What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[Badenov]

Roleplaying, rather than spacecraft design mechanics.

Find a transportation niche that you're highly competitive at, and that said competition would find hard to emulate, without losing money.

Depending on the edition, I'm sure there are ways to cut operating costs.

Squeezing out that lemon/supply to the last drop, may not be feasible, if you don't have traffic/demand.

The problem is that I can't compete without taking a loss. Is it assumed there will be an adventure at each port of call to make up for the lack of revenue? Sure there are ways to cut costs: don't do annual maintenance. Encounter a pirate and get killed. Rob the passengers, yourself. Nothing I would consider a good plan.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Sorry to resurrect a thread everyone was done with, but I have another question related to ship design and what techniques work:

My advice is ... start from the "demand" side of things (tickets) rather than from the "supply" side of things (starship desgin).
The simple fact of the matter is that it's actually difficult (not impossible, just really difficult) to turn a profit on passenger services alone.

Take a look at the "revenue density" in CT:

• 8x high passengers = 10 staterooms (add 1 steward and 1 medic) = 40 tons
  • kCr80 in ticket sales (full manifest), 2x per month = kCr160
    • Steward salary = kCr3 per month (minimum)
    • Medic salary = kCr2 per month (minimum)
    • Life Support for 10 staterooms = kCr20 per 2 weeks, 2x per month = kCr40
      • 160 - 5 - 40 = kCr115 profit per 4 weeks (non-subsidized)
        • kCr115 / 36 tons = Cr3194(.44) per ton, per month @ full manifest when jumping every 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
      • 160/2 - 5 - 40 = kCr35 profit per 4 weeks (subsidized)
        • kCr35 / 40 tons = Cr875 per ton, per month @ full manifest when jumping every 2 weeks (subsidized)
• 72x low passengers = 64 low berths + 1 stateroom (medic required) = 40 tons
  • kCr72 in ticket sales (full manifest), 2x per month = kCr144
    • Medic salary = kCr2 per month (minimum)
    • Life Support for 72 low berths + 1 stateroom = kCr9.2 per 2 weeks, 2x per month = kCr18.4 (maximum)
      • 144 - 2 - 18.4 = kCr123.6profit per 4 weeks (non-subsidized)
        • kCr123.6 / 40 tons = Cr3090 per ton, per month @ full manifest when jumping every 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
      • 144/2 - 2 - 18.4 = kCr51.6profit per 4 weeks (subsidized)
        • kCr51.6 / 40 = Cr1290 per ton, per month @ full manifest when jumping every 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
• 40 tons cargo
  • kCr40 in ticket sales (full manifest), 2x per month = kCr80
    
    • kCr80 profit per 4 weeks (non-subsidized)
      • kCr80 / 40 = Cr2000 per ton, per month @ full manifest when jumping every 2 weeks (non-subsidized)
      • kCr40 / 40 = Cr1000 per ton, per month @ full manifest when jumping every 2 weeks (non-subsidized)

What all of that means is ... in terms of starship design, if you're planning to survive on "ticket revenues alone" you're going to need to look at your revenue tonnage (passengers+cargo) and think in terms of kCr3 per ton (non-subsidized) and kCr1 per ton (subsidized) for passengers ... and kCr2 per ton (non-subsidized) and kCr1 per ton (subsidized) for passengers ... in terms of monthly profits. Those ticket revenues need to cover crew salaries (for everyone who isn't passenger facing) every month, plus berthing fees, starport fuel purchases (if not doing wilderness refueling), shares set aside for annual overhaul maintenance, and possibly a bank loan mortgage payment due every month.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that ticket revenues aren't all that dense (so to speak) in terms of profits per revenue ton.
If you're intending to "make ends meet" on ticket revenues alone, you're looking at LOW drive performance starships (J1/1G/PP1) with LOTS of revenue tonnage (start @ 40%+ of the hull form factor, minimum, and work your way up from there, the higher the fraction the better for profits).

But all of that assumes that you can fill your shipping manifests for every jump ... which might not always be possible when operating as a tramp merchant. Starships with LARGE passenger and cargo capacities will need to stick to high population world routes in order to keep their manifests full so as to turn a profit for the bottom line over years of service.



There are two exceptions to this "tyranny of ticket revenues" rule for merchant operations.

1. Mail contracts (Cr5000 revenue per ton upon delivery, maximum 5 tons)
2. Speculative Goods arbitrage (where the REAL profits are concentrated!)

Ideally speaking, you want your merchant starship design(s) to operate at "near break even" on profits (or better) while collecting ticket revenues ... but then have "sufficient" cargo capacity to be able to gamble on Speculative Goods (from time to time) in order to garner inconsistent (but randomly repeatable) profit windfalls (from time to time). This creates something of a "Feast or Famine" type dynamic, in which the ticket revenues are just there to defray operating expenses between big scores when gambling (with your own credits!) on Speculative Goods.

The trick is to work out what the "likely demand" for ticket services is going to be within a particular region or route ... and then design your starship to be able to "survive" (break even or better) on that level of ticket revenue demand, while roaming around seeking out new worlds and new civilizations opportunities to gamble on Speculative Goods arbitrage.

In that context, high drive performance (which is expensive to construct, maintain annually and mortgage finance) becomes the "enemy" of profit margins derived from ticket revenues.

