Recreation in the Lanth system

[Badenov]

The Regina to Equus route? No.

I work things from the other direction ... starting with the starship.

Well, I started with the ship, also, but I already had that nearly complete, including mortgage costs, fees, salaries and such, just sitting and waiting for a mission.

I "annualize" all of the anticipated expenses (13 months of crew salaries, 12 months of mortgage payments if applicable, annual overhaul maintenance expenses, life support overhead expenses, berthing fees based on the number of destinations visited during the year, total annual fuel costs based on anticipated scenarios, etc.) ... and once I have the total EXPENSES for an entire year that the starship's operations need to finance, I simply divide that total by the number of jumps I'd expect that starship to make in 1 year. After dividing by the number of jumps to amortize all of those expenses across, I can then determine a "break even" point for revenues (mainly passenger and freight tickets) that will show what kind of MINIMUM ticket sales will be needed in order to "break even" at every destination the starship does business at during a year.

Why 13 months? Now I do the year this way: break the year into weeks. 2 weeks to jump and do business on a planet, then jump out. That's 48 weeks or 24 jumps per year, plus 4 weeks to do annual maintenance for a 52-week year. 12 mortgate payments, because those are monthly, so the cost vs expense actually works out to 2 opportunities for income per payment cycle and monthly expenses. I don't know any ticket route that makes money unless you have what amounts to a local agent who's rolling daily for passengers while the ship is en route. Then you can get enough passengers to cover your costs.

I can then compare that "break even" point (in Cr per destination) to the starship's revenue tonnage capacity (passengers and cargo) to determine IF a 100% full manifest can exceed the "break even" point, thereby generating profits on ticket sales alone. The follow up question then becomes ... what fraction of a full manifest comes closest to the "break even" point? And it's that fraction of a full manifest amount that determines how much ticket sales business you need to drum up at every starport in order to be consistently profitable over the course of a year. You can also use that amount of ticket sales revenues to help determine the "you must be this high to ride this ride" expectations for how LOW you can go on the UWP Population code and still have a reasonable expectation of getting ENOUGH ticket revenues to defray your operating expenses.

I can do that, too. Sometimes I take the monthly costs, divide by two, and then divide by my cargo tonnage, and that's the credits per ton I need to break even. There's some configurations where that's less than 1000 Cr/ton (for Jump 1 routes), those ships can run consignment freight. Few ships can, though. I will often wrtite it as a formula, 800+200*Jump number, and so I can see if a ship that won't run at one Jn will run at another.

Starships which need "a lot of ticket sales" in order to remain profitable will therefore have to gravitate towards higher population mainworlds, just in order to avoid falling behind and operating at a loss/move towards bankruptcy. Starships that are "leaner" in their operational expenses per starport are able to survive (and thrive?) servicing the lower end world markets that other merchants can only go to and make a loss on the voyage ... so there's a set of evolutionary "niche" roles to be had out there.

See the above permanent ticket agent trick. But otherwise I have a problem making pure passenger liners profitable. Most routes don't have a huge number of passengers available.

The low end "courier" starships that can cover their ENTIRE operational expenses on an annualized basis just by delivering X-Mail @ Cr25,000 per delivery in revenues ... may be "bottom feeders" in terms of the volume of trade that they can do, but they can go ANYWHERE and STILL MAKE A PROFIT on the trip. You just need to have "the right kind of starship" to be able to pull it off, with expenses "low enough to limbo" under that Cr25,000 per delivery in revenues threshold and still make a profit.

Spoiler alert: minimal crew salaries + life support expenses are CRITICAL for being "guaranteed successful" in the X-Mail delivery game.

Mail runs are hard to ensure, though you can get it to 4+ or 5+ with a high military or scout muster-out rank. (In MgT1, the version I'm more familiar with), and at 25000 a run x 24 runs per year, that'a an annual take of 600,000 per year. Not bad for a supplement, but it won't cover the full cost for a year of ship unless you own it outright already.

When you're guaranteed Cr25,000 in revenue upon arrival at ANY type A-E starport and that's "enough" to make a profit on the trip all by itself ... any remaining revenue tonnage you've got just becomes "gravy" for padding your profit margin. Ideally speaking, you'd want to have enough cargo hold capacity to "dabble" in speculative goods arbitrage (from time to time) so as to be able score some SERIOUS windfall profits, should any opportunities fall into your lap. The freedom to GO ANYWHERE PROFITABLY, including places your competitors wouldn't jump to (unless you paid them, in advance) then lets your operation "corner the market" in the penny-ante low population backwater worlds in ways that you can leverage to your own advantage because YOUR starship class design offers an "evolutionary advantage" that others cannot match.

In that regard, you're mainly not competing unless your GM has rules about competitors stealing your cargo or passengers. You roll completely on your own, with no penalry for others in port.

In a lot of ways, the real test of a merchant ACS design is not how "big" of a load of revenue tonnage can it carry ... but more a question of how "little" revenue tonnage does it "need" to carry in ticket sales in order to stay profitable ... and then ask how "easy" that task would be at various UWP Population coded worlds. The name of the game (for the independent free trader) is to have a starship that lets you "go low" on UWP Population codes and STILL have a better than average chance at making those voyages profitably. Guarantees are "nice to have" but not strictly necessary ... especially if you're working a region of space with a variety of Trade Codes to maximize your speculative goods arbitrage opportunities.

Yes, but as soon as the number of worlds gets too many to consider, I get lost. I don't know the game well enough that I can glance at a UWP and know if my gargo will make a profit there.

So I start with the starship class, work out what it can do (business-wise), what it HAS TO DO in order to remain profitable (on the regular) ... and then figure out what mainworld population "densities" are necessary in order to be able to sustain that kind of "demand" for interstellar transport service tickets (and if that expectation is reasonable). I don't need guarantees of success, just an idea of what the odds are for success ... and then figure out how to "skew" those odds most heavily in my own favor.

So I have the first part under control. It's the second part that's slow and unweildy for me.

 

[Badenov]

And I realize we're off topic again. The takeaway is that others know how to find profits in Lanth, but I would have to go off-route to do it.

 

[kilemall]

Maybe you can merge the two issues- for instance if you can have a driver of passenger ticket revenue because of the recreational draw of Lanth tourist amenities. An investment in advertising, hiring influencers, free voucher packages enticing trips, special events/athletic competitions etc.

 

[Badenov]

Maybe you can merge the two issues- for instance if you can have a driver of passenger ticket revenue because of the recreational draw of Lanth tourist amenities. An investment in advertising, hiring influencers, free voucher packages enticing trips, special events/athletic competitions etc.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing is going to draw people to Lanth for tourism. If you're there already, it's nice to be amused (and income for people running it), but no one's going to pay the better part of a year's salary to spend a week or two on some distant backwater. Only the Soc 14+'s have that kind of disposable income.

 

[kilemall]

Well, that's the problem. Nothing is going to draw people to Lanth for tourism. If you're there already, it's nice to be amused (and income for people running it), but no one's going to pay the better part of a year's salary to spend a week or two on some distant backwater. Only the Soc 14+'s have that kind of disposable income.

