CT Ship Errata Discussion : Akerut Heavy Merchant

[aramis]

J drive Z is only MCr30 more than JDrive W.
PP Z is only MCr24 more than PP W.
MDrive need not change.
That's MCr+54 - but apply the +1% for architecht fees MCr+0.54, and the -MCr5.4 for grouped construction, and it's MCr49.14, unless you discount bulk on the architect fees. (which is unclear in canon).

I made a slight error in my previous calculations - I missed a stateroom.
But I didn't redesign from scratch for the HG versions - The J3 was because you mentioned canonical J3 routes, and I should have done the 3 versions of the J2 as well.

Rebuilding the J1 from scratch

Td	MCr	Item
5000	500	5000Td Hull
___0	_50	Streamlining
___2	_18	Model 2/bis
_100	_25	Bridge
__60	__7.5	15 SR
___0	__0.4	4 Hardpoints
___4	__4	4 Triple Turrets
___0	_12	12 bream lasers
_500	__0	Jump fuel 1J1
__10	__0	PP Fuel 4 Weeks
_110	210	JDrive W
__41	_84	MDrive W
__64	168	PP W
__40	_20	Pinnace
4069	___0	Cargo
5000	1098.9	Totals
—	-109.89	Volume production discount
–	__10.989	Architect Fees
–	_999.999	Total

now THERE is errata. Price and cargo is wrong in the TTA book. Also, at least 5 crew missing, more like 35: missing the captain, the exec, 3 admin ratings, and 30 other crew.

1	0.1	Jump 1
1	0.4	Navigation
1	0.8	Generate
1	0.1	Maneuver

[tc=3]2 MCr of free software which must include [/tc]

Note that Target and either Gunner Interact or Return Fire are likely, as well, and Maneuver/Evade-1 can replace Maneuver. That would fill all six slots.

 

[Carlobrand]

I'm torn between two different lines of argument. One is essentially 'you argument is flawed' and the other is 'your argument is irrelevant'. ...

As you prefer. No one is under any obligation to read anything I write. If they find it useful, I am content. If they find it absurd - well, one can't please everyone.

...It may be easier, but it has the negative effect that our conclusions will be rubbish. Which, I venture to suggest, is a strike against it. ...

My personal opinion is that meaningless conclusions - as with trying to compare different ships using different yardsticks - aren't an improvement over "rubbish" conclusions.

...For comparison between freighters, I can think of no better yardstick that the actual costs of operating them. ..."

Agreed. Now we only need a consistent yardstick for operating costs.

... Are you sure the costs of your J1 and J2 versions really are MCr989 and MCr1037?

Mostly, but ...

...Rebuilding the J1 from scratch

Td	MCr	Item
5000	500	5000Td Hull
___0	_50	Streamlining
___2	_18	Model 2/bis
_100	_25	Bridge
__60	__7.5	15 SR
___0	__0.4	4 Hardpoints
___4	__4	4 Triple Turrets
___0	_12	12 bream lasers
_500	__0	Jump fuel 1J1
__10	__0	PP Fuel 4 Weeks
_110	210	JDrive W
__41	_84	MDrive W
__64	168	PP W
__40	_20	Pinnace
4069	___0	Cargo
5000	1098.9	Totals
—	-109.89	Volume production discount
–	__10.989	Architect Fees
–	_999.999	Total

...

1	0.1	Jump 1
1	0.4	Navigation
1	0.8	Generate
1	0.1	Maneuver

[tc=3]2 MCr of free software which must include [/tc]

Note that Target and either Gunner Interact or Return Fire are likely, as well, and Maneuver/Evade-1 can replace Maneuver. That would fill all six slots.

Aramis' design reminds me that I omitted architect fees, and I did not charge for computer programs. I use an Excel spreadsheet I developed to make Book-2 ships, and it incorporates an IMTU asumption that ships that get the 10% discount do not get charged an architect's fee; you get charged that for the first ship of a class - later ships, you already own the blueprint. However, the canon description claims the ship price includes architect's fees, so Aramis' numbers are more accurate, or else the errata is mentioning architect's fees and it should be called a standard design (after all, Akerut's had 50 of these things built; some architect's getting very rich for very little work). As for computer programs, those aren't usually included, but it's probably a good idea.

...Because at the moment, the results I get is that across two parsecs with refuelling available in between, the J1 version has operating costs of Cr532 per dT per parsec and across two parsecs without intermediate refuelling facilities operating costs of Cr607 per dT per parsec, whereas the J2 version has operating costs of Cr452 per dT per parsec. And those figures (or at least the one for the J2 version) seem suspicious to me, since it would mean that a J2 version would be able to charge Cr1000 per dT per jump and still stay in the black. ...

I don't see the architect's fee having that significant an impact there. I think the problem lies in your underlying assumption: "Total operating expenses: MCr79.83 or Cr904 per dT or MCr452 [Cr452] per dT per parsec." That per parsec cost only applies across two parsecs. If the same ship tried a 1-parsec jump, the cost of the ship and its crew and such wouldn't get cut in half, yet you're comparing that to a ship that is only jumping one parsec. The correct comparison is to either compare the J2 with the J1 covering 2 parsecs (your second set of J1 calculations, where the J1 comes in at Cr532 per dT per parsec) or to do up a set of calculations where the J1 is only moving one parsec, and then compare that to the J1 on a one-parsec run.

 

[rancke]

My personal opinion is that meaningless conclusions - as with trying to compare different ships using different yardsticks - aren't an improvement over "rubbish" conclusions.

But I'm not using different yardsticks. I'm comparing different ships using the same yardstick for them all: Operating costs.

Agreed. Now we only need a consistent yardstick for operating costs.

The amount of money it costs to operate a ship is an entirely consistent yardstick.

I think the problem lies in your underlying assumption: "Total operating expenses: MCr79.83 or Cr904 per dT or MCr452 [Cr452] per dT per parsec." That per parsec cost only applies across two parsecs.

It applies across all distances as long as you use the same distance for both ships. The amount of money it costs to have a ship pick up goods on one world and conveying them to a world X parsecs away compared to the amount of money it costs to have another ship pick up goods on the same first world and conveying them to the same second world X parsecs away.

If the same ship tried a 1-parsec jump, the cost of the ship and its crew and such wouldn't get cut in half, yet you're comparing that to a ship that is only jumping one parsec.

No, I compare it to a ship that is jumping one parsec twice. Start the same place, go to the same destination.

The correct comparison is to either compare the J2 with the J1 covering 2 parsecs (your second set of J1 calculations, where the J1 comes in at Cr532 per dT per parsec)...

Both J1 calculations are for J1 ships moving two parsecs. The differenc eis that in the first case it can refuel in the intermediate system which obviates the need to carry along a second load of fuel and enables it to carry 500 DT more.

...or to do up a set of calculations where the J1 is only moving one parsec, and then compare that to the J1 on a one-parsec run.

If I compare a J1 ship jumping one parsec with a J1 ship jumping one parsec, I trust I'll conclude that they both have the same operating expenses.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...The amount of money it costs to operate a ship is an entirely consistent yardstick. ...

:devil: As long as it's calculated canonically. :devil:

:rofl:

...It applies across all distances as long as you use the same distance for both ships. ...

Okay, this is where we get into the consistent yardstick bit. Let's step back a bit - keeping in mind that my initial figures were slightly off for that architect-fee bit and cost of programs, but it should still be close enough for gub'ment work.

OK, going by these figures supplied by Carlobrando:

J1 5000T Freighter

Cost: MCr989.01
Cargo capacity: 4069
Annual operating expenses:

6.25% amortization+profit: MCr61.81
Crew salaries: MCr0.6
Life support: MCr0.72
Annual maintenance: MCr0.99
Power plant fuel: MCr0.06


Jump fuel depends on number of jumps per year. Since intermediate stops only take 1 week instead of 2, this depends on what route the ship is servicing.

Employed on a one-parsec route: 25 jumps per year carrying a total of 101,725 T of cargo. (Assuming full cargo hold every time).

Jump fuel: 25*MCr0.25 = MCr6.25

Total operating expenses: MCr70.43, or Cr692 per ton of cargo moved.

Here we have a jump-1 ship hopping one parsec, at the end of which he will deliver his cargo and load new cargo - and associated fees for same - precisely once. His operating expenses for the jump will hopefuly be payed for by that transaction.

J2 5000T freighter:

Cost: MCr1037.6
Cargo capacity: 3534

Annual operating expenses:

6.25% amortization+profit: MCr64.85
Crew salaries: MCr0.6
Life support: MCr0.72
Annual maintenance: MCr1.04
Power plant fuel: MCr0.12

Employed on a two-parsec route: 25 jumps per year carrying a total of 88,350 T of cargo.

Jump fuel: 25*Cr500,000 = MCr12.50

Total operating expenses: MCr79.83 or Cr904 per dT or MCr452 per dT per parsec.
...

Okay, here we have a jump-2 ship hopping two parsecs, at the end of which he will deliver his cargo and load new cargo - and associated fees for same - precisely once. His operating expenses for the two-parsec jump will hopefuly be payed for by that one transaction. And, worse for him, he's got less room for cargo in that one transaction.

You're trying to compare costs by parsec covered, when the transactions that pay for those costs occur only once per trip, regardless of the distance covered. The 2-jumper isn't getting paid per parsec - he's getting paid per trip; a per-parsec calculation is only appropriate if he gets to charge more for the extra distance. While I think we both agree that he deserves to charge more for his service, the discussion at the moment rests on the assumption that the per-cargo-ton payoff is the same whether you're jumping one parsec or two.

In other words, the single consistent yardstick is the cost per trip, not per parsec, because the payoff covering those costs is per trip. Otherwise, one can fool oneself into believing a jump-6'er can make a profit because his per-parsec costs are so much lower than the jump-1, when in fact the structure of the game currently hands him a significant loss unless he finds some way around that structure or engages in speculation instead of simple transport.

 

[aramis]

Carlo:

The cost to ship per ton per parsec is the fundamental bottom line from the shipper's point of view. Given the implied price fixing involved with passage coupons, any carrier knows they can value their shipping at "book rate" or more; any booker knows that they can book for not more than that, unless they are desperate, time-limited, or going places that are not routinely served.

The Cr1000/trip works for J1 across the board under Bk 2 (the only question is how much profit). Price-fixing at that level by the government would, generally, be met with glee by shippers - those who can, will do other bonuses to "lower" the cost long term, such as "for every 800Td shipped, get one Mid Passage free" while not actually violating the minimum price regulation. (Where shippers usually balk is maximum price regulation.)

Cr1000/Trip also works for certain J2 designs under Bk2.
The following is an analysis of costs per ton per jump for Bk2 designs. (No promises its error free, but it is basic cargo box.)

Tonnage	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	J6
100	1584.3	4610.6
200	726.6	1667.4	4864.4
400	671.3	1297.6	2250.3	5617	45706.3
600	620.5	1155	2392.2	4414.3	14429.9
800	608.9	1110	2028.2	3988.3	10676.7
1000	640.3	1145.8	2055.4	3972.7	7828.8	36658
2000	595.1	1078	1510.2	2140.2	3282.3	5700.9
3000	616.6	920.5	1260.3	1712
4000	613.4	829.2	1107.2
5000	569.1	765.2
Average	724.61	1457.93	2183.525	3640.75	16384.8	21179.45
Median	618.55	1127.9	2041.8	3980.5	10676.7	21179.45
Max	1584.3	4610.6	4864.4	5617	45706.3	36,658
Min	569.1	765.2	1107.2	1712	3282.3	5,700.9
Std. Dev.	305.184590589586	1136.63795667554	1179.57760327282	1463.32855743336	16889.6051176456	21889.9753358701

Oh, the blanks, BTW, are impossible designs... That hull can't, under Bk2-1981, have that combination of size and range, at least, not without drop tanks.

 

[rancke]

Here we have a jump-1 ship hopping one parsec, at the end of which he will deliver his cargo and load new cargo - and associated fees for same - precisely once. His operating expenses for the jump will hopefuly be payed for by that transaction.

I beg your pardon; yes, you're right, the first example is for a J1 ship carrying stuff one parsec. Sorry, I got confused.

How the operating expenses are paid doesn't matter. What I'm looking at is what those operating expenses are. The shipowner could be paid once a year and the operating expenses would be the same.

Okay, here we have a jump-2 ship hopping two parsecs, at the end of which he will deliver his cargo and load new cargo - and associated fees for same - precisely once. His operating expenses for the two-parsec jump will hopefuly be payed for by that one transaction. And, worse for him, he's got less room for cargo in that one transaction.

Yes, but that's where his advantage over the J1 ship working the same route comes in. The J1 ship has to make two jumps every time it delivers one load; the J2 ship delivers one load every time it makes one jump. Thus the J2 ship delivers 25 loads in a year whereas the J1 ship only delivers 16.7 loads in the same time.

And again, how he covers his operating expenses doesn't affect the operating expenses. If a philanthropist pays the bills and he carries the goods for free, the operating expenses remains the same.

You're trying to compare costs by parsec covered, when the transactions that pay for those costs occur only once per trip, regardless of the distance covered.

Yes, and by dividing the costs by the distance covered, that's precisely what I get.

The 2-jumper isn't getting paid per parsec - he's getting paid per trip; a per-parsec calculation is only appropriate if he gets to charge more for the extra distance.

Wrong. The expenses are the same no matter how they are covered.

Otherwise, one can fool oneself into believing a jump-6'er can make a profit because his per-parsec costs are so much lower than the jump-1,

I don't know how J6 expenses work out with Book2 rules, but going by the QSDS1.4 designs I did a long time ago, the expenses per dT are a lot higher than those of any of the other jump distance. About 12 times more expensive than one J3 jump, IIRC. So even when divided by those six parsecs it covers each jump, it was still about six times more expensive per parsec than a J3 ship.

...when in fact the structure of the game currently hands him a significant loss unless he finds some way around that structure or engages in speculation instead of simple transport.

Once more, how he covers his expenses is not the issue. What those expenses are is. And if I had a dedicated J6 freighter Book 2 design, I'd quite easily be able to calculate them. (I realize that it would have to be smaller than 5000T).


Hans

 

[rancke]

The following is an analysis of costs per ton per jump for Bk2 designs. (No promises its error free, but it is basic cargo box.)

Thanks, Wil, a very interesting document. There are some fascinating implications that I'd enjoy exploring if only I believed that Book 2 designs were sound in a post-HG Traveller universe (note that I didn't say 'legal' but 'sound'). Perhaps one day, when I've done everything there is to do in the OTU smirk, I'll start on creating a Book 2 setting.

Meanwhile, the two figures that pertain to my original argument (J1 5000T Cr594 per ton per jump, J2 5000T Cr794 per ton per jump or Cr397 per ton per parsec) seems to agree pretty well with my figures. A quick estimate shows that the difference in our figures lies in me paying 6.25% as a return on the owner's 20% in addition to the bank payments (if he doesn't get at least that, he'd be better off starting a bank and loaning his money to another shipowner).

It is clear that 5000T J2 ships are about 33% cheaper than 5000T J1 ships across two-parsec links. And as Akerut's trade network is mostly composed of two-parsec links, most of its fleet, custom-designed for Akerut's network as they are, would be J2 designs. Not all of them, of course. There would be some J1 and a few J3 designs to service the J1 and J3 routes. But most.

Q.E.D.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans: While doing the "Old Book 2" (1977 rules) I just noticed a bug in the sheet, so I'm reupdating the info; I edited it above, in case you saved it to disk.

Here's the CT-77 version of the same data:

Tonnage	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	J6
100	1584.3	2741.2	12216.9
200	726.6	1325.2	2673.7	5780.4	20644.7
400	671.3	1092.1	1913.1	2941.9	5904	23110.5
600	620.5	1026.5	1682.4	2868.9	5156.8	14777.7
800	608.9	977.2	1605.8	2626.9	4845.4	10276.9
1000	640.3	1032.9	1651.6	2740.7	1260.9	8049.9
2000	595.1	971.1	1324.1	1819	2641.8	4149.3
3000	616.6	875.9	1177.2	1578.7
4000	613.4	813.4	1074.9
5000	569.1	753.1
Average	724.61	1160.86	2813.3	2908.07142857143	6742.26666666667	12072.86
Median	618.55	1001.85	1651.6	2740.7	5001.1	10276.9
Max	1584.3	2741.2	12216.9	5780.4	20644.7	23110.5
Min	569.1	753.1	1074.9	1578.7	1260.9	4149.3
Std. Dev.	305.184590589586	577.501821449749	3557.74952603468	1373.15486710262	7027.82126570295	7268.73680139816

Note that a few designs are dubious licity on both tables: 100Td J1, 100Td j3, 2000Td J5, 3000Td J3. This is because the drives installed will push the next higher jump number, but the computer and fuel are based upon the rating sought, rather than the maximum possible.

For comparison purposes: costs per parsec 1981 version:

Tonnage	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	J6
100	1584.3	2305.3
200	726.6	833.7	1621.46666666667
400	671.3	648.8	750.1	1404.25	9141.26
600	620.5	577.5	797.4	1103.575	2885.98
800	608.9	555	676.066666666667	997.075	2135.34
1000	640.3	572.9	685.133333333333	993.175	1565.76	6109.66666666667
2000	595.1	539	503.4	535.05	656.46	950.15
3000	616.6	460.25	420.1	428
4000	613.4	414.6	369.066666666667
5000	569.1	382.6
Average	724.61	728.965	727.841666666667	910.1875	3276.96	3529.90833333333
Median	618.55	563.95	680.6	995.125	2135.34	3529.90833333333
Max	1584.3	2305.3	1621.46666666667	1404.25	9141.26	6109.66666666667
Min	569.1	382.6	369.066666666667	428	656.46	950.15
Std. Dev.	305.184590589586	568.318978337772	393.192534424274	365.83213935834	3377.92102352912	3648.32922264501

[tc=7]Book 2 1981 Per Ton Per Parsec[/tc]

And the 1977 version

Tonnage	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	J6
100	1584.3	1370.6	4072.3
200	726.6	662.6	891.233333333333	1445.1	4128.94
400	671.3	546.05	637.7	735.475	1180.8	3851.75
600	620.5	513.25	560.8	717.225	1031.36	2462.95
800	608.9	488.6	535.266666666667	656.725	969.08	1712.81666666667
1000	640.3	516.45	550.533333333333	685.175	252.18	1341.65
2000	595.1	485.55	441.366666666667	454.75	528.36	691.55
3000	616.6	437.95	392.4	394.675
4000	613.4	406.7	358.3
5000	569.1	376.55

[tc=7]Book 2 1977 Per Ton Per Parsec[/tc]

The curious hiccup at 800Td is due to the crew requirements (which the hercules breaks) for big ships. The extra 5 bodies means an extra 20Td.

 

[aramis]

Thanks, Wil, a very interesting document. There are some fascinating implications that I'd enjoy exploring if only I believed that Book 2 designs were sound in a post-HG Traveller universe (note that I didn't say 'legal' but 'sound'). Perhaps one day, when I've done everything there is to do in the OTU smirk, I'll start on creating a Book 2 setting.

The CT OTU has them. Cope with it. They're as canon as the AHL.

They're more financially sound than the Bk5 parallels as a general rule. Also note: There are two hull designs that do J2 for under KCr1/Td costs. That means the market price should be not much above KCr1.
Also note the much better profits for ships built with Bk2. Since they're legal, and defined as canon....

And those Akerut owned Hercules boats? They aren't losing much given the cavern of a cargo bay. My initial figures took the Herc at face value in the book, but that gave about half the proper cargo.

 

[rancke]

The CT OTU has them. Cope with it. They're as canon as the AHL.

I do cope with it. By usually ignoring anything to do with the CTU that doesn't also apply to the OTU (this occasion is a rare exception[*]). And I didn't say they weren't canon. They are, due to that silly grandfathering rule HG had. I said they weren't sound. As in being compatible with the existence of HG technology and the total absence of hybrid designs. To me, being canon isn't the only criterion for accepting a game feature. Nor is it the most important one (although it is quite important). It also has to make sense.

[*] And I'm not actually concerned about the Book2 Traveller Universe. I'm concerned that if I write an adventure set in the Aramis subsector and mentions a J2 Hercules, the editor or the readers will most likely say "Hey! TTA says the Hercules class is Jump-1", regardless of whether I'm writing for the GTU or the MgTU or any other TU. If that happens, I'd like to be able to say "Oh, that has been errata'ed!"[**]

However, I'm quite aware that if I'm to have even a minuscule chance of persuading Don that there's a mistake here, I have to use Book2 arguments, so the end result is the same, that I stick exclusively to Book2 arguments.

[**] And even that isn't the real truth, given that I might never write any adventure that involved mention of a Hercules. The real truth is that I think it's a mistake and I enjoy fixing cracks in the Traveller Universe and share my solutions.​

​

They're more financially sound than the Bk5 parallels as a general rule.

Yes, but they shouldn't exist at all in a world where HG technology exists and hybrid designs are not built. If both Book 2 technology and HG technology exist in the same universe, what you'd have would be hybrid designs with one kind of jump drive and the other kind of maneuver drive.

Also note: There are two hull designs that do J2 for under KCr1/Td costs. That means the market price should be not much above KCr1.
Also note the much better profits for ships built with Bk2. Since they're legal, and defined as canon....

Since they don't make sense in a universe with HG technology...

And those Akerut owned Hercules boats? They aren't losing much given the cavern of a cargo bay. My initial figures took the Herc at face value in the book, but that gave about half the proper cargo.

Yes, they are losing much. They're losing roughly 200 credits per ton per parsec they haul it (more when hauling it across a gap). That mounts up to a lot of megacredits.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...Once more, how he covers his expenses is not the issue. ...

Yes it is, but I'm sorry; I can't seem to persuade you of the logic. You're comparing apples and oranges. You'd do better to compare costs per annum than costs per parsec.

 

[rancke]

Yes it is, but I'm sorry; I can't seem to persuade you of the logic. You're comparing apples and oranges. You'd do better to compare costs per annum than costs per parsec.

That's because the logic is flawed. I can't understand why you can't see it. I'm comparing apples and apples. You want to move goods from one world to a different world. I'm comparing what it costs to do so using one ship to what it costs to perform the very same task using a different ship. How does the method of payment affect that?


Hans

 

[aramis]

That's because the logic is flawed. I can't understand why you can't see it. I'm comparing apples and apples. You want to move goods from one world to a different world. I'm comparing what it costs to do so using one ship to what it costs to perform the very same task using a different ship. How does the method of payment affect that?


Hans

You're dead wrong here, Hans. Both are important. If the costs exceed the expected revenue, then there simply won't be anyone sane running that combination of ship, route, and cargo volume, and pricing.

Given that (1) the Imperium is not culturally the free-trade minded western societies of Terra, but a hybrid of the rigid semi-authoritarian Vilani with same said Terran Military Culture, (2) the book prices are maintained as canonical in all "Core Traveller" editions† (excludes MgT, T20, GT, HT, but two of the four maintain it as well), (3) Almost all adventures presume legal routine traffic expects and uses that price schedule, (4) no adjustment scale for that price schedule is present in any of the "Core Traveller" editions, nor in the two that maintain the same price base, (5) CT, MGT, and T5 all use a baseline ship construction derived from Bk2, not from Bk5; MGT and T5 large ships continue to use a Bk2 baseline for drives in their big ships, but with some other tweaks.

More importantly: MWM was the author of the CT Bk2 and T5 design systems, and MGT is a variant off of the T5 draft... MWM did not write the MT, TNE, nor T4 FF&S systems (MT: DGP; TNE Chadwick and Nilsen with LKW assistance; T4: Barnet & Golden based upon TNE FF&S, lots of credits to others, but none to MWM.) CT HG is also MWM, but is obviously not his design system of choice.

Bk2 and it's pricing, and the remuneration to be expected, is canon, is relevant, and is useful to know.

†noting that the 4 that aren't "Core" have widely divergent rulesets (GT, T20, HT) and/or explicitly are not built for the OTU (MGT - requires changes for the OTU, as noted in some supplements; GT is explicitly an ATU) as the baseline, so the rules can't speak to the setting. The GTU is explicitly alternate in timeline, and despite LKW's claims otherwise, the divergence starts at some point prior to the 5FW. See Whipsnade's post about the 5FW timeline...

 

[rancke]

That's because the logic is flawed. I can't understand why you can't see it. I'm comparing apples and apples. You want to move goods from one world to a different world. I'm comparing what it costs to do so using one ship to what it costs to perform the very same task using a different ship. How does the method of payment affect that?

You're dead wrong here, Hans. Both are important. If the costs exceed the expected revenue, then there simply won't be anyone sane running that combination of ship, route, and cargo volume, and pricing.

Both what, Wil? I'm talking about costs and saying that the method of payment is irrelevant to the costs. You appear to be talking about the amount of payment. Which appears to be more than covered in both cases even before we remember (as you must have forgot) that the shipper and the carrier are the same company and that whatever the carrier may lose on the swings, the shipper makes up on the roundabouts. It looks like the costs are going to be covered even by a Cr1000 per jump payment, but even if they weren't, the carriers would still get their expenses covered when the trade department transferred part of its profit to the ship department to cover any shortfall.

Given that (1) the Imperium is not culturally the free-trade minded western societies of Terra, but a hybrid of the rigid semi-authoritarian Vilani with same said Terran Military Culture...

That's not a given. Well, that it's not a 20th/21st Century Western free trade society is a given, but what it is instead is not described anywhere. We do know that 20th/21st Century attitudes seem to be the norm for player characters (almost all (all?) official adventures assume that the PC cultural mores are the same as our mores; even when the PCs are expected to break the laws, it's our kind of laws they're expected to break).

(2) the book prices are maintained as canonical in all "Core Traveller" editions† (excludes MgT, T20, GT, HT, but two of the four maintain it as well),

Yes, but nowhere does it state that this is because there is Imperial price-fixing in place and not because it's a game artifact to make it easier to play.

(3) Almost all adventures presume legal routine traffic expects and uses that price schedule,

Some don't. That's enough to disprove a universal rule being applied.

(4) no adjustment scale for that price schedule is present in any of the "Core Traveller" editions, nor in the two that maintain the same price base,

A simplification for the sake of playability.

(5) CT, MGT, and T5 all use a baseline ship construction derived from Bk2, not from Bk5....

CT doesn't. There are numerous mentions of ships larger than 5000T in the bulk of CT material (including a few to mercantile superfreighters), and since Book2 doesn't do ships larger than 5000T, evidently the Traveller Universe use HG as its baseline ship construction.

... MGT and T5 large ships continue to use a Bk2 baseline for drives in their big ships, but with some other tweaks.

Since I scrupulously use Book2 designs for this particular discussion, I fail to see the relevance.

More importantly: MWM was the author of the CT Bk2 and T5 design systems, and MGT is a variant off of the T5 draft... MWM did not write the MT, TNE, nor T4 FF&S systems (MT: DGP; TNE Chadwick and Nilsen with LKW assistance; T4: Barnet & Golden based upon TNE FF&S, lots of credits to others, but none to MWM.) CT HG is also MWM, but is obviously not his design system of choice.

Possibly relevant to whether OTU ships "really" look like Book2 designs or like HG designs, but again, I'm sticking to Book2 designs here, so what's your point?

Bk2 and it's pricing, and the remuneration to be expected, is canon, is relevant, and is useful to know.

And I've stuck rigidly to Book2 rules throughout this discussion. Pricing is defined, but pricing isn't relevant to my argument. Costs are. As I pointed out before, if a shipowner has a choice between making a profit of Crso-and-so muich or Cra-good-deal-more per dT shipped, he'll naturally go for the larger profit.

GT is explicitly an ATU

GT is explicitly an ATU that is identical to the OTU until the change point.

The GTU is explicitly alternate in timeline, and despite LKW's claims otherwise, the divergence starts at some point prior to the 5FW. See Whipsnade's post about the 5FW timeline...

Actually, no it doesn't. The description of the course of the FFW in BtC is wrong. For Sword Worlds I asked for and got permission to change the FFW dates back to the original ones.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Actually, no it doesn't. The description of the course of the FFW in BtC is wrong. For Sword Worlds I asked for and got permission to change the FFW dates back to the original ones.


Hans

GIven that the FFW has three canon timelines that are either missing recaptures or are conflicting... FFW Board Game, Spinward Marches Campaign, and JTAS...
Which did you use? Doesn't matter - it's wrong!

Anyway, The Bk2 prices work at KCr1 for J1-J2 in a CT-81 or CT-77 milieux,
And KCr 1.5 would turn a similar profit for J3, which means that Spec Trade, which can reasonably expect an average of about KCr2 per Td in income either by factor/broker or by use of Trader skill. Further, that same speculative trade model can cover a Hercules doing J2.

Source of the income matters because it describes HOW the ship must operate.

The Herc looks like it makes its money by spec, and then uses freight as a loss-reduction mode, if we assume there is a compelling reason for the KCr1 per jump, and that the 2Pc deadheads don't charge 2 jumps.

 

[Whipsnade]

GIven that the FFW has three canon timelines that are either missing recaptures or are conflicting... FFW Board Game, Spinward Marches Campaign, and JTAS...
Which did you use? Doesn't matter - it's wrong!

Exactly. Behind the Claw doesn't even figure into it because none of the CT sources match up.

As for BtC's version of the 5th FW being the point of departure between the OTU and GT's ATU, I suggested that several years back on the SJG's JTAS forum and LKW told me flatly that it wasn't.

The Herc looks like it makes its money by spec...

Isn't that the "big secret" SSOM's Old Timer clues the reader in on? The big shipping firms aren't freight haulers, they're speculative traders instead. They've got the routes, the business relationships, the warehouses, and the local personnel to make spec trade easy.

 

[rancke]

GIven that the FFW has three canon timelines that are either missing recaptures or are conflicting... FFW Board Game, Spinward Marches Campaign, and JTAS...

I'm unaware of any timeline from FFW, and aside from the com-lag mistakes, I'm also unaware of any unexplainable discrepancies between SMC and the newsbriefs.

Which did you use? Doesn't matter - it's wrong!

If there are conflicting canon sources, someone in authority has to decide which one is right, and in in the case of Sword Worlds that's just what an official Traveller editor did.

Anyway, The Bk2 prices work at KCr1 for J1-J2 in a CT-81 or CT-77 milieux,

Yes, we've established that. I''ve also pointed out, several times now, that the expenses incurred while earning those 1000 credits is extremely pertinent anyway, people having a tendency to think that a larger profit is better than a smaller profit.

Source of the income matters because it describes HOW the ship must operate.

Akerut's ships are employed shuttling cargo to and from the border. And while there are a few J1 links and a couple of J3 link in Akerut's network, most of the links are J2. So tell me, how would a custom-designed trade fleet go about shuttling cargo from Jesedipere to Junidy, Aramanx, and Aramis, to name three Akerut trade routes composed entirely of J2 links[*]?

[*] Assuming the Akerut Chief of Operation is astute enough to have the ships go from Aramanx to Aramis via Lewis and Pysadi and not via Zila.​

The Herc looks like it makes its money by spec, and then uses freight as a loss-reduction mode, if we assume there is a compelling reason for the KCr1 per jump, and that the 2Pc deadheads don't charge 2 jumps.

What's a two-parsec deadhead?


Hans

 

[DonM]

Canon issue with 5FW? Can I interrupt this thread for one moment with a request?

Ok... I know to ignore BtC... But I really do NEED to have inconsistencies between SMC, 5FW and JTAS pointed out to me...

So I'll open a thread for such inconsistencies, and can you post them in there?

 

[aramis]

It' shouldn't have said dead-heads, but Empty Hex Jumps.

Oh, and plot points in the book noting that Akerut uses J1 jumps: the Feneteman/Aramanx pair explicitly notes it including a calibration point to make looking for overdue ships easier (TTA, p.112); so does the writeup of Psaydi note that Psaydi's actually just a stopover, normally, not a world served for its own merits, while en rout between Towers and Aramanx.


As to profitability... having crunched the numbers, Spec won't make the Herc worth it. It's just too damned big. A smaller ship, however, w can expect to have incomes like this (codes *PT TrCdLi *=Starport, P=Pop, T=TL TrCdLi=Caps delimited Trade Codes):

Run	No Broker	Broker 1	Broker 2	Broker 3	Broker 4
Lablon B5A AgNi ⇒ Jesedipere C37 Ni	Cr127,275.7 (20)	PB=Cr183,870.4 (35) SB=Cr199,695.4 (35)	PB=Cr255,793.8 (36) SB=Cr293,845.9 (36)	PB=Cr330,654.9 (36) SB=Cr397,696.2 (36)	PB=Cr407,960.9 (36) SB=Cr512,599.2 (36)
Jesedipere C37 Ni ⇒ Lablon B5A AgNi	PB=Cr142,568.9 (15)	PB=Cr200,865.7 (28) SB=Cr217,127.4 (28)	PB=Cr274,245.7 (30) SB=Cr313,303.9 (30)	PB=349,021.3 SB=Cr417,663.8 (34)	PB=No SB=Cr531,096.1 (35)
Towers B Ni ⇒ Aramanx B —	PB=Cr25,156.4 (4)	PB=Cr25,156.4 (4) SB=Cr25,156.4 (4)	PB=Cr96,490.6 (35) SB=Cr125,056 (35)	PB=Cr147,006.6 (35) SB=Cr196,832.3 (35)	PB=Cr213,017.9 (35) SB=Cr291,855.8 (35)
Aramanx B — ⇒ Towers B Ni	PB=Cr120,968.6 (13)	PB=Cr175,521.7 (34) SB=Cr190,478.6 (34)	PB=Cr244,847.8 (34) SB=Cr280,274.9 (34)	PB=Cr316,667.3 (34) SB=Cr380,527.9 (35)	PB=Cr391,376 (35) SB=Cr493,347.6 (36)
Psaydi C64 Ag ⇒ Aramanx B96 —	PB=Cr228.8 (7)	PB=Cr33,198.6 (36) SB=Cr45,866.2 (36)	PB=Cr72,457.5 (36) SB=Cr101,381.1 (36)	PB=Cr123,606.7 (36) SB=Cr174,057.5 (36)	PB=Cr190,445.9 (36) SB=Cr270,272.7 (36)

The actual average lot size is about 34 tons, so even a type R can turn a reasonable profit, needing to make Cr452,295 per 3Pc run, and having 80Tons eaten by fuel of it's 218.5, but 25 of that 218.5 is unavailable because it's in the engineering space of the standard hull, leaving a base of 193.5 tons, and 80 is used for fuel, leaving 113.5, less the 34, doubled for good measure, is 45.5 paying tons.

