Okay, say your group wants to sell their starship...

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Another option is that the characters effectively hold a mortgage on their old ship and for every 1% of the original value of the ship owed they are paid 1000 CR a year. This is like a PC that rolled a ship but didn't take it, they own a 25% interest in a ship "out there" generating an income for them of 25,000 Cr/year. Or a number of ship shares each worth 1 MCr and generating an income of 1000 Cr/year.

Adventures can result when the income stops coming and the PCs want to know why.

 

[Condottiere]

Looking at this from the depreciation point of view, as long the spacecraft components:

1. Don't develop a debilitating quirk

2. Aren't damaged catastrophically

3. Don't require to be removed in a refit

... the spacecraft retains (mostly) it's book value.


Engineering is the core of spacecrafts, and specifically, the jump drive for starships.

And I don't think there is a mechanism for any performance deterioration.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Looking at this from the depreciation point of view, as long the spacecraft components:

1. Don't develop a debilitating quirk

2. Aren't damaged catastrophically

3. Don't require to be removed in a refit

... the spacecraft retains (mostly) it's book value.


Engineering is the core of spacecrafts, and specifically, the jump drive for starships.

And I don't think there is a mechanism for any performance deterioration.

A car depreciates by 10%+ the moment you drive it off of the car lot. So, your theory is flawed. You used the word depreciation without understanding it's meaning. No dealership is going to pay sticker price of a new car even if it is a new car. All of your parts are still as new as when you bought the car across the street, but the dealership will still not give you full price for it. I sold cars for a Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealership as a teenager. My department was used car sales. We didn't call them pre-owned at the time...lol...

 

[Condottiere]

Oh, I don't know.

Price tends to depend on perceived value.

Wasn't there quite a recent time, when lack of supply caused second hand car prices to surge above recommended sales prices?

Or, even graphic cards?

 

[swordtart]

Looking at this from the depreciation point of view, as long the spacecraft components:

1. Don't develop a debilitating quirk

2. Aren't damaged catastrophically

3. Don't require to be removed in a refit

... the spacecraft retains (mostly) it's book value.


Engineering is the core of spacecrafts, and specifically, the jump drive for starships.

And I don't think there is a mechanism for any performance deterioration.

Arguably that is the point of all that maintenance. It is to ensure there is no depreciation. If you skip maintenance there is a chance you suffer a critical hit.

Depreciation is an accountancy trick. If a thing is just as capable of performing it's role as a new thing then it is worth the same as that new thing. Property does not depreciate, it increases in value (in the UK at least). It is usually when it is cheaper to replace things than to maintain them or new things can be made more cheaply that things loose value as they get older.

If we looked after things they would not depreciate - but it would spell the end of the consumer economy.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Arguably that is the point of all that maintenance. It is to ensure there is no depreciation. If you skip maintenance there is a chance you suffer a critical hit.

Depreciation is an accountancy trick. If a thing is just as capable of performing it's role as a new thing then it is worth the same as that new thing. Property does not depreciate, it increases in value (in the UK at least). It is usually when it is cheaper to replace things than to maintain them or new things can be made more cheaply that things loose value as they get older.

If we looked after things they would not depreciate - but it would spell the end of the consumer economy.

I am pretty sure greedy businessmen are the same in any universe. They will have accountants to tell them how to not pay as much as they otherwise would for anything. So, I could see there being something similar in Charted Space. Greed is universal. Hell, it even exists in Star Trek. lol

 

[Condottiere]

If you build more houses than demographics support, deflation would seem likely.

Travellernomics don't make sense, they are there to give some structure to world building.

Spacecraft maintenance costs are incredibly cheap.

I suppose forty year mortgages and values were picked, because that around that time we tend to write off maritime seacraft, and currently, a lot are discarded earlier, due to operating costs and efficiency, and apparently, new fuel standards.

 

[swordtart]

Not just ships.