A desert or vacuum world honeymoon couple might feel differently.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Why 13 months?

Imperial Calendar
364 / 7 / 4 = 13 months

Now I do the year this way: break the year into weeks. 2 weeks to jump and do business on a planet, then jump out. That's 48 weeks or 24 jumps per year, plus 4 weeks to do annual maintenance for a 52-week year.

364 / 7 = 52 weeks
52 weeks - 2 weeks for annual overhaul maintenance = up to 50 weeks of time each year to jump within

• 50 weeks / 2 week operational tempo = up to 25 jumps / 25 starports per year when single jumping before refueling
  • Up to 25 ticket cycles per year
• 50 weeks / 3 week operational tempo = up to 32 jumps / 16 starports per year when double jumping before refueling
  • Up to 32 ticket cycles per year
• 50 weeks / 4 week operational tempo = up to 36 jumps / 12 starports per year when triple jumping before refueling
  • Up to 36 ticket cycles per year

You can always do LESS jumps per year, but it starts getting difficult to do MORE jumps per year ... unless you've got a "shore support" business partnership that is "doing the legwork" of registering ticket sales and scouring for speculative goods opportunities EVERY WEEK OF THE YEAR on your (starship operation's) behalf (in other words, OUTSOURCE your "business week" operations to local outfits). If you have such a partnership, the "week of business" in between jumps can be shortened down from ~7 days to ~2 days (!) between jumps, dramatically increasing your jump tempo and thus the number of ticket cycles your starship can achieve in a year.

This kind of "shore support" business partnership is what allows the Bigger Players™ in interstellar trading services to run their starship operations at closer to maximum capacity and achieve higher profit margins per year than the smaller Free Traders who need to scrape and scrap for every ticket on their own, without any outside help, everywhere they go.

365 days per year -14 days for annual overhaul maintenance = up to 351 days of time each year to jump within

• 351 days / 10 day operational tempo = up to 35 jumps / 35 starports per year when single jumping before refueling
  • Up to 35 ticket cycles per year
• 351 days / 18 day operational tempo = up to 38 jumps / 19 starports per year when double jumping before refueling
  • Up to 38 ticket cycles per year
• 351 days / 26 day operational tempo = up to 39 jumps / 13 starports per year when triple jumping before refueling
  • Up to 39 ticket cycles per year

Mutli-jumping requires "fuel reserve" arrangements (increased internal fuel tankage, collapsible fuel tanks, demountable tanks, drop tanks ... take your pick), but enables a higher "density" of ticket sales within a given time span, since tickets are sold on a basis of number of jumps to reach the ticket destination, NOT the number of parsecs between the point of origin and destination (according to CT RAW (see: LBB2.81, p9 if you have any doubts on this point).

I don't know any ticket route that makes money unless you have what amounts to a local agent who's rolling daily for passengers while the ship is en route. Then you can get enough passengers to cover your costs.

I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating here.
There are different ... modes ... of operation that you can use.

Now, what do I mean by that?

The first and most obvious "mode" of operation is the Pure Tramp.
You never have a set Next Destination upon arrival at a starport berth. Instead, you operate on a "catch as catch can" basis for whatever demand there is at the current starport for outbound ticket services. Whatever will fill up your manifest "best" ... that's where you're going next. Wherever the Trade Winds are blowing ... that's where you go ... it all depends on what is waiting for you HERE to make a decision on WHERE TO GO next.

For Referees and Players, this is often times the "simplest" way to play. With no presets on destinations after the current starport, there is no plan/pre-plot to abort from if Something Else™ crops up (patron, adventure, rumor tip off, speculative goods opportunity, etc.) while your starship is berthed here at this starport during your "week of business" wheeling and dealing.

The OTHER "mode" of operation is the Plotted Route ... where you have a pre-planned itinerary and you're sticking to it.
With this mode of operation, you not only KNOW where you're going next before arriving at the local starport to disembark your passengers and unload your cargo(es) ... you also know the next 2-4 starports you plan to be going to after this one (until reaching a place at the end of the year to conduct your annual overhaul maintenance cycle).

Knowing where you're going next for multiple jumps(!) means that you can accept tickets for more than a single destination at each starport stopover. This allows a kind of "layering" of ticket sales which can be used to keep your shipping manifests as close to full as possible, even if your next single destination doesn't have enough demand for ticket sales to come close to filling up your shipping manifest. When you can STACK destinations like that and CARRY passengers and freight THROUGH your first destination in order to reach your (pre-determined) second destination, you can sell more tickets (total) than you could if you were declaring only a single destination.

The Plotted Route "mode" of operation is how merchants "need" to operate (if they want to remanin profitable) while jumping through "backwater low population" mainworld markets. You plan/plot a course to reach "the other side" of the world markets/population desert where there will be a high(er) population world, that is likely to be able to fill your shipping manifest all by itself ... and you "consolidate" all of the tickets to the intermediate destinations along the way into enough revenue income to "get you over the jump hump" that exists between HERE and THERE without incurring too many losses due to depressed demand for transport services from LOW population world markets along the way.

This is then where "longer legs" with a greater range in parsecs before needing to refuel comes into play, especially if capable of double (or even triple!) jumping. While starships with more powerful drives capable of longer jump ranges will have less revenue tonnage to devote to ticket sale services ... that increase in jump performance makes it possible to "pick and choose" which destinations to go to in ways that offer "shortcuts" past bottlenecks in pathing along J1 Mains as well as the option to "skip over" low population markets that are unlikely to fill up the shipping manifest if the starship is forced to go there. So while the revenue tonnage is reduced as drive performance goes up, the ability to "skim off the cream of the crop" in available destinations and routing can shift the "balance" of where as starship HAS TO GO in favor of higher population worlds with more opportunities in demand for interstellar transport services.

More drive power = less revenue tonnage ... but better opportunities in choices of destinations.
Less drive power = more revenue tonnage ... but fewer opportunities in choices of destination.

Perhaps the best expression of this difference in drive potential vs revenue tonnage vs opportunities can be found when comparing what it takes to make a voyage between Glisten/Glisten and Iderati/Five Sisters using either a J1 starship or a J2 starship.

• J1 = 22 parsec route = 22 jumps
• J2 = 14 parsec route = 7 jumps

Now consider that if you had a J2+2 capable starship (that could jump through deep space/empty hexes), you could take an entirely different route:

• Glisten/Glisten -> J2
• Deep Space -> J2
• Pagaton/District 268 -> J2
• Forine/District 268 -> J2
• Deep Space -> J2
• Squalia/District 268 -> J2
• Deep Space -> J2
• Iderati/Five Sisters

Still 14 parsecs / 7 jumps using J2+2 ... but the world populations sequence ends up as being:

• Glisten: 9 Industrial.
• Pagaton: 8 Rich.
• Forine: 9 Industrial.
• Squalia: 6 Non-industrial.
• Iderati: 7 Agricultural. Rich.

Think you can make a starship's "books balance" on such a route ... IF you've got enough revenue tonnage AND "security guarantee" to make the voyage worth the trip?
Kind of depends on the sort of starship you're wanting to operate in this neighborhood, wouldn't you say?
Oh and those J2+2 double jumps through deep space? Yeah, you'll be moving through those map hexes FASTER than you would by stopping over at a mainworld (for a week of business).