Going from Lablon B5A to Jesedipere C37,
Cargo Cr255,793.8 for around 68Td
MP (KCr4 ea) 3.5 = KCr14
LP (KCr0.9 ea) 7 = KCr6.3
major freight lots 2.5 x 35Td
minor freight lots 3.5x 17.5
incidental freight lots 0
mail 5Td KCr25
We can assume about 35 tons of freight, for about KCr 35
KCr336.1 average income, roughly, without Bk7 skills. Loss, about KCr116; subsidy profit KCr134.

Going from Jesedipere C37 to Lablon B5A,
Cargo Cr349,021.3 for around 68Td
MP (KCr4 ea) 0.5 = KCr2
LP (KCr0.9 ea) 4 = KCr3.6
major freight lots 0 x 35Td
minor freight lots 0.5x 17.5
incidental freight lots 0
mail 5Td KCr25
We can assume about 8 tons of freight, for about KCr 8
KCr387.6 average income, roughly, without Bk7 skills. Loss about KCr70; subsidy profit KCr110

A ship on mortgage is not going to make money on that run at stock book, but on subsidy, where the need is KCr291 less, is clearing KCr110+ per leg after half to the subsidizer.
And that is a tough leg to clear. Much of the time, tho, there's an addition 35 tons of freight, say, about half the time... but about 1/12 the time, no freight at all 17.5-2, for an average of about KCr15 more than above.

Add in the trader skill from Bk7, and predicting the purchase price 1st die, rejecting 1/3 of cargos with a 5 or 6, and you further increase the odds. (Trader 1 is particularly useful for that). Add in the additional effects of: admin on mids, and you can expect 1 character in the crew to have it, for KCr6 more in income per leg; Streetwise on lows, another KCr0.9. I'm not certain that Liaison should affect freight.

The issue is similar on the run from Towers to Aramanx, but not so severe, as it's via Psaydi (see TTA citation above)...

Subsidies make money, mortgages lose.

If the herc operates as a subsidized ship, anything above KCr684.8 is profit.
Going from Lablon B5A to Jesedipere C37,
KCr173.75 in freight
KCr255,8 in cargo
still loses KCr255.25

Going from Jesedipere C37 to Lablon B5A,
Cargo Cr349,021.3 for around 68Td

Going into houserule turf, a factor at either end picking and warehousing in a corp owned warehouse can have 4x that average income from spec.

Adding trader makes it almost impossible to lose in the long run; Trader 1 means bk2 derived you never buy anything with a 5 or 6 roll. Likewise, you can opt not to sell if you know it will be a loss.

 

[atpollard]

Just a thought on commercial airlines and the Hercules design ...

Every airplane does not earn a profit on every trip and every leg. I have heard reports on extreme cases of a commercial airliner flying with only 4 passengers aboard an a specific flight. It clearly lost money on that flight.

What is important, is that the airline must generate a net profit over some period of operation ... for a discussion like this, either a month or a year would probably work.

The same would seem to apply to the Hercules. Obviously, if the numbers say that the ship can never make a profit even with a full cargo hold and any length of trip, then there will be no opportunity for the ship to generate a net profit, ever. In that case there must be some other funding mechanism ... speculation and subsidies are both part of the trade rules and could serve as an alternative revenue source to justify the existence of the ships.

If the Hercules can generate a profit under some jumps and not others, then each ship could 'run a main' with a fixed route of multiple worlds with some legs operating at a loss and other legs generating a profit to cover that loss. As long as each ship generates a net profit over the route, it is sustainable. The question then becomes why the line chooses to continue to operate the unprofitable legs - which is probably more of a metagame issue than something to be answered by a technical analysis of the rules.

Aramis has demonstrated that at least some ships can transport cargo 1 parsec for 1000 credits per dT and operate at a net profit, which means that a market rate of 1000 credits per dT to transport freight 1 parsec is reasonable ... it can be done.

Aramis has demonstrated that at least some ships can transport cargo 2 parsecs for 1000 credits per dT and operate at a net profit, which means that a market rate of 1000 credits per dT to transport freight 2 parsecs is reasonable ... it can be done.

Since the rates have been demonstrated to be reasonable (even if of dubious logic), there is really little to be gained by arguing that the market rates for freight should be different from the 1000 credits per trip presented in the rules (at least for a J1 or J2 trip segment ... J3 thru J6 freight rates are still open to debate).

So the questions for Hercules are:
1. What design will optimize the ship to either a J1 or J2 trade segment?
2. What segments (1xJ1, 2xJ1, 3xJ1) are profitable for a J1 Hercules? What segments (1xJ1, 1xJ2, J1&J2) are profitable for a J2 Hercules? [This defines what is possible for the ship.]
3. What operating conditions (speculative trade, government subsidies, profitable links subsidizing unprofitable links) might reasonably justify the large scale use of Hercules as previously described in Traveller. [This addresses the metagame issues of how and why.]

The answers to these questions frames the limits of viable solutions. In the end, the 'correct' solution is a matter of personal taste.