CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?

[Spinward Flow]

Compound interest is inexorable.
What do payments on a 20-year loan look like? 10 years?

You still have to pay for 240% of the construction cost ... you just have less time to finish making the payments in.
Effectively, the compound interest rate goes up the faster you pay it off is the way it computes out (in Traveller banking economics, which are broken).

Bank financing is just brutal.
Better to subsidize the first ship and then make enough money to pay off a second one immediately upon delivery from the shipyard and sell the rights to the subsidized first ship to someone else. That will let you avoid bank loan financing more reliably than any other strategy.

Spoiler alert ... I'm pretty sure the Megacorps are well past the "need a subsidy to bootstrap themselves" stage of things. Megacorps could essentially pay off construction of starships on delivery out of what amounts to petty cash with their budgets and cash flows.

 

[Grav_Moped]

They call the 400t ship a subsidised merchant from 77 edition onward, despite the fact the rules say you need to be 600t to be subsidised. Even the latest error corrected Facsimile Edition of CT continues this glaring error.

Yep. My thought was they wrote the "600Td minimum" before they figured out that the 400Td freighter needed a subsidy also, and never went back to change the text.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
What do you get at 600+ tons that you can't have in a smaller hull (aside from being a bigger target)?

 

[Grav_Moped]

You still have to pay for 240% of the construction cost ... you just have less time to finish making the payments in.
Effectively, the compound interest rate goes up the faster you pay it off is the way it computes out (in Traveller banking economics, which are broken).

No you don't. You have to pay 20% down and slightly over 2% annual interest. Pay it down faster and you pay less total interest. Or (not supported by the rules, but it's self-evident) just take out a loan for a shorter period.

Bank financing is just brutal.
Better to subsidize the first ship and then make enough money to pay off a second one immediately upon delivery from the shipyard and sell the rights to the subsidized first ship to someone else. That will let you avoid bank loan financing more reliably than any other strategy.

Spoiler alert ... I'm pretty sure the Megacorps are well past the "need a subsidy to bootstrap themselves" stage of things. Megacorps could essentially pay off construction of starships on delivery out of what amounts to petty cash with their budgets and cash flows.

Return on investment, and marginal gains. A ship loan is (somehow, despite the risk) a 2% annual return. The alternative to buying a ship is using the same money in some other investment vehicle. That alternative may or may not have greater than a 2% annual return. If it would have a higher return, buying a ship for cash is has a net cost.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
What do you get at 600+ tons that you can't have in a smaller hull (aside from being a bigger target)?

You get a ship that's priced out of the reach of player characters in the early stages of the game.

 

[whartung]

Subsidized merchants -->MAY<-- receive mail delivery contracts.
It doesn't say -->ONLY<-- subsidized merchants -->CAN<-- receive mail delivery contracts.

So where does it say Joe Free Trader "may" or "can"? Why not say "ships" may or "players" can. It's qualified to Subsidized merchants. If it's not limited to SMs, why call it out?

Seems to me IF you're an SM, THEN you MAY carry mail (assuming you're armed) vs being an SM and you MUST carry mail.

My point being that PRIVATE (meaning: not subsidized) mail courier services ARE going to exist.

No doubt, but they're not in the rules. That's referee fiat. (It's all ref fiat, but some is more fiat than others.)

 

[Condottiere]

I thought it was five percent over forty years.

 

[whartung]

What does the pool of people with broker skill look like?

Well, it's a normal skill. A ship captain with Broker skill is extra money in the bank.

Otherwise, the rules just say that if you want a broker, you can have a broker up to a +4 DM cost 5% per DM commission. There don't seem to be any limitations.

The caveat is that whether you sell the cargo or not, you have to pay the broker. So, if you show up at a port with a cargo you rolled a 7 on when you purchased it (i.e. 100% of normal price), and you get a +2 broker and roll a 2, +2 for 4, for 70%, you still owe the broker the 10% of the sale, even if you don't actually sell it.

So.

1000Cr worth of cargo at 100%

Potentially sell it for 700Cr (after broker DM bumps a 2 to 4, for 70%).