This is why my first starship designs on these forums amounted to "mail couriers" that had a crew of 2 (pilot, gunner) in a 100-199 ton hull with a turret (armed) and a 5 ton cargo hold (for mail contracts). The idea was that the Cr25,000 revenue from delivering main was "guaranteed" (no dice rolls required) ... so if starship operating expenses could be brought under that number, you could generate a profit on every single jump to any and every world on the interstellar hex map. That meant that crew salaries, life support, berthing fees, fuel, annual overhaul maintenance, bank loan financing (the lot!) needed to fit "under" that Cr25,000 revenue per 2 weeks (non-subidized) in order to not go bankrupt over the long(er) term as a business model. Works a bit better when subsidized (because, no mortgage payments), but then you need to keep your operating expenses per jump below Cr12,500 ... which can be a bit of a challenge to design for.



This is why I take the view that @ J1 ... ticket revenues are the "main purpose" of the starship design, with speculative goods arbitrage as more of a "side hustle" to dabble in occasionally.

By contrast, @ J3 ... speculative goods arbitrage is the "main purpose" of the starship design, with ticket revenues "paying the bills" in between windfalls generated from the transport of speculative goods.

J2 is something of a hybrid between those two business models, but it's honestly something that works better in a 400 ton form factor than it does in a 200 ton form factor, primarily because of the scaling of various starship equipment (bridge, computer, fire control for turrets, staterooms, low berths, etc.) being more or less "fixed" while everything else (drives, fuel tankage, etc.) grows in proportion to the hull displacement.

 

[whartung]

The problem is the trade rules are pretty easy to game, you just need to find a pair of complimentary planets right next to each other and then get your ship there. The rules are mostly there for color, and not really meant to taken in isolation. It up to the referee to keep you properly solvent so you can continue playing. Granted "Well, that's it, you're bankrupt. But there's this guy in the bar, Todd Starfisher. Go talk with him, he may be able to help you."

So, any way, don't take the rules too seriously.

 

[Badenov]

My advice is ... start from the "demand" side of things (tickets) rather than from the "supply" side of things (starship desgin).
The simple fact of the matter is that it's actually difficult (not impossible, just really difficult) to turn a profit on passenger services alone.

Agree, as noted below.
*snipped for space*

This is why I take the view that @ J1 ... ticket revenues are the "main purpose" of the starship design, with speculative goods arbitrage as more of a "side hustle" to dabble in occasionally.

By contrast, @ J3 ... speculative goods arbitrage is the "main purpose" of the starship design, with ticket revenues "paying the bills" in between windfalls generated from the transport of speculative goods.

J2 is something of a hybrid between those two business models, but it's honestly something that works better in a 400 ton form factor than it does in a 200 ton form factor, primarily because of the scaling of various starship equipment (bridge, computer, fire control for turrets, staterooms, low berths, etc.) being more or less "fixed" while everything else (drives, fuel tankage, etc.) grows in proportion to the hull displacement.

So this ^ is what I've found out, through running numbers. J1 can cut a profit on just tickets. J2 can in a very limited set of circumstances, J3 cannot.

 

[kilemall]

Speculation.

Subsidized/Patron.

Pay cash for ship.

Don’t forget charter either as a way to pay bills or buy use of a ship without the commitment and capital sink of ownership.

 

[Badenov]

Speculation.

Subsidized/Patron.

Pay cash for ship.

Don’t forget charter either as a way to pay bills or buy use of a ship without the commitment and capital sink of ownership.

Yes, but I'm assuming ships have to get a start somewhere? Or do megacorps buy passenger ships, then run them at what would be a loss if they were repaying a loan? That's not a plan players can match.

 

[Rupert]

Sorry to resurrect a thread everyone was done with, but I have another question related to ship design and what techniques work:

I can design a ship at 200 Tons and Jump 2, minimum everything, with one turret and a gunner for a show of defense, though with Thrust 1 and Comp 1, kind of useless. Crew staterooms are all 2T to save space, but hopefully profit sharing will offset that suck. This is all at TL15, where the power plant is much smaller (and less expensive). At TL12, I can't even break even at Jump 2, only at Jump 1.

The problem is, if I upgrade to Jump 3 (or 2 at TL12), I lose passenger space (and thus revenue) and I can no longer cut a profit running passengers at the stated rate, 10,000 credits regardless of Jump distance. I can offset this be increasing the ship size to get more paying passengers in, but now I have to sell more tickets, too. What am I doing wrong? Is it flat-out impossible to run a purely passenger-based operation by the RAW? I notice all the sample ships, even the "Subsidized Liner" has cargo in addition to passenger space. And it's subsidized, does that mean the authors thought it couldn't turn a profit normally?

You're trying to make a really small ship profitable with less than minimal space and money put into engines and fuel. I submit that this probably should be a big ask or even impossible.

 

[Rupert]

The problem is the trade rules are pretty easy to game, you just need to find a pair of complimentary planets right next to each other and then get your ship there.

And then pray that the right cargos turn up reasonably often...

 

[Spinward Flow]

So this ^ is what I've found out, through running numbers. J1 can cut a profit on just tickets. J2 can in a very limited set of circumstances, J3 cannot.

The best thing you can do in order to "slide the profit margin towards positive" is to invest in a fuel purification plant. Being able to wilderness refuel and purify your own refined fuel saves SO MUCH MONEY on every jump, it's kind of unfair. Basically, a fuel purification plant "pays for itself within a month" of starting to use it. That kind of rate of return on costs avoided can REALLY help your bottom line(s)!

