated (to, say, half its showroom price). The lower monthly payments make it possible, though still marginal, to run a standard Far Trader and still make the loan payments. The converse of this is that the large concerns which can afford to buy for cash can make a profit using new ships because they don't have the interest payments to make.

However, it's largely moot, since the rules as they stand are well-designed to encourage 'entrepreneurial' activity by Free Traders as opposed to bread-and-butter runs (cos scheduled freight deliveries make poor adventures).

Robot ships are decidedly non-canon; the rules aren't designed around that concept being the profit route. Canon has a minimum flight crew of one. Even X-Boats have a pilot/astrogator and all they do is Jump between well-charted locations.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Ok, So I buy a depreciated starship. Who bought the new one in the first place?

An established company with a firm contract for regular shipments or a factor at each port of call. A ship working for such a company does not need to spend 6 days in port ferreting out a new cargo; cargo is waiting for it in the company warehouse. This means that it can perform a jump every 10 days (maybe even every 9 days).

That gives it 35 jumps per year which improves the economy considerably. Mind you, flat per jump freight and passenger rates are still horribly broken any way you look at them[*]. But every little bit helps, right?


[*] For instance, a regular jump-1 freighter doing 35 jumps per year is earning implausilby large profits; someone else would undercut them in a minute.


Hans

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
The per jump vs. per parsec plan, which for years I thought was correct, (The rules are definitely contradictory or unclear.) make less sense when you actually do the math. Using the quote I posted from Book 2, it seems to make clear that it is per parsec.

Wow. I have a totally different take away from that same quote. What I understand it to say is that no matter the distance jumped, all prices are per jump. Notice that it says "But for two ships going to the same destination in one jump". This means that a J3 ship cannot charge a premium over a J1 ship.

[BTW, in my defense, I have to say you are the first person I have ever heard of who interpreted Bk2 to be per parsec, not per jump. The fact that T20 does it per jump strongly implies that everyone on the T20 team did not read it your way. This is not to say you are wrong, just that your reading of Bk2 is unique in my experience.]

Also, the first part says that while a trip over three parsecs would take three tickets on a J1 ship, it only takes a single ticket on a J3 ship. A jump is a jump, regardless of distance.

Depending on how you interpret the freight section, it is even worse, as the number of jumps don't even matter. It costs 1000Cr per ton to move stuff from point A to point B, wherever that may be. Distance (and even number of jumps) don't apply.

Of course, as you point out, none of this makes any sense. I have never done the per jump thing, and have always done things per parsec.

 

[kaladorn]

I read what Daryen read.

OTOH, I too thought it made no sense.

It costs (if nothing else) more money to build a J3 ship. It may (depending on ruleset in use....) burn up to 3x as much fuel for the J1 jump. So it is actually *more expensive* for a J3 ship to do a J1.

And this makes no mention to standards of accomodation (full staterooms, small staterooms, high quality fair, low quality fair, good steward, poor steward, newest vids and computer access, old 2D-movie reels showed on the hull, etc).

And the idea of freight for 1000 a ton any distance is neat. I'd be mailing myself as freight in a low berth capsule to Capital from Regina - far cheaper than travelling 'low passage'.

 

[robject]

I'll chip in my Cr0.02...

Players really aren't supposed to be all that concerned with starships and starship payments. If you're not part of a regular, profitable trade route, then you're living at the whim of the referee anyhow.

Oh, maybe we're talking about solo play? The only way to make money there is to select a profitable route ahead of time and stick to it. For instance, Rhylanor and Porozlo. Note that this is probably also a requirement for how a bank/shipyard would agree to loan money to a private purchaser in the first place!

admin: "Dependable source of payments?"
me: "Beg pardon?"
admin: "How do you plan on meeting the demanding payment schedule?"
me: "Uh... luck?"

Also, speculative trade can help (referee or no).

 

[robject]

Originally posted by far-trader:
OK, a quick build and economic analysis of my old light freighter [snip]
This is for a 200T J2 1G 107T cargo ship

Egads! No passengers? C'mon, that's where the money is!

My old far trader had 8 passenger staterooms and a few low berths, leaving about 64T for cargo. Surely that would be well worth the change? Assuming you've picked a route that ensures occupancy. And don't forget charters. You could get a premium for those. Ah, and the mail run. An excellent deal if I ever did see one.

Hmmm, filled staterooms pull in what, 1.5 to 2k per dton, and low berths pull in about 2k per dton. And don't forget speculation. Never forget speculation...