We have aircraft that are in service for decades and even when we think they are obsolete we sell them on to other nations who continue to operate them for decades more. I am still supporting crypto boxes that were developed in the cold war. In the past the UK raided museums to support operations (Black Buck).

We have plenty of WW2 aircraft that are still flying and still capable of performing their original mission. That mission is no longer relevant but they are no less capable.

The ISS has a planned 30 year life. Voyager was launched in 1977 and is still operating almost 50 years later. I don't think either has received significant physical maintenance due to the limitations of getting supplies up there.

In the Ukraine WW2 hand weapons were being pressed into service by both sides. This was considered news worthy in a modern war. Of course insurgents have been using ancient weapons against modern forces for decades. People still collect and use historic handguns. They are still capable of killing people. It is only once the ammunition becomes obsolete (or the weapons have been mistreated) that they stop being useful.

Because they have to be lightweight, aircraft are very finicky, fragile and require lots of maintenance even when they just sit on the ground. Real world space craft tend to be fragile also due to the cost of launch. Traveller space craft are not fragile and so they should be far more robust. They also have the option of regular maintenance. Their biggest stresses will likely be take off and landing but as they have thrusters it shouldn't be subject to the same stresses that real world spacecraft have to endure during those phases.

The point is that those 40-100 year old Traveller ships are not obsolete. The exact same designs are being built hundreds of years after their development. Some systems might have been redesigned (as we have moved between game editions) but they are functionally equivalent. So the ships remain as capable as a new build. Thus they have the same value. Unlike consumer products they are not so cheap or common* that people will just get a new one every 5 years and thus bloat the second hand market driving down prices.

Unless there has been damage, or a component has actually changed to one with a different cost would there be any reason to justify a reduction in value. If you want to use the age related quirks system then the cost reduction comes with a quirk, that is the result of something unusual that happened in that time period, not due to the ship "going off".

Fundamentally consider your players. If you offer them a 40 year-old ship that is functionally identical to a brand new ship that just costs more, which one will they choose? In order to make that choice a no-brainer you would need to introduce some disadvantage to offset the price difference. You would need to ensure that the costs of overcoming that disadvantage was not trivial or they would just by the cheaper ship and get it fixed.

Typical issues that I have experienced are intermittent faults in distributed systems that are hard to track down and thus cannot simply be fixed by getting a new box. Systems that are incompatible with modern standards but cannot be replaced as they are locked into others systems. Fuel leaks from "somewhere" but would require completely stripping down the aircraft and months of ground time to identify. Systems that have never worked, but are not critical enough to ground an aircraft long enough to actually fix it. Designs that allow ingress of foreign matter (or seagulls) that cannot be eliminated without completely redesigning the aircraft and can only be dealt with on a case by case basis. Things that are clearly wrong, have an obvious cause but are just too expensive to fix in this budgetary cycle.

You can actually have something that could reduce the purchase price more than the cost to repair, but unless the players have an excess of cash on hand, they will need to live with it until they can afford to pony up the capital - and by then they might have got used to it, or there will be another priority for that cash. The repair may take more time than they have at the moment or require extensive investigative work that will result in grounding the ship (and money), thus providing a good reason for some dirt-side adventure and time for their adversaries to catch up with them. If it is an intermittent fault they may discover that it recurs a few days/weeks/months later and all that time and money was in effect wasted (you could be kind and reduce the rate of occurrence as contributary factors are eliminated after each repair cycle).

There is plenty of scope (and probably fun) to add this sort of thing, but it isn't baked in.

*Other than maybe Ship's Boats, the Navy seem to give those away in cereal packets.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ships and aircraft have an economical life-length.

We are not running 50 year old ships and aircraft in regular traffic, because they break down too often.

We are running some old vessels because we don't need the all the time, because it would cost too much to build new ones, or as enthusiast activity. If they actually are used they are generally extensively refitted.