The next big thing you can do is "concentrate on cargo first, (high) passengers second" as a priority for ticket revenues. Most worlds you go to with a Population: 5+ will tend to have "sufficient cargo" volume bound for wherever you might want to go next, even if you're going to an Amber Zone, if your cargo capacity is ~40-100 tons. But if you've got 8 high passenger staterooms, it can be a challenge to keep those filled if you aren't going to Population: 8+ worlds on the regular (which tend to be in the minority). Point being, it's easier to score tickets for cargo tonnage than it is to score tickets for high passenger staterooms. If you "balance" your revenue tonnage capacity "unhelpfully" (too many staterooms, not enough cargo) you can wind up leaving a LOT of potential income on the table simply because your starship isn't outfitted in a way that is best for the world markets of the region you want to be operating in. Corollary to that is the notion that it's perfectly fine to be "all cargo, no passengers" and work as an interstellar "delivery van" type merchant (which, incidentally is better for speculative goods arbitrage windfall profit opportunities). The lack of (high) passenger accommodations means you can have a smaller crew (no need for a steward's salary, life support overhead or stateroom tonnage) and have less concerns about an "inside job" of hijacking. The downside, of course, is that you then miss out on those "patron" opportunities that can arise from time to time depending on who your passengers are.

 

[Badenov]

The best thing you can do in order to "slide the profit margin towards positive" is to invest in a fuel purification plant. Being able to wilderness refuel and purify your own refined fuel saves SO MUCH MONEY on every jump, it's kind of unfair. Basically, a fuel purification plant "pays for itself within a month" of starting to use it. That kind of rate of return on costs avoided can REALLY help your bottom line(s)!

Already part of the plan.

The next big thing you can do is "concentrate on cargo first, (high) passengers second" as a priority for ticket revenues. Most worlds you go to with a Population: 5+ will tend to have "sufficient cargo" volume bound for wherever you might want to go next, even if you're going to an Amber Zone, if your cargo capacity is ~40-100 tons. But if you've got 8 high passenger staterooms, it can be a challenge to keep those filled if you aren't going to Population: 8+ worlds on the regular (which tend to be in the minority). Point being, it's easier to score tickets for cargo tonnage than it is to score tickets for high passenger staterooms. If you "balance" your revenue tonnage capacity "unhelpfully" (too many staterooms, not enough cargo) you can wind up leaving a LOT of potential income on the table simply because your starship isn't outfitted in a way that is best for the world markets of the region you want to be operating in. Corollary to that is the notion that it's perfectly fine to be "all cargo, no passengers" and work as an interstellar "delivery van" type merchant (which, incidentally is better for speculative goods arbitrage windfall profit opportunities). The lack of (high) passenger accommodations means you can have a smaller crew (no need for a steward's salary, life support overhead or stateroom tonnage) and have less concerns about an "inside job" of hijacking. The downside, of course, is that you then miss out on those "patron" opportunities that can arise from time to time depending on who your passengers are.

I will revise my design. I had been hoping that a passenger-only vessel would be profitable, but no. Even charging more than 3x the normal rate, it scrapes by on 0.02% profit per year. Plus 1/40 of a spaceship, of course. Whereas the no mortgage ship, at listed rates (10K/1st Class) makes 1.15% per year. Not huge money, but a small profit.

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.

Clearly, pure passenger craft are the purview of corps.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Clearly, pure passenger craft are the purview of corps.

It's POSSIBLE to make a pure passenger (liner) a profitable business ... but you can't really do it as a tramp free trader.

One way to make a passenger only starship profitable is to operate on a charter basis.
Yes, it means that you're only getting 90% revenue from the tickets ... but ... it then becomes the responsibility of a third party to fill up all the (high) passenger staterooms, rather than the captain's responsibility (when they arrive in port). Basically, the starship contracts with a third party (who then gets to control the routing of the destinations) on a long term basis ... which can involve a year's worth of jumping around (for example). At that point, so long as the starship can be operated at a profit on interstellar charter, regardless of how many passengers+cargo gets loaded on board, the operator "gets paid" (even if they "jump empty" at some point along the route).

The third party business has "local" offices and staff responsible for each world along the charter route and the staff of those offices live and work on those worlds, scooping up high passenger ticket demand every week and consolidate them (package deal style) to fill out the accommodations of the starship that the company has chartered. In other words, there are "locals" at every stop who are doing the "legwork" of gathering up the high passengers for the starship operator ... the starship just needs to "show up to unload and load up" before getting underway again.

A bit like a dispatcher for a trucking company, in terms of business model. The trucker doesn't choose what they're hauling around, the dispatcher company does all the legwork of finding freight cargoes that need to be moved and getting them to where the trucker is going to be at particular times. Same basic idea, except you're doing it with (high) passengers instead of freight cargoes.

I had been hoping that a passenger-only vessel would be profitable, but no.

Depends on how you build it ... and what the intended market segment is.

Another thing to think about is the operational tempo for the starship.

