Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > Mongoose Traveller

Mongoose Traveller Discussion forums for the Traveller rules from Mongoose Publishing.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 7th, 2008, 08:39 PM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,705
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rancke View Post
Quote:
And the fact that starship costs are largely fixed means that it's possible that the total cost of making a Jump-4 is less than the total cost of making 2 jump-2's.
But if you actually work it out, it turns out that it isn't.
I'm not so sure about that. I just ran out 2 600 ton CT ships, 1 with jump-2 and 1 with Jump-4. The monthly expenses for the Jump 4 ship were KCr1,525.643. The monthly expenses for the Jump 2 ship were KCr1,039.275.

The J-4 ship takes half the time as the J-2 ship, so the J-4 ship's expenses are halved to determine the cost of the trip.

So, in terms of raw expenses, the Jump-4 ship is cheaper on one Jump-4 than the Jump-2 ship would be on two Jump-2s. KCr762 vs KCr1039.

It gets more complex because the Jump-2 ships can carry nearly twice the cargo as the Jump-4 ship. Unfortunately, the analysis stalls out due to the fact that both ships are bankrupt using CT starship economics.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old February 7th, 2008, 08:44 PM
Peter Schutze Peter Schutze is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 478
Gallery : 2
Peter Schutze Citizen
Default

>Ships just don't last more than a century

what part wouldnt make it ? ignoring upgrades etc we have airplanes that were built for WW2 still operating (usually safely) and today we have much better materials tech.

A DC3 built from modern materials should last a century if one built in haste during the 40s can last 60+ years ! With the regular overhaul process in traveller, Id expect any traveller ship to be "quite new" as all parts are slowly replaced, just like most modern aircraft.

>The big problem is that as the rules stand, there is no reason why is shouldn't be worth almost 100% even after 40 years. The maintenance costs are no higher, the risk of breakdown is no higher.

just like real life equipment, starship mainenance should be based on the "wear value". Brand new ships from megacorp shipyards would probably even have a 5 year warranty provided the maintenance schedule was carefully followed
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old February 7th, 2008, 09:01 PM
rancke's Avatar
rancke rancke is offline
Absent Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 12,238
Gallery : 11
rancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I'm not so sure about that. I just ran out 2 600 ton CT ships, 1 with jump-2 and 1 with Jump-4. The monthly expenses for the Jump 4 ship were KCr1,525.643. The monthly expenses for the Jump 2 ship were KCr1,039.275.

The J-4 ship takes half the time as the J-2 ship, so the J-4 ship's expenses are halved to determine the cost of the trip.

So, in terms of raw expenses, the Jump-4 ship is cheaper on one Jump-4 than the Jump-2 ship would be on two Jump-2s. KCr762 vs KCr1039.

It gets more complex because the Jump-2 ships can carry nearly twice the cargo as the Jump-4 ship. Unfortunately, the analysis stalls out due to the fact that both ships are bankrupt using CT starship economics.
No, it doesn't. Simply figure out how many passengers the jump-2 ship carries in a year and divide the yearly expenses by that number. That will give you the realistic ticket cost of jump-2 shipping. Then divide by two to get the per-parsec cost. Repeat for the jump-4 ship except you divide by four to get the per-parsec cost. If you ship is a CT design, the results will be a bit different than the results I got from my T4 designs. I prefer T4 because CT has that ridiculous requirement for huge power plant fuel tanks. It's quite possible that one jump-4 jump is cheaper than two jump-2 with CT designs.

The problem with that is that (IMO) there's only one OTU. CT designs are significantly different from T4 designs. One (or both ) of them MUST be wrong for any single universe. They can't both be right at the same time. Which one to chose? The one where fusion power plants burn off ridiculous amounts of fuel every four weeks or the one where fusion plant fuel consumption is a lot more plausible? I know which one I prefer.


Hans
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old February 7th, 2008, 10:21 PM
Anthony Anthony is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 1,422
Gallery : 0
Anthony Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
So, in terms of raw expenses, the Jump-4 ship is cheaper on one Jump-4 than the Jump-2 ship would be on two Jump-2s. KCr762 vs KCr1039.

It gets more complex because the Jump-2 ships can carry nearly twice the cargo as the Jump-4 ship.
That's not really adding complexity. Simply divide expenses by (cargo capacity * jump range) to get cost per ton-parsec, which is the basic figure you need.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old February 7th, 2008, 10:34 PM
aramis's Avatar
aramis aramis is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK, USofA
Posts: 29,057
Gallery : 53
Visit aramis's Blog
aramis has disabled reputation
Send a message via ICQ to aramis Send a message via AIM to aramis Send a message via Yahoo to aramis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Given the numerous flaws in other aspects of the game, my generousity is exhausted.
Your "generosity" appeared exhausted before you even opened the files.

I've noticed several small (but siginficant) changes based upon player input.

Now, Draft 3.1 to 3.2 was no change (but some additions), but 3.0 to 3.1 had a number of small changes.

