What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[AnotherDilbert]

In other words, Drive-Z is "cheating wildly" using the LBB2.81 RAW ... but "It's the RAW" ... and the Most Holy RAW Must Never Be Questioned ... blah blah blah ... you know the drill by now.

It's just the TL-15 advantage, as you would easily find if you looked at the entire ship, not just a drive at a time.
Higher tech allows bigger ships and bigger ships are more efficient, hence higher tech allows more efficient ships.
LBB2 is more ingenious than you appear to understand.

E.g. J4 and J6 ships using LBB2:
You can make a J-4 ship at TL-10, but it will be much cheaper per free usable space at higher TLs.
J6 may technically be available at any TL, but only TL-15 drives makes it practical.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Why is there any demand for J1+1. It's twice as expensive and takes a week longer to arrive. Who would make this choice?

There isn't, in the LBB2 freight tables. You only get to roll for cargo (&pax) for destinations within your jump number.

LBB2'81, p8:
REVENUE
_ _ Starships generate revenue by carrying passengers, cargo, and mail.
_ _ Cargo: Starships may inquire at a starport about the number, sizes, and destinations of cargos awaiting transportation. The referee should determine all worlds accessible to the starship (depending on jump number), and roll for each such world on the cargo table. He should roll to determine the number of major, minor, and incid...

You can of course house rule anything you like for this specific situation.

Why would there be any demand? Because there are not many ships passing through backwater systems, and who knows when the next ship will arrive?

 

[Spinward Flow]

I am fine with charter companies in general, though paying a mortgage on 90% of full capability is very hard.

Never claimed it would be "easy" or "trivial" to do. The trick is figuring out how to turn a profit on 90% charter of a full manifest capability. If you can do that, then so long as you can keep getting charters you won't go bankrupt.

This is where "accounting fiddles" such as operating under subsidy (rather than a bank mortgage) can come into play, allowing the balance sheets to add up to net profits ... even if the profit margins are razor thin.

Why would anyone spend twice as much for a slower trip?
Why is there any demand for J1+1. It's twice as expensive and takes a week longer to arrive. Who would make this choice?

It's a classic case of supply vs demand.
I believe they teach that in basic economics classes ...

Let's say, for the sake of argument and illustration purposes that there are 500 tons of cargo that want to get from World A to World B.
Let's say that there is a J2 Far Trader with 61 tons of capacity that can get there in 1 jump.
Let's also say that there is a J1+1 Free Trader with 61 tons of capacity that can get there in 2 jumps at double the price.

You need to move your 600 tons of cargo from World A to World B as quickly AND as cheaply as possible (to make this illustration simple).
What do you do?

J2 Far Trader EXCLUSIVELY scenario:

• At 60 tons per trip from World A to World B, it will take 10 round trips on the J2 Far Trader to move the entire shipment of 600 tons.
• At 1 round trip per month, it will take 10 months to move the entire load of 600 tons from World A to World B.
• The ticket price for 600 tons of cargo is MCr0.6 which over 10 months to complete the transport comes out to Cr60,000 per month (averaged).

J2 Far Trader PLUS J1+1 Free Trader combination scenario:

• At 60 tons per trip from World A to World B, it will take 10 round trips on the 2 starships combined to move the entire shipment of 600 tons.
• In 3 months, the J2 Far Trader will complete 3 round trips between World A and World B (1 week jump, 1 week business, one way).
  • The ticket price for 180 tons of cargo is MCr0.18 which over 3 months to complete the transport comes out to Cr60,000 per month (averaged).
• In 3 months, the J1+1 Free Trader will complete 2 round trips between World A and World B (2 week jump, 1 week business, one way).
  • The ticket price for 120 tons of cargo is MCr0.24 which over 3 months to complete the transport comes out to Cr80,000 per month (averaged).

So in the final analysis, how long and how many credits does it cost to move 600 tons of cargo from World A to World B?

• J2 Far Trader exclusively: MCr0.6 and 10 months
• J2 Far Trader PLUS J1+1 Free Trader: MCr0.84 and 6 months
• J2 Far Trader PLUS J2 Far Trader: MCr0.6 and 5 months

Point being that if demand (for tickets) exceeds supply (of transport capacity services), then people who want to "get stuff there sooner" will choose to pay the premium needed to widen their "transport bandwidth" in order to save time (by using a slower option) even if that slower option is "more expensive" (or less efficient, if you prefer) for the buyer.

It's one of those things where demand needs to "fit" within the available supply ... and when the "supply" of transport service options is limited, then the demand (ticket buyers) side of things can either take what's in front of them or gamble that a better deal will come along later. Needless to say, if the goods you want to transport are perishable (think agricultural products, which can spoil) then you've got a "beggars can't be choosers" type of situation.



Another angle for perspective would be that if there's a J1+1 Free Trader berthed at the starport RIGHT NOW which can take your freight ticket to where you want your cargo shipped to, but you'll need to buy 2 tickets for that service this week ... do you (as a world exporter) "wait a week" in the hopes that a J2 Far Trader will show up next week that can take your shipment for the price of 1 ticket?

At a granular level, it's going to take "2 weeks" for your shipment to get to your chosen destination either way (J1+1 now, or wait a week for a possible J2?). If you buy the tickets now you'll be "paying double" (2 tickets for 2 jumps), but if you wait ... either a J2 ship will show up (or it won't) and it will either have the cargo capacity to sell you a ticket (or it won't, because it's not going where you need it to).

In other words ... do you take the "sure thing" in front of you, or do you take a chance on "door number 2" in the hopes of getting a better deal ...?



On a world with a LOT of interstellar traffic flowing through it, this isn't that much of a challenge. There's LOTS of starships passing through (dozens per week!) so it's pretty likely that there's going to be "more than one starship going your way" in any particular week of business. When there's enough traffic for there to be some "decent" competition for customers, then the lower price of J2 across 2 parsecs of distance will tend to win out and fill up first, with any "leftovers" going to the J1+1 operators once the lower priced J2 ticket options are sold out.

But on worlds with limited interstellar travel and few competitive options, exporters are going to be somewhat "at the mercy" of whatever is available at any given time. If interstellar traffic is sufficiently intermittent, you can potentially have situations in which NO J2 starships come calling within any given week of business, creating a backlog of demand which the J1+1 operators will gladly fill.



So to your point, when the competition is "head to head" of a J2 Far Trader and a J1+1 Free Trader "in port" at the same time and bound for the same destination and departing on the same day ... the J2 Far Trader will be able to offer a faster (and therefore, cheaper!) service and will therefore tend to "sell out" more quickly. The J2 Far Trader will "fill up" first. But if there is more demand for tickets than what the J2 Far Trader can reasonably offer, then a portion of the remaining demand will go to the J1+1 Free Trader ... meaning that the J1+1 Free Trader isn't "locked out" of the market (it just depends on what the demand for tickets is).

So the bottleneck is demand AND supply.
If the demand for tickets exceeds what 1 starship can supply, then a portion of the remaining demand will tend to flow into the remaining supply.



There is MADNESS to our methods, YEEEEeeeeeessssss ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

I suggest that the RAW is not adequate to the task of managing this situation.