Most of the time, merchant starships are designed for a single jump per refueling cycle.
When the operational tempo is 1 week in jump followed by 1 week of business (basically 8 days for jump and 6 days in a starport berth doing business), you're earning 2 tickets per month. If you jump 25 times per year (50 weeks) and reserve 2 weeks for annual overhaul maintenance ... that's 25 tickets per year.
(8+6) * 25 = 350 + 14 = 364 days

However, if you're double jumping (8 days jump, 8 days jump, 6 days in a starport berth doing business), you can actually squeeze more jumps (and therefore, more tickets!) into the span of a single year.
(8+8+6) * 16 = 352 + 14 = 366 days
16 double jumps per year means 32 tickets to sell instead of only 25 tickets in a year ... which means 1.28x as much ticket revenue on identical revenue tonnage over the same span of time (1 year). You go to fewer (final) destinations (16 vs 25) but you get to sell more tickets because you're spending a greater proportion of your time in jump (which is what you're getting paid for).

Consequently, there are some ... hidden advantages ... economically speaking, to choosing a J1+1 class design (using a collapsible fuel tank for the extra parsec) compared to choosing a J2 class design. More powerful drives (code: 2 vs code: 1) are "construction cost DENSE" for their tonnage, creating certain edge cases where it's more economical to add more fuel to increase range than it is to increase drive power for increased range.



As a bit of fun, try taking a J1 Free Trader and add a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank to it. Then pit the (now) J1+1 Free Trader against a J2 Far Trader and see how the economics turn out when the tickets are sold on a "per jump" basis (regardless of range per jump) rather than on a "per parsec" basis. You might be surprised to see how a (slightly modified) J1+1 Free Trader stacks up against a J2 Far Trader ... especially considering the fact that the J1+1 Free Trader only costs ~62.5% of the construction cost of the J2 Far Trader (which makes a HUGE difference in mortgage payments!).

Incidentally, a J1+1 Free Trader sounds like it would make for an excellent microjumper within a single star system (to reach Far Companion stars and the like). The starship could make 12 round trips (24 microjumps) per year and would only need to refuel at one "end" of the circuit, creating an "in-system shuttle" service between far flung orbits that are "impractical" to reach via maneuver drive (in 8 days or less).

 

[Condottiere]

Flight Crews Accused of Running Brothels, Bringing Drugs on Board

JetBlue flight attendant caught allegedly trying to sneak nearly 70 pounds of cocaine on board, and a United pilot is accused of running brothels in the Houston area.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Agree, as noted below.
*snipped for space*

So this ^ is what I've found out, through running numbers. J1 can cut a profit on just tickets. J2 can in a very limited set of circumstances, J3 cannot.

Quick summary: nothing short of ships using the LBB2 Z-sized drives can turn a profit on cargo at Cr1K/Td/jump at higher than J-1 (and those will have difficulty filling their holds). If you house-rule to Cr1K/Td/parsec, J2 and J3 become viable when run at max Jn. J4+ still needs a promptness bonus or charter rates to be viable on non-speculative cargo even at per-parsec rates.

Yes, it's broken -- good enough to keep a Type A or Type R going, but if you want to upgrade to J-2, you'll need to transition to speculative trading.

The cargo rules should support carrying generic cargo at higher Jns. They don't.

 

[Badenov]

It's POSSIBLE to make a pure passenger (liner) a profitable business ... but you can't really do it as a tramp free trader.

One way to make a passenger only starship profitable is to operate on a charter basis.

That assumes you're getting hired enough to cover your mortgage. That's the long pole in the tent that pure passenger trade has a hard time getting past. Getting hired at 90% of your full capacity even at 25 runs a year is close to the edge. My current model assumes 24 runs a year, with a week before and after overhaul in case you need to transit to a planet with suitable facilities.

Depends on how you build it ... and what the intended market segment is.

Another thing to think about is the operational tempo for the starship.

Most of the time, merchant starships are designed for a single jump per refueling cycle.
When the operational tempo is 1 week in jump followed by 1 week of business (basically 8 days for jump and 6 days in a starport berth doing business), you're earning 2 tickets per month. If you jump 25 times per year (50 weeks) and reserve 2 weeks for annual overhaul maintenance ... that's 25 tickets per year.
(8+6) * 25 = 350 + 14 = 364 days

However, if you're double jumping (8 days jump, 8 days jump, 6 days in a starport berth doing business), you can actually squeeze more jumps (and therefore, more tickets!) into the span of a single year.
(8+8+6) * 16 = 352 + 14 = 366 days
16 double jumps per year means 32 tickets to sell instead of only 25 tickets in a year ... which means 1.28x as much ticket revenue on identical revenue tonnage over the same span of time (1 year). You go to fewer (final) destinations (16 vs 25) but you get to sell more tickets because you're spending a greater proportion of your time in jump (which is what you're getting paid for).

Consequently, there are some ... hidden advantages ... economically speaking, to choosing a J1+1 class design (using a collapsible fuel tank for the extra parsec) compared to choosing a J2 class design. More powerful drives (code: 2 vs code: 1) are "construction cost DENSE" for their tonnage, creating certain edge cases where it's more economical to add more fuel to increase range than it is to increase drive power for increased range.

Have not tried the double jumping plan. I would assume that any ship that can single-jump the same route would outsell me. Though relying on drop tanks brings up the idea that if drop tanks are available in both systems, and the cost is not onerous (it's 0.1Mcr/50T in MgT1, not sure about CT), you can just make a ship with the full volume available to cargo and fuel exclusively in a drop tank. This would require high ports at both ends, and paying for fuel, but would save a huge chunk of space in your ship, particularly for higher jumps.