I assume the standard 40 year mortgage is that way for a reason: That is the economic life-length of a normal ship. Most users will mortgage the ship for 40 years, then they scrap it and buy a new one. It will still work (sort of), but will break down too often and will cost too much in repairs to bother with for most users.


So, a very simplistic model for a mortgaged Free Trader is that it's worth the fraction of whats left on the mortgage. A 25 year old ship has 15 years left on the mortgage, so is worth (a bit less than) 15/40 of the original down payment if it's in good condition. A MCr 51 Free Trader had an original down payment of MCr 10.2, so after 25 years would cost up to MCr 3.8 to take over the mortgage, if the bank agrees.

If the bank does not agree, the buyer would have to pay off the entire mortgage...

Think of it more as taking over a lease than buying a vehicle free and clear.

 

[Condottiere]

Soviet paranoia, and Putin parsimony.

Sometimes, there's only that much blood in a stone.

Then, you have regeneration.


The advantage that Traveller equipment as, is that the entire technology tree is known, so we know if it's worth upgrading.

Combined with low maintenance cost, and what was originally, standardized engineering, so spare parts really easy to source.

 

[Limpin Legin]

Actually, I stated that she mustered out with a Free Trader, with twenty years of the mortgage paid. (Ship would be twenty years old at this point.) Then she tramp-freighted for five years - that puts the ship at twenty-five years old.

Oh I see. I supposed you meant that 20 years of payments were made over 5 years, basically quadrupling the expected repayment amount.

 

[swordtart]

Oh I see. I supposed you meant that 20 years of payments were made over 5 years, basically quadrupling the expected repayment amount.

I read it as they had received 2 ship benefits meaning the ship was 50% paid off when mustered out. The ship has been in use by the character for an additional 5 years since.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, I was thinking of the B52 when I said to costly to buy new ones and extensively refitted.

We are running some old vessels because we don't need the all the time, because it would cost too much to build new ones, or as enthusiast activity. If they actually are used they are generally extensively refitted.

No-one is interested in buying new B52s and B2s costs too much for a reasonable fleet.
The B52s are still useful enough to be worth refitting, but not useful enough to be replaced.



A better comparison to a bog standard Free Trader is a jet liner or air tanker. How many 50 year old jet liners are run every day in regular traffic by anyone with a resonable choice?

How many 50 year old KC-135s are still in regular use?

Between 1993 and 2003, the amount of KC-135 depot maintenance work doubled, and the overhaul cost per aircraft tripled. In 1996, it cost $8,400 per flight hour for the KC-135, and in 2002 this had grown to $11,000. The Air Force's 15-year estimates project further significant cost growth through fiscal year 2017. KC-135 fleet operations and support costs were estimated to grow from about $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 to $5.1 billion (2003 dollars) in fiscal year 2017...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker#Replacements

They reached their economic life length, so were replaced...

 

[Limpin Legin]

I did consider the quirks table initially but I realised that it is designed as an optional way for buying cheaper ships when you didn't get one as a benefit (and to make a benefit ship a bit less vanilla). ...

Yes, but the quirks is mandated for mustered out ships. For example see:
Pg 47: OTHER BENIFITS section: ... Free Trader: You receive a free trader with 25% of the mortgage paid off on it. This free trader is identical to the one on page 194 but you must roll 1D times on the Spacecraft Quirks table on page 188.

Same with mustering out with a Lab Ship or a Yacht, but not a Scout Ship.

It is not mandated that old ships have quirks and are thus cheaper as "Travellers purchasing an outdated ship may do so by rolling on the Outdated Ships table."

I see what you mean. However there is three definitions of the word 'may' as a modal verb:

modal verb

1. used to express possibility
2. used to ask or give permission
3. used to introduce a wish or a hope

Source: Cambridge Dictionary

You appear to be using definition #1. I would have used definition #2 because of the context of the sentence. Plus if you read the sentence following on from your quote, it says:

Older ships will have a number of ‘quirks’ that may affect their operation, rolled for on the Spacecraft Quirks table.

