Type M Weirdness

[Mithras]

I'm trying to flesh out a type M route, with stop- overs, crew rotas etc ... And I've just got to profits. Now Signal GK, Adventure 13, tells me that the type M cN
can expect profits if full of Cr359,000 per trip, but costs for one trip come to Cr372,123...??

Costs for a lower jump2 trip are said to turn Cr15,877 profit per trip.

Strange. This ship is built without a profit margin... Payment is subsidized type so 50% of grossprofits go to the subsidy agent/world. The book says this is Cr493,688 per trip.

So what's going on?

 

[Mithras]

Deckplanwise... Why is there a passenger cabin in the crew area?

Where does that big low berth lift actually go to? It doesn't seem to go near the launch...

I think it needs a bit of a retool, how about a j2 version with more staterooms, mail too?

 

[HG_B]

So what's going on?

The ship econ system was design so as to NOT follow the laws of supply and demand. It was designed so that PC's HAVE to adventure in order to live.

So, just scrap the system and design one around real economics.

 

[far-trader]

Deckplanwise...

Why is there a passenger cabin in the crew area?

Silliness?

I dunno, "adventure" hooks I guess... "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!" as another carefully screened extra passenger in stateroom 43 hijacks the ship...

Where does that big low berth lift actually go to?

Just into the cargo hold below.

 

[far-trader]

Strange. This ship is built without a profit margin... Payment is subsidized type so 50% of gross profits go to the subsidy agent/world.

BINGO!

So what's going on?

The ship econ system was design so as to NOT follow the laws of supply and demand. It was designed so that PC's HAVE to adventure in order to live.

So, just scrap the system and design one around real economics.

Or take it as intended:

Some routes are subsidized to insure regular service. Naturally this would be an unprofitable route under regular Free-Trade. No doubt the subsidizer makes money on the route in other ways. Such as...

Using the ships for speculative trade along the route. The operator gets the Cr500 per ton, the subsidizer gets the other Cr500 per ton (plus the profits on the sale). Oh, and there's a good candidate for that "trusted" passenger 43, the route speculative trader.

Profiting through volume. Being a regularly scheduled service the subsidizer can line up freight and passengers in advance so the ships are always full and they can reduce turn around time in system. Of course this isn't reflected in the rules (a sorry oversight imo, subsidized ships should be in and out in less than a week, far less in most cases), and it would interfere with the "adventure" time in port for the players... "Aw, but we just got here... " To which I say adventures for players operating subsidized ships should be adventures ABOARD ship

And of course "selling" the operator refined fuel for Cr500 per ton, which the subsidizer bought as unrefined for Cr100 or pumped for free (and ran through a purifier for free).

...for a few ideas

 

[rancke]

My suggestion would be to give your players' characters a 40 year old ship, valued at, say, 25% of its original cost. That makes the loan four times smaller too and the bank payments correspondingly smaller. That way they will earn far more money than they need to pay the loan installments.

Then you hit them with increased maintenance needs and breakdowns. Minor breakdowns that just cost them a week and a few thousand in parts. Of course, they won't be making any profit that week. Though they may have some sort of adventure while the ship is being repaired. Medium breakdowns that costs months and tens of thousand of credits. But at least they'll have time to have some major adventures while they wait. And all the while the major breakdown is looming. Will it happen before the PCs have earned enough money to pay for it?

Free traders are betting that they can make enough money to cover the inevitable breakdown before it happens. Those who win that bet go on to found fledgeling lines. Those who lose it go bankrupt and the ship is taken over by the bank and sold to the next lot of optimists.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Or take it as intended:

That is as intended. The intention when writing the rules was to make trading non-viable so that players would have to adventure.

 

[far-trader]

That is as intended. The intention when writing the rules was to make trading non-viable so that players would have to adventure.

Except that:

A - I disagree with your conclusion that trading is non-viable under the rules. I do agree the aim was to make players need to adventure to make it, I just never found that worked unless the players wanted to adventure rather than trade. It is eminently viable for a J1 Free Trader, which is what the rules were aimed at imo. As long as you stick to trading intelligently.

