Makes Money 400Td Merchant

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Makes Money 400Td Merchant

Postby AKAramis » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:38 pm

Code: Select all

400 Ton Hull AF      [400]    17.6	
Bridge                 20      2
Basic Military Sensors  3      2
Computer 1              –      0.03
Ship’s Locker           –      0.1
MD B = 1                3      8
JD B = 1               15     20
PP B = 1                7     16
PP Fuel 2wk             4      0
Jump Fuel 1J1          40      0
1 launches             20     14
10 SR                  40      5
10 LB                   5      0.5
2xHard Point            0      0.2
2xFC Tonnage            2      0
Cargo                 241      0
                     =====   =======
                      400     85.13

  2week month Item (prices in KCr)
  172   344   Normally Financed Payment (20% down)
   22    44   Fuel
   20    40   Maintenance
   10    20   Life Support 10 SR
    0.5   1   Life Support 10 LB      
    3     6   Captain/pilot
    2.5   5   Navigator
    2     4   Engineer
    2     4   Medic
    2     4   2 stewards
    2     4   2 gunners
  [20]  [40]  2 High Passengers
  [10]  [20]  10 Low Passengers
 [241] [482]  freight 241/2weeks.
============= 
  238   476   Expenses ST
 [271] [542]  Income ST
============= 
  [33]  [66]  Net
Note that 2 HP can be found most of the time, and the loss of 4MCr/Jump is no big deal for devolving to mids.
10 LP can usually be filled.
Filling the hold is going to be more of an issue, but should be doable; if speculation is done (with an expectation of about KCr2 per ton in play) she's able to turn a profit right out of the gate. No margin for sloppiness.

One other thought: this brings up two VERY broken bits in MoTrav Draft 3.x:
Crewing: Flat rate 1/50Td is broken. BADLY.

Stewards are the other broken element: under CT & MT a steward (presumed skill level 1) could support 8 high passengers, verus MoTrav's 1.
Mid Passenger under CT didn't require stewards. MT required 1:50. MoTrav requires 1:10 for the presumed level 1 steward.

I'd suggest:
A simplification from Bk 2 may be in order;
  1. Operations (Pilot, Nav, Commo, Sens, Admin/support weenies) 1/100
  2. Gunnery: 1 per battery with minimum 1/50 Td of armaments & screens
  3. Engineers: 1 per 35 tons of drives (round up)
  4. Stewards: 1 per X passengers
    • 5*Level HP
    • 10*(Level + 1) MP
This puts 8 hours of steward time per HP per jump as the norm. MP get 2 hours per jump with a nominal steward.

Steerage should be counted as about 1/3 a mid... you're just swilling hogs at that point!
Last edited by AKAramis on Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
SableWyvern
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby SableWyvern » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:10 am

Yet again, I find myself in total agreement with AKAramis regarding ship design.
Deniable
Mongoose
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:39 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Postby Deniable » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:30 am

c. Engineers: 1 per 35 tons of ship (round up)
That's 6 for a 200 ton ship or were you aiming for drive / plant tonnage?

Otherwise, your mods look pretty good.
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:41 am

Deniable wrote:
c. Engineers: 1 per 35 tons of ship (round up)
That's 6 for a 200 ton ship or were you aiming for drive / plant tonnage?

Otherwise, your mods look pretty good.
Corrected to drives. Thanks.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
Golan2072
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Yavne, Israel
Contact:

Re: Makes Money 400Td Merchant

Postby Golan2072 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:57 am

AKAramis wrote: One other thought: this brings up two VERY broken bits in MoTrav Draft 3.x:
Crewing: Flat rate 1/50Td is broken. BADLY.
Quoted for truth. Crew should depend on needed functions, not on ship size - a passenger ship needs stewards while a military craft needs gunners, marines and (in bigger ships) intelligence officers.
atpollard
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: Makes Money 400Td Merchant

Postby atpollard » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:38 pm

Golan2072 wrote:
AKAramis wrote:Crewing: Flat rate 1/50Td is broken. BADLY.
Quoted for truth. Crew should depend on needed functions, not on ship size - a passenger ship needs stewards while a military craft needs gunners, marines and (in bigger ships) intelligence officers.
Unless the FUNCTION + STEWARD crew of a commercial ship turns out to be roughly equal to the FUNCTION + GUNNER + MARINE + INTELLIGENCE crew of a military ship - and both of these happen to average 1 crewman per 50 dTons.

This has the potential to be something along the line of MegaTraveller sensors in Ship Design, where one wastes a lot of time calculating volume, weight, power requirements and costs that all get dropped in the process of rounding off the final figures instead of just using an abstract x Cr per dTon of ship like Classic Traveller.