So, to me, it makes more sense for rules on Outdate Spacecraft to be more of a rules permission thing, rather than an option for players to consider.

 

[swordtart]

Ships and aircraft have an economical life-length.

We are not running 50 year old ships and aircraft in regular traffic, because they break down too often.

We are running some old vessels because we don't need the all the time, because it would cost too much to build new ones, or as enthusiast activity. If they actually are used they are generally extensively refitted.


I assume the standard 40 year mortgage is that way for a reason: That is the economic life-length of a normal ship. Most users will mortgage the ship for 40 years, then they scrap it and buy a new one. It will still work (sort of), but will break down too often and will cost too much in repairs to bother with for most users.


So, a very simplistic model for a mortgaged Free Trader is that it's worth the fraction of whats left on the mortgage. A 25 year old ship has 15 years left on the mortgage, so is worth (a bit less than) 15/40 of the original down payment if it's in good condition. A MCr 51 Free Trader had an original down payment of MCr 10.2, so after 25 years would cost up to MCr 3.8 to take over the mortgage, if the bank agrees.

If the bank does not agree, the buyer would have to pay off the entire mortgage...

Think of it more as taking over a lease than buying a vehicle free and clear.

We often don't run 1 year old ships and aircraft in regular traffic as they break down too often. Other nations do run commercial aircraft that are 30-40 years old.

Boasting one of the oldest passenger aircraft is Canadian Air Inuit with four 737-200's averaging an age of 44 years. The airline also has a 737-300 aged 32 years and 15 Dash-8's at an average age of 29 years. Three 737-800s aged just 11 years held bring the average fleet age for the airline down to 29.4 years, Jet2 still flies six 757-200s with an average age of almost 33 years!
Link

We usually refit to upgrade capability as we are in an arms race. If you upgrade capability of a Traveller ship you pay more but you get upgraded capability. If you replace like for like you get the same capability as a stock ship and it should cost the same as a new ship of that type.

So what is making that 40 year old ship uneconomical? Where is the rule that says your ship breaks down more frequently after x years if maintenance is conducted regularly? These may be assumptions you want to make but they are YTU not in the CRB or HG. I think the 40 year is as likely to be the anticipated economic life of the purchaser not the ship. Or maybe 40 years is the average time before a ship gets pirated, skipped or destroyed in combat or accident.

I am not sure of how you are working your maths. A 25 year old ship has 15 years left to run on the mortgage. Assuming a linear depreciation it would be worth 15/40 of its original purchase cost which means a shade over 19MCr to buy off the mortgage outright. I am not sure what you are using for the idea of an "original down payment" as the rules have no "Down Payment" mechanic.

If the bank transferred the mortgage based on your 40-year economic model then it would probably transfer what is left of the original payment plan i.e. 15 years at the standard mortgage rate of MCr51/240 per month since it doesn't care where it gets the money. You might be able to renegotiate to spread the 19MCr over a new 40 year period reducing your monthly payment to MCr19/240 per month if the bank thought there was a reasonable chance you would be working long enough to make those 40 years of payments. Doubtless there would be a fee of a few percent on top since... bank.

By your model a 40-year old ship is worthless. This is not canon or even hinted at. Even the flawed quirks rule only have it depreciate 20% up to 50 years (and it will have a 4 quirks at this point). A ship over 250 years old is still worth 60% of it's purchase price (but will have so many quirks it might have a very different spec from what it originally had.

 

[swordtart]

Yes, but the quirks is mandated for mustered out ships. For example see:
Pg 47: OTHER BENIFITS section: ... Free Trader: You receive a free trader with 25% of the mortgage paid off on it. This free trader is identical to the one on page 194 but you must roll 1D times on the Spacecraft Quirks table on page 188.

Yes, but not all second hand ships are mustering out benefits. Player can opt to take a quirky ship to save money on a ship bought off the lot.