As a bit of fun, try taking a J1 Free Trader and add a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank to it. Then pit the (now) J1+1 Free Trader against a J2 Far Trader and see how the economics turn out when the tickets are sold on a "per jump" basis (regardless of range per jump) rather than on a "per parsec" basis. You might be surprised to see how a (slightly modified) J1+1 Free Trader stacks up against a J2 Far Trader ... especially considering the fact that the J1+1 Free Trader only costs ~62.5% of the construction cost of the J2 Far Trader (which makes a HUGE difference in mortgage payments!).

Incidentally, a J1+1 Free Trader sounds like it would make for an excellent microjumper within a single star system (to reach Far Companion stars and the like). The starship could make 12 round trips (24 microjumps) per year and would only need to refuel at one "end" of the circuit, creating an "in-system shuttle" service between far flung orbits that are "impractical" to reach via maneuver drive (in 8 days or less).

That's an interesting plan.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Quick summary: nothing short of ships using the LBB2 Z-sized drives can turn a profit on cargo at Cr1K/Td/jump at higher than J-1 (and those will have difficulty filling their holds).

Don't forget subsidised ships...

A LBB5 Sub Liner (hence with purifier using unrefined fuel) can be profitable at J-3 (barely):

Spoiler:

M3-61313S2-030000-10001-0        MCr 295         600 Dton
bearing     1     1   1                           Crew=10
batteries   1     1   1                             TL=12
         Pass=40 Low=20 Cargo=67 Fuel=210 EP=18 Agility=1

Single Occupancy                                   67,7     295,3
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             6          600           
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                     72 
Scoops              Streamlined                               0,6
                                                                
Jump Drive          J                  3    1      50        90 
Manoeuvre D         C                  1    1       5        12 
Power Plant         J                  3    1      28        72 
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-3, 4 weeks            3      30           
Purifier                                    1       6,3       0,0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1      20         3 
Computer            m/2bis             S    1       2        18 
                                                                
Staterooms                                 50     200        25 
Low Berths                                 20      10         1 
                                                                
Cargo                                              67,7         
Demountable Tanks   J-3                     1     180         0,2
                                                                
Mixed Turret        Full                    1       1           
  Weapon            Missile            1    1                 0,8
  Weapon            Pulse              1    1                 0,5
  Weapon            Sand               3    1                 0,3
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 295,31           Sum:      67,7     295,3
Class Cost          MCr  62,02          Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 236,25                                   
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High    20        Crew          Bridge     2
Passengers            Mid    20          10       Engineers     3
                      Low    20                     Gunners     1
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     4
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines     0                     Marines     0
                                                                
                                                                
Estimated Economy of Ship     Custom                   Subsidised         
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
       MCr 295,31       kCr 62 015        kCr 1 230              80%
                                                                
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                 
Bank                 Cr      0          High            Cr 80 000
Fuel                 Cr 21 000          Middle          Cr 64 000
Life Support         Cr 86 000          Low             Cr  8 000
Salaries             Cr 17 280          Cargo           Cr 24 000
Maintenance          Cr 11 812          Mail contract   Cr 12 500        
Berthing             Cr    600                                   
                                                                
Summa               kCr    137                         kCr    189
                                                                
     Income potential per jump     kCr 52                   
  Yearly yield on down payment      2,1%

If you house-rule to Cr1K/Td/parsec, J2 and J3 become viable when run at max Jn. J4+ still needs a promptness bonus or charter rates to be viable on non-speculative cargo even at per-parsec rates.

Yes, if you want higher jump ships to be profitable, house rule the freight rates. I have found Cr 500 + Cr 500 × Jump usable...

Though relying on drop tanks brings up the idea that if drop tanks are available in both systems, and the cost is not onerous (it's 0.1Mcr/50T in MgT1, not sure about CT), you can just make a ship with the full volume available to cargo and fuel exclusively in a drop tank.

And you run into this. Z-drives plus drop tanks leads to surprisingly cheap transport capacity.

This is wildly profitable at J-6 and Cr 3000 per Dt:

Spoiler:

M6-B666662-000000-00000-0        MCr 767       2 000 Dton    Ag=5
M6-C633362-000000-00000-0        MCr 767       3 200 Dton
bearing                                           Crew=21
batteries                                           TL=15
           Cargo=1535 Fuel=60 EP=120 Agility=3 DropT=1200

Single Occupancy                                  1 535       767
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             B          2 000         
Configuration       Flattened Sphe     6                      160
Scoops              Streamlined                                 2
                                                                
Drop Tanks          1 200 Dton                                  1
Total tonnage       3 200 Dton                                   
                                                                
Jump Drive          Z                  6    1       125       240
Manoeuvre D         Z                  6    1        47        96
Power Plant         Z                  6    1        73       192
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-6, 4 weeks            6        60         
Purifier                                    1        19         0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        40        10
Computer            m/6                6    1         7        55
                                                                
Staterooms                                 21        84        11
                                                                
Cargo                                             1 535         
                                                                
Empty hardpoint                            10        10         
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 766,90           Sum:     1 535       767
Class Cost          MCr 161,05          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 613,52                                   
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    11
Passengers            Mid     0          21       Engineers     3
                      Low     0                     Gunners     0
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     7
               # 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 766,90      kCr 161 049        kCr 3 195              80%
                                                                
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                 
Bank              Cr 1 533 800          High         Cr         0
Fuel + Drop Tanks Cr 1 326 000          Middle       Cr         0
Life Support      Cr    42 000          Low          Cr         0
Salaries          Cr    42 240          Cargo        Cr 3 684 000
Maintenance       Cr    30 676                                   
Berthing          Cr     2 000                                   
                                                                
Summa            kCr     2 977                      kCr     3 684
                                                                
     Income potential per jump     kCr 707                   
  Yearly yield on down payment     11,0%

 

[kilemall]

Of course from a business plan the J-thing is all bad- but from a game perspective this is content.