1 to 2 had a significant number of changes, and 2 to 3 quite a few.
__________________
~ Aramis
aramis.hostman.us /trav
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

Archduke of Sylea (CORE 2118)
Duke of the Third Imperium (SPIN 0534)
Count Terra (SOLO 1827)
Count Gorod (REFT 1302)
Count of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2232)
Viscount of Adabicci (SPIN 1824)
Marquis of the Solomani Rim (SOLO 0606)
Marquis of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2410)
Baron of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2231)
Knight of the Iridium Throne (CORE 1434)
Sir William Hostman (OLDE 0512)
Sir William Hostman (DAGU 0622)
Knight of Deneb (REFT 2239)
Knight of Deneb (Spin 2532)
SEH w/Diamonds for Extreme Heroism - Battle of Boughene
MCG - Battle of Boughene
TAS: William Hostman (CORR 2506)
TAS: Bearer (DAIB 1326)
IMTU ct+ tm++ tne tg-- tt+ tmo+ t4- t20+ to ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au ls pi+ ta he+ st+
Wil Hostman 0602 C539857-9 S A724
OTU: 95% 3i an+ au+ br- cpu± dt± f+ fs++ ge± ih- inf± j± jf+ jm+ jt+ ls- n= nc+ pi+ pp-- tp+ tr+ tv- vi-- xb+-
Unless there is bold red text, presume my posts to be my personal material only.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old February 7th, 2008, 10:38 PM
Ishmael Ishmael is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Moggill
Posts: 909
Gallery : 0
Ishmael Citizen
Default

It seems to me that one should work out the macro-economics of trade partners (PE style or even just the method from striker or TCS ) in order to have a decent guess at supply and demand. That in turn should give a clue as to trade volume and thus cargo availability and price, not just for buying cargo/speculation, but expense goods too. Otherwise, any numbers you use would be as good as any other numbers..choose ones you like.

the same conditions won't be in place in all locations, so the prices expenses won't be either.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old February 8th, 2008, 05:45 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,705
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramis View Post
Your "generosity" appeared exhausted before you even opened the files.

I've noticed several small (but siginficant) changes based upon player input.
Care to identify these "significant" changes?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old February 8th, 2008, 05:57 AM
sablewyvern sablewyvern is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 144
Gallery : 0
sablewyvern Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Care to identify these "significant" changes?
Not all of these necessarily qualify as significant, but, off the top of my head:

NCO ranks added
Changes to promotion and automatic muster out system
Suvival rolls modified
Skill tables adjusted
Burst fire rule added
Hexadecimal notation added
+3 Characteristic DM moved from E to F
Employer coverage of medical expenses added
Use of expert systems to aid existing skills simplified
Neural links for use of physical expert systems removed

Last edited by sablewyvern; February 8th, 2008 at 06:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old February 8th, 2008, 06:14 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,705
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
That's not really adding complexity. Simply divide expenses by (cargo capacity * jump range) to get cost per ton-parsec, which is the basic figure you need.
Yep, you're right. Long day...

Anyhow, I re-ran my designs (ships identical except for drives; 50% of cargo space devoted to staterooms) and here are the critical facts:

1. The Jump-4 ship's expenses for a single jump are KCr 817.3875. The Jump-2 ship's expenses for a single jump are KCr 598.674.

2. The Jump-2 ship can carry about twice the cargo and passengers of the Jump-4 ship.

3. The Jump-2 ship can carry 2x the cargo as the Jump-4 ship for about 73% of the cost and at 50% of the speed per jump.

4. The Jump-2 ship will deliver 2 "units" of cargo for a total expense of KCr 1197.149 in 2 jumps. The Jump-4 ship will deliver 1 unit of cargo in 1 jump for 817.3875, or 2 units of cargo in 2 jumps for 1634.775 (36.5% more).

So, in CT, the Jump-2 ship is significantly more economical, if time is not a factor. Looks like Ranke and I were both wrong; he argued that two Jump-2's cost a little less than one Jump-4. Of course, he's arguing about T4 designs, so he could be right in that case.

Anyhow, this exercise does point out that proportional per-parsec pricing (i.e., Cr8000 per parsec) does not accurately reflect the costs. In this case, for instance, the cost of a Jump-4 ticket should be about 36.5% more than 2 Jump-2 tickets.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old February 8th, 2008, 06:15 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,705
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sablewyvern View Post
Not all of these necessarily qualify as significant, but, off the top of my head:

NCO ranks added
Changes to promotion and automatic muster out system
Suvival rolls modified
Skill tables adjusted
Burst fire rule added
Hexadecimal notation added
+3 Characteristic DM moved from E to F
Employer coverage of medical expenses added
Use of expert systems to aid existing skills simplified
Neural links for use of physical expert systems removed
Do *any* of them qualify as significant?

What significant changes to the game's mechanics can you identify?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Starship Economics, Book 2 Random Goblin The Fleet 72 June 18th, 2006 05:35 PM
Starship Economics in T20 BetterThanLife The Lone Star 35 October 29th, 2003 07:21 AM
Starship Economics Bob Weaver The Fleet 10 May 6th, 2003 09:57 AM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.