"Paging @AnotherDilbert ... please pick up a white trideo phone to be connected with your party."

To be completely fair, the LBB2 starship trade system isn't trying to model/simulate an ENTIRE WORLD'S export economy ... it's merely trying to account for the sliver of it that might be relevant to a single starship operator who is "just visiting" for 1 week. It's not trying to simulate "the trading pits" at the starport exchanges for ticket services and contracts for ALL craft that are in-situ at any given moment. The starship trade system is merely trying to offer what YOU can get, depending on where YOU plan to go next (which can include multiple sequential destinations, not just 1).

I think my actual misconception in the beginning was that ships with mortgages could operate as pure passenger ships, and I think now that it cannot.

That's because the "real money" for interstellar merchants doesn't lie in their passenger services. Instead, the REAL opportunities are to be found in speculative goods arbitrage.

Most destinations "tend to frown on" Sophont Trafficking ... so it's not like you can engage in "high passenger arbitrage" the same way you can (legally) engage in speculative goods arbitrage ...

There isn't, in the LBB2 freight tables. You only get to roll for cargo (&pax) for destinations within your jump number.

You can of course house rule anything you like for this specific situation.

And 1 page later in LBB2.81, p9 we have the following (bold added to emphasize important point of note):

Differences in starship jump drive 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 a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also may make otherwise inaccessible destinations within reach. But for two ships of differing jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price.

So there's nothing wrong with declaring additional destinations along a pre-planned route.
The trick is that you need to COMMIT to following that route, in advance ... and deviating from that planning will COST YOU DEARLY.

Having a pre-planned route (and sticking to it) allows an operator to roll MULTIPLE TIMES on the passenger and cargo tables (once for each declared destination along the route), making it easier to fill up their shipping manifests on a "rolling/rollover" type basis. Instead of dedicating your entire revenue tonnage capacity to a SINGLE destination, you "allocate shares" of your revenue tonnage capacity to different destinations along your route (and try to keep up with bookkeeping needed at each port of call).

This is how a starship with a "large" revenue tonnage capacity can "move through backwater regions" with limited market opportunities, by loading up with passengers/cargo that are bound for "the other side" of the "jump over" backwater world markets (so they don't have to disembark at the intermediate destinations along the way).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

"Paging @AnotherDilbert ... please pick up a white trideo phone to be connected with your party."

If you stopped trying to insult people long enough to read what I wrote, you might realise I already agreed with you:

You can of course house rule anything you like for this specific situation.

 

[bookwyrm]

Oh, and this is with the armored hull, I just realized. So a 200-ton ship with 12 cabins and 12 armor can make a positive return if you don't need to pay off a mortgage.

The Armor 12 is the main problem. It drives up the cost of the ship while at the same time taking away space that could be used for revenue(?). Maybe go down to a lower Armor value that you can break even with or at least make a little profit.

I've designed a few 200 dT armored merchants, and it's hard to find the right balance between enough AR to be worth it without going bankrupt. I personally go with AR 2 (for any TL), as AR 1 isn't enough while AR 3+ at any TL starts to cut into profits with a vengeance.

Note: I use T20, so my design results might differ from what your needs are a little bit.

And this is the reason I gave your post a Sad Emoji.

@Spinward Flow, I didn't do a cost, space, revenue analysis of Armor vs 2+ M Drives, as I was looking more for fun playability that still had the potential for profit. I have read your Posts on 4+ M Drives for defense 'if they can't get near you, they can't get your cargo', so I was kind of looking for an alternative.

 

[whartung]

LBB:2 is designed such that a free trader can make money if they fill up with passengers and freight, but the real money is to be made by speculative trade. So use freight and passenges to build up a nest egg to move on to speculative trade.

The hot tip is to just do the speculative trade without the starship. You buy the goods, find someone that will ship it at "cargo" rates, and sell it. Skip the ship, crew, financing, etc. Need a much smaller nest egg to start with.

And, of course, it comes back to goals.

Remember, if you have a Merchant character with a Free Trader as a mustering out benefit, you ALREADY have a ship with EIGHT MILLION credits in equity. 80% of the ship is financed. Find a broker, sell the ship, low ball and get "only" 4-5M out of it. 4-5M in 1980's dollars.

This is not chicken feed. Its not necessarily generational wealth but should keep you and yours comfy for the duration.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So a 200-ton ship with 12 cabins and 12 armor can make a positive return if you don't need to pay off a mortgage.

Hull code: 2 with armor: 12 ...?
Why would you need that much armor? Are you planning to get shot at (and just "tank" the damage)?

In a CT context, that will prevent critical hits from code: (2+12/2)=8 weapon batteries and would require TL=12 at minimum.
In LBB5.80, using TL=12-13 (superdense armor) that would require a 26% fraction of the hull tonnage ... which in a 200 ton form factor amounts to 52 tons(!) spent on armor and would cost MCr78 in construction cost. At TL=14-15 (bonded superdense armor) it would require only a 13% fraction of the hull tonnage ... which in a 200 ton form factor is still amounts to 26 tons(!) spent on armor and would cost MCr39 in construction cost.

Bear in mind that a (stock) 200 ton J2 Far Trader costs ~MCr60 in CT, so we're talking MAJOR COST INCREASE here in order to pile on that much armor onto a hull (using LBB5.80).

The Armor 12 is the main problem. It drives up the cost of the ship while at the same time taking away space that could be used for revenue(?).

Making the construction costs higher while reducing the revenue tonnage fraction makes both the numerator and the denominator move "away from profits" in the merchant economy.

To be honest, one of the better "balanced" designs for an armored merchant that I have seen is the Star class armored merchant (if you can get past the TL=15 requirement to build and maintain one).

The thing is ... TL=15 armor: 6 on a 300 ton hull means spending 21 tons on armor (7% of the hull tonnage).
In terms of contrast, adding +2 Maneuver (6%) and armor: 0 would be (almost) the exact same tonnage (although the batteries in the turrets would need to be adjusted along with the computer model from 3fib to 2bis).

In a vacuum (which space tends to have a lot of ) ... I would argue that Maneuver-3/Agility=3/Armor=0 would have a lot LESS adversarial intercepts where weapons fire gets exchanged going on than a Maneuver-1/Agility=1/Armor=6 craft would tend to encounter. That's basically an argument of prevention (higher maneuver/agility) versus mitigation (armor) when it comes to security/protection schemes.

I personally go with AR 2 (for any TL), as AR 1 isn't enough while AR 3+ at any TL starts to cut into profits with a vengeance.

Note: I use T20, so my design results might differ from what your needs are a little bit.

@Spinward Flow, I didn't do a cost, space, revenue analysis of Armor vs 2+ M Drives, as I was looking more for fun playability that still had the potential for profit. I have read your Posts on 4+ M Drives for defense 'if they can't get near you, they can't get your cargo', so I was kind of looking for an alternative.

