Starship Economics in T20

[far-trader]

You know Bhoins when I read the part you posted and your interpretation it makes a lot of sense. I know a lot of us have used the per parsec as a house rule over the years, even though I for one wondered why it wasn't official (having read it wrong way back I now believe). All the explanations seem to fit quite well and the economics seem a lot less broken. Anybody have some counter arguments that show a way for the per jump model to work?

 

[daryen]

Since you asked, I will go ahead and beat the dead horse. (Again, this is how I understand the rules, not how I actually played them.)

All quotations taken from The Traveller Book, page 53, under REVENUE in the Starship Economics chapter. This is verbatum from Bk2.

The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number), and roll for each such world on the cargo table.

OK. Notice the premise here. You are to figure out your next destination. Notice that the range is irrelevant; you are only worried about your next jump.

Then he should roll to determine the number of ... cargos available on the world of origin; modifiers take into account the world of destination.

Again, we pick our destination and see what is available to carry. Distance is irrelevant as long as it takes one jump to get to.

All cargos are carried at Cr1,000 per ton.

Regardless of the distance to the destination, you get KCr1 for each ton of cargo.

Then we move on to passengers.

The passenger table is used to determine the number of passengers desiring passage to the announced world ...
Passengers will pay the standard fare for the class of transportation they choose ... Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on jump distance.

To me, this is quite clear. Regardless of how far the destination is, you get the standard fare for the jump.

Then, just to hammer the point home, the next paragraph starts with

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices.

Bk2 is unequivocally priced per jump, not per parsec.

Do note that this whole process only takes things one jump at a time. Aside from speculation, there is no consideration given to cargo that is to be taken two jumps away.

So, you figure out your next destination (only), get cargo and passengers for it. You go to the destination and unload all cargo and passengers. Then you figure out your next destination (only), and do it all over again. You never look past your next jump.

Then, just to be thorough, I dug out my Classic Adventures book, and found the info on the Ad Astra. I have absolutely no idea where you get per parsec out of it, either. All quotes here are taken from page 20 and 21 of Adventure 13 under the REVENUE BREAKDOWN section.

The information below is computed on the basis of one trip per two weeks, and is for one trip.

Do note that the distance of the trip is irrelevant. This is touched on later.

The revenues are then listed, first for passengers (KCr210 for all high; KCr168 for all middle), low passengers (KCr20) and cargo (KCr129 for a full hold). Note again that all of these prices are per trip. Distance is not considered.

The costs are then given (I won't bother to list them). However, at the end we get this revealing quote:

Assuming a full ship (passengers and cargo) the subsidized liner can expect revenues of Cr359,000 per trip. Costs associated with that trip amount to Cr372,123, giving a net loss of Cr12,123. A jump-2 trip turns a profit of Cr15,877.

So, if the trip is jump-3, you lose money. If the trip is jump-2, you make money. (Presumably, the difference is the reduced fuel consumption.) This pretty definitively shows that the Ad Astra is being run per jump, not per parsec. If it was running per parsec, it wouldn't lose money on jump-3, and make it on jump-2.

So, putting both of these together, I think I can declare that both Bk2 and Adv13 are pretty definitively priced per jump and not per parsec.

Again, this system doesn't work. But these are the CT rules. You must use per parsec to get anything that comes close to working.

 

[kaladorn]

Seems like a subject on which an ancient (Loren, Marc) might be consulted. Or Avery.

(Just to get the official 'what did they mean' answer, since all of us seem to agree that it *is* broken and had they meant the other thing, they'd have been better off).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Funny my book 2 stops at page 48.

The relavent paragraph is on page 9 in my book 2. And it says one thing in one paragraph and another in the next. (My quote came from the next paragraph on Page 9.) I put it down to typical early RPG editing and went with the section that works.

You are right they are both in there. I am definitely interested in what the original designers would have to say.

I know I have played with it both ways. One works with the ships the other doesn't. It all works if you stick with Free Traders and Fat Traders because there is no difference.

You believe the difference in the Ad Astra is fuel consumption? Ok, I'll buy that for a Cr.