As pointed out the mustering out version of quirks does not even match up with the main quirks rules. You use the Quirks Table to generate the quirks, but you are not using the Outdated Ships table or the main body of the quirks rules to determine a cost reduction or the number of quirks.

You appear to be using definition #1. I would have used definition #2 because of the context of the sentence. Plus if you read the sentence following on from your quote, it says:
So, to me, it makes more sense for rules on Outdate Spacecraft to be more of a rules permission thing, rather than an option for players to consider.

Yes, I think that definition is equally valid (but #1 and #2 are interchangeable in many circumstances). This interpretation would be that "Referees are not obligated to offer cheaper ships with quirks". It's either a player option or a referee option, if it is not an option then who is being granted permission?

I think the sentence following needs that wording as it is predicated by that choice having been made, it does not infer any obligation outwith the quirks rule.

If all older ships had to have quirks then there would be a ruling that introducing them as ships age in play. There is not so I am assuming that the quirks is an option to allow a cheaper ship to be bought, not as as an option to cause ships to develop defects and depreciate as they age.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

We often don't run 1 year old ships and aircraft in regular traffic as they break down too often. Other nations do run commercial aircraft that are 30-40 years old.

Sure:

BIMCO is reporting that for the first time in over a decade, boxships have reached a new peak with an average age of 14.2 years. Over the past 13 years, they report the average age has increased 4.3 years from when the average age hit a low of 9.9 years in August 2010. The current average of the ocean-going vessels is the highest of the three main shipping sectors, with the dry bulk fleet average age standing at 11.9 years whereas tankers on average are 12.8 years old.

https://maritime-executive.com/arti...t-average-age-despite-newbuilds-bimco-reports

Major commercial ships are taken out of regular service after 20 years or so.

Boasting one of the oldest passenger aircraft is Canadian Air Inuit with four 737-200's averaging an age of 44 years. The airline also has a 737-300 aged 32 years and 15 Dash-8's at an average age of 29 years. Three 737-800s aged just 11 years held bring the average fleet age for the airline down to 29.4 years, Jet2 still flies six 757-200s with an average age of almost 33 years!

So, that is exceptionally old at 33-44 years?
What's the average age of jet liners in regular traffic?

From Oldest to Youngest: The Average Fleet Age of the 10 Major U.S. Airlines
Allegiant Air -- average fleet age: 19.8 years
...
Spirit Airlines -- average fleet age: 6.6 years

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/03/average-fleet-age-of-the-10-major-us-airlines.aspx

I am not sure of how you are working your maths. A 25 year old ship has 15 years left to run on the mortgage. Assuming a linear depreciation it would be worth 15/40 of its original purchase cost which means a shade over 19MCr to buy off the mortgage outright. I am not sure what you are using for the idea of an "original down payment" as the rules have no "Down Payment" mechanic.

The original mortgage was:

LBB2'77, p5:
STARSHIP PURCHASE
Bank financing is available to qualified individuals for the purchase of commercial starships. After a down payment of 20% of the cash price of the starship is made, the shipyard will begin construction of a specific vessel. Upon completion, the vessel is delivered to the buyer, with the bank paying off the purchase price to the shipyard. Because the bank now holds title to the ship, the price must be paid off in a series of monthly payments to it. Standard terms involve the payment of 1/240th of the cash price each month for 480 months. In effect, interest and bank financing cost a simple 120% of the final cost of the ship, and the total financed price equals 220% of the cash purchase price. The loan is paid off over a period of 40 years.
In addition, the bank will insist that the purchaser submit an economic plan detailing the projected activity which will guarantee that monthly payments are made. Unless a character has some form of guaranteed income (perhaps large royalties from some property he owns), these conditions will generally rule out purchases (at least financed purchases) of yachts, military vessels, or exploratory vessels.

MgT hasn't changed that, it just doesn't discuss that how that is done.