In terms of "defensive density" of systems, I personally tend to prefer (in this order):

1. Agility
2. Computer model
3. Armor
4. Screens
5. Defensive Weapons

High agility can potentially "prevent" an intercept from happening ... or if it does happen, the engagement "doesn't last long" (a single combat round, preferably, resulting in a Break Off By Acceleration at the end of round 1). This limits the exposure to combat damage. So high maneuver/agility provides both defense and escape potential.

Computer model is the next big thing to pay for. Max out your computer before you max out your armor! A good computer plus "decent" agility can combine to make your craft "unhittable" using just 2D6 (roll 13+, good luck) while also making your own weapon attacks that much more accurate. So high computer model provides both defense AND offense potential.

Armor ... is passive defense.
Screens are ... active defense, but Nuclear Dampeners and Meson Screens are only useful against specific weapon types. Black Globes "work against everything" (and everyone, including yourself!), so they're more like "2 way armor" that works both for and against you when the shooting starts.

Defensive weapons (sandcasters, lasers/energy weapons) are "okay" defensive weapons, but they really need a good computer model backing them up to become highly effective.

I'm a big proponent of the notion of NO GET HITSU as the strongest form of defense against unwanted adversaries (as a merchant). If their weapons "don't connect" with your hull, you don't need to mitigate the damage they can deal. If you can outrun them (break off by acceleration), that's the safest possible outcome for your own ship ... they get 1 shot and if they miss, that's it, you can get away from the encounter completely unscathed. Anytime you get "ensnared" in a dogfight/melee scrap that you can't retreat from, you're fighting for your life ... which can have some rather unfortunate risks and consequences attached to it. Needing to be able to "tank the pounding" will still tend to result in some damage to your own craft, which carries all kinds of financial costs and risks.

So it basically comes down to a question of Fight or Flight.

Weapons and Armor let you Fight.
Maneuver and high Agility enable Flight.

Fighting tends to result in damage, particularly if the fighting is prolonged in a knock down, drag out type fashion ... while (immediate) Flight limits the opportunities for damage to the minimum.

To slightly misquote a mildly famous Solomani industrialist from history ... for a profit minded merchant:
The best combat is no combat.
The best battle damage is no battle damage.

Words to live (and thrive) by, I'm thinking.

And yes, I understand the urge to "take the other path" and orient more towards FIGHT rather than FLIGHT, but doing so incurs costs and risks that the "flight" option denies ... so ... make your choice and live with the consequences.

 

[Badenov]

The Armor 12 is the main problem. It drives up the cost of the ship while at the same time taking away space that could be used for revenue(?). Maybe go down to a lower Armor value that you can break even with or at least make a little profit.

I've designed a few 200 dT armored merchants, and it's hard to find the right balance between enough AR to be worth it without going bankrupt. I personally go with AR 2 (for any TL), as AR 1 isn't enough while AR 3+ at any TL starts to cut into profits with a vengeance.

Note: I use T20, so my design results might differ from what your needs are a little bit.

And this is the reason I gave your post a Sad Emoji.

@Spinward Flow, I didn't do a cost, space, revenue analysis of Armor vs 2+ M Drives, as I was looking more for fun playability that still had the potential for profit. I have read your Posts on 4+ M Drives for defense 'if they can't get near you, they can't get your cargo', so I was kind of looking for an alternative.

I ran the numbers on the speed tank option also, something fast enough that your agility will spoil their aim costs as much in Power Plant and M Drive as the armor did, and it's not perfect defense because you can't put in a huge computer (LBB5).

And while skipping the armor will make money, and AR2 does put you past the most egregious damage results, there are stilll plenty of fuel hits that will take you out of the fight after a few hits.

 

[Badenov]

Hull code: 2 with armor: 12 ...?
Why would you need that much armor? Are you planning to get shot at (and just "tank" the damage)?

Yes.

In a CT context, that will prevent critical hits from code: (2+12/2)=8 weapon batteries and would require TL=12 at minimum.

Yes.

In LBB5.80, using TL=12-13 (superdense armor) that would require a 26% fraction of the hull tonnage ... which in a 200 ton form factor amounts to 52 tons(!) spent on armor and would cost MCr78 in construction cost. At TL=14-15 (bonded superdense armor) it would require only a 13% fraction of the hull tonnage ... which in a 200 ton form factor is still amounts to 26 tons(!) spent on armor and would cost MCr39 in construction cost.

Yes. TL12 is much heavier, but requires much less TL for support. Armor 14 does close the pulse laser vulnerability window.

Bear in mind that a (stock) 200 ton J2 Far Trader costs ~MCr60 in CT, so we're talking MAJOR COST INCREASE here in order to pile on that much armor onto a hull (using LBB5.80).

Yes. OTOH, you're pretty much invulnerable to pirates. That means never losing your ship or your cargo from piracy. At least I was running the numbers to see if it was a viable strategy. It sounds good. If the ship's paid for, it can make money.

Making the construction costs higher while reducing the revenue tonnage fraction makes both the numerator and the denominator move "away from profits" in the merchant economy.

Yes.

To be honest, one of the better "balanced" designs for an armored merchant that I have seen is the Star class armored merchant (if you can get past the TL=15 requirement to build and maintain one).

The thing is ... TL=15 armor: 6 on a 300 ton hull means spending 21 tons on armor (7% of the hull tonnage).
In terms of contrast, adding +2 Maneuver (6%) and armor: 0 would be (almost) the exact same tonnage (although the batteries in the turrets would need to be adjusted along with the computer model from 3fib to 2bis).

In a vacuum (which space tends to have a lot of ) ... I would argue that Maneuver-3/Agility=3/Armor=0 would have a lot LESS adversarial intercepts where weapons fire gets exchanged going on than a Maneuver-1/Agility=1/Armor=6 craft would tend to encounter. That's basically an argument of prevention (higher maneuver/agility) versus mitigation (armor) when it comes to security/protection schemes.

In terms of "defensive density" of systems, I personally tend to prefer (in this order):

1. Agility
2. Computer model
3. Armor
4. Screens
5. Defensive Weapons

High agility can potentially "prevent" an intercept from happening ... or if it does happen, the engagement "doesn't last long" (a single combat round, preferably, resulting in a Break Off By Acceleration at the end of round 1). This limits the exposure to combat damage. So high maneuver/agility provides both defense and escape potential.

Computer model is the next big thing to pay for. Max out your computer before you max out your armor! A good computer plus "decent" agility can combine to make your craft "unhittable" using just 2D6 (roll 13+, good luck) while also making your own weapon attacks that much more accurate. So high computer model provides both defense AND offense potential.

Armor ... is passive defense.
Screens are ... active defense, but Nuclear Dampeners and Meson Screens are only useful against specific weapon types. Black Globes "work against everything" (and everyone, including yourself!), so they're more like "2 way armor" that works both for and against you when the shooting starts.

Defensive weapons (sandcasters, lasers/energy weapons) are "okay" defensive weapons, but they really need a good computer model backing them up to become highly effective.