If a Liner is Subsidized instead of running on a standard loan means that the government that is subsidizing it is losing money. (Though we all know how that works.

The loan won't break even. (Not even close.) It would need to make four jumps per month to get close. The Far Trader is in the same boat. It takes three jumps per month to break even. (Or 3 parsecs per month on the other model.) the Trade and speculation chart won't help, much. If it wasn't so random then I guess it could help. In CT you only get one roll, in T20 you can at least have as many as 8 rolls on the table to get something that might work. (Out of 100 though it amounts to an 8% chance to get what you are actually looking for.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Lets pick on the standard design Far Trader. Simple ship, fairly inexpensive, Not sporting lots of bells and whistles.

Ship cost: No guns, standard design MCr59.56 (Suplement 7)
Passengers=6 Low=4, Cargo=61.

Starship loan payment=Cr248167
Annual Maintence Fund = Cr59560
Maintenance Fund per month = Cr4964
Crew costs, (Assume Pilot is the Owner and not taking a Salary.) Engineer, Steward and Medic Cr9000 per month.

Ship not operating during Maintenence cycle so Anualizing payments for the 2 weeks down (And crew still gets paid during maintance.) is a further Cr13404. (Divided by 12 months because you do, under the imperial calendar, get 13 months in a year.)

Life support for the crew is Cr16000 per Month.

Total expenses for the Far trader is Cr351095 per month.

Revenue: High Passage nets you Cr8000 per passenger per jump. Mid Passage nets you Cr6000 per jump. Low passage nets Cr900. Cargo Cr1000 per ton.

Full load = Cr112600 per jump or Cr225200 per month. Leaving you with a shortfall of Cr125895. (I know I left off port fees and fuel cost. Which can add as much as 25320 per month.)

Have someone pull double duty or double bunk 2 of your crewman, carry a 7th passenger and you will break even if you jump three times a month. And that is if you manage to keep it full.

Using the per parsec intrepretation you can actually afford to pay yourself and stay ahead if you average more than 3 parsecs per month. If you can manage 4 parsecs per month the bank would like your business plan and possibly, depending on your credit, give you the loan.

How can you pay for this ship under the per jump interpretation? (The obvious choice is to start with a Free Trader, fly it for the balance of the loan or MCr66, whichever comes second. Then pay cash for the Far Trader.

 

[BetterThanLife]

The T20 Far Trader (I just got T20 and am still wrapping my mind around the rules.

is MCr68.138 Carries the 66T of cargo. (Which is coincidentally the same as if you built it TL15 under Book 5.)

Are the expenses really any different? I noticed that Life support has different options.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Funny my book 2 stops at page 48.

The relavent paragraph is on page 9 in my book 2.

I said I was quoting from The Traveller Book, not Bk2. While Bk2 has the exact same text, I was not quoting from it.

And it says one thing in one paragraph and another in the next. (My quote came from the next paragraph on Page 9.) I put it down to typical early RPG editing and went with the section that works.

You are right they are both in there. I am definitely interested in what the original designers would have to say.

I think the problem here is that you are missing the context. The key sentences you are looking at is:

A jump-3 starship charges the same passage prices as a jump-1 starship. 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 (... requiring three separate tickets) to reach it.

You are reading this to say that if a jump-1 starship would charge three tickets to a given destination, a jump-3 starship would do so also.

However, that reading completely ignores the context. The context is completely based upon the assumption that we are only considering a single jump regardless of distance (which is established above).

So, what the first sentence quoted above should say, for clarity, is:

A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship, regardless of the distance of the jump.

That is the context of the rest of the section. So, while the editing was somewhat of a problem, the issue is clarity, not consistency.

I think it is pretty obvious what the original designers would have to say, because they did so here, in Adv13, and in MT. Sadly, they were completely consistent on the broken "per jump" system.

You believe the difference in the Ad Astra is fuel consumption? Ok, I'll buy that for a Cr.

Even though the math doesn't add up exactly (there is a missing KCr2 somewhere), it is pretty obviously the fuel. That is the only difference between the jump-2 and jump-3.

