• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Starships Comparative Potential Mercantile Revenue

BRover

SOC-12
Here (and in the next two comments) is an analysis I did on Merchant Starships Comparative Potential Revenue and Expenses (per Jump and per ton)

My question is, given a certain ship—size, drives, crew, vehicles and suchlike are assumed—what is the most effective use of the remaining space in mercantile transport? Should we add (or eliminate) passenger berths?

Assumptions
: Book 2 (Starships) Revenues and Expenses RAW.
Comparison is on the basis of used payload space. This analysis assumes only the differential costs between the various revenue-producing payloads. Overhead—cost of fuel, most salaries, mortgage payments on ship hull, drives, bridge, etc.—is assumed to be equal and ignored in this comparison.

I use a standard two week Jump cycle, for 25 jumps each year plus Annual Maintenance. Also, Mortgage payments are 1/240 of ship price; I charge 1/480 of price per jump, which accounts for 24 jumps per year to pay 12 monthly payments. The remaining jump should be twice sufficient to pay for Annual Maintenance plus minor expenses like Berthing Fees. This much simplifies the math—and lots of picky variables that have negligible effect on the bottom line.

Payload is: Cargo, High, Middle, or Low Passengers, plus Stewards (since the skipper or owner could decide to run only Mid Passengers and have no Stewards, freeing up those rooms for passengers). Steward salary depends on skill (p. 8), assume Steward-1 for Cr3300 per month, or Cr1650 per jump.

I do not analyze Mail Contracts, mostly because they require service on a regular route. Also: how often must a given segment be serviced? Will the contract pay on every leg of a route? However, by analogy to High Passengers, it would seem optimally more profitable than cargo, or passengers: 5 tons of mail plus 4 tons (Gunner with salary and stateroom) plus 1 ton (weapon in turret) = 10 tons used for Cr25k income and a bit over Cr3k extra expense gives I/E around Cr2k per ton.
 
Last edited:
Cargo--base payload (1 ton)
Cost...............Cr0000
Revenue..............1000
Net I/E............Cr1000/ton

2x Low Passengers (1 ton)
Berths (1t)....... Cr100k
Mortgage/jump......Cr208 (1/480 of berth cost)
Life Support (2).....200
Cost..............-Cr408
Revenue.............2000
Net I/E...........Cr1592/ton

Middle Passenger
Stateroom (4.0t)..Cr500k
Baggage (0.1t)........0
Mortgage/jump....Cr1042 (1/480 of room cost)
Life Support.......2000
Cost............-Cr3042
Revenue............8000
I/E (per 4.1t)...Cr4958
Net I/E..........Cr1209/ton

High Passenger (1 of 8)
Stateroom (4.0t)..Cr500k
Baggage...(1.0t)......0
Steward rm(0.5t).... 62.5k
Cost of rooms.......562.5k
Mortgage/jump....Cr1172 (1/480 of room cost)
Life Support(+Stw) 2250
Steward salary/jp...206 (1/8 of Cr1650)
Cost............-Cr3628
Revenue...........10000
I/E (per 5.5t)...Cr6372
Net I/E..........Cr1158.5/ton

High Passenger (1 of 6)
Stateroom (4.0t)..Cr500k
Baggage...(1.0t)......0
Steward rm(0.67t)... 83.3k
Cost of rooms...... 583.3k
Mortgage/jump....Cr1215 (1/480 of room cost)
Life Support(+Stw) 2334
Steward salary/jp...275 (1/6 of Cr1650)
Cost............-Cr3824
Revenue...........10000
I/E (per 5.67t)..Cr6176
Net I/E..........Cr1089.9/ton
 
Last edited:
Conclusions: Low Passengers are most profitable, with net income of Cr1592/ton·jump
Middle passengers are next, at Cr1209/ton·jump
8 High passengers give Cr1158/ton·jump, while 6 reduces this to Cr1090/ton·jump.
(I’m estimating 4 or 5 would reduce this to the rate of cargo)
Cargo is the least profitable, at Cr1000/ton·jump.

Middle Passengers are better than Highs—but Highs are still rather better than Cargo, if you can expect to average at least 6 or so per steward. And going for High Passengers allows an extra roll to fill empty rooms, reducing the risk of empty rooms.
 