I'm a big proponent of the notion of NO GET HITSU as the strongest form of defense against unwanted adversaries (as a merchant). If their weapons "don't connect" with your hull, you don't need to mitigate the damage they can deal. If you can outrun them (break off by acceleration), that's the safest possible outcome for your own ship ... they get 1 shot and if they miss, that's it, you can get away from the encounter completely unscathed. Anytime you get "ensnared" in a dogfight/melee scrap that you can't retreat from, you're fighting for your life ... which can have some rather unfortunate risks and consequences attached to it. Needing to be able to "tank the pounding" will still tend to result in some damage to your own craft, which carries all kinds of financial costs and risks.

So it basically comes down to a question of Fight or Flight.

Weapons and Armor let you Fight.
Maneuver and high Agility enable Flight.

Fighting tends to result in damage, particularly if the fighting is prolonged in a knock down, drag out type fashion ... while (immediate) Flight limits the opportunities for damage to the minimum.

To slightly misquote a mildly famous Solomani industrialist from history ... for a profit minded merchant:
The best combat is no combat.
The best battle damage is no battle damage.

Words to live (and thrive) by, I'm thinking.

And yes, I understand the urge to "take the other path" and orient more towards FIGHT rather than FLIGHT, but doing so incurs costs and risks that the "flight" option denies ... so ... make your choice and live with the consequences.

So, yes to all this, and I totally agree with not getting hit being a better option, one I would prefer. But.... even with Thrust 6/Agility 6, missile launchers at Factor 5 need an 11 to hit you (including -1 for size and assuming computers are even), so not getting hit is not guaranteed. They'd only need an 8 to hit you with Agility 3. So I felt that the Agility tank was less viable than the turtle plan. But you're right in that if Thrust 3 will keep you out of an encounter, then it's good enough. I was not sure that any Thrust was reliably able to avoid the encounter.

With Armor 12, they can hit you all day, but they can only hit turrets (and only on a 2-3 on 2d6), which the ship doesn't waste the tonnage on, so nothing done at all for almost all weapons. The only vulnerability is pulse lasers, which since they roll damage location at -2, can get a Fuel-1 hit on exactly a 3 on 2d6. Ten tons fuel is half the jump fuel, so it'd have to turn around and refuel, but the chance of getting 2 fuel hits before you can get to safety is on the order of 1/400. Meanwhile, you have hopefully radio'd for aid and the cavalry is on the way.

With Armor 14, your overhaul and support options are much fewer, but the pulse laser vulnerability goes away.

 

[Spinward Flow]

OTOH, you're pretty much invulnerable to pirates.

That's ... probably taking things a bit too far.
In LBB5.80 combat, assuming nuclear missiles are not involved (and they shouldn't be!), Armor-12 is going to mean that a 2D6 roll on the damage table (LBB5.80) is going to be 2+6+12=20 ... and like you said elsewhere, pulse lasers can get as low as 18.
22+ is No Effect on the surface damage table, so you're pretty well protected against incoming fire.

Not invulnerable, but you're pretty tanky.

A more modest/hybrid approach would be to have 13-2-4 = Armor: 7 (instead of 12) and a higher maneuver drive/agility rating.
With Armor: 7+, even pulse lasers are unable to damage your maneuver drive.
With Armor: 8, there are only 2 dice results on the surface explosion table that can yield Fuel-1 hits.
With Armor: 9, only pulse lasers (and nuclear missiles) have 2 damage results that can yield Fuel-1 hits, everything else only has 1 damage result that can yield Fuel-1 hits.

Point being that there are some opportunities for tradeoffs at lower armor ratings. More Armor = Better is still true (generically speaking) ... but depending on what ELSE you want the craft to be able to "do" (in the balancing of priorities sense) you might not want to let the "good enough" become the enemy of the "perfect" (so to speak).

But.... even with Thrust 6/Agility 6, missile launchers at Factor 5 need an 11 to hit you (including -1 for size and assuming computers are even), so not getting hit is not guaranteed.

Let's dig into this a little more deeply, shall we?

Missile code: 5 has a base tohit threshold of 4.
If we assume that the computer models are equal (to remove them from the equation), then a starship between 100-1999 tons with a -1 DM for Size and Agility=6 does indeed require a roll of 11+ on 2D6 to hit, according to LBB5.80.

So what do you need in order for a missile battery to be code: 5?
TL=7-12 you need 18 missile weapons ... meaning 6x triple missile turrets ... meaning a minimum 600 ton hull for 1x battery of code: 5.
TL=13-15 you need 12 missile weapons ... meaning 4x triple missile turrets ... meaning a minimum 400 ton hull for 1x battery of code: 5.

Mind you, in both cases, a 600 or 400 ton hull doing THAT will have no other weapons ... it's just a single battery, full stop.

Taking a quick look at LBB S7 and LBB S9 for examples of "combatant" military starships, most of them below 3000 tons will only push their missile battery codes to 3-4, not all the way out to 5+, so coming up against a missile battery code: 5 should not be considered a "common occurrence" for a civilian craft (that doesn't want to be shot at).

Against missile codes: 3-4, the tohit roll would require a 12+ on 2D6 against a craft between 100-1999 tons.
But against a small craft between 5-99 tons, if the computer models are equal, the tohit roll becomes a 13+ for missile batteries code: 1-4 ... so there's something to be said for having a "fighter screen" taking fire while the parent starship makes a run for it (break off by acceleration). Needless to say, this means that having a good computer" in a fighter becomes EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the odds of survival in that fighter if you want that fighter to be an "effective" combatant that can keep adversaries at bay (long enough to make a "safe" retreat).

 

[Spinward Flow]

So let me give you an example of how EXPENSIVE "good computer models" can get in a small craft ... specifically a 30 ton form factor.

---

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr3.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
5 tons for LBB2.81 standard A/A drives (codes: 6/6, TL=9 civilian, EP=2) (Agility=6 requires EP: 1.8) (MCr12)
1.8 tons for fuel (19d 12h 50m endurance @ 1.8 EP output continuous)
6 tons for bridge (crew: 2) (pilot, gunner) (MCr0.15)
2 tons for model/2 computer (TL=7, EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads) (MCr3.35)
4 tons for 2 single occupancy small craft staterooms (MCr0.1)
* External Docking: 170 tons capacity (MCr0.34)
10.2 tons for cargo hold

• 0.1 tons for 15 person/weeks consumable life support reserves (2 crew=7.5 weeks endurance)
• 0.1 tons for 10 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (MCr0.005)

= 0+5+1.8+6+2+1+4+10.2 = 30 tons
= 3.6+0+12+0.15+9+3.35+0.1+0.34+0.005 = MCr28.545

• 1G = 200 - 30 = 170 tons external load
• 2G = 100 - 30 = 70 tons external load
• 3G = 66 - 30 = 36 tons external load
• 4G = 50 - 30 = 20 tons external load
• 5G = 40 - 30 = 10 tons external load
• 6G = 33 - 30 = 3 tons external load

---

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr3.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
5.1 tons for LBB5.80 Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 1.8 EP) (MCr2.55)
8.4 tons for LBB5.80 Power Plant-9 (EP=2.8) (MCr25.2)
1.4 tons for fuel (9d 20h 22m endurance @ 2.8 EP output continuous)
6 tons for bridge (crew: 2) (pilot, gunner) (MCr0.15)
3 tons for model/3 computer (TL=9, EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads) (MCr3.35)
4 tons for 2 single occupancy small craft staterooms (MCr0.1)
* External Docking: 225 tons capacity (MCr0.45)
1.1 tons for cargo hold

• 0.09 tons for 13.5 person/weeks consumable life support reserves (2 crew=6.75 weeks endurance)
• 0.01 tons for 1 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (MCr0.0005)

= 0+5.1+8.4+1.4+6+3+1+4+1.1 = 30 tons
= 3.6+0+2.55+25.2+0.15+18+3.35+0.1+0.45+0.0005 = MCr53.4005

• 1G = 255 - 30 = 225 tons external load
• 2G = 102 - 30 = 72 tons external load
• 3G = 63 - 30 = 33 tons external load
• 4G = 46 - 30 = 16 tons external load
• 5G = 36 - 30 = 6 tons external load
• 6G = 30 - 30 = 0 tons external load

---

In other words, just a +1 EP and +1 computer model buff ... increased the construction cost by 53.4005/28.545 = +87% ...