J2 across 14 parsecs = ~14 weeks
J2+2 across 14 parsecs = ~12 weeks

{ insert inside joke about making the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs here }

If you had a J1+1 capable starship, you'd be able to use the J2 route (just slower) and be able to complete the voyage in 14 jumps, rather than needing 22 jumps through LOTS of Population: 4- worlds (9 of them in fact, including a stretch of 6 of them in a row!).

 

[Spinward Flow]

See the above permanent ticket agent trick. But otherwise I have a problem making pure passenger liners profitable. Most routes don't have a huge number of passengers available.

If you're operating in "tramp mode" this is entirely correct. MOST world markets will be unable to fill up the entire passenger manifest of a starship that focuses mainly on passenger services.

However, if you're operating in "pre-plotted route mode" it can be almost trivial to fill up your passenger manifest to full ... you just need to keep "rolling over" the passengers on board who are buying multiple tickets to reach destinations "further on down the line" beyond your immediate next destination. Requires a good deal more (double entry) bookkeeping to keep track of, but if that's how you keep your starship passenger liner profitable, then that's what you (have to) do.

Mail runs are hard to ensure, though you can get it to 4+ or 5+ with a high military or scout muster-out rank. (In MgT1, the version I'm more familiar with), and at 25000 a run x 24 runs per year, that'a an annual take of 600,000 per year. Not bad for a supplement, but it won't cover the full cost for a year of ship unless you own it outright already.

The trick is to do it with a starship that is USP Hull Code: 1 (100-199 tons) so as to keep the crew as small as possible (Pilot, Gunner). For mail runs, you MUST have a gunner on payroll and offensive weaponry (a single turret loaded with a single sandcaster won't cut it). Therefore, the "ideal" type of Packet Ship is going to be something that's as close to 200 tons (but still under 200 tons) with a crew of 2 and at least 5 tons of cargo hold capacity that can be dedicated to mail service.

You CAN do this with a Type-S Scout/Courier (just dump the air/raft and arm the dual turret with something/anything offensive), but a (stock) Type-S Scout/Courier is ... ironically ... sub-optimal for this type of commercial courier work.
It CAN be done, but there are better ways to design a starship for this kind of mission.

Yes, but as soon as the number of worlds gets too many to consider, I get lost. I don't know the game well enough that I can glance at a UWP and know if my gargo will make a profit there.

What you want to do is "get a FEEL" for it, as a Rule Of Thumb, rather than getting down into the nitty gritty "crunchy" levels of granular detail.

Can your starship break even/turn a profit on as little as 2 high passengers and 24 tons of freight tickets?
If so, you can probably go to "most" worlds on the map (even the Population: 4- ones!) and either break even on the voyage or not incur too much of a loss for the trip.

If you need 8 high passengers and 60 tons of freight tickets to have a HOPE of breaking even (let alone making a profit) ... you're probably going to want to stick to the higher population worlds as your "trading range" and be leery of jumping outside of it, except when circumstances warrant it.

And I realize we're off topic again.

We're circling back to it ... I promise.

The takeaway is that others know how to find profits in Lanth, but I would have to go off-route to do it.

Lanth is a Non-industrial world that isn't part of some "major" trading route where Lanth is "sitting at the crossroads" and you can't avoid it when getting from HERE to THERE. So Lanth isn't going to be a Big Mover & Shaker among the interstellar markets. It's more of a "place off Route 66" after the Interstate Highways have been built. Yes, SOME traffic still flows through Lanth ... but it's more of "truck stop in the middle of nowhere/small town" experience, rather than any kind of Bright Lights = BIG CITY type of deal.

Maybe you can merge the two issues- for instance if you can have a driver of passenger ticket revenue because of the recreational draw of Lanth tourist amenities. An investment in advertising, hiring influencers, free voucher packages enticing trips, special events/athletic competitions etc.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing is going to draw people to Lanth for tourism. If you're there already, it's nice to be amused (and income for people running it), but no one's going to pay the better part of a year's salary to spend a week or two on some distant backwater. Only the Soc 14+'s have that kind of disposable income.

A desert or vacuum world honeymoon couple might feel differently.

I was going to say ...

Look in the neighborhood around Lanth/Lanth.
What do you see?

• Ghandi/Lanth ... B211455-A N Ice Capped. G
• Arba/Lunion ... C200200-C Vacuum World.
• D'Ganzio/Lanth ... B121410-D N Poor. G

Q: What do these places have in common?
A: LOW gravity.
A: BARELY any atmosphere.
A: Oceans of liquid water on the surface? Don't be ABSURD!

Compared to these three nearby locations, Lanth is practically a (1G normal) paradise ... just try to ignore the sulfur smell that gets into everything (and even that can be sold as "an exotic experience" in a vacation pitch).

Just being able to FISH in the water and COOK WHAT YOU CATCH so you can eat it FRESH would be a completely novel experience for people who live in the "unforgiving" world environments of these other worlds nearby to Lanth.

Sure, the populations of those worlds (comined!) only amounts to a scant tens of thousands ... but that's still enough for an enterprising operation to sell tour packages to and be able to drum up "enough business" around the year to sustain a merchant starship operation ... if you manage your bookkeeping and expenses well enough to Unlock The Feat™.

 

[Badenov]

A desert or vacuum world honeymoon couple might feel differently.

Yes, them, I can see vacationing in a backwater like Lanth. But the majority of visitors will be spacecrew. Lanth's 700,000 population can be expected to eat 2kg per day on average, and if half of that is imported, that's 700,000kg or 7000 tons of food per day being imported apart from all the other incidentals you need every day that an ocean world can't provide.

Imperial Calendar
364 / 7 / 4 = 13 months

I'd been playing in the Traveller universe since 2018 and this never came up. I asked my DM, and she said, "Oh yeah, that's how it is." Somehow, no one ever brought it up. (Today I Learned...)

364 / 7 = 52 weeks
52 weeks - 2 weeks for annual overhaul maintenance = up to 50 weeks of time each year to jump within

I'd been allowing 4 weeks for maintenance because that's what our previous campaign required, leaving 48 weeks for work, but that may have been allowing a week to jump from wherever you found yourself needing maintenance to an A starport for 2 weeks maintenance, then a week to jump back and continue your schedule. Since my Vilis-Lanth run is between two A starports, I can get an extra 2 week cycle in if maintenance is only 2 weeks.

• 50 weeks / 2 week operational tempo = up to 25 jumps / 25 starports per year when single jumping before refueling
  • Up to 25 ticket cycles per year

This is the new plan, and I understand it, go me.

• 50 weeks / 3 week operational tempo = up to 32 jumps / 16 starports per year when double jumping before refueling
  • Up to 32 ticket cycles per year
• 50 weeks / 4 week operational tempo = up to 36 jumps / 12 starports per year when triple jumping before refueling
  • Up to 36 ticket cycles per year

Had to snip parts of the quoted message, because post limits, sorry. I have done this plan, and the bump in income more than covers the cost of hiring groundside agents and renting offices if the normal port visit times aren't enough to generate enough cargo. If the normal port visit times are enough, the added complication seems confusing to me.
But I imagine this is how megacorps fill 100,000-ton freight behemoths.