100 dTon Scout = 2 crew (CT crew = 1)
200 dTon Free Trader = 4 crew (CT crew = 4)
400 dTon Fat Trader = 8 crew (CT crew = 5-7)
600 dTon Liner = 12 crew (CT crew = 9-12)

The Mongoose Traveller values are a little different than CT, but are they really "badly broken"?
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:46 pm

AT:

the issue isn't Traders versus Gunboats so much as it is J1 versus J2 cargo haulers versus q-ships versus liners, as well as NEEDED detail.

A 400Td J1 1G (Drives B, B, and B) has 25 tons of drives, and 8 crew, no matter if she's pure cargo, cargo and passenger, or liner, or even q-ship with a pair of 50Td weapon bays!
Now, the 400Td J2 3G(Drives D, D, & D) (25+7+13=35) needs 35 tons of drives, and still has the same 8 crew.
Now, a 3G J3 400Td (F F & F, 35+11+21) uses 67 tons of drives, with the same 8 crew.

Now, a liner should require more crew than a pure cargo ship of the same legs. And a Q-ship should require more than a pure cargo. But under the current draft, the Q-ship has more gunners, and fewer engineers, even though she's probably got more drives than the pure cargo.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
pasuuli
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:53 pm

Re: Makes Money 400Td Merchant

Postby pasuuli » Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:04 pm

atpollard wrote:
Golan2072 wrote:
AKAramis wrote:Crewing: Flat rate 1/50Td is broken. BADLY.
Quoted for truth. Crew should depend on needed functions, not on ship size - a passenger ship needs stewards while a military craft needs gunners, marines and (in bigger ships) intelligence officers.
Unless the FUNCTION + STEWARD crew of a commercial ship turns out to be roughly equal to the FUNCTION + GUNNER + MARINE + INTELLIGENCE crew of a military ship - and both of these happen to average 1 crewman per 50 dTons.

This has the potential to be something along the line of MegaTraveller sensors in Ship Design, where one wastes a lot of time calculating volume, weight, power requirements and costs that all get dropped in the process of rounding off the final figures instead of just using an abstract x Cr per dTon of ship like Classic Traveller.

100 dTon Scout = 2 crew (CT crew = 1)
200 dTon Free Trader = 4 crew (CT crew = 4)
400 dTon Fat Trader = 8 crew (CT crew = 5-7)
600 dTon Liner = 12 crew (CT crew = 9-12)

The Mongoose Traveller values are a little different than CT, but are they really "badly broken"?
There's a playable difference between a Scout ship requiring 2 crew versus only needing 1.

And, even the Free Trader can potentially be crewed by one person in CT.
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:47 pm

Yes, one man could fly a Free trader... if he was Pilot 2 Engineer 2.
But the crewing was a pilot, an engineer, and a medic, plus a steward if passengers were carried, and a gunner or two if armed.

Crewing is one of the few areas I think detail is NEEDED, not just a nicety.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
atpollard
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Postby atpollard » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:01 pm

Gentlemen:
I really do understand your point.
If the new ‘adventure class ship’ design rules had been based on a High Guard type of system [which I would have preferred], then I would agree with you…

… but it is not.

In CT Book 2, lasers and many computers required no energy points, virtually all bridges are 20 dTons. Sensors are all equal and ‘military’ drives use unrefined fuel while the same drives in a civilian ship cannot. The system is full of simplifications that apply ‘most of the time’ but should not ‘logically’ apply all of the time.

One crew per 50 dTons works fine (as a generalized simplification) for the adventure class ships most commonly encountered. Your complaints are justification for an article in Signs and Portents or an OGL product to detail how to handle ‘special cases’:

SC1: Perhaps the minimum crew is 50% of the ‘normal crew’.

(PS. In CT Book 2, pg 16, every ship needs a pilot. Every ship of 200 dTons and more add an engineer and a medic. Over 200 dTons adds a navigator . The 200 dTon type A requires at least 3 positions, although 2 crewmen could fill those 3 positions. – whatever source psauuli quoted disagrees with LBB 2. This is not a criticism, just pointing out that a case for a minimum 2 man crew instead of a 1 man crew for a Free trader can be made.)

SC2: Perhaps Q-ships need more crewman.

SC3: Perhaps Freight-only ships need less crew.

All of these valid questions do not alter the basic fact that 1 per 50 could easily work for most typical starships which are designed for a mixture of passengers and freight. It could also work for SDBs and Patrol Craft that have additional support personnel at a base and probably have better access to crewmen able to fill 2 positions.