B - We're talking about subsidized ships here, which are inherently unprofitable (for the subsidizer) under the rules (which don't strictly apply imo). They would be unprofitable for the operator under the usual trade rules, hence the subsidized nature of the beast. And as such it's difficult for the operator to lose. They'd have to try really hard (or the ref would have to invoke a deus ex machina sort of event, like pirates or hijacking). Neither will they get rich, but they may be able to build the profits towards an independent ship and freedom (of a sort).

 

[HG_B]

Except that:

A - I disagree with your conclusion that trading is non-viable under the rules. I do agree the aim was to make players need to adventure to make it

Well, not in ALL cases, just most above J1. Run the numbers.

 

[far-trader]

Well, not in ALL cases, just most above J1. Run the numbers.

No need, we agree

 

[HG_B]

No need, we agree

My bad. I first gave an unqualified statement rather than being specific.

 

[far-trader]

My bad. I first gave an unqualified statement rather than being specific.

No worries, I should have figured that out

 

[Jame]

The ship econ system was design so as to NOT follow the laws of supply and demand. It was designed so that PC's HAVE to adventure in order to live.

So, just scrap the system and design one around real economics.

I generally take out the ship's boat and put in jump-2, manuever-2 and power-2. Dunno if that makes it economical in any way but it makes a bit more sense to me.

Though if someone were to see if the jump-2 design were economically viable, subsidized or not, I'd be grateful (I'd do it myself but I don't have thum ... uh, I don't have the cleverness to grok the trade rules for CT, or the patience to try it for MGT).

 

[jawillroy]

Though if someone were to see if the jump-2 design were economically viable, subsidized or not, I'd be grateful

Cutting to the chase, the "paid passengers and freight" business as presented in book 2 isn't really doable for a ship that isn't jump-1; a small jump 2 ship - 400 tons is pushing it - will do very nicely at speculation assuming fate/the referee lets you, but once you get beyond jump-1 the payments and expenses are too great for passengers and paid cargo to make ends meet. Heck, a jump-1 type R is going to have a hard enough time doing that as it is, hence the subsidy.

Marc Miller, on his "10 questions" response somewhere on this board, affirms that the book 2 rules were meant to simulate just what a free trader would be likely to encounter, made a little harder to make certain the PCs would need to adventure to make ends meet. He's clear that he didn't intend to provide a model for interstellar trade on any bigger scale than that:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=360342&postcount=2
"The trade system was intended to define what a typical Free Trader could expect to make, and skewed slightly hard, to encourage supplemental activity to make up for the losses that Trade seemed to generate."

 

[samuelvss]

When I first read the starship economics, it was apparent that a Free Trader was not intended to be commercially viable as a freighter/liner in "passengers and freight." I presumed speculative trade was a given, that was why it was called a Free Trader, not a Free Freighter or some such. When you couple the starship economics with the trade system, then the only question really becomes whether the Free Trader can get enough seed money to start trading; once they start, if they get a good run between A/B starports, then there is no end of it.

The Fat Trader essentially has to be, to keep all trade out of this "path of least resistence." Larger lines, I assumed, ran a series of both freight/passengers and speculative cargo, with the flexibility to route cargo in different directions based on markets, and minimize losses between big trades.

The M for adventuring always seemed a bit problematic. The player could run the M to work speclative trade, waiting for the right cargo, then possibly "buying out" of the subsidy contract.

IMTU, the Cr 1,000/ton is essentially not just a price cap, but also a guarantee that less capitalized trading/commerce can piggyback with speculative trade by owner-operators. A licensed merchant that is not under charter has to accept legal freight and middle passengers to its next destination. Once a passenger or cargo is booked to a given destination, cargo must be accepted until an hour before announced departure. Flight plans are encouraged, but optional; filing one declares the destination, and opens the Free Trader up for cargos. A flight plan announces a departure, which must be a minimum of two hours from filing. Not filing one opens one up for excessive attention from imperial and customs authorities; usually, once a specualtive cargo is purchased, a "short fuse" flight plan is filed, and some cargos or passengers may rush aboard. Often, a specualtor will travel super cargo with his investment.

IMTU Certain speculative routes are clearly more advantageous, and draw attention from pirates, even with A and B starports; for each repetitive "loop" that a free trader does specualtive on a given route, roll 13+ on 2D6 for a piracy/highjacking attempt, +1 for each repeat of the route after 1 iteration, -Streetwise/2, +1 if Industrial to Non-industrial, +1 if an M class, -1 if Scout/Naval base in destination, -1 if Scout/Naval base in originating system, -1 if per filled triple turret or equivalent, +1 if cargo base price worth more than 5 MCr, and an additional +2 if cargo base price worth more than 20 MCr.