This kind of "shore support" business partnership is what allows the Bigger Players™ in interstellar trading services to run their starship operations at closer to maximum capacity and achieve higher profit margins per year than the smaller Free Traders who need to scrape and scrap for every ticket on their own, without any outside help, everywhere they go.

We have done this. It mostly worked well, and sometimes instigated adventures. Our entire party were prior service Imperial Marines, our way of solving problems was more firepower. If that didn't solve the problem, we weren't using enough. But we had business rivals steal our ships a couple times. It did not end well for them.

365 days per year -14 days for annual overhaul maintenance = up to 351 days of time each year to jump within

• 351 days / 10 day operational tempo = up to 35 jumps / 35 starports per year when single jumping before refueling
  • Up to 35 ticket cycles per year

Now this sounds like serious cash. That optempo is going to burn your crews out, but sharing out some of the profits may make up for that.

• 351 days / 18 day operational tempo = up to 38 jumps / 19 starports per year when double jumping before refueling
  • Up to 38 ticket cycles per year
• 351 days / 26 day operational tempo = up to 39 jumps / 13 starports per year when triple jumping before refueling
  • Up to 39 ticket cycles per year

Multi Jumping passengers seems like a good deal for passengers, except at J1, where 2 J1 tickets cost the same as a J2 ticket. 2x J2 saves you 6,000 Cr over J4, though, and2x J3 saves 10,000Cr over a J6 ticket. But can you make up the revenue lost to cheaper tickets and the cabins lost to carrying another jump's worth of fuel?

I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating here.
There are different ... modes ... of operation that you can use.

Now, what do I mean by that?

I see. Sadly, more options confuses my small brain sometimes and it takes time to work it all out.

The first and most obvious "mode" of operation is the Pure Tramp.
(snipped)

This seems way too haphazard. There's a lot of planets where there's nothing you can buy that will pay for itself when you sell it unless you have a super-high Broker skill or something.

The OTHER "mode" of operation is the Plotted Route ... where you have a pre-planned itinerary and you're sticking to it.
(snipped)

This is what I tend to fall back on.

Knowing where you're going next for multiple jumps(!) means that you can accept tickets for more than a single destination at each starport stopover. This (snipped)

This is way more planning than I am capable of at my level of world knowledge.

The Plotted Route "mode" of operation is how merchants "need" to operate (if they want to remanin profitable) while jumping through "backwater low (snipped)

This is then where "longer legs" with a greater range in parsecs before needing to refuel comes into play, especially if capable of double (or even triple!) jumping. (snipped)

The problem with multi-jumping is the fuel costs cargo space, so it's losing money, and the planets I've run numbers on require me to pack it tight with revenue cargo.

More drive power = less revenue tonnage ... but better opportunities in choices of destinations.
Less drive power = more revenue tonnage ... but fewer opportunities in choices of destination.


Now consider that if you had a J2+2 capable starship (that could jump through deep space/empty hexes), you could take an entirely different route:

• Glisten/Glisten -> J2
• Deep Space -> J2
• Pagaton/District 268 -> J2
• Forine/District 268 -> J2
• Deep Space -> J2
• Squalia/District 268 -> J2
• Deep Space -> J2
• Iderati/Five Sisters

Still 14 parsecs / 7 jumps using J2+2 ... but the world populations sequence ends up as being:

• Glisten: 9 Industrial.
• Pagaton: 8 Rich.
• Forine: 9 Industrial.
• Squalia: 6 Non-industrial.
• Iderati: 7 Agricultural. Rich.

Think you can make a starship's "books balance" on such a route ... IF you've got enough revenue tonnage AND "security guarantee" to make the voyage worth the trip?

A security guarantee in District 268? The only guarantee in District 268 is 'you will get jumped at some point'. Our campaign in District 268 centered on the DM-inserted system of Roanapur (inspired by the completely lawless port in the Black Lagoon anime).

Kind of depends on the sort of starship you're wanting to operate in this neighborhood, wouldn't you say?

Oh and those J2+2 double jumps through deep space? Yeah, you'll be moving through those map hexes FASTER than you would by stopping over at a mainworld (for a week of business).

J2 across 14 parsecs = ~14 weeks
J2+2 across 14 parsecs = ~12 weeks

{ insert inside joke about making the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs here }

Hah.

If you had a J1+1 capable starship, you'd be able to use the J2 route (just slower) and be able to complete the voyage in 14 jumps, rather than needing 22 jumps through LOTS of Population: 4- worlds (9 of them in fact, including a stretch of 6 of them in a row!).

I can see the J1+1 has a lot of advantages, but can you make enough money with only 16 income-generating starport visits per year?

 

[Spinward Flow]

(Today I Learned...)

It happens to the best of us.
Even *I* learn (new) things from the discussions on these forums, from time to time.
Things like "what's the most economical/profitable way to transit from Glisten to Iderati" ... for example.

I'd been allowing 4 weeks for maintenance because that's what our previous campaign required

Making 25 (single) jumps per year isn't always "practical" (in a variety of ways), particularly if you've got a "home port" that you want your starship to return to for annual overhaul maintenance every year. A lot of the time, 24 (single) jumps is a more realistic assumption ... and then you can give your crew a "1 month vacation" each year at your home port planet before starting up the next year of operations.

Of course, that's leaning more into the Life Simulator™ end of things, but still ...

I imagine this is how megacorps fill 100,000-ton freight behemoths.

The megacorps control production, transport and distribution to their customers ... they don't NEED to "bid on the spot market" like (we lowly) Free Traders do in order to fight for the scraps that fall off the table the Big Boys are gorging themselves on. The megacorps can vertically integrate everything from mines to the last warehouse delivery hub (and sometimes even the last mile delivery itself!).

The megacorps "play a very different hand" in the interstellar trade marketplace than (we petty) Free Traders can (and have to in order to survive).

We have done this. It mostly worked well, and sometimes instigated adventures.

This is the big difference between "professional merchants" who just want to ply their trade and make profits where they can (with the lowest risk they can manage) ... and "amateur adventurers" who are always on the lookout for that Thrill Of Adventure™ to pull them off course (and land then in Deep PooDoo).

Now this sounds like serious cash. That optempo is going to burn your crews out, but sharing out some of the profits may make up for that.

Not really. The crews are "working" the same number of days per year ... they're just spending more of those days per year aboard the starship (in jump, earning revenue!) than the alternative. It's a basic tradeoff between earning more profit per year OR getting more liberty ashore per year (where you can waste your pay/get robbed/etc.). The crew salary is the same either way, but whether the starship's operational balance sheet is healthy enough to keeping working NEXT YEAR is the big difference.

Liberty ashore for crews is a "luxury" that can be afforded to starship operations that are NOT flirting with bankruptcy.