If you sell it you get 700Cr, and have to pay 70Cr to the broker. You're now down 330Cr on the transaction. If you choose not to sell, you still need to pony up the 70Cr for the broker. Now you're out 1070Cr from petty cash, but you still have the cargo.

Not so much a problem with a 1000Cr cargos. More of an issue for 10MCr cargos.

A +4 Broker is worth at least 40% bump in the sale price, and up to 260+%.

I think, referee wise, something like Available Broker DM = (2D6 / 2) - 2. Make the +4 pretty rare.

 

[whartung]

About 2% is hardy “usury” (my only ‘nitpick’ in everything you had to say).

I thought it was five percent over forty years.

Actually works out to between 4 and 5%. At 4% the payment looks right, but the money doesn't quite add up.

It's really kind of muddy.

 

[Spinward Flow]

There don't seem to be any limitations.

Starport type:
A = +4 broker (maximum)
B = +3 broker (maximum)
C = +2 broker (maximum)
D = +1 broker (maximum)
E = no brokers
X = no brokers

The caveat is that whether you sell the cargo or not, you have to pay the broker.

More like if you turn the cargo over to a broker for sale, you're not getting the cargo back no matter what.
You'll be paid for the cargo, but there's "no backsies" if you don't like the sale price the broker gets for you.
So use of an outside broker is a commitment to sell before learning the sell price.

As a Referee, I would rule that if you're NOT using a broker, you can entertain offers to buy your speculative cargo, but decline to sell if you don't like the highest offer you get. However, if you ARE using a broker, whatever price the broker gets is whatever price the cargo gets sold for, you don't get an option to decline the sale.

So brokers are available but not required to sell your speculative cargoes (you can go the "for sale by owner" route if you want to).
If your captain/purser has broker skill, you can act as your own broker ... getting you the modifier on the sell roll while not necessarily committing to sell (because you're not using an outside broker who is controlling the sale) and you don't have to pay (outside) broker commission since you did the work yourself.

Think of your speculative cargo going to auction, high bidder wins the auction.

If you do it through a brokerage house, you turn the goods over to the brokerage house and they get you the best price they can for the goods, but you're obliged to sell at whatever price they can get for you (and then they get a cut of that price no matter what).

If you do it yourself you collect bids from interested parties naming their price and then you pick the one you want to sell to and tell them where to send the funds to make the purchase. So when you're selling the goods yourself, you're not necessarily obliged to sell if you don't want to ... just inform all the bidders that none of their bids were accepted.

So from a gameplay perspective, the real question is whether you are using an outside brokerage firm or not.
After that, everything's downhill.

If you're worried about selling at a loss, even with a broker ... don't use a broker, so you won't be forced to sell at too low a price. Simply retain the speculative cargo and move on to the next system and see if you can get a better price there than you could here. But if you use a broker, that option of retain and move on is not available to you.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I think, referee wise, something like Available Broker DM = (2D6 / 2) - 2. Make the +4 pretty rare.

Maybe not a normal (or, as on 2D, pyramid instead of bell curve) distribution either.
2D-8, re-roll if 0 or less. 4 occurs 10% of the time; 3, 20%; 2, 30%; 1, 40%.

 

[Straybow]

1. That's the Rules As Written.
2. That's the Rules As Written (in case you hadn't noticed).

Yes, and I quoted the written conflict in the rules. If there is a conflict then one part has to overrule the other. Which? A specific rule always governs over a general rule. That's why a specific rule is written.

The specific rule says that jump drive capacity has "no specific effect" on passage price to a destination. That can only be true if passage prices are per parsec, which cost is constant regardless of how many jumps are taken to get there on a minimum distance path.

It's not per jump.
It's also not per parsec as you so blithely assert.

Pricing is from port of call to port of call ... there's a difference (especially with ships that are capable of multiple jumps without refueling).

For ships that can only jump once per load of fuel, it effectively is a "per jump" calculation ... but that's a simplification (for convenience) of the rule (a limited subset of possibilities) ... not the actual rule itself.