 

[aramis]

That is as intended. The intention when writing the rules was to make trading non-viable so that players would have to adventure.

No, it isn't. Which, if one has WORKED with Bks 2 & 3, it's quite able to provide a profit... by speculation. And the Type R is, just barely, profitable without spec, if it can fill.

Further, a subsidy is axiomatically a method of making a non-profitable ship profitable.... But the expectation for all the ships seems to require speculation. And I've found that spec generally does make a bit more than Cr1000 per ton. Often as much as Cr5,000 per ton. And, aside from subsidies, a single good run of a lot of spec Computers can often pay off a ship... but subbies can't do that.

Spec trade is a viable game all by itself, and makes an excellent solo game.

 

[HG_B]

No, it isn't.

Sure it is. Read what Marc answered. Intentionally designed for meta purpose, NOT realistic econ. Indisputable.

 

[Mithras]

So, just scrap the system and design one around real economics.

How about I tweak a little? I don't have time to scrap it! Push up cargo prices, from Cr1000 to Cr1000/parsec? Push up passenger fees too?

I just remade the Type M using Mongoose Traveller, a jump 2 ship with 40+ passengers. I wanted to assume that the BIG vessels have high passengers, but small ships like traders and the type M have middle passengers. But it is still unprofitable ... :0

So I may have to revise that assumption and build in more high passage luxuries etc. I wonder if low passengers are more viable, bringing in more credits per ton than cargo ...???

 

[rancke]

How about I tweak a little? I don't have time to scrap it! Push up cargo prices, from Cr1000 to Cr1000/parsec? Push up passenger fees too?

Depends on what you want. If you're after (semi-)realistic prices charged by regular freighters and liners that can fill their holds and staterooms for every jump and do 35 jumps per year, an easy, albeit VERY rough, approximation is (1 + jump number) times Cr2,000 for a middle passage, 25% more for a high passage, and 50% less for an economy passage (double occupancy) (the last assumes life-support costs are per stateroom and not per passenger). For a low passage, use (1 + jump number) times Cr400.

If you want a more accurate figure, work out the ship expenses for a year (including a fair profit on the investment) and divide by the number of passengers carried in a year. But that would differ from route to route. Also, ticket prices for regular passenger liners can vary tremendously with local conditions. Monopolies can allow a line to raise prices far above the average while price wars and state subsidies can temporarily depress the prices to where they won't even cover the liner's expenses. Seasonal variations can also play a part. To account for such factors, you may elect to temporarily raise prices by as much as 100% or lower them by as much as 50%.

The reason that has anything to do with free traders is that this is what the competition charges, so it's an upper limit to what the free trader can charge. Note that this means that when there are no regular service to a backwater world, the free trader could be able to jack up the aforementioned prices.

As for High, Medium, and Low passages, treat them as vouchers instead of tickets. By Imperial law they can be exchanged for a ticket for one jump of any length on any passenger-carrying ship operating inside the Imperium. If you exchange it for a medium passage ticket from Rhylanor to Porozlo, the company can cash it in for Cr4000. If you exchange it for a medium passage ticket from Rhylanor to Natoko, the company can cash it for Cr12,000. For ships without an established price structure (i.e. free traders) the law requires proof of expenses if they charge more than Cr1000 for a low passage, Cr8000 for a medium passage and Cr10,000 for a high passage.

(If you look in the image gallery, you can find some examples of passage vouchers I posted there. I'd include a link here, but I'm not sure how to do that).


Hans

 

[rancke]

I just remade the Type M using Mongoose Traveller, a jump 2 ship with 40+ passengers. I wanted to assume that the BIG vessels have high passengers, but small ships like traders and the type M have middle passengers. But it is still unprofitable ... :0

Try assuming that regular passenger lines have factors on each world selling tickets in advance and lining up passengers ready to board at 12 hours notice. This would mean that a regular liner wouldn't need to spend five days in port scrounging up passengers. Instead it can embark the next load of passengers and be on its way in a day. This would allow it to make a jump every ten days, or 35 jumps per year. This improves earning potential quite a bit.


Hans