MgT1 Core, p137:
Mortgage or Debts: If the crew are paying off debts on their spacecraft, then these debts must be paid each month. The standard terms for a ship mortgage is paying 1/240^th of the cash price each month for 480 months (40 years). In effect, interest and bank financing costs a simple 120% of the final cost of the ship, and the total financed price equals 220% of the cash purchase price.

Note the identical part that presumes a 20% down payment, otherwise the maths are off.


The mustering out benefit covers the down payment, otherwise why would you need the benefit? If there is no down payment, just go buy a new ship on a mortgage?

If the bank transferred the mortgage based on your 40-year economic model then it would probably transfer what is left of the original payment plan i.e. 15 years at the standard mortgage rate of MCr51/240 per month since it doesn't care where it gets the money.

Yes, that is my assumption, but based on the original 20% = MCr 10.2 down payment, so 15/40 × MCr 10.2 = MCr 3.8.

An annuity (fixed payment) mortgage does not work the way you seem to expect. In the beginning most of the payment is interest and only a small amortisation is made. As the decades pass, the loan is slightly lower and interest decreases, increasing the amount of amortisation. At the end of the mortgage very little interest is due and nearly the full payment amortises the loan. So, after half the mortgage period, much more than half the principal of the loan remains.

By your model a 40-year old ship is worthless.

Not worthless, but worn enough to be not worth the upkeep for regular shipping lines. Worth something for someone that does not mind spending a month here and there in the shipyard...

Why would a shipping line select a 40 year mortgage, if it could select a much cheaper 100 year mortgage?

The entire economic model for shipping prices builds on the 40 year mortgage, not 200 year old un-mortgaged ships.

A ship over 250 years old is still worth 60% of it's purchase price (but will have so many quirks it might have a very different spec from what it originally had.

Sure, if you refit it often enough...
Note that one of the most common quirks is "Double maintenance costs".


But, yes, my case is built entirely on assumptions, as is any other model, as this is not detailed in any version of Traveller.
I find centuries old ships, without any mechanical problems or stains on the carpet, unlikely...


USS Constitution is the exception, not the rule, and a lot of money is spent keeping it afloat. It has no economic value, but immense historical value.

 

[swordtart]

Yes, but not all second hand ships are mustering out benefits. Player can opt to take a quirky ship to save money on a ship bought off the lot.

Yes, I think that definition is equally valid. Referees are no obligated to offer cheaper ships with quirks. I think the sentence following needs that wording as it is predicated by that choice having been made.

If all older ships had to have quirks then there would be a ruling that introducing them as ships age in play. There is not so I am assuming that the quirks is an option to allow a cheaper ship to be bought, not as as an option to cause ships to develop defects and depreciate as they age.

Sure:
https://maritime-executive.com/arti...t-average-age-despite-newbuilds-bimco-reports
Major commercial ships are taken out of regular service after 20 years or so.

Maybe that article, but there are others that indicate the average for commercial ships of all types was 25-30 years.

So, that is exceptionally old at 33-44 years?
What's the average age of jet liners in regular traffic?
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/03/average-fleet-age-of-the-10-major-us-airlines.aspx

You can pick your data point, The General Aviation Fleet or 150,000+ aircraft average age is more than 50 years old.

The original mortgage was:

Ah, OK didn't realise you were quoting LBBs. Of course with them the first ship benefit was with a 40 year mortgage so different assumption set altogether .

MgT hasn't changed that, it just doesn't discuss that how that is done.

MgT2 has changed that. CRB p149.

"The monthly repayments on a ship mortgage are easy to calculate. Start with the total purchase price of the ship being bought, then divide this amount by 240. This is the amount that must be repaid every Maintenance Period for the next 40 years."

An annuity (fixed payment) mortgage does not work the way you seem to expect. In the beginning most of the payment is interest and only a small amortisation is made. As the decades pass, the loan is slightly lower and interest decreases, increasing the amount of amortisation. At the end of the mortgage very little interest is due and nearly the full payment amortises the loan. So, after half the mortgage period, much more than half the principal of the loan remains.