My question is, given a certain ship—size, drives, crew, vehicles and suchlike are assumed—what is the most effective use of the remaining space in mercantile transport? Should we add (or eliminate) passenger berths?
If you actually want to know if passenger berths are profitable you can't just assume they are always filled, you have to consider how often the passenger tables will generate enough passengers. Hint: You will almost never have 8 high passengers unless you only travel between high pop systems.

Unlike cargo holds staterooms, and to a much lesser degree low berths, costs money every trip whether filled or not.

Also note that incidental cargo is rather rare, so cargo basically comes in 5 Dt increments: the last few Dtons of cargo will almost never be filled, hence will not generate any revenue.


If you travel between non-high pop worlds you don't really get enough revenue. Passenger berths gets you more rolls for revenue, hence more average revenue.


Assumptions: Book 2 (Starships) Revenues and Expenses RAW.
Which edition? E.g. LBB2'81 gives high passengers 1 tonne (1000 kg), not 1 displacement ton (14 m3) baggage allowance.
 
You assume a custom ship, not a standard design. A standard design is cheaper, especially with LBB5 designs.

No, I assume the RAW (rules as written) for costs and revenue.

If you mean the cost would be 90% of Cr500k, and so the payment should be only 938, true. That improves the I/E by +104.2/4.1 = +Cr25.4/jump-ton, or about 2%.
 
Last edited:
If you actually want to know if passenger berths are profitable you can't just assume they are always filled, you have to consider how often the passenger tables will generate enough passengers. Hint: You will almost never have 8 high passengers unless you only travel between high pop systems.

Quite true. Which is where you must then consider how big a ship is profitable, since hauling unused capacity is expensive. Also, you can look at just the cost lines to figure out worst possible case scenarios: what if you have empty cargo hold? What about empty rooms?

But, on the other hand, looking only at a Freighter with no passenger capacity means lower income, and less chance of profit. Looking at only mid passengers means (on average) more empty rooms, etc. For me, this is the first step in considering how to be profitable. I purposely left out lots of considerations to simplify what sort of payload is optimal, and get a better idea of how profitable.
 
Also: this gives numbers to play with for less conventional scenarios. Such as:

1. What if you tend (50-70% of jumps) to have 3-5 empty rooms? Will a steward and 2-4 High passengers be justified?

2. Imponderables can be considered, if not easily quantified: how will a steward allow a better gauging of the passengers' mood and intentions? Can it avoid or warn of a hijack attempt?

How will having a steward to keep the ship in proper order improve its reputation, even if only Mid passengers are available?

3. What about reducing steward costs? How about a Steward/Medic (likely the best; times of peak responsibilities tend not to conflict, and on tramp Free Traders, Medics seem to have plenty of spare time, as they have only a dozen or so alert passengers, and not too many more sleeping ones)? Then costs are minimal--mostly just the additional salary. That greatly changes the I/E outlook.

What about a Steward/Gunner? Will the greater security be worth it? Will internal ship security be endangered if the Gunner is called away to fight external threats?

Is there another crew member who can substitute when the primary steward is otherwise busy to maintain improved security?

Will a Steward/Navigator improve your chances if it means you have a Navigator available in a crisis when otherwise you wouldn't have one on hand?

4. What about sub-optimal speculation? Is a cargo that you expect to realize Cr250-500 per ton worth it if it bumps cargo paying Cr1000 per ton? What if the space used would be empty anyway?


In all these cases, you can adjust the calculation--and having the elements laid out shows what may need changing--to help coming to a educated judgment rather than a WAGuess.

Also, you can reply to those who insist that "High passengers are not worth it; the cost of a Steward (and the loss of a room) is never justified." But that is simply not true. What if those rooms would often be empty--or even just one frequently empty room? Fill that room with a steward and get, say, 2-3 High passengers per jump, adding Cr4000-6000 revenue for estimated costs of Cr3650: generally worth it. Even better if you could add rooms in (often) unused cargo hold and not lose the bumped Mid passengers.
 
Last edited:
1. What if you tend (50-70% of jumps) to have 3-5 empty rooms? Will a steward and 2-4 High passengers be justified?
By my rough calculations, a steward is worth it down to about three or four staterooms. He pays for his stateroom and salary by reducing vacancies.

Definitely worth it for the standard 8-9 staterooms in a Free Trader or Subbie.


3. What about reducing steward costs? How about a Steward/Medic (likely the best; times of peak responsibilities tend not to conflict, and on tramp Free Traders, Medics seem to have plenty of spare time, as they have only a dozen or so alert passengers, and not too many more sleeping ones)? Then costs are minimal--mostly just the additional salary. That greatly changes the I/E outlook.
Yes, that is obviously much cheaper, if you can find the right multi-talented person...
 
Yes, but by RAW on a standard ship, e.g. a Free Trader, a stateroom costs just kCr 450. On a LBB5 standard ship a stateroom costs only kCr 400.

So the mortgage is cheaper per passenger.

I realized the cheaper cost and edited my previous post. Also, to simplify, I assume LBB2, per original post.

Blame my mind coming up with new, possibly better thoughts.

OTOH, I post these sorts of things here precisely to get other views (and perspectives) that I may not have considered.


Also: On finding the right multi-talented person: this analysis may encourage you to look--hard--for such a person, and make the offer for their services.
 
For the sake of logic one can dump the "standard" design as far as its discounts if it doesn't turn out to be the most efficient design. Why? Because in the time scales we are looking at for the 3I, the most efficient design would BE the "standard" design with the discounts... The Market would have forced that long ago.
 
For the sake of logic one can dump the "standard" design as far as its discounts if it doesn't turn out to be the most efficient design. Why? Because in the time scales we are looking at for the 3I, the most efficient design would BE the "standard" design with the discounts... The Market would have forced that long ago.

But in canon that hasn't happened. Once again, the setting doesn't match the rules. The Type R Fat Trader is probably the most egregious example with its oversized drives, wasted room in the drive bay, and a small craft it doesn't need. But it's a standard for some reason -- I'd argue the reason is regulatory, but that's unsupported in canon.

To rework it, you could just declare either that the standard 400Td hull has an engine bay sized for Size B drives and be done with it, or have the standard also include the Big Far Trader (J2/2G) and size the engine bay for Size D drives.

The thing about the Standard Hulls is that they're an out-of-universe game mechanic to drive player ship design choices to preferred outcomes. They'll cut you a bargain for building merchant ships (even J2/2G merchants) but you have to pay full price if you want to build something that's either a viable combatant vessel or that can take you off the subsector map quickly. On the Fat Trader (with two turrets: MM & LL, and correctly-sized drives -- Size B instead of C -- but keeping the lifeboat), the Standard Hull discount is literally the difference between making a tiny profit per payload ton or having to run at a loss. (This includes the opportunity cost of the wasted space of the standard hull.)
 
Last edited:
The Type R Fat Trader is probably the most egregious example with its oversized drives, wasted room in the drive bay, and a small craft it doesn't need. But it's a standard for some reason -- I'd argue the reason is regulatory, but that's unsupported in canon.

The C drives were necessary in LBB2'77. I guess the ship just wasn't reworked for LBB2'81.
 
The C drives were necessary in LBB2'77. I guess the ship just wasn't reworked for LBB2'81.
I'm still kind of surprised that the standard hulls often don't exactly fit any viable combination of LBB2 drives, and probably didn't fit in the '77 edition either.

If memory serves, the drive bay of the 600Td standard hull was changed between editions to fit the drives for J3/1G for the Subsidized Liner.
 
No one's stopping you. The ships in LBB2 are not all the standard ships in the universe, just a small selection.

Not only aren't they stopping me, they did it themselves (the drive bay is indeed sized for J2). It's just that they also made the drive bay 5Td larger than necessary, too. IMHO, it's to hide the fact that the standard hulls are actually a performance-limiting mechanic from the players.

As I see it, despite the standard hulls being a performance-constraining game mechanic, each also represents an actual common ship design.
If there are multiple standards, players can simply declare that whatever ship they want is standard somewhere in the universe and get the discount.

I've posted the mods to make the Big Fat Far Trader here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top