Now, obviously ... @ TL=13-14 (and of course, TL=15) that calculus changes, because power plants get smaller (and cheaper!) per EP they produce. However, the computer models available also ramp up dramatically (model/7 @ TL=13), thereby making small craft fighters "uneconomical" in terms of cost per turret.

Which means ... that the "cheaper" way to higher protection levels with low tech small craft is NOT to be found in the engineering design specs, but rather in the crew skills!

Pilot-3 skill means +1 Agility.
Ship Tactics-3 means +1 computer model (offense and defense!).

In other words, at low tech levels (9-11) you want cheap fighters and skilled pilots to win your battles for you.
40 years * 13 months = 520 crew salary payment cycles
53.4005 - 28.545 = MCr24.8555 / 520 = Cr47,799 per month in increased construction cost amortized over 40 years (average)
Pilot skills tend to increase salaries by Cr600 per month per +1 skill level.

Given that kind of "return on investment" ... I know that as a military budget controller I would rather be spending credits on personnel than on constructing more expensive fighters ...

Not exactly something that the Traveller chargen "preaches" (or makes readily available) ... but definitely a way of thinking about the optimal mix of outcomes.

 

[Badenov]

That's ... probably taking things a bit too far.
In LBB5.80 combat, assuming nuclear missiles are not involved (and they shouldn't be!), Armor-12 is going to mean that a 2D6 roll on the damage table (LBB5.80) is going to be 2+6+12=20 ... and like you said elsewhere, pulse lasers can get as low as 18.
22+ is No Effect on the surface damage table, so you're pretty well protected against incoming fire.

Not invulnerable, but you're pretty tanky.

The only possible hits are Weapon hits (apart from the pulse laser), which if you don't have weapons is nothing done. That's as good as No Effect as I see it.

A more modest/hybrid approach would be to have 13-2-4 = Armor: 7 (instead of 12) and a higher maneuver drive/agility rating.
With Armor: 7+, even pulse lasers are unable to damage your maneuver drive.
With Armor: 8, there are only 2 dice results on the surface explosion table that can yield Fuel-1 hits.
With Armor: 9, only pulse lasers (and nuclear missiles) have 2 damage results that can yield Fuel-1 hits, everything else only has 1 damage result that can yield Fuel-1 hits.

That's very tanky, and anyone fighting you, if you've got more than token offense, is in danger. You're in danger as well, but pretty well protected, yes. This one could go either way, and pirates don't do pitched battles if they can help it.

Point being that there are some opportunities for tradeoffs at lower armor ratings. More Armor = Better is still true (generically speaking) ... but depending on what ELSE you want the craft to be able to "do" (in the balancing of priorities sense) you might not want to let the "good enough" become the enemy of the "perfect" (so to speak).

Mainly what I wanted it to do was ignore pirates, so.... that's a step past pitched battles in my book which is why I went all the way to 12.

Let's dig into this a little more deeply, shall we?

Missile code: 5 has a base tohit threshold of 4.
If we assume that the computer models are equal (to remove them from the equation), then a starship between 100-1999 tons with a -1 DM for Size and Agility=6 does indeed require a roll of 11+ on 2D6 to hit, according to LBB5.80.

So what do you need in order for a missile battery to be code: 5?
TL=7-12 you need 18 missile weapons ... meaning 6x triple missile turrets ... meaning a minimum 600 ton hull for 1x battery of code: 5.
TL=13-15 you need 12 missile weapons ... meaning 4x triple missile turrets ... meaning a minimum 400 ton hull for 1x battery of code: 5.

Mind you, in both cases, a 600 or 400 ton hull doing THAT will have no other weapons ... it's just a single battery, full stop.

The 800T Mercenary Cruiser from LBB2 has that and is shown on the LBB2 encounter table to be possibly a pirate. I took that to be a worst-case scenario. But 8 turrets gives it a backup weapon also.

Taking a quick look at LBB S7 and LBB S9 for examples of "combatant" military starships, most of them below 3000 tons will only push their missile battery codes to 3-4, not all the way out to 5+, so coming up against a missile battery code: 5 should not be considered a "common occurrence" for a civilian craft (that doesn't want to be shot at).

Against missile codes: 3-4, the tohit roll would require a 12+ on 2D6 against a craft between 100-1999 tons.
But against a small craft between 5-99 tons, if the computer models are equal, the tohit roll becomes a 13+ for missile batteries code: 1-4 ... so there's something to be said for having a "fighter screen" taking fire while the parent starship makes a run for it (break off by acceleration). Needless to say, this means that having a good computer" in a fighter becomes EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the odds of survival in that fighter if you want that fighter to be an "effective" combatant that can keep adversaries at bay (long enough to make a "safe" retreat).

Totally agree. It's the biggest burden in a fighter, the big comp with a big power drain.

So let me give you an example of how EXPENSIVE "good computer models" can get in a small craft ... specifically a 30 ton form factor.

---

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr3.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
5 tons for LBB2.81 standard A/A drives (codes: 6/6, TL=9 civilian, EP=2) (Agility=6 requires EP: 1.8) (MCr12)
1.8 tons for fuel (19d 12h 50m endurance @ 1.8 EP output continuous)
6 tons for bridge (crew: 2) (pilot, gunner) (MCr0.15)
2 tons for model/2 computer (TL=7, EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads) (MCr3.35)
4 tons for 2 single occupancy small craft staterooms (MCr0.1)
* External Docking: 170 tons capacity (MCr0.34)
10.2 tons for cargo hold

• 0.1 tons for 15 person/weeks consumable life support reserves (2 crew=7.5 weeks endurance)
• 0.1 tons for 10 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (MCr0.005)

= 0+5+1.8+6+2+1+4+10.2 = 30 tons
= 3.6+0+12+0.15+9+3.35+0.1+0.34+0.005 = MCr28.545

• 1G = 200 - 30 = 170 tons external load
• 2G = 100 - 30 = 70 tons external load
• 3G = 66 - 30 = 36 tons external load
• 4G = 50 - 30 = 20 tons external load
• 5G = 40 - 30 = 10 tons external load
• 6G = 33 - 30 = 3 tons external load

---

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr3.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
5.1 tons for LBB5.80 Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 1.8 EP) (MCr2.55)
8.4 tons for LBB5.80 Power Plant-9 (EP=2.8) (MCr25.2)
1.4 tons for fuel (9d 20h 22m endurance @ 2.8 EP output continuous)
6 tons for bridge (crew: 2) (pilot, gunner) (MCr0.15)
3 tons for model/3 computer (TL=9, EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads) (MCr3.35)
4 tons for 2 single occupancy small craft staterooms (MCr0.1)
* External Docking: 225 tons capacity (MCr0.45)
1.1 tons for cargo hold

• 0.09 tons for 13.5 person/weeks consumable life support reserves (2 crew=6.75 weeks endurance)
• 0.01 tons for 1 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (MCr0.0005)

= 0+5.1+8.4+1.4+6+3+1+4+1.1 = 30 tons
= 3.6+0+2.55+25.2+0.15+18+3.35+0.1+0.45+0.0005 = MCr53.4005

• 1G = 255 - 30 = 225 tons external load
• 2G = 102 - 30 = 72 tons external load
• 3G = 63 - 30 = 33 tons external load
• 4G = 46 - 30 = 16 tons external load
• 5G = 36 - 30 = 6 tons external load
• 6G = 30 - 30 = 0 tons external load

I really haven't looked at anything as historical as TL9. That's like you and I debating this new device for cavalry, the stirrup. I'm still wrapping my head around TL15, or trying to. TL12 is a stretch goal. TL 9 is well past my area of understanding.

---

In other words, just a +1 EP and +1 computer model buff ... increased the construction cost by 53.4005/28.545 = +87% ...

Now, obviously ... @ TL=13-14 (and of course, TL=15) that calculus changes, because power plants get smaller (and cheaper!) per EP they produce. However, the computer models available also ramp up dramatically (model/7 @ TL=13), thereby making small craft fighters "uneconomical" in terms of cost per turret.

Which means ... that the "cheaper" way to higher protection levels with low tech small craft is NOT to be found in the engineering design specs, but rather in the crew skills!

Pilot-3 skill means +1 Agility.
Ship Tactics-3 means +1 computer model (offense and defense!).

And +1 more requires skill 5. That's purely in the realm of PCs.

In other words, at low tech levels (9-11) you want cheap fighters and skilled pilots to win your battles for you.
40 years * 13 months = 520 crew salary payment cycles
53.4005 - 28.545 = MCr24.8555 / 520 = Cr47,799 per month in increased construction cost amortized over 40 years (average)
Pilot skills tend to increase salaries by Cr600 per month per +1 skill level.

Given that kind of "return on investment" ... I know that as a military budget controller I would rather be spending credits on personnel than on constructing more expensive fighters ...

Agree that pilots are cheaper than ships, but pilots don't have spinal mesons (not at TL9, but at the TL where they happen). Ships are important, too, is my point.

Not exactly something that the Traveller chargen "preaches" (or makes readily available) ... but definitely a way of thinking about the optimal mix of outcomes.

Traveller chargen is sufficiently random that I don't know what it's preaching. It might be 'take wild risks until you get lucky'. That's my understanding of it, as I've never had the chance to play.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The 800T Mercenary Cruiser from LBB2 has that and is shown on the LBB2 encounter table to be possibly a pirate. I took that to be a worst-case scenario. But 8 turrets gives it a backup weapon also.

LBB S9, p21 does this (for reference):

I'm still wrapping my head around TL15, or trying to. TL12 is a stretch goal. TL 9 is well past my area of understanding.

Trust me ... "breaking away" from the allure of TL=15 EVERYTHING makes the game VERY DIFFERENT!

I'm honestly of the opinion that it's "more of a challenge" (really) to try and see "how low can you go" on the tech levels and still remain effective/useful.

 

[Badenov]

LBB S9, p21 does this (for reference):

Trust me ... "breaking away" from the allure of TL=15 EVERYTHING makes the game VERY DIFFERENT!

I'm honestly of the opinion that it's "more of a challenge" (really) to try and see "how low can you go" on the tech levels and still remain effective/useful.

That's another book I don't own, so I wasn't sure how the weapons would be grouped. It seems like they're grouped into 'No one's going to try very hard to avoid being hit' mode. Laser-3's needing a 7+ to hit and Missile-4 needing a 5+. Good thing we're not facing anyone with Agility 6 and Size A or less.

SF-1126621-000000-00002-0

Some chump with a factor 2 missile turret could turn circles around us all day and plink us to death. You'd have to hope he got bored before getting the ten Fuel hits which seems to be the only way to end a fight without Spinals and/or Mesons in LBB5.

Breaking away from TL15 does present unique challenges, but I'm still new enough to all this that I am still trying to figure out what the norms are at TL15 before stretching out.

I'm not convinced you can descend very far below TL15 and be relevant. A TL 12 ship with the best computer is -3 to hit and +3 to be hit by a TL15 ship that is otherwise identical. That's pretty wildly decisive, for the ship designs I've been able to work out.

Now useful, for a non-warship, is another matter and that can totally be done.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That's another book I don't own, so I wasn't sure how the weapons would be grouped. It seems like they're grouped into 'No one's going to try very hard to avoid being hit' mode. Laser-3's needing a 7+ to hit and Missile-4 needing a 5+. Good thing we're not facing anyone with Agility 6 and Size A or less.

It's a random LBB2 ship, it's not relevant to high tech LBB5 combat... On the other hand it's cheap compared to a combat-worthy LBB5 ship. Think of it as a mercenary transport ship.

I'm not convinced you can descend very far below TL15 and be relevant. A TL 12 ship with the best computer is -3 to hit and +3 to be hit by a TL15 ship that is otherwise identical. That's pretty wildly decisive, for the ship designs I've been able to work out.

Yes, LBB5 gives roughly five times advantage per TL, you need five times as many ships of one TL less to be equal.
At three TLs difference you tend to slide off the tables and be unable to hit at all. Missile bays and PA spinals might hit. TL-15 screens tend to make you immune to low TL nukes and mesons, the most effective weapons available.

Any Navy worth it's salt will use the highest tech they can get their hands on...

Scout and merchant ships are a completely different ballgame.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I'm not convinced you can descend very far below TL15 and be relevant. A TL 12 ship with the best computer is -3 to hit and +3 to be hit by a TL15 ship that is otherwise identical. That's pretty wildly decisive, for the ship designs I've been able to work out.

Now useful, for a non-warship, is another matter and that can totally be done.

Even just a 1 TL differential can be pretty punishing.
TL=14 vs 15 isn't just the model/8 vs model/9 limit on computers ... it's also the difference between 2 tons per EP and 1 ton per EP for power plants (LBB5.80) along with some other "important things" for naval combatants.

A differential of 2 TL starts stretching limits of design capabilities.
A differential of 3 TL is getting into the "cakewalk" region in terms of levels of unfairness.

TL=12 vs 15 (for example) makes the tons per EP issue even worse for powerplants than it was @ TL=13-14 ... and that's just for starters.

But that's naval combatant classes.
Things get QUITE different for the civilian starship designs.

First and foremost is that civilian merchants need to "pay their own way" (somehow) for the expenses associated with owning and operating them, lest they "wither on the vine" and get discarded as a "money pit" of a class design that isn't worth the trouble. Military designs don't need to be quite as concerned with "money grubbing" like merchants do (go figure, eh? ).

What that typically means is that construction COST, which then translates into maintenance and mortgage costs (along with down payment costs) starts becoming something of a "drag" factor on starship designs being successful, commercially. You can't just stuff them with "all the bestest stuffs™" and let the chips fall where they may. That way "lies madness" because you can't build starship (or small craft, for that matter) class designs that DO EVERYTHING all in a single package. Starships NEED to specialize, to some degree, in order to be successful.

In a lot of cases, what makes an option good for one design goal can be at cross purposes with another design goal.
The best combatant will often times make for a lousy merchant. The compromises are simply too great to be able to shoehorn EVERYTHING into a single design.

The thing about designing for the commercial/civilian market is that there are different imperatives that go into making a "good" merchant class than what makes a "good" combat monster. If you're lucky, there can be SOME overlap, but quite often the compromises you have to make just start "fighting" with each other rather than being complimentary in a way that yields something truly elegant.

The key is to be "good enough" at the lowest possible construction price (1) and also the lowest possible technology level (2) required to make everything "work" in a suitable manner. This is (indeed) a harder challenge than it might at first appear. Hybridizing between LBB5.80 and LBB2.81 can help a LOT in this regard, but there are still limits to how far you can push things while still remaining practical.

Fortunately, in the realm of commercial operations, there aren't a whole lot of "high end" threats floating around waiting to pounce on you ("You are in a very dark place (space). You are likely to be eaten by a Grue shot from a spinal mount."). MOST of the threats you might encounter are going to be of the "low end" variety (mostly turrets, really).

Scout and merchant ships are a completely different ballgame.

Exactly.
You don't NEED the highest tech in the sector to be able to load/unload passengers and cargo (successfully, at a profit). The trick is figuring out "what's good enough" to get the job done and then going from there.

Same deal with the "pirate" situation when it comes up.
You don't need to be able to "defeat" them (in combat), per se ... you just need to "not lose" to them (where "losing" means getting caught/boarded/etc.). It's the "job" of the navy or local system defense forces to "defeat" any pirates, but if you're a merchant ship it's not YOUR "job" to do that. If you do, it's going to be sort of freelance vigilante justice ... which may or may not be welcomed by various factions on the law vs criminal axis (not to mention the risk of getting a reputation that can draw "unwanted attention" in your direction).

In other words, with the right mix of capabilities built into a starship class design ... it is possible to "win without winning" against the pirate threat.
Even better yet, pulling off a "win without winning" (by escaping) rarely leads to blood feuds or a desire for vengeance ... although it can engender envy among witnesses, peers and competitors (for being "the one that got away ...").

 

[Badenov]

Even just a 1 TL differential can be pretty punishing.
TL=14 vs 15 isn't just the model/8 vs model/9 limit on computers ... it's also the difference between 2 tons per EP and 1 ton per EP for power plants (LBB5.80) along with some other "important things" for naval combatants.

The hidden thing about higher tech power plants is that (in LBB5) they're priced in MCr per ton, so a power plant that's 1/3 the tonnage is 1/3 the cost. So TL15 power plants are cheaper than the same capability at TL12. Which makes sense if you think about it, but is still a pretty big deal. It does beg the question why more planets aren't TL15 when there's so many advantages. Armor is super expensive as well, like half the total ship cost, but if you can turn a profit, why not go there. I suppose its down to how frequent piracy is. If it's a daily threat, you need to cope with it. If it's once a year, you (as a corp) can probably write it off.

A differential of 2 TL starts stretching limits of design capabilities.
A differential of 3 TL is getting into the "cakewalk" region in terms of levels of unfairness.

TL=12 vs 15 (for example) makes the tons per EP issue even worse for powerplants than it was @ TL=13-14 ... and that's just for starters.

But that's naval combatant classes.
Things get QUITE different for the civilian starship designs.

First and foremost is that civilian merchants need to "pay their own way" (somehow) for the expenses associated with owning and operating them, lest they "wither on the vine" and get discarded as a "money pit" of a class design that isn't worth the trouble. Military designs don't need to be quite as concerned with "money grubbing" like merchants do (go figure, eh? ).

Yes, exactly.

What that typically means is that construction COST, which then translates into maintenance and mortgage costs (along with down payment costs) starts becoming something of a "drag" factor on starship designs being successful, commercially. You can't just stuff them with "all the bestest stuffs™" and let the chips fall where they may. That way "lies madness" because you can't build starship (or small craft, for that matter) class designs that DO EVERYTHING all in a single package. Starships NEED to specialize, to some degree, in order to be successful.

In a lot of cases, what makes an option good for one design goal can be at cross purposes with another design goal.
The best combatant will often times make for a lousy merchant. The compromises are simply too great to be able to shoehorn EVERYTHING into a single design.

Agree.

The thing about designing for the commercial/civilian market is that there are different imperatives that go into making a "good" merchant class than what makes a "good" combat monster. If you're lucky, there can be SOME overlap, but quite often the compromises you have to make just start "fighting" with each other rather than being complimentary in a way that yields something truly elegant.

The key is to be "good enough" at the lowest possible construction price (1) and also the lowest possible technology level (2) required to make everything "work" in a suitable manner. This is (indeed) a harder challenge than it might at first appear. Hybridizing between LBB5.80 and LBB2.81 can help a LOT in this regard, but there are still limits to how far you can push things while still remaining practical.

Fortunately, in the realm of commercial operations, there aren't a whole lot of "high end" threats floating around waiting to pounce on you ("You are in a very dark place (space). You are likely to be eaten by a Grue shot from a spinal mount."). MOST of the threats you might encounter are going to be of the "low end" variety (mostly turrets, really).

For merchant ships, I think spinals, mesons, bays,and nukes are off the table, because those will draw a smackdown from the military. Those are the only weapons which don't get the additional +6 DM free space on the ship damage table (or get to roll on internals already), so thinking purely in terms of Rating 1-9 (though realistically 1-6-ish) in turrets.

Exactly.
You don't NEED the highest tech in the sector to be able to load/unload passengers and cargo (successfully, at a profit). The trick is figuring out "what's good enough" to get the job done and then going from there.

Same deal with the "pirate" situation when it comes up.
You don't need to be able to "defeat" them (in combat), per se ... you just need to "not lose" to them (where "losing" means getting caught/boarded/etc.). It's the "job" of the navy or local system defense forces to "defeat" any pirates, but if you're a merchant ship it's not YOUR "job" to do that. If you do, it's going to be sort of freelance vigilante justice ... which may or may not be welcomed by various factions on the law vs criminal axis (not to mention the risk of getting a reputation that can draw "unwanted attention" in your direction).