You have to have gone next level to either buy at reduced/total cost speculation or gone subsidized line in order to even play at this level.

So you either build up to Leviathan epic super trader, Firefly do bad/questionable deeds, or your own mini-Oberlindes Lines with all the headaches and high level intrigue that entails.

I think this was deliberate design.

 

[Condottiere]

You could also find a traffic intensive system, and just concentrate on intra system commerce.

Build up your nest egg, and refit a jump drive some point in the (near) future.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Quick summary: nothing short of ships using the LBB2 Z-sized drives can turn a profit on cargo at Cr1K/Td/jump at higher than J-1 (and those will have difficulty filling their holds).

And that's because under LBB2.81 RAW, Drive-Z is 2.5x "too powerful" in terms of power density relative to everything else. Drive-Z will basically "move" 12,000 displacement tons using a drive that in terms of installation tonnage and construction cost ought to be only capable of "moving" 4800 displacement tons.
12,000 / 4800 = 2.5

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.

The fact that it's basically "impossible" to put 1 Drive-Z (let alone 3 of them!) into anything that might be usefully classified as an ACS (that can be taken "off road" on adventures) helped to shield this fact from envious eyes.

Yes, it's broken -- good enough to keep a Type A or Type R going, but if you want to upgrade to J-2, you'll need to transition to speculative trading.

I think this was deliberate design.

Undoubtedly deliberate.
From a game design standpoint (risk vs reward) ... ticket sales are low risk/low reward. Therefore, ticket sales ought to be sufficient to "pay the bills" but not enough to generate enormous profits. Contrast that with speculative goods, which are high risk/high reward ... in which you are quite literally "gambling with your own credits" as a way to increase your profits. There are also downsides, in which traders can make losses on speculative goods, rather than profits, so theoretically (broadly speaking) the two paradigms are somewhat "balanced" against each other.

Ticket sales pay for overhead operating expenses.
Speculative goods arbitrage "pays for the whole operation" in ways that make business expansion possible. It's only through speculative goods arbitrage that you can HOPE to make sufficient profits to "roll over" into buying a new starship or "retire" into a life of (adequate) luxury.

That assumes you're getting hired enough to cover your mortgage.

Assuming you're even operating on a mortgage basis.
If your starship is subsidized, long term charters (in excess of 2 weeks/1 jump) are entirely possible. If there's a 3rd party that wants to put together a "shuttle circulator" business, but doesn't want to operate the craft themselves in order to do it (we would call that "outsourcing" today), then all they need is an operator who is willing to work on a long(er) term charter contract basis.

I would assume that any ship that can single-jump the same route would outsell me.

Maybe ... maybe not.

Let's take 2 scenarios and pit them against each other.
I've done this before, but it bears repeating.

Let's say that you've got 2 starships (a J1+1 and a J2) competing on a shuttle service between 2 worlds that are 2 parsecs apart.

• The J1+1 starship operator enters a long term (renewed annually) interstellar charter with a 3rd party company for services on this route.
• The J2 starship operator wants to be an independent free trader without any strings attached or obligations to 3rd parties.

What happens in terms of ticket sales?



Let's start with the J2 starship operator, because that's going to be the more familiar case.

The J2 starship departs every 2 weeks (1 week in jump, 1 week of business on each world) and they just keep jumping back and forth between these 2 worlds.

Let's stipulate that 1 of the 2 worlds is the "home port" for the starship operator, so they always want to perform annual overhaul maintenance at their home port every year. This then means that the starship will be departing (outbound) 24 times per year and will effectively have 24x 1 week of business operations per year while the starship is berthed at the starport and running their business operations. Everything operates on a "just in time" basis of negotiation for passengers and freight cargo tickets when the starship arrives at each world ... so call it 24 weeks worth of business dealings per year, with a 1 month vacation for the crew every year during which annual overhaul maintenance occurs at the "home port" for the starship.

So far, so ordinary, right?



Now compare that business model with a J1+1 starship operator that has a long term (renewed annually) charter contract with a 3rd party business that has local offices on both worlds in this example.

The J1 starship departs every 3 weeks (2 weeks in jump, 1 week of business on each world) and they just keep jumping back and forth between these 2 worlds (just like the previous example).

Let's also stipulate (again) that 1 of the 2 worlds is the "home port" of the starship operator, so they always want to perform annual overhaul maintenance at their home port every year. This then means that the starship will be departing (outbound) 16 times per year ... but the shipping manifests are not being filled by the starship operator, they're instead being filled by the 3rd party with the long term charter contract.

What this means (in practice) is that the 3rd party company is "getting roll" for passengers and cargoes "once per week" on EACH WORLD that they have offices on (which would be both worlds). This means that the 3rd party is conducting "business" to secure passenger and freight cargo ticket sales for 16*3=48 weeks per year PER WORLD in this example.

