Why don't ships have...?

[pendragonman]

What's a "GEICO"? Feminine hygiene?

It's the name of an insurance company in the U.S.

Government Employees Insurance Company=> GEICO.

 

[Ex_Pendable]

Why don't ships carrying passengers invest more into entertainment gear such as vr gaming?

Why do so many ships lack basic bulkheads between sections of the ship?

 

[boomslang]

I have always assumed it is included in the mortgage for simplicity. That implies that normal ship loss rate is small, say less than ½%.

And once the mortgage is paid off, I give the characters the opportunity to purchase it separately.

I figure that premiums start at 0.1% of the ship's value per month, but quickly rise in response to claim filings, revised risk assessment, and so on -- just like insurance IRL.

 

[Timerover51]

And once the mortgage is paid off, I give the characters the opportunity to purchase it separately.

I figure that premiums start at 0.1% of the ship's value per month, but quickly rise in response to claim filings, revised risk assessment, and so on -- just like insurance IRL.

That is a pretty good system to use. I figure 1% of the current value of the ship per year, allowing for some depreciation. So a 40 year old, paid-off Free Trader would be worth about 50% of the price of a new ship. That might be high in valuing the ship, but it simplifies the math.

 

[whulorigan]

That is a pretty good system to use. I figure 1% of the current value of the ship per year, allowing for some depreciation. So a 40 year old, paid-off Free Trader would be worth about 50% of the price of a new ship. That might be high in valuing the ship, but it simplifies the math.

We have also used a 1% ship value per year, but I would also like to implement the GT:Far Trader idea of paying an up-front additional one-time premium for planned entry into amber-zoned (or equivalent) area in order to guarantee coverage in the event of partial or total loss. Anyone have any ideas as to what might be a good one-off rate for such an occurrence?

 

[aramis]

And once the mortgage is paid off, I give the characters the opportunity to purchase it separately.

I figure that premiums start at 0.1% of the ship's value per month, but quickly rise in response to claim filings, revised risk assessment, and so on -- just like insurance IRL.

That is a pretty good system to use. I figure 1% of the current value of the ship per year, allowing for some depreciation. So a 40 year old, paid-off Free Trader would be worth about 50% of the price of a new ship. That might be high in valuing the ship, but it simplifies the math.

Small problem there - that's the same as the monthly payment.
If you double the payment, you make no money on shipping without rejiggering all the costs.

 

[Timerover51]

We have also used a 1% ship value per year, but I would also like to implement the GT:Far Trader idea of paying an up-front additional one-time premium for planned entry into amber-zoned (or equivalent) area in order to guarantee coverage in the event of partial or total loss. Anyone have any ideas as to what might be a good one-off rate for such an occurrence?

I looked at data from insurance rates for World War 1 shipping on various routes. Pre-war insurance rates looked to be about 1.25 to 1.5 percent of ship and cargo. Once the War started rates went all over the place for the first few months, depending on where German surface raiders were operating. However, once things settled down, on the lower risk routes, the rates ran about 3 percent. That probably would work for an Amber Zone visit, and figure that covers just the ship. If cargo is being carried, that insurance would be paid by the shipper, and if speculative, the ship is assuming the risk.

I would therefore recommend 3 percent, but if the ship is on charter or operating for a patron, the patron has to pay that as part of the cost of using the vessel.

 

[whulorigan]

I looked at data from insurance rates for World War 1 shipping on various routes. Pre-war insurance rates looked to be about 1.25 to 1.5 percent of ship and cargo. Once the War started rates went all over the place for the first few months, depending on where German surface raiders were operating. However, once things settled down, on the lower risk routes, the rates ran about 3 percent. That probably would work for an Amber Zone visit, and figure that covers just the ship. If cargo is being carried, that insurance would be paid by the shipper, and if speculative, the ship is assuming the risk.

I would therefore recommend 3 percent, but if the ship is on charter or operating for a patron, the patron has to pay that as part of the cost of using the vessel.

Thanks for the research. That at least gives me a basis to think about.

 

[Timerover51]

Small problem there - that's the same as the monthly payment.
If you double the payment, you make no money on shipping without rejiggering all the costs.

The 1% is for a year, while the ship's mortgage payment is 5% a year. As the total cost of the ship, if mortgaged, actually comes out as 220% of the base price of the ship, allowing for insurance to be part of the ship payment does appear to be reasonable. The 1% would come into play once the ship is paid off, and be based either on the replacement cost of the ship or a discounted depreciated cost. Either way, it would be considerably less than the mortgage payment, if set at 1%.

 

[infojunky]

More small craft, in particular 5 or 10 ton craft, carried by ships, including streamlined ships.

Smallcraft or landers? I make the distinction as all of the standard Traveller Smallcraft are full fledged interplanetary craft.

Whereas Landers are optimised for the orbit to surface role. The funny thing is that Air/rafts and other grav vehicles are described in this role in Book 3, but the only example is the speeder. Though reading of some of the early adventures also talk about Grav Vehicles in the role as well.

 

[kilemall]

The 1% is for a year, while the ship's mortgage payment is 5% a year. As the total cost of the ship, if mortgaged, actually comes out as 220% of the base price of the ship, allowing for insurance to be part of the ship payment does appear to be reasonable. The 1% would come into play once the ship is paid off, and be based either on the replacement cost of the ship or a discounted depreciated cost. Either way, it would be considerably less than the mortgage payment, if set at 1%.

Even more reasonable if the payout is for closing out the loan rather then replacement. Then the percentage of the loan payment servicing the insurance gets smaller and smaller.

Could also be an option for replacement for 'equivalent value' re: age, a natural marketplace for all those repo ships. That would maintain the continuing obligation to service the loan.