If the Ad Astra worked per parsec, the jump-3 trip would be not be a loss compared to the jump-2, as its revenues would be KCr1077 (yes, that is MCr1.077), not a measely KCr359.

That all being said, it is also stupid. While it is pretty clear what they said, I have no clue why they said it. A "per jump" system not only doesn't work, it is stupid, too. No one, except in a total top-down controlled economy (which the Imperium decidedly is not), would run that broken of a system. As decentralized as the Imperium is, free market forces would quickly abolish that type of pricing. (Actually, more than that, it would prevent it in the first place.)

 

[robject]

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if I'm playing solo, there are no hijackers, and pirates will "only" confiscate my cargo.

I believe these assumptions are reasonable. However, I find I have to use every possible benefit to make money, and I also see that it's hard to strike a balance -- either it's extremely lucrative or terrible.

How about a mail contract combined with the subsidy rules for 400 or 600 tonners?

 

[robject]

REGNIA

Eneri: I need to get to Yori, fast!
Free Trader Captain: Yori, eh? That's gonna cost you.
Makhidkarun Rep: Pardon me, sir, I couldn't help but overhear. You seek passage to Yori?
Eneri: Yeah, it's, um, an emergency.
MK Rep: We have four ships leaving within the next twelve hours. We have a seat on the next flight in the High Passage section. Shall I book you?
Eneri glances at the free trader captain.
Captain: How does middle passage sound?
Eneri: Okay (smiles).


TREECE

Eneri: I need to get to Tureded, quick!
Captain: So we meet again.
Eneri: Yeah...
Captain: I see that Makhidkarun doesn't have an office here.
Eneri: Yeah...
Captain: Forty thousand credits.
Eneri: WHAT!! That's robbery.
Captain: You want off this dirtball now, or next month?
Eneri: Okay (dejected).

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
How can you pay for this ship under the per jump interpretation? (The obvious choice is to start with a Free Trader, fly it for the balance of the loan or MCr66, whichever comes second. Then pay cash for the Far Trader.

You can't.

I am not, in any way, shape, or form, arguing that the per jump system works, or even makes any sense. (Quite frankly, it doesn't and it doesn't.) I am merely arguing that CT, MT, base GT, and, apparently, T20 are all based on the (broken) per jump model. (I don't know what TNE uses.)

The only system I have ever seen, or heard of, that uses a much more sane per parsec system is GT:Far Trader. But if you try to use that system outside GT, you have to be careful because GT economics are very different from any other Traveller.

 

[robject]

INTHE

Makhidkarun Rep: We are most pleased to work with a budding economy such as that of lovely Inthe, Baron.

Baron Inthe: Thank you, my good man. Inthe is always happy to encourage interstellar trade for the benefit of all.

MK Rep: Ah yes, benefit. Well to tell the truth, my spreadsheet here (3D holodisplay springs into air) says that current interstellar revenue through Inthe is barely profitable at all, with freight volume at a strikingly low index.

Baron Inthe: Not to worry, our projections show that one 30kton freighter per day between Macene, Rhylanor, and Regina would actually double activity in as few as four months. We are in a very strategic position, you know, and the XBoat Planning Commission has proposed a link to Regina.

MK Rep: We'll see, but given the current low traffic volume, I can't offer anything more than four liners per week.

Baron Inthe: That's hardly anything at all! That's a fraction of our tax revenue! High-volume shipping -

MK Rep: - is the key to economic development in the Spinward Main, yes, yes, I've heard all that before. To be quite blunt, Baron, Inthe is sweating bullets because Macene has achieved TL 14 and doesn't require construction of a separate highport because it's an asteroid, and has an industrial base that threatens to turn it into the next Glisten, thereby forever delegating Inthe to obscurity and poverty. If you wish for your world to play a part in the development of the Marches, you will have to play by the rules of those who control trade in this part of the Marches, and that, my good Baron, is Us.

Baron: The moot will be hearing about this.