In other words, the 3rd party company is able to conduct "96 weeks worth of business" securing ticket sales to customers per year for the J1+1 starship, compared to the "24 weeks of business" that the J2 independent free trader can do every year.

In other words, the 3rd party company with local offices on the 2 worlds can do 4x the amount of business annually than the independent can. That kind of partnership can EASILY increase the "volume of trade" demand for the J1+1 starship operator, making it practical for them to run a larger starship with a higher revenue tonnage fraction/absolute capacity compared to their J2 competitor.

Everything operates on a "preset schedule" basis, with the J1+1 starship arriving for unloading and loading on a relatively routine (predictable) timetable. The 3rd party company office on each world therefore has basically 6 weeks to "scoop up" all of the ticket sales for the next departure by the starship. Compare that to having only 1 week on each world to gather up ticket sales in the case of the J2 independent.

The J1+1 starship operator also gets a 1 month vacation for the crew every year during which annual overhaul maintenance occurs at the "home port" for the starship.



Now, if you were to compare those two business models against each other ... which one would you expect to be more "successful" in the long run?

• The J2 independent
• The J1+1 charter operator partnered with a 3rd party

I would be putting my investment credits on the charter operator and the 3rd party.

Why?
While the J1+1 starship may not be "as fast" to transit 2 parsecs, the 3rd party "dispatcher" company is able to more efficiently aggregate more business per year, leading to a higher demand for ticket sales and services. Therefore, it's not the "speed" of the starship that matters (4 week round trip vs 6 week round trip), it's the volume of demand for services that sustains the operation. It's a classic case of "we make it up in volume" which in turn "keeps the trains running on time" in a dependable way that supply chains then come to rely upon.

And that's not even including the fact that the J2 independent operator would be earning 24 ticket cycles per year, while the J1+1 charter contract operator would be earning 32 ticket cycles per year (2 tickets per departure).

The J2 independent is cheaper ... but the J1+1 charter operator can manage higher volumes of demand, sufficient to need either a bigger starship or "more than 1 starship" in order to meet the demands for transport.



Guess which operation will tend to generate higher profits in the long run?

If it's purely a matter of ticket sales, my investment credits would be going to the operation that is conducting more business per year ... which would then be the 3rd party "shore support" and annually renewed charter contract operation, simply because they are able to sell tickets "continuously, year round" on each world they have an office on. By contrast, the independent operator can only sell tickets on each world "only 1 week out of every 4 weeks" that they are on world and able to conduct business there ... meaning that the 3 weeks out of every 4 that the starship is NOT there on each world are "lost opportunities" for additional business.



Point being that "how you structure" your operations can make a huge difference in the volume of trade (and therefore, ticket demand) you can expect as a starship operator.

Note that the megacorporations are basically doing an "incestuous 3rd party" version of the above scenario as a matter of standard practice, basically EVERYWHERE. Go figure how much of an advantage that gives them over the "small time independent Free Trader" who is (desperately) fighting for table scraps on a "catch as catch can" basis in the spot market of every world they go to.



There's a reason why 90% of Free Traders go bankrupt, while the megacorporations stick around ...

 

[mike wightman]

Sorry to resurrect a thread everyone was done with, but I have another question related to ship design and what techniques work:

I can design a ship at 200 Tons and Jump 2, minimum everything, with one turret and a gunner for a show of defense, though with Thrust 1 and Comp 1, kind of useless. Crew staterooms are all 2T to save space, but hopefully profit sharing will offset that suck. This is all at TL15, where the power plant is much smaller (and less expensive). At TL12, I can't even break even at Jump 2, only at Jump 1.

The problem is, if I upgrade to Jump 3 (or 2 at TL12), I lose passenger space (and thus revenue) and I can no longer cut a profit running passengers at the stated rate, 10,000 credits regardless of Jump distance. I can offset this be increasing the ship size to get more paying passengers in, but now I have to sell more tickets, too. What am I doing wrong? Is it flat-out impossible to run a purely passenger-based operation by the RAW? I notice all the sample ships, even the "Subsidized Liner" has cargo in addition to passenger space. And it's subsidized, does that mean the authors thought it couldn't turn a profit normally?

Which trading game are you using?

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.

Speculative trade has a few requirements:
a sizable amount of capital to buy speculative goods
worlds close together that have complimentary trade codes (if you can find three worlds in a triangle each with a different trade code then things are so much easier )
having a high level of admin skill or bribery helps with resale.

It is boring, and it will take years of game time, but you will make enough to pay off your mortgage, then you can start saving. Save enough to buy your next ship upfront. Your next ship can be jump 2 or even jump 3, focus on speculative trade and you will continue to see a profit, the question is what to do with your first ship.
Sell it? Crew it with NPCs to continue generating credits?

 

[Badenov]

No arguement

Let's take 2 scenarios and pit them against each other.
I've done this before, but it bears repeating.

Let's say that you've got 2 starships (a J1+1 and a J2) competing on a shuttle service between 2 worlds that are 2 parsecs apart.

• The J1+1 starship operator enters a long term (renewed annually) interstellar charter with a 3rd party company for services on this route.
• The J2 starship operator wants to be an independent free trader without any strings attached or obligations to 3rd parties.

What happens in terms of ticket sales?



Let's start with the J2 starship operator, because that's going to be the more familiar case.