Yes, I own a house and have paid mortgages for 30 years, but we are not discussing real world mortgages. Probably because it is a game, the MgT2 mortgage does not explicitly follow that model. The benefit does explicitly say you have paid off 25% of the mortgage which would not be the case if it was the type of mortgage you describe. It reads more like a sort of hire-purchase agreement where you pay a fixed amount each month and you own proportionally more of the ship each month.

Chartered accounts and mortgage brokers probably shun Traveller for this very reason.

Not worthless, but worn enough to be not worth the upkeep for regular shipping lines. Worth something for someone that does not mind spending a month here and there in the shipyard...

Why would a shipping line select a 40 year mortgage, if it could select a much cheaper 100 year mortgage?

Who says they even have mortgages? Shipping lines follow different (unspecified) rules. A corporate entity could well exist beyond 40 years, an individual less so.

The entire economic model for shipping prices builds on the 40 year mortgage, not 200 year old un-mortgaged ships.

And the entire economic model of the fashion industry is we buy new clothes every season, and yet we don't. I am not sure where in the rule books the economic model of shipping prices is set out, happy to be shown.

I am considering the economics of the small traders (which are well defined). The mortgage is the biggest single pay out per month and many ships as designed cannot carry enough passengers and cargo to realistically meet those costs in addition to their overheads. If the ship is worthless at the end of the mortgage then those payments are dead money and small trading is a slow route to bankruptcy. If the ship is worth something at the end of the 40 years however, then half of each mortgage payment is actually an investment in that final sum. After 40 years of such investments you own a ship worth multi-megacredits.

Sure, if you refit it often enough...
Note that one of the most common quirks is "Double maintenance costs".

True, but double 0.1% is still going to save more than the extra mortgage cost. 5% of a MCr100 ship is MCr5, 0.1% of that ship is M.Cr 0.1 so you would need to carry a 0.1% extra maintenance burden for 50 years before it impacted your initial saving. Obviously if you were going to have to fund that extra MCr5 using a mortgage you can double that time. You pay an extra KCr8 or so in maintenance per month, but you save KCr23 per month off the mortgage so it is cheaper per month as well as overall.

Of course you can also get a 50% reduction on maintenance costs on that Quirks table so it is not the ideal indicator of the effects of aging.

I find centuries old ships, without any mechanical problems or stains on the carpet, unlikely...

I don't disagree with that and put forward how I was going to address it. The Quirks table isn't really good enough as they are too limited and are a benefit as often as a disbenefit. We were not talking centuries old relics either, rather a 25 year old ship.

It would be looking for a mechanism to introduce quirks (based on critical hits on an ongoing basis). This would be based on the service life of the component, with the chance increasing with the age of the component (if I was being pedantic it would be a bathtub curve). Players would then have an opportunity to replace the component (clearing the issue and completely resetting the life clock), conduct extraordinary maintenance (to clear the issue without resetting the life clock) or accept the issue and lurch on with it. The cost of repair/replacement would decide the level of depreciation but would typically be quite minor, building to more serious issues if left to fester.

USS Constitution is the exception, not the rule, and a lot of money is spent keeping it afloat. It has no economic value, but immense historical value.

Yes 230 years old is definitely an outlier.

On the other hand Nimitz class carriers were designed to have a 50 year service life and are still on operations, so 50 years is not unthinkable even today.

 

[agentwigggles]

Mongoose 2e Selling Space Ship

Mongoose 2e Selling Space Ship Space Ship Selling First determine the spaceship age and its quirks as you would normally when gaining a ship as a benefit. This reduces the total purchase price. This is now the max value of the ship. Ships are not sold for maximum value. There are a few ways...

docs.google.com

I made these rules for selling ships.

 

[Limpin Legin]

Yes, but not all second hand ships are mustering out benefits. Player can opt to take a quirky ship to save money on a ship bought off the lot.

Indeed, did I say otherwise? There is such thing as context and my example had context.