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
It costs (if nothing else) more money to build a J3 ship. It may (depending on ruleset in use....) burn up to 3x as much fuel for the J1 jump. So it is actually *more expensive* for a J3 ship to do a J1.

In CT (and, I believe T20) a J1 only uses 10% of the hull in fuel regardless of the jump drive rating. So a J3 ship and a J1 ship are using the same amount of fuel.

The real problem is that a J3 ship just has flat out less cargo space than a J1 ship. Even if both ships cost the same, the J3 just can't compete unless it charges by the parsec.

Originally posted by robject:
Oh, maybe we're talking about solo play? The only way to make money there is to select a profitable route ahead of time and stick to it. For instance, Rhylanor and Porozlo. Note that this is probably also a requirement for how a bank/shipyard would agree to loan money to a private purchaser in the first place!

I completely agree. This is even more amazing than a merchant's inability to charge for speed of delivery. What nutty banker keeps giving loans to individuals with bad to non-existant business plans? I mean, I can understand some doing this for a while until they get beat up well enough, but wouldn't they stop throwing good money after bad after 1100 years?

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Ok, here is the source of the Per Parsec, vs. Per Jump.

Book 2 Classic Traveller Page 9.

That implies that a Jump three ship doing a three parsec jump charges the same as a jump-1 ship making three jumps. (Or Cr30000 for a high passage.)

I agree with this completely. Any bonehead Jump-1 captain who is stupid enough to sell someone a Jump-3 ticket has to carry that person the whole distance.

On the other hand, if a captain can't fill his cabins with Jump-1 passengers, it might be wise to extend the offer to 2-parsec passengers. They get a great half-price deal, and the captain at least makes a little money. Of course a J1 captain probably won't sell a J4 middle passage, since there's no profit there at all! And even a J3 passenger is going to be occupying that cabin for three jumps, so ya gotta be careful when you pick up those slackers.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by robject:
Egads! No passengers? C'mon, that's where the money is!

Of course not. What self-respecting PC wants to take in 6 (in a normal free/far trader) or 8 (in your ship) potential hijackers? Sure, they are nominally more lucrative, but that is all wiped out with one hijacking attempt. (Assuming it fails. If it succeeds, you get to start a new game.)

Besides which, he is running the ship with a single crewman. Carrying passengers would force him to start hiring more crew.

Besides which, the best "cargo" is probably low passengers. You don't have the expenses of "real" passengers (i.e. the steward and life support), but it pays twice as good as freight. Plus, there are no potential hijackers as all of your cargo is safely frozen.

Lord knows there are enough hi-pop "hells" next to lo-pop "heavens" to exploit.

... And don't forget charters. You could get a premium for those. Ah, and the mail run. An excellent deal if I ever did see one.

Hmmm, filled staterooms pull in what, 1.5 to 2k per dton, and low berths pull in about 2k per dton. And don't forget speculation. Never forget speculation...

If I was trying to do a "maximized" design, I would accentuate the low berths with some cargo (for mail and speculation, not freight).

However, my preferred plan would be to just go for charters. Granted, that puts you totally at the mercy of the referee, but the opportunities for adventure are much greater.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
OK, a quick build and economic analysis of my old light freighter [snip]
This is for a 200T J2 1G 107T cargo ship

Egads! No passengers? C'mon, that's where the money is!</font>[/QUOTE]Not when you factor the cost of life support, steward, doctor and security. Or at least it used to work out that way for this ship, hmm come to think of it I might have built it to run in a different rules set (not CT as I thought) that had cargo at cr2,000 per T. Ring any bells? Maybe MT? I recall a system that had the same basic rate (before expenses) per T for freight (Kcr2/1T), low passage (Kcr1/0.5T), and mid passage (Kcr8/4T).

I'm not forgetting speculation or mail contracts.

The first requires a certain degree of luck and suspension of disbelief. I recall a CT game ages ago where we had a hot little speculative trade triangle going in the marches. Always good passenger load and good chance of making a killing if we got the right random cargo. In short order we were filthy rich and the game was boring. In the real world such a 'route' would be so exploited so fast we should have only had one such run at it, not the indefinite one we took.

The second of course requires weapons (pricey) a gunner and usually leads to interested parties (of pirates) looking at your ship with lust.