The J2 starship departs every 2 weeks (1 week in jump, 1 week of business on each world) and they just keep jumping back and forth between these 2 worlds.

Let's stipulate that 1 of the 2 worlds is the "home port" for the starship operator, so they always want to perform annual overhaul maintenance at their home port every year. This then means that the starship will be departing (outbound) 24 times per year and will effectively have 24x 1 week of business operations per year while the starship is berthed at the starport and running their business operations. Everything operates on a "just in time" basis of negotiation for passengers and freight cargo tickets when the starship arrives at each world ... so call it 24 weeks worth of business dealings per year, with a 1 month vacation for the crew every year during which annual overhaul maintenance occurs at the "home port" for the starship.

So far, so ordinary, right?



Now compare that business model with a J1+1 starship operator that has a long term (renewed annually) charter contract with a 3rd party business that has local offices on both worlds in this example.

The J1 starship departs every 3 weeks (2 weeks in jump, 1 week of business on each world) and they just keep jumping back and forth between these 2 worlds (just like the previous example).

Let's also stipulate (again) that 1 of the 2 worlds is the "home port" of the starship operator, so they always want to perform annual overhaul maintenance at their home port every year. This then means that the starship will be departing (outbound) 16 times per year ... but the shipping manifests are not being filled by the starship operator, they're instead being filled by the 3rd party with the long term charter contract.

What this means (in practice) is that the 3rd party company is "getting roll" for passengers and cargoes "once per week" on EACH WORLD that they have offices on (which would be both worlds). This means that the 3rd party is conducting "business" to secure passenger and freight cargo ticket sales for 16*3=48 weeks per year PER WORLD in this example.

In other words, the 3rd party company is able to conduct "96 weeks worth of business" securing ticket sales to customers per year for the J1+1 starship, compared to the "24 weeks of business" that the J2 independent free trader can do every year.

In other words, the 3rd party company with local offices on the 2 worlds can do 4x the amount of business annually than the independent can. That kind of partnership can EASILY increase the "volume of trade" demand for the J1+1 starship operator, making it practical for them to run a larger starship with a higher revenue tonnage fraction/absolute capacity compared to their J2 competitor.

Everything operates on a "preset schedule" basis, with the J1+1 starship arriving for unloading and loading on a relatively routine (predictable) timetable. The 3rd party company office on each world therefore has basically 6 weeks to "scoop up" all of the ticket sales for the next departure by the starship. Compare that to having only 1 week on each world to gather up ticket sales in the case of the J2 independent.

The J1+1 starship operator also gets a 1 month vacation for the crew every year during which annual overhaul maintenance occurs at the "home port" for the starship.



Now, if you were to compare those two business models against each other ... which one would you expect to be more "successful" in the long run?

• The J2 independent
• The J1+1 charter operator partnered with a 3rd party

I would be putting my investment credits on the charter operator and the 3rd party.

Why?
While the J1+1 starship may not be "as fast" to transit 2 parsecs, the 3rd party "dispatcher" company is able to more efficiently aggregate more business per year, leading to a higher demand for ticket sales and services. Therefore, it's not the "speed" of the starship that matters (4 week round trip vs 6 week round trip), it's the volume of demand for services that sustains the operation. It's a classic case of "we make it up in volume" which in turn "keeps the trains running on time" in a dependable way that supply chains then come to rely upon.

And that's not even including the fact that the J2 independent operator would be earning 24 ticket cycles per year, while the J1+1 charter contract operator would be earning 32 ticket cycles per year (2 tickets per departure).

I am fine with charter companies in general, though paying a mortgage on 90% of full capability is very hard. But I get hung up in this specific example. Are you saying a passenger buys 2 tickets, for 20,000 credits, on the J1+1 for the same destination the other ship makes in one jump?

Why would anyone spend twice as much for a slower trip?

The J2 independent is cheaper ... but the J1+1 charter operator can manage higher volumes of demand, sufficient to need either a bigger starship or "more than 1 starship" in order to meet the demands for transport.

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?

Guess which operation will tend to generate higher profits in the long run?

If it's purely a matter of ticket sales, my investment credits would be going to the operation that is conducting more business per year ... which would then be the 3rd party "shore support" and annually renewed charter contract operation, simply because they are able to sell tickets "continuously, year round" on each world they have an office on. By contrast, the independent operator can only sell tickets on each world "only 1 week out of every 4 weeks" that they are on world and able to conduct business there ... meaning that the 3 weeks out of every 4 that the starship is NOT there on each world are "lost opportunities" for additional business.

If the RAW says the J1+1 sells any tickets, regardless of marketing, I suggest that the RAW is not adequate to the task of managing this situation.

Point being that "how you structure" your operations can make a huge difference in the volume of trade (and therefore, ticket demand) you can expect as a starship operator.

So, this makes sense, at least in the context of pct passengers vs pct cargo.

Note that the megacorporations are basically doing an "incestuous 3rd party" version of the above scenario as a matter of standard practice, basically EVERYWHERE. Go figure how much of an advantage that gives them over the "small time independent Free Trader" who is (desperately) fighting for table scraps on a "catch as catch can" basis in the spot market of every world they go to.



There's a reason why 90% of Free Traders go bankrupt, while the megacorporations stick around ...

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.

Which trading game are you using?

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.

This^ with the caveat that passengers are not the main cash source.