Multi Jumping passengers seems like a good deal for passengers

Passengers and cargo both ... although, as always, the Demonology Is In The Details.
But, if double jumping "gets you where you need to go, starting NOW" ... then relative to the single jumping (wait for it) option, you've got a classic case of A Sure Thing™ (bird in the hand) versus an Unknown Possibility™ (two in the bush). After that, it's all a matter of Supply vs Demand in terms of pricing (and timing!) for being able to get to where you're wanting to go to (both as a customer or as a starship operator). Still, being able to "shortcut" across empty hexes via double jumping CAN make a tremendous difference.

When I was playing City of Heroes, a lot of the Superspeed (running on the ground) people would SNEER at how "slow" my movement was using a Flight pool power. That's because the maximum speed for running movement was ~90mph while the maximum speed for flying movement was ~67mph ... so in a drag race, the superspeeder was clearly faster on the streets of the urban city environement.

I simply countered by saying:

• Superspeed may be faster in a straight line, but Flight allows movement IN STRAIGHTER LINES ...

And then "proved it" by beating those same Superspeeders to mission doors with my "slower" Flight speed by virtue of taking a "shorter path" from A to B than the one they needed to run through in order to reach the same destination, which tended to be longer/more circuitous on the ground.

The same philosophy/mentality applies to the economics of double jumping through Deep Space empty hexes (kinda sorta) if you can manage it.

Sadly, more options confuses my small brain sometimes and it takes time to work it all out.

Hence why I said earlier upthread:

To be fair ... anyone who doesn't "live there" (full time, on the regular) can't understand it either.
Some of us try to understand it, but our ... simulations ... of the Bigger Picture™ are all just that ... approximations and guesswork.

And I meant it.

The problem with multi-jumping is the fuel costs cargo space, so it's losing money, and the planets I've run numbers on require me to pack it tight with revenue cargo.

Depends on how you ... finesse the issue ... if you catch my drift.

If you've got internal demountable fuel tanks, that occupy cargo hold space "full time" ... regardless of whether those demountable fuel tanks have fuel in them or not ... you are entirely correct. Every ton of additional fuel capacity is a ton that is NEVER available for cargo capacity.

But with collapsible fuel tanks ... that isn't NECESSARILY the case.
Rather than it being a PERMANENT condition, it's instead a CIRCUMSTANTIAL condition.
It's something you do when you NEED to, but the rest of the time (when you don't need to) you aren't paying a (heavy) penalty for the option.

For merchant operations, collapsible fuel tanks to enable double (or even in extreme cases, triple!) jumping is definitely the way to go.
Needless to say, I've been thoroughly researching the topic (and the implications) in my own topic thread ... Pondering Starship Evolution ... in the Lone Star forum.

So long as you're able to ... modulate ... your revenue tonnage in ways that allow you to "fit the demand for interstellar transport services" based on where you intend to go (next) ... if you've got the "right" design of starship class, you should be able to operate profitably under "most" circumstances.

A security guarantee in District 268? The only guarantee in District 268 is 'you will get jumped at some point'.

Exactly.
Which means you need to either be capable of preventing a rendezvous with your starship by a "hostile" party (either system defense customs inspectors or ) via being able to Break Off By Acceleration (or Jumping) ... OR ... you need to be able to "repel boarders" via use of turret fire OR having enough Ship's Troops security personnel on payroll to make any boarding action "not worth the cost" and keep the intruders "honest" in their dealings with you.

So, basically ... you need to bring your OWN Security with you, rather than outsourcing any "guarantees" of security to local system defense (which typically means, type A-B starports as the main preventative against ).

My own personal solution to this problem is to include a purpose build Fighter Escort (or Fighter Decoy!) attached to a merchant starship and carried through jumps. The Fighter acts as a "mobile screen" weapons platform, granting a "Keep Away" aura to the parent starship the Fighter is in convoy with as escort. Costs a (good) bit more than just putting turrets and gunners on the starship itself, but merchant optimized starships RARELY make good platforms to fight from in space combat (minimal computer model, minimal maneuver drive/agility, etc.) ... so best to use a dedicated and purpose built sub-craft to undertake the "security guarantee" role in non-permissive environments, I'm thinking.

I can see the J1+1 has a lot of advantages, but can you make enough money with only 16 income-generating starport visits per year?

You can ... but it depends on the design of the class of starship that you're operating, and how much "security" is built into that design.
Furthermore, J1+1 is practically "ideal" for any sort of in-system Microjumper to outer/far companion orbits, especially if options for refueling (at "wilderness freebie" prices) are either limited or "expensive" in any way. Microjumping from a home port which allows wilderness refueling (from lakes and/or oceans) can do a LOT to help make revenues versus expenses "balance in your favor" ... especially if you've installed a Fuel Purification Plant onboard (which practically "pays for itself" in costs avoided after 1-2 jumps!).

Again, the Demonology Is In The Details.

 

[kilemall]

Yes, them, I can see vacationing in a backwater like Lanth. But the majority of visitors will be spacecrew. Lanth's 700,000 population can be expected to eat 2kg per day on average, and if half of that is imported, that's 700,000kg or 7000 tons of food per day being imported apart from all the other incidentals you need every day that an ocean world can't provide.

I don’t know that I buy quite that level of imports. Water plus oxygen alone gets you cheaper than pure tech food gen.

TL means a good deal of biotech and artificial food products. Not cheap but cheaper than dropping 7MCr daily worth of shipping alone- probably multipliers given the ag poor neighborhood.

My variables would be high tech, rich, garden and ag trade codes plus hydro 4+ would be cheaper more self reliant food source, tainted atmosphere low hydro and poor, non-ag, desert/vacuum low tech type worlds would have a harder time feeding themselves and need imports.

I’d probably factor in TL as a function of surface area, the higher tech the less you need, divided by population and more fragility with 4- pop worlds.

Relevant in world building, I’d peg meal prices on the variables and should help define typical cuisine. Obviously marine based in the case of Lanth with probably some algae equivalent as the fruit/veg/carbohydrate base. The further away ag planets are, the more costly shipping in mass quantities are and the more likely only expensive “ships well” luxuries are imported.

 

[Badenov]

I don’t know that I buy quite that level of imports. Water plus oxygen alone gets you cheaper than pure tech food gen.

Only if your diet consists of fish and seaweed and bioengineered Stuff^TM
.

TL means a good deal of biotech and artificial food products. Not cheap but cheaper than dropping 7MCr daily worth of shipping alone- probably multipliers given the ag poor neighborhood.

A good point. But if we drop the imported food to 25% if each person's daily intake, that's still 3500T/day. If you reduce it to 1/7 of yourdaily food, it's still 200 tons per day.

My variables would be high tech, rich, garden and ag trade codes plus hydro 4+ would be cheaper more self reliant food source, tainted atmosphere low hydro and poor, non-ag, desert/vacuum low tech type worlds would have a harder time feeding themselves and need imports.

I’d probably factor in TL as a function of surface area, the higher tech the less you need, divided by population and more fragility with 4- pop worlds.

Relevant in world building, I’d peg meal prices on the variables and should help define typical cuisine. Obviously marine based in the case of Lanth with probably some algae equivalent as the fruit/veg/carbohydrate base. The further away ag planets are, the more costly shipping in mass quantities are and the more likely only expensive “ships well” luxuries are imported.

Variables for what? I'm not clear on what any of this part is about. The overall conclusion remains that trade is important to Lanth and there are a large number of visiting spacers at any given time. Ample reason to find ways to get them to spend pay on-planet.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Only if your diet consists of fish and seaweed and bioengineered StuffTM

Travelerwiki: Hydroponics
From the article:

By TL–9 Bioregenerative Life Support has been developed. Bioregenerative Life Support is the goal of systems on airless worlds, where the biosystem recycles all wastes and provides all needed food and oxygen. Few systems can be maintained in such a state long term and must have supplemental supplies.

Lanth is TL=B ... so Bioregenerative Life Support systems are an "available technology" for Lanth in the world economy.
This would mean that for "simple sustenance" the population of Lanth do not REQUIRE imports to sustain them (at least not directly) ... but there would still be a demand for "artisanal agricultural imports" from other star systems (just like almost anywhere else, to be honest).

The overall conclusion remains that trade is important to Lanth

As a Non-industrial world, Lanth doesn't have a "fully developed/diversified domestic world economy" and is thus somewhat reliant on interstellar trade for the import of finished goods (along with the export of raw materials to balance the trade books). What this could mean in practice is that although Lanth has Bioregenerative Life Support in the form of Hydroponics (TL=9-A) on planet, the "parts and spares" for those systems might have to be imported from either Vilis or Lunion in the adjacent subsectors, due to a lack of a domestic industrial manufacturing base for those technologies natively on Vilis (the market for them just isn't "big enough" yet to set up a domestic supply chain, rather than relying on "cheaper" imports).

there are a large number of visiting spacers at any given time. Ample reason to find ways to get them to spend pay on-planet.

The presence of Imperial Navy & Scout Bases, along with being the subsector capital (due to being the ONLY type A starport in the sector!), basically ensures that there's going to be "a substantial amount of traffic" passing through the Lanth system, compared to the native permanent population.

Which then feeds into the notion that the local (permanent) population is "fine" with tourists (and their credits!), but isn't as welcoming to people who want to settle down and stay there permanently (and "join" the local communities). Come ready to spend, but don't overstay your welcome.

 

[Badenov]

Making 25 (single) jumps per year isn't always "practical" (in a variety of ways), particularly if you've got a "home port" that you want your starship to return to for annual overhaul maintenance every year. A lot of the time, 24 (single) jumps is a more realistic assumption ... and then you can give your crew a "1 month vacation" each year at your home port planet before starting up the next year of operations.

Of course, that's leaning more into the Life Simulator™ end of things, but still ...

I kind of like it when the Life simulator works. It makes the game feel more real.

Not really. The crews are "working" the same number of days per year ... they're just spending more of those days per year aboard the starship (in jump, earning revenue!) than the alternative. It's a basic tradeoff between earning more profit per year OR getting more liberty ashore per year (where you can waste your pay/get robbed/etc.). The crew salary is the same either way, but whether the starship's operational balance sheet is healthy enough to keeping working NEXT YEAR is the big difference.

Liberty ashore for crews is a "luxury" that can be afforded to starship operations that are NOT flirting with bankruptcy.

Having done this myself, I will say that work underway and work ashore are wildly different, mental health-wise, and no amont of pay will excuse too-high workloads. At the far end of that curve, you're into 'commit a crime to get off the ship, even if you wind up in jail' territory, and I've seen that irl, too. Also, earning revenue for someone else is kind of a garbage motivator for a crewperson earning 2000 Cr/month inport or underway. Profit sharing is a super way to motivate people to work harder/longer hours.

Been there, done that. It sucks.

Passengers and cargo both ... although, as always, the Demonology Is In The Details.
But, if double jumping "gets you where you need to go, starting NOW" ... then relative to the single jumping (wait for it) option, you've got a classic case of A Sure Thing™ (bird in the hand) versus an Unknown Possibility™ (two in the bush). After that, it's all a matter of Supply vs Demand in terms of pricing (and timing!) for being able to get to where you're wanting to go to (both as a customer or as a starship operator). Still, being able to "shortcut" across empty hexes via double jumping CAN make a tremendous difference.

Yes, but one of the details is 20% of your total hull volume that would normally carry cargo you get paid for now has to carry fuel that you don't get paid for. You also get fewer 'getting paid' events per year because you're spending more time in travel. Those two losses have to be made up for by increased income when you do sell.

When I was playing City of Heroes, a lot of the Superspeed (running on the ground) people would SNEER at how "slow" my movement was using a Flight pool power. That's because the maximum speed for running movement was ~90mph while the maximum speed for flying movement was ~67mph ... so in a drag race, the superspeeder was clearly faster on the streets of the urban city environement.

City has been resurrected and is playable again. Those discussions don't really happen where I play, but I understand the issues. Having played both movement sets, 90% of my chars choose flight for the exact reason you give, and the rest choose something else because I was feeling quirky when it came time to choose a movement power.

I simply countered by saying:

• Superspeed may be faster in a straight line, but Flight allows movement IN STRAIGHTER LINES ...

And then "proved it" by beating those same Superspeeders to mission doors with my "slower" Flight speed by virtue of taking a "shorter path" from A to B than the one they needed to run through in order to reach the same destination, which tended to be longer/more circuitous on the ground.

The same philosophy/mentality applies to the economics of double jumping through Deep Space empty hexes (kinda sorta) if you can manage it.

Well, if they're really empty, you'd have to double jump. I assume you mean empty of anything worth dealing with?

Hence why I said earlier upthread:

And I meant it.

Depends on how you ... finesse the issue ... if you catch my drift.

So yes.

If you've got internal demountable fuel tanks, that occupy cargo hold space "full time" ... regardless of whether those demountable fuel tanks have fuel in them or not ... you are entirely correct. Every ton of additional fuel capacity is a ton that is NEVER available for cargo capacity.

But with collapsible fuel tanks ... that isn't NECESSARILY the case.
Rather than it being a PERMANENT condition, it's instead a CIRCUMSTANTIAL condition.
It's something you do when you NEED to, but the rest of the time (when you don't need to) you aren't paying a (heavy) penalty for the option.

Well, no, If you've got a collapsible tank and you're double jumping, it's always full and thus cargo space unusable before you double jump. If you are in the middle of double jumping, and you've expended your collapsible tank, there's no way to get anything into that space unless you're only going to single jump afterward. If you're just describing the ability to reconfigure into a single jumper with more cargo space, I agree

For merchant operations, collapsible fuel tanks to enable double (or even in extreme cases, triple!) jumping is definitely the way to go.
Needless to say, I've been thoroughly researching the topic (and the implications) in my own topic thread ... Pondering Starship Evolution ... in the Lone Star forum.

I can see where there's advantage. I personally don't have the knowledge or attention level to be able to make it work properly.

So long as you're able to ... modulate ... your revenue tonnage in ways that allow you to "fit the demand for interstellar transport services" based on where you intend to go (next) ... if you've got the "right" design of starship class, you should be able to operate profitably under "most" circumstances.

Yes.