Anyway the light freighter was a solo owner/operator type design so it had to avoid all that extra stuff and just go for freight and the occassional speculative or small package delivery

 

[BetterThanLife]

Well if we aren't supposed to be worried about starship payments then perhaps we shouldn't play merchant characters that muster out with a Free Trader. (Or my old GM would let us substitute a Far Trader because it got us, as a party, off the Spinward Main and into more interesting trouble.)

Remember the simple economics of the starship gets very complicated by adventuring. The ship ought to be able to handle its own costs without resorting to drastic measures, after all adventuring tends to get expensive, especially when you have to pay for repairs to said ship because you just got it all shot up by that irate Pirate that you just ratted out to the Navy.

If you use the per Parsec rate then the concern goes away and the economics work. (Though it is still tough to make it work, it does require thought and working to make sure you don't travel empty.) You have to keep the ship moving, or make up for the loss of revenue by adventuring. But the basic economics actually work.

Originally posted by robject:
I'll chip in my Cr0.02...

Players really aren't supposed to be all that concerned with starships and starship payments. If you're not part of a regular, profitable trade route, then you're living at the whim of the referee anyhow.

Oh, maybe we're talking about solo play? The only way to make money there is to select a profitable route ahead of time and stick to it. For instance, Rhylanor and Porozlo. Note that this is probably also a requirement for how a bank/shipyard would agree to loan money to a private purchaser in the first place!

admin: "Dependable source of payments?"
me: "Beg pardon?"
admin: "How do you plan on meeting the demanding payment schedule?"
me: "Uh... luck?"

Also, speculative trade can help (referee or no).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Well if a Jump-3 ship was going to the same destination as a Jump-1 ship in one jump then the price would be the same. But as it says the price between two destinations is the same regardless of the jump number of the ship. It isn't charging per jump but per distance to destination. The Ad Astra in Signal GK (Adventure 13 CT) is clearly charging by the distance not the jump.

It does say that a Jump-3 ship can't charge a premium over a jump-1 ship going to the same destination. Simply by virtue of it being a Jump-3 ship. It also doesn't say that a Jump-1 ship going to the same destination, taking two intermediate jumps can't charge a premium over a Jump-3 ship going to the same destination. Which, if you charge per jump instead of per Parsec you get. Because tickets are purchased to the announced destination. At the destination a new ticket must be purchased, and then a third. (If a Jump-1 ship is going three parsecs.) But both ships charge the same to the same destination. So to go three parsecs costs Cr30,000. (Which makes the economic model work. When you specifically say it is per jump regardless of distance, (Which it does say explicitly in T20.) The economic system falls apart for anything with a J-2 or higher engine. But when you factor in per parsec, then a Far Trader breaks even going three parsecs per month and makes a profit at 4 parsecs per month. A Free Trader makes a Profit going two parsecs per month and a Liner breaks even going 4 parsecs per month. The higher jump ships still won't make back their 20% down as fast but it is at least possible before their 40 years is up. Trade and speculation being equal it makes a good suplement to carrying cargo but is too inconsistent to get a loan. This way you can get a loan.

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
The per jump vs. per parsec plan, which for years I thought was correct, (The rules are definitely contradictory or unclear.) make less sense when you actually do the math. Using the quote I posted from Book 2, it seems to make clear that it is per parsec.

Wow. I have a totally different take away from that same quote. What I understand it to say is that no matter the distance jumped, all prices are per jump. Notice that it says "But for two ships going to the same destination in one jump". This means that a J3 ship cannot charge a premium over a J1 ship.

[BTW, in my defense, I have to say you are the first person I have ever heard of who interpreted Bk2 to be per parsec, not per jump. The fact that T20 does it per jump strongly implies that everyone on the T20 team did not read it your way. This is not to say you are wrong, just that your reading of Bk2 is unique in my experience.]

Also, the first part says that while a trip over three parsecs would take three tickets on a J1 ship, it only takes a single ticket on a J3 ship. A jump is a jump, regardless of distance.

Depending on how you interpret the freight section, it is even worse, as the number of jumps don't even matter. It costs 1000Cr per ton to move stuff from point A to point B, wherever that may be. Distance (and even number of jumps) don't apply.

Of course, as you point out, none of this makes any sense. I have never done the per jump thing, and have always done things per parsec. </font>[/QUOTE]But if you move from point a to point c through point B you get to charge twice for it. Stands to reason that skipping point C would still get you the same price for the distance. BUt if you go the same distance in one jump it is the same price regardless of the jump number of the ship. (It does not say it is the base price. just the same price.)

Where is CT does it say you pay one price no matter the distance? (In MT it does but it is contradicting itself on the same page.