I must conclude that the Crew rules can work for most normal cases and are no more abstract than the ship design rules for other components.
pasuuli
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:53 pm

Postby pasuuli » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:55 pm

atpollard wrote:Gentlemen:
I really do understand your point.
If the new ‘adventure class ship’ design rules had been based on a High Guard type of system [which I would have preferred], then I would agree with you…
While I sympathize and see obstacles to overcome down the road, I'm so pleased that MGT uses something like Book 2!
I must conclude that the Crew rules can work for most normal cases and are no more abstract than the ship design rules for other components.
It seems to be the opposite way, though. Book 2 is about a group of player characters and the needs of a tramp trader. And, the smallest starships are intentionally not normal. Hence its crew rules. High Guard shifts focus to wargaming.

Simultaneously, Book 2 has a very nice crew abstraction for ships 1000 tons and up.
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:52 am

atpollard wrote:Gentlemen:
I really do understand your point.
If the new ‘adventure class ship’ design rules had been based on a High Guard type of system [which I would have preferred], then I would agree with you…

… but it is not.
And one area CT Bk 2 DID NOT simplify was crew requirements!

And for small ships (≤1000Td), HG uses the Bk 2 formulae for crews.

It is also obvious from draft 3 that MoTrav is not Bk2, but somewhere between Bk2 and HG.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
atpollard
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Postby atpollard » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:01 am

If you include the optional gunners for the turrets (which most player ships seem to have) then:

A 100 dTon Scout requires 2 crew in MoT and 2 crew in CT.
A 200 dTon Free Trader requires 4 crew in MoT and 4 crew in CT.
A 400 dTon Subsidized Merchant requires 8 crew in MoT and 7 crew in CT.
A 600 dTon Subsidized Liner requires 12 crew in MoT and 12 crew in CT.

Where are the rules broken?
What common PC ship is radically affected?

Your argument seems based on the fact that the MoT crew rule is DIFFERENT from CT. Different is not the same as broken. The crew requirements for the sample ships in Book 2 don't look all that broken to me.

If you just hate the change, then say that you just hate it ... or show me where it is broken. There are no Q-ships or Freight Only ships in Book 2 and there is no indication that MoT will include them.

Power plants that will not power the Maneuver Drive is 'broken', this is just different.
SableWyvern
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby SableWyvern » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:51 am

For myself, the major benefit of AKAramis' system is that is allows me to determine what type of crew is required, and do so consistently. Telling me a ship requires 14 crew is of minimal usefulness ... I'd like to know how many engineers, how many sensor operators, how may stewards etc..

We already have a basis for determining the number of stewards required, based on expected high passengers ... but, do the crew size defaults assume stewards of any particular level? Do I need more crew if my stewards are mediocre, or less if they're excellent? Are gunners included in the standard crewing values?

From atpollard's post, it would seem gunners should be included in the current abstract crewing system. But, I'd have no way of making that determination myself without studying the CT ship design system. Which is my main problem with the current system: it's probably fine for experienced Travellers, many of whom could quite probably eyeball a design and give you breakdown of crew requirements off the top of their head. For those of us with less prior experience, we aren't given the detail required to make these decisions, and any decisions we do make are liable to be different from future official designs.
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:51 am

I have.

but to put it into simpler terms, ne, to reduce to the absurd:

In MoTrav, I could crew that free trader with nothing but pilots and still be within the rules. It doesn't say I need engineers.

I have to have some steward skill levels to carry passengers. But I'm not required by the rules to have engineers (it's dangerous, but doable).

The lack of differentiation is in itself broken, plus the coupling to not increasing crew with increasing equipment within the same hull.


That is BROKEN, not just "I dislike it."
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
SableWyvern
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby SableWyvern » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:57 am

atpollard wrote:If you just hate the change, then say that you just hate it ... or show me where it is broken. There are no Q-ships or Freight Only ships in Book 2 and there is no indication that MoT will include them.
As long as we have a ship design system, we do have Q-ships and freight-only ships, as well as liners, armed freightors, recreational vessels, couriers, mining vessels and dedicated warships. I know I'll quite probably be designing a range of ships with different missions. Being able to do this, it seems to me, is the whole point of including the design system in the first place.
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:01 am

