Starship Economics and StarCraft

[Fox's Master]

As a gamer for over 30 years, the Mongoose Published version of Traveller proved quite interesting after myriad attempts at altering the original game vis-a-vis starships (construction, costs, and maintenance) and character development. The game provides quite a bit of detail, but the costs within the game have not suited our interests. Thus, given the relative worth of everything else in the game, I've lowered (by as much as 95%) the costs associated with starship deign/construction and maintenance. Now, while the characters still have to work hard to make that mortgage payment if they own a ship, they feel less like indentured servants and instead capitalists trying to stay one step ahead of the next bill.

The other item which I've incorporated into the game ~ StarCraft vehicles and especially the Zerg (changed slightly), but provide an ever-widening arc for the story/campaign. It also provides the characters with some nifty toys, such as Goliaths, Vultures, and Cloak Devices (Ship and Personal). The individual with whom I game has never played StarCraft, so the entire genre is new and exciting to him.

I welcome comments and input.

FM

 

[D. Foxx]

I see!!!

You're right, I have never played StarCraft. But now I may have to do some research.

BTW, you still haven't accepted that friendship request I sent!!!:devil:

 

[Fox's Master]

Do I know you? :rofl:

Oh, you're my friend Foxx

 

[far-trader]

Welcome aboard FM

(and I see D. Foxx got his handle change handled )

I applaud your value reset, I've long advocated the same for like reasons. I went with changing costs and revenue of almost all startship related activities to 10% of the listed values. Just a simple decimal move for ease. It makes things more grounded imo. Easier to deal with being a little short for a mortgage payment and taking a special job for some Cr20,000 instead of Cr200,000.

Also I found it easier to justify fuel and life support costs at the reduced values, and passages made more sense if it didn't cost a small fortune to travel on a tramp free-trader.

 

[Fox's Master]

Greetings Far Trader

D. Foxx and I go back over 25 years together. We've maintained a D&D adventure over 20 years (there was a 15+ year hiatus in the middle due to military service), and we played Traveller back in the day when you either had the hardback book by Marc Miller or the little black books (ahhhh, memories!). Today, thanks to a webcam and most recently, the Fantasy Grounds application, we now enjoy the luxury of GMing one another in each other's campaigns.

Thanks for the response ~ I'm a bit out-of-my-league with some of the folks on this site, despite being a Grognard (I can only guess that's a gamer's version of a "cougar" for a woman who prowls bars ~ meaning someone with ample "experience"). Anyway, as I'm currently running both a Traveller and a Serenity campaign (you can see details on another thread), I couldn't get my head around the exorbitant costs in Traveller vice the "Oh, if I take enough jobs, I can still make my ship's mortgage" scenario in Serenity. Again, I get the fact that owning a starship is an expensive enterprise. But, no one goes into business with such a "nut" knowing all-too-well that the business may fail. While some GMs may eschew the common tropes: trying to make the monthly payments; staying one step ahead of the guys from whom you borrowed a couple hundred thousand credits; expensive maintenance bills for the ship your party loves . . . , they make for great adventures

FM

 

[Gray Lensman]

Stats Please

The other item which I've incorporated into the game ~ StarCraft vehicles and especially the Zerg (changed slightly),
I welcome comments and input.

FM

I for one would like to see the Traveller Stats for the Starcraft Stuff. I used to be an avid Starcraft fan myself.

 

[Fox's Master]

StarCraft Stats

Gray Lensman:

As my player, D. Foxx, combs this site, I can't very well post it here ; ) However, pass along your e-mail address or if this site has some type of e-mail system, I'll forward the stats to you this (or next) weekend.

FM

 

[Gray Lensman]

Gray Lensman:

As my player, D. Foxx, combs this site, I can't very well post it here ; ) However, pass along your e-mail address or if this site has some type of e-mail system, I'll forward the stats to you this (or next) weekend.

FM

I would Appreciate It, just attach to a PM here in the forum.

 

[Sanjuro]

I forget when I first realised that the original Traveller rules, and their successors in MT, made running any starship greater than Jump-1 economically unviable. It would have been great to have a system that gave a balanced way of charging more for higher jump number freight and passengers.

 

[aramis]

I forget when I first realised that the original Traveller rules, and their successors in MT, made running any starship greater than Jump-1 economically unviable. It would have been great to have a system that gave a balanced way of charging more for higher jump number freight and passengers.

J2 can make a profit in either CT or MT... It's not easy, but it can be done.
The two enablers are a broker 2+, and a trader 3+.
Having a broker aboard insures you can find one, and cuts your broker costs in half.
Having the trader skill of 3+ allows a 9 day first die prediction... allowing you to pick which of the lots available under MP to buy.

Also note that Trader 1 allows predicting the first die before buying... and THAT alone means being able to avoid the upper third of purchase prices.

 

[Sanjuro]

True, trading makes it possible... but carrying passengers remains unrealistic, as long as "High Passage costs Cr10000, regardless of distance" remains true.
By building, say, a Jump-3 ship instead of a Jump-1;
Manufacturing costs are greater, operating costs are greater (fuel, engineering crew), yet I can devote LESS of the ship's tonnage to revenue-generating space- but I cannot recoup any of this extra cost by charging more for the journey!
In fact, given a journey of J-3, I can charge three times as much by doing 3 J-1s, despite the fact that I inconveniencing my passengers by trebling the journey time!