In other words, by your interpretation, a ship that carries fuel for a second jump to cross a void can only charge the passage price that ship would charge for one jump at drive capacity, thus doubling the cost without doubling compensation? In which case, no ship would carry fuel for two jumps, and would instead take the long way around a void and make passengers book several legs to charge them more. That's nonsensical.

Which means that jump drive capacity changes the passage price. Your interpretation is in conflict with the RAW. Yes, you can pretend that there isn't a conflict by ignoring that one inconvenient part of the section on passage pricing.

In any case, the fact that we can argue about this clearly shows that the rule needs to be changed to resolve the conflict. Not looking to hijack the thread here, this horse's carcass was beaten to pulp in that other thread.

 

[aramis]

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
What do you get at 600+ tons that you can't have in a smaller hull (aside from being a bigger target)?

Let's see...

Pure cargo carrier in 600 Td gets costs around Cr1350/Td (cost 92.8, 50 Td wasted space (in the drive compartment), and the ability to up that to about Cr1400/Td and have 6 turrets... Not terribly effective, but under a subsidy, the biggest cost switches from payment to fuel.

One can make a passable 600 Td Carrier at TL 9
M1 P1 J1 (35Td), 70Td fuel, Bridge (20Td) Model/3, 10 Ship's Crew (40 Td: P, N, E, M, 6×G), 30×fighter (300Td), 30 Pilots (120 Td), 6×Triple Turrets 6 Td Cargo.

One can actually make a decent TL9 800 Td carrier design...
M1 P1 J1 (55 Td), 90Td fuel, Model 3 Computer (3Td), Bridge (20Td), 11 Ship's Crew (P N 2×E M 6×G; 44 Td) 41×Fighter (410 Td) 41 Pilots (164 Td of SR) 6 turrets (6Td), 8 Td cargo ...

Try playing out a TL9 carrier duel in Mayday or Bk2... Not fun.

The turret limit really bites in the creativity area for pure Bk2 warships. Pretty much all of them turn into Carriers.

 

[Straybow]

Two things can be true simultaneously:
1. The Traveller freight rules work for a small-scale merchant campaign, providing for some advancement before players get beyond its limits.
2. The Traveller freight rules are inconsistent with both real-world economic forces and the game's fictional starship cost structure, and don't work outside the scope of a small-scale merchant campaign.

1. They don't. Most ship designs cannot operate on freight/passage rates at profit. The few that do profit are at razor thin margin, and the slightest disruption (such as a bad roll on passengers/loads available) incur losses that greatly exceed the meager profit of a single jump.
2. Doesn't matter...

 

[Straybow]

More like if you turn the cargo over to a broker for sale, you're not getting the cargo back no matter what.
You'll be paid for the cargo, but there's "no backsies" if you don't like the sale price the broker gets for you.
So use of an outside broker is a commitment to sell before learning the sell price.

That does seem to be the RAW. However, this is a role playing game. Contact a broker, and write up a contract to work as your agent. Now the broker can use all that skill and still turn down deals that don't meet a specified minimum, and RAW is circumvented.

Set up a network of broker agents on worlds you frequent. Offer each agent all deals as percentage of profit. Nobody buys anything above the average price, nobody sells anything below the average price.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yes, and I quoted the written conflict in the rules.

And promptly misunderstood the implications AND the correct interpretation.

If there is a conflict then one part has to overrule the other. Which?

That requires understanding the INTENT behind the rule.
I gave you that INTENT ... on a platter.
I'm still waiting for comprehension to dawn.

The specific rule says that jump drive capacity has "no specific effect" on passage price to a destination.

Yes.

That can only be true if passage prices are per parsec

No.

which cost is constant regardless of how many jumps are taken to get there

No.

on a minimum distance path.

And this is where you've made your mistake.

Let's use a concrete example to make the mistake obvious.
Let's say you're wanting to transport goods from Regina/Regina to Hefry/Regina.

It's only 1 parsec away, so the pricing should be 1 jump/1 parsec ... according to you.

But if that's the pricing system ... per jump or per parsec ... a less than scrupulous captain of a J3 Type-M Subsidized Liner could pull one of these moves ...