Exactly.
Which means you need to either be capable of preventing a rendezvous with your starship by a "hostile" party (either system defense customs inspectors or ) via being able to Break Off By Acceleration (or Jumping) ... OR ... you need to be able to "repel boarders" via use of turret fire OR having enough Ship's Troops security personnel on payroll to make any boarding action "not worth the cost" and keep the intruders "honest" in their dealings with you.

So, basically ... you need to bring your OWN Security with you, rather than outsourcing any "guarantees" of security to local system defense (which typically means, type A-B starports as the main preventative against ).

Yes

Again, the Demonology Is In The Details.

As always.

 

[Badenov]

Travelerwiki: Hydroponics

Bioengineered Stuff^TM

"Better than starving to death!"

 

[bookwyrm]

Been there, done that. It sucks.

x 10!

The cat's answer is so logical, I don't see why the workers are so upset. It'd suck in real life for sure. (I've done my share of double shifts, so tired.)

For the OP, how about a sea creature that is known of more by the infrequent fossils & skeletons found than the even more infrequent times it's been sighted. There just needs to be something about the creature that makes tourists want to spend Cr. to see it, even if the chance to see it is very, very low.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yes, but one of the details is 20% of your total hull volume that would normally carry cargo you get paid for now has to carry fuel that you don't get paid for. You also get fewer 'getting paid' events per year because you're spending more time in travel. Those two losses have to be made up for by increased income when you do sell.

Again, depends on how you finesse the issue with your starship design.
The other point is something you seem to be glossing over in your haste to reach a conclusion.

Let's take a (stock) J1 Free Trader ... and another (stock) J1 Free Trader ... and modify the second one with a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank in the cargo hold, enabling a J1+1 range potential.

(stock) J1 Free Trader

• 30 tons of internal fuel
• 6x high passengers
• 20x low berths
• 82 tons of cargo capacity

(slightly modified) J1 Free Trader

• 30 tons of internal fuel
• 6x high passengers
• 20x low berths
• 81.8 tons of cargo capacity
• 0.2 tons for 20 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (while empty)

In a J1 vs J1 competition, the (slightly modified) Free Trader can carry "1 less ton" of cargo than the (stock) Free Trader, so the "penalty" is marginal.

However, in a J1 (only) vs J1+1 competition that relies on single jumping vs double jumping ... what happens?

---

(stock) J1 Free Trader jumps 6x in 12 weeks (2 week business cycle tempo) to 6 starport destinations.
100% full manifest maximum revenue potential is therefore:

• 6*6 = 36x high passenger tickets (Cr360,000)
• 20*6 = 120x low passenger tickets (Cr120,000)
• 82*6 = 492 tons freight cargo tickets (Cr492.000)
  • 360,000 + 120,000 + 492,000 = Cr972,000

Sounds impressive right? Not bad for 3 months out of a year of business right ... assuming you can keep your manifests completely full for every single jump, right?

The thing is, what you're looking at is 1 jump per 2 weeks ... and you generate revenue PER JUMP.
Now compare that to the alternative ...

---

(slightly modified) J1+1 Free Trader jumps 8x in 12 weeks (3 week business cycle tempo) to 4 starport destinations.
100% full manifest maximum revenue potential is therefore:

• 6*8 = 48x high passenger tickets (Cr480,000)
• 20*8 = 160x low passenger tickets (Cr160,000)
• 62*8 = 496 tons freight cargo tickets (Cr496.000)
  • 480,000 + 160,000 + 496,000 = Cr1,136,000

Same span of time ... 12 weeks ... but the J1+1 configuration has the capacity to SELL MORE TICKETS during those 12 weeks, despite the fact that you're actually berthing at fewer starports (4 vs 6) over that span of time. That's because tickets are sold on the basis of 1 ticket per jump (regardless of parsecs traveled) ... rather than on the basis of starport destinations reached.

1,136,000 - 972,000 = Cr164,000 differential in maximum revenue potential while operating at 100% shipping manifest capacity for tickets
164,000 / 1,128,000 = +14.53900709% ≈ +14.54% for J1+1 relative to J1 only

---

Now, granted, the odds of being able to pull off a 100% full manifest EVERY SINGLE TIME starts getting increasingly unlikely ... but this simple little "napkin math" comparison shows that just because you reduce your cargo tonnage capacity does not ipso facto ALSO mean that you necessarily reduce your maximum revenue potential by the same amount of tonnage lost when calculating over equally long time scales for ease of cross-comparison.



And just to put the cherry on top, I'd be willing to "lose" Cr6000 off my topline maximum revenue potential (-1 cargo ton capacity while J1 only over 6 jumps during 12 weeks) in exchange for a "gain" of Cr164,000 in my topline maximum revenue potential (8 tickets instead of 6 while doing J1+1 over 8 jumps during 12 weeks) if it meant that my choices of destination(s) were no longer limited to being only ONE parsec away, before needing to refuel. That kind of operational flexibility in "reach" can EASILY "pay for itself" as a one time investment expense in an aftermarket modification ... after which, everything is gravy when it comes to operational flexibility.



And it's precisely that kind of cold hard cash minded exchange calculus that ought to make it possible for J1 Free Traders to transit 2 parsec "gaps" to places like Lanth a very practical and pragmatic consideration in the harsh light of commercial reality.

Not to get all Life Simulator Calculus Course on you about it.

 

[Badenov]

Again, depends on how you finesse the issue with your starship design.
The other point is something you seem to be glossing over in your haste to reach a conclusion.

Let's take a (stock) J1 Free Trader ... and another (stock) J1 Free Trader ... and modify the second one with a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank in the cargo hold, enabling a J1+1 range potential.

(stock) J1 Free Trader

• 30 tons of internal fuel
• 6x high passengers
• 20x low berths
• 82 tons of cargo capacity

(slightly modified) J1 Free Trader

• 30 tons of internal fuel
• 6x high passengers
• 20x low berths
• 81.8 tons of cargo capacity
• 0.2 tons for 20 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (while empty)

In a J1 vs J1 competition, the (slightly modified) Free Trader can carry "1 less ton" of cargo than the (stock) Free Trader, so the "penalty" is marginal.

However, in a J1 (only) vs J1+1 competition that relies on single jumping vs double jumping ... what happens?

So the problem is the J1+1 is getting paid twice for something that a J2 ship would charge half the price for. No one would take a J1+1 if a J2 ship were available (except maybe the uber wealthy for whom neither time nor money is an issue). Though I would argue that LBB2 can be interpreted another way: "Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance." (LBB2 p9). This would mean that you're paying for one trip to another system regardless of how many jumps it takes to get there, so rather than getting paid 8 times for passengers, you're only getting paid 4 times because 4 destinations. Then, J1+1 would cost the same as J2 when buying tickets (though it would still take a week longer, which still scores against the J1+1, if not as badly), but you as the operator would be getting paid 4 times per 12 jumps rather than 8 times.

My understanding is that cargo does not pay per jump, so that figure should be 62 * 4 rather than 62 * 8, but you mention cargo tickets, so I am confused. Cargo is bought at the source and sold at the destination. There should be no payment for cargo per jump, the payment for cargo should be per destination.

So I recalculate this (Using the 1 passenger ticket per destination method because you'd never get enough passengers the other way):

• 6*4 = 24x high passenger tickets (Cr240,000)
• 20*4 = 80x low passenger tickets (Cr80,000)
• 62*4 = 248 tons freight cargo tickets (Cr248.000)
  • 240,000 + 80,000 + 248,000 = Cr 568,000

So, that cuts out most of your revenue for the J1+1 ship. If there is a RAW for double jump tickets that says otherwise, I was not able to find it.

And it's precisely that kind of cold hard cash minded exchange calculus that ought to make it possible for J1 Free Traders to transit 2 parsec "gaps" to places like Lanth a very practical and pragmatic consideration in the harsh light of commercial reality.

Not to get all Life Simulator Calculus Course on you about it.

And this is why I don't understand it.

 

[kilemall]

Variables for what? I'm not clear on what any of this part is about. The overall conclusion remains that trade is important to Lanth and there are a large number of visiting spacers at any given time. Ample reason to find ways to get them to spend pay on-planet.

Variables for general capacity to generate food and to what quality and cost. Relevant in determining how truly necessary food import is, population strains on food supply, what sort of disposable income the populace has for local and imported luxuries, filling out what the planets typical diet and economic necessity structure is, translating into immediate not in Kansas anymore moments from the first time a character buys a meal.

World building.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Though I would argue that LBB2 can be interpreted another way: "Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance." (LBB2 p9). This would mean that you're paying for one trip to another system regardless of how many jumps it takes to get there, so rather than getting paid 8 times for passengers, you're only getting paid 4 times because 4 destinations.

Except ... you have entirely missed the point of what LBB2.81, p9 actually says.
I'll copy/paste quote it here for you and bold text what you are missing so you can see what you have overlooked.

LBB2.81, p9:

Passengers: [...]

Passengers will pay the standard fare for the class of transportation they choose: Cr10,000 for high passage, Cr8,000 for middle passage, and Cr1,000 for low passage. Passage is always sold on the basis of transport to the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance.

Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices. A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also may make otherwise inaccessible destinations within reach. But for two ships of differing jump numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the same cargo or passage price.

Ergo ... tickets are priced PER JUMP ... NOT per parsec.
If a starship needs to make more than one jump to reach the (ultimate) destination ... then you have to buy multiple tickets to reach that destination aboard THIS starship.

My understanding is that cargo does not pay per jump

Wrong.
Cargoes pay for tickets the same way that passengers do ... on a PER JUMP basis, regardless of the number of parsecs traveled per jump.

If cargo did NOT pay per jump, you could ship 1 ton of cargo across an entire SECTOR of space for Cr1000 for that 1 ton of cargo to transit (multiple) dozens of parsecs.
Such an interpretation does not even pass the laugh test (let alone the steward accounting test).

No one would take a J1+1 if a J2 ship were available

Notice what is underpinning your assumption ... that a "faster competitor" will AUTOMATICALLY (and Always?) be available with tickets for sale in direct competition to your own "slower" option ... leaving you with No Customers Willing To Buy At Your Price. That MIGHT be the case, some of the time ... but it won't necessarily be the case ALL of the time.

Besides, the LBB2 ticket rules aren't exactly modeling "there's another starship leaving to the same place that YOU are, and your competitor has better service and amenities than YOU do, so a -DM penalty is going to be assessed on the number of tickets that YOU can sell to the same destination" ... because RAW isn't trying to model "the entire pie" of interstellar transport competition, just merely the "slice of the pie" that is relevant to your starship operation.

Which is another way of saying that anyone buying J1+1 tickets from YOU when there's a J2 competitor at the starport going to the same place you're bound for ... well ... your competitor "sold out" their ticket capacity, but the demand for transport to that destination is greater than they can accommodate (alone) ... so YOU get the "overflow demand" that your competitor cannot satisfy RIGHT NOW. Therefore, even if your competition is offering a "better/cheaper service" than what you can, there is still demand for what YOU have to offer once "beggars can't be choosers" in terms of getting stuff (passengers and/or cargoes) to move.

And just like when demand outstrips supply, if the demand for transport to 2 parsecs away EXCEEDS the capacity of the J2 starship(s) going there ... then the Laws of Supply & Demand "dictate" that the price for the service to that destination 2 parsecs away will necessarily have to INCREASE in order to balance the Supply with that Demand ... at which point, paying 2 tickets for a J1+1 starship to the same destination 2 parsecs away is both "reasonable" and "makes sense" in macroeconomic terms.

Sure, the J2 starship will "sell out" first on ticket sales ... but then your J1+1 starship is ALSO there to scoop up the remaining pent up demand at a higher price (because, 2x tickets) than what the J2 starship was selling (fewer) 1x tickets to the exact same destination for.

We're talking WORLD EXPORT economy volumes of trade here ... compared to the "soda straw" transport capacity of ACS Free Trader competitors. There will tend to be an overall level of demand which individual starships cannot always suppy capacity for ... and so the ticket buyers get "bumped" down the list of options until they can buy what they need to get to where they want to go (even if it means needing to take more than 1 jump to get there).

As for waiting for a different competitor J2 starship to arrive next week going to the same place that your J1+1 starship is going to THIS week ... see again, bird in the hand versus two in the bush. If you couldn't buy a J2 ticket to where you want to go TODAY ... what guarantees do you have that you'll be able to buy a J2 ticket to that same location a week from now? If there are no guarantees that you'll get what you want if you wait a week, do you take the "sure thing" (at 2x price) now ... or do you keep waiting for a "cheaper" deal later ... while continuing to rack up living expenses while you wait?



The point I'm making is that the comparison isn't quite so simple as you've made it out to be.

 

[Commander Truestar]

Well, there has been a lot of posts since I commented and I must say....

1) Most importantly, I said that is how things work "IMTU" - what you do is perfectly fine for YTU

2) Yes, you can buy anything from Regina if you want to travel to Regina "and if" that product is available on Regina.

3) I find it entertaining that some of you feel surplus amounts of "for sale" goods will get to Regina using trade routes which, in some cases, jump to systems with Class D or even E ports.

My answer to that is that the "Big Haulers" will travel the Highways, not the small-ball traders.

4) My trade opinions are based on Real world Trade patterns", not "look at how close it is?"

Have you ever been to the Bahamas?
They "Can" buy anything from the United States that they want - and can afford
"But" they must pay a 100% import tax!!!
So anything you want, like a laptop computer, will cost you $300 and them $600 - just to buy

And while @Badenov says Cargo only pays once for the trip, and not "per jump", the ship still has to pay for the fuel.
So, like our Bahamian friends, they have to pay for either maritime or air- transport.

That means that, if it is not made in Regina, the buyer from Yori will have to pay for the cost of the item "plus the cost of transport" from the origin system.

And how do you reduce that cost to make any item fit into a shelf price that people will pay?
You ship them in bulk....not aboard J1/J2 small traders.
You built Mega-Transports who, like the tractor trailers of our world, "travel the highways"

Again, this is my opinion and you are free to ignore it