This is where I put Armor 12+ in. Pirates show up, threaten you, you talk smack, they fire a full volley, your paint isn't so much as scuffed, and they think about how likely they are to crack that tank before Spacelane Patrol shows up and go off to find easier targets. It's about 2 hours at Thrust 6 to the 100-diameter limit, so assuming pirates are jumping you close to where they can jump out if they need to, so a ship just needs to tough it out for 6 20-minute combat turns before someone from planetside can respond to a distress call. OTOH, if you're nearly at 100 diameters, you're nearly ready to jump.

So, the closer in to a gravity well they accost you, the more time it takes to get away, but the less time they have before authorities arrive.

It occurs to me that you could surrender, wait until they come alongside, then Jump just before they dock. My understanding is they would take considerable damage from that?

In other words, with the right mix of capabilities built into a starship class design ... it is possible to "win without winning" against the pirate threat.
Even better yet, pulling off a "win without winning" (by escaping) rarely leads to blood feuds or a desire for vengeance ... although it can engender envy among witnesses, peers and competitors (for being "the one that got away ...").

Yes, when you're the slick new game in town, people come gunning for you.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This is where I put Armor 12+ in. Pirates show up, threaten you, you talk smack, they fire a full volley, your paint isn't so much as scuffed, and they think about how likely they are to crack that tank before Spacelane Patrol shows up and go off to find easier targets.

Nice idea, but too expensive in CT. High acceleration is much cheaper with access to LBB2 drives, just outrun the attacker.

Light trader, armoured:

AA-46222R1-C00000-00000-0        MCr 285         400 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=5
batteries                                           TL=12
                        Cargo=102 Fuel=100 EP=8 Agility=2

Spoiler:

Single Occupancy                                    102       285
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             4            400         
Configuration       Flattened Sphe     6                       32
Scoops              Streamlined                                 0
Armour              12                 C            104       156
                                                                
Jump Drive          D                  2    1        25        40
Manoeuvre D         D                  2    1         7        16
Power Plant         D                  2    1        13        32
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2        20         
Purifier                                    1         6         0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        20         2
Computer            m/1bis             R    1         1         4
                                                                
Staterooms                                  5        20         3
                                                                
Cargo                                               102         
Demountable Tanks   J-2                     1        80         0
                                                                
Empty hardpoint                             2         2         
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 285,01           Sum:       102       285
Class Cost          MCr  59,85          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 228,01                                   
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge     2
Passengers            Mid     0           5       Engineers     2
                      Low     0                     Gunners     0
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     1
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines     0                     Marines     0

Estimated Economy of Ship     Custom                   No subsidy         
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
       MCr 285,01       kCr 59 852        kCr 1 188              80%
                                                                
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                 
Bank                Cr 570 020          High            Cr      0
Fuel                Cr  10 000          Middle          Cr      0
Life Support        Cr  10 000          Low             Cr      0
Salaries            Cr  10 080          Cargo           Cr 80 000
Maintenance         Cr  11 400                          Cr       
Berthing            Cr     400                                   
                                                                
Summa              kCr     612                         kCr     80
                                                                
     Income potential per jump     kCr -532                   
  Yearly yield on down payment     -22,2%

Light trader, 6 G:

AF-4626621-000000-00000-0        MCr 231         400 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=6
batteries                                           TL=12
                       Cargo=121 Fuel=140 EP=24 Agility=6

Spoiler:

Single Occupancy                                  121       230,5
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             4          400          
Configuration       Flattened Sphe     6                     32
Scoops              Streamlined                               0,4
                                                               
Jump Drive          D                  2    1      25        40
Manoeuvre D         M                  6    1      23        48
Power Plant         M                  6    1      37        96
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2      60          
Purifier                                    1       6         0,0
                                                               
Bridge                                      1      20         2
Computer            m/2                2    1       2         9
                                                               
Staterooms                                  6      24         3
                                                               
Cargo                                             121          
Demountable Tanks   J-2                     1      80         0,1
                                                               
Empty hardpoint                             2       2          
                                                               
Nominal Cost        MCr 230,51           Sum:     121       230,5
Class Cost          MCr  48,41          Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 184,41                                  
                                                               
                                                               
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge     2
Passengers            Mid     0           6       Engineers     3
                      Low     0                     Gunners     0
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     1
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines     0                     Marines     0

Estimated Economy of Ship     Custom                   No subsidy        
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
       MCr 230,51       kCr 48 407          kCr 960              80%
                                                               
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                
Bank                Cr 461 020          High            Cr      0
Fuel                Cr  14 000          Middle          Cr      0
Life Support        Cr  12 000          Low             Cr      0
Salaries            Cr  12 000          Cargo           Cr 96 000
Maintenance         Cr   9 220                          Cr      
Berthing            Cr     400                                  
                                                               
Summa              kCr     509                         kCr     96
                                                               
     Income potential per jump     kCr -413                  
  Yearly yield on down payment     -21,3%

Both are astronomically uneconomical, but the fast ship is much cheaper and has more payload space.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

An armed trader is much cheaper, with much more payload:

AG-4622231-030000-14001-0        MCr 153         400 Dton
bearing     2     11  7                            Crew=9
batteries   2     11  7                             TL=12
                        Cargo=185 Fuel=100 EP=8 Agility=1

Spoiler:

Single Occupancy                                  185       153,3
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             4          400         
Configuration       Flattened Sphe     6                     32
Scoops              Streamlined                               0,4
                                                              
Jump Drive          D                  2    1      25        40
Manoeuvre D         D                  2    1       7        16
Power Plant         D                  2    1      13        32
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2      20         
Purifier                                    1       6         0,0
                                                              
Bridge                                      1      20         2
Computer            m/3                3    1       3        18
                                                              
Staterooms                                  9      36         4,5
                                                              
Cargo                                             185         
Demountable Tanks   J-2                     1      80         0,1
                                                              
Mixed Turret        Full                    1       1         
  Weapon            Missile            1    2                 1,5
  Weapon            Pulse              1    1                 0,5
Mixed Turret        Full                    2       2         
  Weapon            Missile            1    2                 3
  Weapon            Sand               3    1                 0,5
Mixed Turret        Full                    1       2         
  Weapon            Missile            1    1                 0,8
  Weapon            Fusion             4    1                 2
                                                              
Nominal Cost        MCr 153,26           Sum:     185       153,3
Class Cost          MCr  32,18          Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 122,61                                 
                                                              
                                                              
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge     2
Passengers            Mid     0           9       Engineers     2
                      Low     0                     Gunners     4
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     1
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines     0                     Marines     0

Estimated Economy of Ship     Custom                   No subsidy       
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
       MCr 153,26       kCr 32 185          kCr 639              80%
                                                              
Expenses per jump                       Revenue               
Bank                Cr 306 520          High           Cr       0
Fuel                Cr  10 000          Middle         Cr       0
Life Support        Cr  18 000          Low            Cr       0
Salaries            Cr  13 920          Cargo          Cr 148 000
Maintenance         Cr   6 130                         Cr     
Berthing            Cr     400                                 
                                                              
Summa              kCr     355                        kCr     148
                                                              
     Income potential per jump     kCr -207                 
  Yearly yield on down payment     -16,1%

Still unprofitable, of course...