So although Hefry is only 1 parsec distant from Regina, if the pricing scheme is allowed to be either per jump OR per parsec then there are OBVIOUS WAYS ARE OBVIOUS to game the system and bill double (J2) or triple (J3) the price to transit a single parsec to the destination.

Remember ... the tickets for passengers are from Regina to Hefry.
The bookings for cargo are from Regina to Hefry.

But if ships can bill per jump or per parsec the ship travels (emphasis added for obviousness) then they have every incentive to "game the system" and take longer to get where they are supposed to be going because they can bill more for the trip.

The only way ... I repeat, because it seems to be needed ... THE ONLY WAY ... to prevent such degeneracy "gaming of the system" for billing is to book cargo and passengers FROM PORT OF CALL TO PORT OF CALL ... full stop.

If the billing is done from port of call to port of call ... then the "jump drive capacity has no specific effect" other than putting the destination within range IS TRUE. The pathing taken between the two ports of call DOES NOT MATTER. If a captain wants to go "the long way around" and waste time (and fuel and life support and crew salaries) between points A and B, that's their choice ... but they aren't going to be getting paid extra because they made the journey longer.

Pricing per jump OR per parsec invites, encourages and even rewards degenerate abuse of the rules.
That's why you don't bill that way as a Referee.
That's why the correct interpretation is FROM PORT OF CALL TO PORT OF CALL ... full stop ... because the port of call to port of call interpretation leaves no "wiggle room" for abusive degenerate gamer behavior to take root and flourish.

And before you say that "no one would be stupid enough to triple bill a J1 hop like that" you need to recognize the kind of min/max gaming mentality that you're inviting to the dance.

Your options are:

• Get paid once in 2 weeks.
• Get paid twice in 3 weeks.
• Get paid three times in 4 weeks.

Guess where the financial incentives are pointing?
1 per 2 (J1) ... or 2 per 3 (J2) ... or 3 per 4 (J3).



Only you can help stamp out abusive degenerate gamer behavior.
Care to join the club?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Try playing out a TL9 carrier duel in Mayday or Bk2... Not fun.

Um ... @aramis ...?
We aren't talking about that kind of carrier (for mail deliveries).

For one thing, it would be wildly uneconomical (all those crew salaries ... all that life support ...).

 

[Spinward Flow]

However, this is a role playing game. Contact a broker, and write up a contract to work as your agent. Now the broker can use all that skill and still turn down deals that don't meet a specified minimum, and RAW is circumvented.

If you permit a "Yes Backsies!" in conjunction with use of a broker, there is literally no reason to not use a broker, because the broker will ALWAYS obtain a higher price than would have been obtained without a broker. That means you can set a minimum sale price point and if the broker can't get that for you there is NO SALE and you get to keep your speculative cargo ... at which point there is zero downside and nothing but upside to using a broker.

That kind of asymmetric risk is something to be avoided in game design.
Being rewarded for no risk at all is just plain bad game design in general (and it's at this point that I remind you that you're appealing to the role playing game aspect here).

Risk for reward is good game design.
No risk and still get rewarded is bad game design.

Doesn't stop Players from trying to find "no risk and still be rewarded" opportunities (the crafty little bahstids!).
After all, "no risk and still get rewarded" is what every combat soldier in history has ever wanted, if they can get it (because "fair fights" are for suckers).

 

[Condottiere]

The thing about brokering is not only psychologically dominating the their opposing number, but also understanding the economic environment they are operating in.

 

[Grav_Moped]

1. They don't. Most ship designs cannot operate on freight/passage rates at profit. The few that do profit are at razor thin margin, and the slightest disruption (such as a bad roll on passengers/loads available) incur losses that greatly exceed the meager profit of a single jump.
2. Doesn't matter...

1. They work for the Type A, and they'd work for the Type R if it didn't have the lifeboat. It's the standard hull discount that saves them, though.
2. As game rules, it doesn't matter until fairly far into the normal progression of a trader campaign that starts with a PC getting a Free Trader as a mustering out benefit. If you start the PC party with something else (A2, or R), you run into those limits fairly quickly and it does matter.