MK Rep: Oh I don't think so. You see, Regina and Rhylanor are on board, and in fact have grown to be valuable and cooperative trade partners with MK. Now I'll give you one more chance, but let me be clear that this is your last one. We start with four liners and go from there. Standard rates and taxes, but you will supply us with exclusive MK maintenance yards and a free-use contract. We will supply maintenance personnel, and will maintain our ships only.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if I'm playing solo, there are no hijackers, and pirates will "only" confiscate my cargo.</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, I see. That makes sense.

I believe these assumptions are reasonable. However, I find I have to use every possible benefit to make money, and I also see that it's hard to strike a balance -- either it's extremely lucrative or terrible.

I haven't sat down and run the numbers. I really think the CT trade system was intentionally written to make the desirable ships unworkable to force the players into speculation and foolish risks (i.e. "adventure").

How about a mail contract combined with the subsidy rules for 400 or 600 tonners?

To me, the big question is, can you survive on 50% of revenue. If you can survive on that, then the subsidy can be worthwhile. If you can, whatever savings you would get probably aren't worth the restrictions.

 

[womble]

I said:
"...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...."

Bhoins asked:
"...Show me please how a Far Trader can consistently make more than... Cr350,000..."

Bhoins answered: (thanks for saving me doing the math again
"...Cargo Cr1000 per ton...."
Assuming you've picked a route with good cargo prospects, you'll make more than this because of priority cargos.

"...Have someone pull double duty or double bunk 2 of your crewman, carry a 7th passenger and you will break even if you jump three times a month. And that is if you manage to keep it full..."
As I said: "marginal". However, this margin increases if the loan used to buy the ship was not the full new price, since you've made the calculations based on a new ship...

Bhoins asked:
"...So I buy a depreciated starship. Who bought the new one in the first place?..."
Someone who could pay cash up front. The charge against the capital you have to make to compensate for it not being able to accrue interest while tied up in the ship-as-asset is significantly lower than the interest component of the ship loan would have been. Potential buyers would be large concerns with good cashflow and/or subsidised routes to serve.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by daryen:
I haven't sat down and run the numbers. I really think the CT trade system was intentionally written to make the desirable ships unworkable to force the players into speculation and foolish risks (i.e. "adventure").

Absolutely, precisely correct. Despite the fact that the T20 basic trade system is totally unrealistic it is both simple and encourges use of the speculative trade system.

 

[Morte]

Just out of interest...

Various pricing models in excel

The ship is TL 11, 200 ton, 1G, with one airlock and no air/raft, featuring just enough computer to jump, and brought to you by Flying Skull Starship Architects LIC. At Flying Skull we make ships for merchants who want to make money. And we do it in J1/J2/J3 variants.

The three freight pricing models are for:
- Cr 1000/jump
- Cr 500/jump + 500/parsec
- Cr 1000/parsec

There's a similar split for middle passengers and corpsicles.

Here at Flying Skull, we know you're all smart operators who can Fill Your Ship, but just too cool to deal with those inbred toffee-nosed HiPax. [OK, so I balked at building that stuff into the spreadsheet.]

Feel free to fiddle with the pricing split, jumps per year, passenger overheads etc as you choose your route to adventure and wealth.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I do stand corrected on the location of the quote.

The difference in the economics of a Sub Liner, I just worked it, comes out about the same. Considering the cost of the ship and the size of the monthly payment that figure doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It means that you would recover your 20% down within 10 years, the same as the Jump-1 freighters, provided you can always run at capacity.(Which in this case would mean full load full jump.) Since you can't count on full loads, it will generally take longer than that to get to the profit level while making payments.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Originally posted by daryen:
If the Ad Astra worked per parsec, the jump-3 trip would be not be a loss compared to the jump-2, as its revenues would be KCr1077 (yes, that is MCr1.077), not a measely KCr359.

That all being said, it is also stupid. While it is pretty clear what they said, I have no clue why they said it. A "per jump" system not only doesn't work, it is stupid, too. No one, except in a total top-down controlled economy (which the Imperium decidedly is not), would run that broken of a system. As decentralized as the Imperium is, free market forces would quickly abolish that type of pricing. (Actually, more than that, it would prevent it in the first place.) [/QB]