 

[aramis]

Yes, true. Which is why various of us have figured out what the costs should be, by using J1 as the baseline.

I'll point out that, by doing the math, using Bk5 designs, I found that J2 is profitable for mid passages, too, using HG and TL13+. http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=21552&highlight=Consolidated+Errata

 

[Samules]

Ok, this is getting weird. Two days ago it was Traveller and D&D and now this. Someone is out there looking over my text files and putting up posts based on those (not that I don't appreciate all the ideas but it's still it's creepy).

 

[Fox's Master]

I've not been peering over your shoulder.

Samules,

Quite a funny post ~ thanks! :rofl:

I've been TDY (temporary duty) with my job recently, so I haven't had a chance to figure out the method by which I can post the Starcraft Stats for folks who are interested. I have to keep it under wraps, as my player combs these threads . . . :devil:

Several weeks ago, I promised Gray Lensman that I would post and I need to make good on that offer.

FM

 

[Sanjuro]

Just post some artificially low figures, let him attack the siege tank on the hilltop, smile and let him find out the hard way!

 

[Fox's Master]

Siege attack - epic fail!

That's just cruel - I like!

 

[Gerry Miller]

Starship economics

I would have too agree on the mark of costs. I really like what mongoose has done and am a classic Traveller fan. Mongoose is very compatible with classic Traveller but the costs are both the same. If you really think about it from today's Standards 29.5 Million (Scout/Courier) would not be in a lot of peoples hands and financing in these numbers would be more difficult then banks could allow. So I have thought about moving the decimal point one over on all costs. 2.9 million for a Scout/Courier sounds a little bit more reasonable.

100% of costs at Tech Level 10-11
75% cost TL12
50% cost TL13
25% cost TL 14
10% cost at TL15 and up.

Think about computers in our lifetime. As technology advances and society finds more ways to develop cheaper and better technology for a more reasonable price the costs drop dramatically. I also have eliminated life support costs. The life support equipment runs off of the powerplant as long as the ship is properly maintained. Food, Fuel and supply costs of course exist.

 

[aramis]

35m vessels, used, (http://www.maritimesales.com/Other Vessels.htm) range up to €2,100,000 used... and those are merely water-tight, not spaceworthy... the one delisted (EVA10) is about 100Td, 23 years old, and 2.1 million euros used. Which corresponds to about half a million CrImp. So it's NOT unreasonable for a space ship to be 10x that used, and 60x that new...

New 35m combattants run $2,000,000,000.00... PDF:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32914.pdf

 

[Fox's Master]

Starship Economics

One of the difficulties in this exercise is correlating today's costs vis-a-vis ships of the sea with those bound for interstellar travel. Aramis, while I agree that capital naval ships, whether those possessed by the U.S. in the year 2010 or those of the Intergalatic Fleet 100 years hence shall always remain out of reach to anyone, the run of the mill conveyance should not bankrupt the common trader. Having examined the first website cited in your post, the 84 ships designated as sold have an average cost of $800,000. There were certainly quite a few (>50%) under $500,000, while larger ships captured extremely high prices ($19,000,000).

Our (Gerry Miller and I) contention is that given the rate of development for far future technologies, the cost while exorbitant in the beginning will drop precipitously, as we've seen in every tech-breakthrough. If trade remains a central part of any campaign, either a.) the cost to purchase/maintain a ship must be in-line with that of a space-worthy tractor-trailer ($100K) or b.) the costs associated with salaries, raw materials, manufactured goods, ship passage, and all other elements of a robust economy must rise dramatically. Personally, as an old economics student, I would much prefer the former to the latter. Holding everything else constant and making changes to only one aspect of the economy (and specifically the area of trade ships) remains the most straightforward way to "fix" the issue at hand.

Again, for those who enjoy playing non-stop trade sessions, more power to you. For my players, I don't want them to be "ordinary individuals in extraordinary times," I want them be "extraordinary individuals in extraordinary times." This is why I developed Skill Enhancement Points, reduced the overall cost of trade ships, and doubled the range on Jump drives. we all work for a living ~ I don't want the game, in any way, to resemble work...from the minutiae of having to calculate down to the nth credit for profit every trade-run, to characters which never develop skills beyond the initial background, to a vast area of the black which the characters can't visit because their jump drive only allows them to move among 5-6 planets.

 

[aramis]

Pulling some numbers from CT, MT, & TNE sources...
Well, if Joe average has an upkeep cost of 1500/mo (MT: Soc 6 x1 person), and a ship taes 12 months to build, each laborer on that ship needs to make Cr1500/month minimum, or KCr18 per laborer... and at least 10 laborers, we push the cost to KCr180 bare minimum. But yard workers have almost never been average laborers... And at KCr5 per cargo ton (CT: trade tables) metal, that's at best KCr0.5 per mass ton (Based upon the TNE limit of 10 tons mass per Td), with even the lightest ships coming in at 2 tons mass per displacement ton (MT and TNE), you're looking at KCr1 per Td in materials cost alone just for the hull, and that's for steel, not BSD.

So if you're dropping costs, a at a minimum, the 100 ton hull should be costing KCr100 in materials, plus KCr150 in labor, plus 100% markup for yard costs and admin expenses, puts it at MCr0.5, plus fittings.

Yeah, the numbers are rough, and probably low end due to better materials... and I'm being generous. But the CT prices are surprisingly well integrated. (Including costs of shipping if you ONLY presume J1 commercial shipping.)