SableWyvern wrote: But, I'd have no way of making that determination myself without studying the CT ship design system.
Here's CT Bk2's system:
The Traveller Book, ©1982 GDW, page 59 wrote:Pilot (Cr6,000 monthly): minimum 1 per vessel. Ships 100 tons and over require skill pilot-1 or better; small craft (under 100 tons) require ship's boat-1 or better (or may use pilot minus 1).
Navigator (Cr5,000 monthly): minimum one per ship over 200 tons.
Engineer (Cr4,000 monthly): minimum one per 35 tons of drives (jump drive, maneuver drive, and power plant combined). Not required on vessels less than 200 tons. Highest skilled (or oldest) is chief engineer and draws 10% more pay.
Steward (Cr3,000 monthly): Minimum one per 8 high passengers. Required if high passengers are carried. Highest skilled is chief steward (or purser) and draws 10% more pay.
Medic (Cr2,000 monthly): Minimum 1 per 120 passengers. Required on all starships 200 tons or more. Not necessary on non-starships and small craft. Highest skilled is ship's doctor and draws 10% more pay.
Gunner (Cr1,000 monthly): One per turret or per small craft if considered necessary. Highest skilled is chief gunner and draws 10% more pay.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
atpollard
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Postby atpollard » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:31 pm

I would imagine that in most cases, the players would base the actual 'crewing' of the ship on the skills needed to do what the players want to do. The MoT rules tell me that my 200 dTon ship requires a crew of 4. If I want to fly it like Han Solo, then I will want one of my characters to have pilot skill. If I want to calculate jumps, then one of my characters will probably have 'Navigation'. If I want to repair the engines, then one of my characters will probably have Engineering. If I want to care for high passengers, then one of my characters will probably have Steward. If I want to fire those two turrets, then two of my characters will probably have Gunnery. If our crew occasionally gets shot, then one of my characters will probably have Medical. That's 7 desirable crew positions common to virtually all ships.

I agree that some 'guidelines' on the number of Engineers or Stewards should be included. I also agree that the rules can be abused to create silly situations. But this is no different than CT:

In CT a 199 dTon starship with 35 dTons of drives (or 69 dTons of drives if you round down) and a tripple turret and lots of military electronics could be operated by a crew of 1. MoT's 1 per 50 would at least limit THAT abuse to a minimum crew of 3.

In CT B2, a 2000 dTon Liner with hundreds of middle passengers would require NO stewards.

Is the old system any less subject to abuse than the new system?

I just don't see how setting the normal crew at 1 per 50 dTons is so terrible a guideline when it comes so close to the normal crew requirements of B2. These are, after all, subject to GM moderation of abuses and special situations - just like CT (and all of the other versions).
SableWyvern
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby SableWyvern » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:00 pm

I don't believe that 1 per 50dt as a rule of thumb is a travesty.

I disagree with the assertion implicit in this comment:
This has the potential to be something along the line of MegaTraveller sensors in Ship Design, where one wastes a lot of time calculating volume, weight, power requirements and costs that all get dropped in the process of rounding off the final figures instead of just using an abstract x Cr per dTon of ship like Classic Traveller.
that adding a more detailed breakdown of crew structure is wasted space and effort. Contrary to that, it would actually serve a very real and useful purpose.
Is the old system any less subject to abuse than the new system?
Personally, that's irrelevant. I don't care at all how useful CT Book 2 is or was, since I do not own it and have no intention of acquiring it.
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:26 am

SableWyvern wrote:I don't believe that 1 per 50dt as a rule of thumb is a travesty.

I disagree with the assertion implicit in this comment:
This has the potential to be something along the line of MegaTraveller sensors in Ship Design, where one wastes a lot of time calculating volume, weight, power requirements and costs that all get dropped in the process of rounding off the final figures instead of just using an abstract x Cr per dTon of ship like Classic Traveller.
that adding a more detailed breakdown of crew structure is wasted space and effort. Contrary to that, it would actually serve a very real and useful purpose.
Is the old system any less subject to abuse than the new system?
Personally, that's irrelevant. I don't care at all how useful CT Book 2 is or was, since I do not own it and have no intention of acquiring it.
BTW, the bulk of CT Bk2 design system is in MoTrav Draft 3.x. Crew differs, the power requirement is only that the PP equal or exceed the letter of the MD and JD. Only 4 weapons options: Beam Laser, Pulse Laser, Missile Rack, and Sandcaster. Bridges were all 2% or 20Td, bigger of.

So CT is directly relevant, as essentially, we're looking at MoTrav's design system being fundamentally Bk 2 ++

A better crew determination system, with required skills per position, and effects of it being unfilled, are important to running ship-based games.

By the same token, I dislike the maintenance costs; they work out to about 6x as much for low-J freighters, and about 2x as much for warships, as the old once per year of Bk2/Bk5/MT/TNE/T4/T20 at 0.1% ship cost.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests