Passages x distance: some thoughts on cost.

[captainjack23]

Whilst editing some of the trade section, I ran into an old nemesis-the passage rules. As in CT, they really are written to assume that travel is all planethopping . I buy a ticket, get on a ship, and get off at the next stop,one jump away or many. It costs 5000Cr per parsec. (we'll use High passage for discussion).


That said, a jump one passage is the baseline. A ship owner will get max profit from a jump one passenger run, no matter what. here's why: payment is constant per parsec, but higher jump ships, the proportion of useful space is reduced (by drive, plant and fuel), so a passenger (whose tonnage is a constant) represents a bigger proportion of the ships capacity - one can't add more passengers to make up the cost in fuel. Profit will always go down.
The fact that he average seperation in standard space is typically 2 parsecs may help some (more demand for jump two relative to jump one tickets) but really, after that its going to be hard to make salary as internal space goes down and fuel costs go up.
I'd really be surprised if jump 3 is the maximum for a passenger ship, and then with some subsidy.

I suspect that there should be some correction factor added for longer passage costs. ...perhaps cumulative +10 % per parsec after the first ?

So: 
 1    5000
 2   ( 5000 +5000) +20% =12000
 3  (15000) +30% = 20000
 4  (20000) + 40% =  28000
 5 (25000)+50% = 37500
 6 (30000)+60% =48000

Plus, consider a destination 6 jumps away - 6 regular passages will cost 30000, and take 6 weeks of hyperspace, and 12 weeks of transit. + potentially 6 weeks of maintainance. A jump 6 ship would cost 48000, but would get there in one week of hyperspace + two of transit. That's worth a premium. Plus, the ship can run multiple runs (passengers) in the same 18weeks. Probably not six, but several.

Another benefit is that a graded increase may encourage more fast courier ships- the travellers in a hurry may add enough profitability to otherwise marginal runs and ships.
I haven't run any real numbers to see if this will make runs profitable, but it at least addresses the issue.

Thoughts ?

 

[SableWyvern]

Thoughts?

The issue is certainly real and should be addressed. Actually analysing potential solutions seems like too much work for me atm, however.

 

[rje]

A ship owner will get max profit from a jump one passenger run, no matter what.

There are spreadsheets which support a per-parsec payment schedule as a reasonable fix. Once you go beyond a house rule and say it should be law, though, you find that X people want an official change, and Y people don't.

Your assumption above is that the ship owner doesn't have payments to make.

Jump-1 routes generally have fewer passengers than higher jump routes, because you have fewer destinations to pick and will likely get sub-optimal trips. Perhaps a better fix is to give out fewer ship shares during chargen.

 

[atpollard]

As long as the Per Parsec Fixed Price will allow a higher jump ship to make the payments I can live with the fact that J1 is more 'profitable'. The old CT rule of a fixed price per week (no matter the distance) made most ships unprofitable all of the time - THAT was broken.

Assume a J1 ship with 10 staterooms, always full of 5000 cr per parsec High Passages, the ship will generate a revenue (ignore expenses for the moment) of 50k Cr per jump x 25 jumps per year = 1.25 million credits per year.

Assume a J2 ship with 5 staterooms, always full of 5000 cr per parsec High Passages, the ship will generate a revenue (ignore expenses for the moment) of 50k Cr per jump x 25 jumps per year = 1.25 million credits per year.

The J2 ship can be smaller than the J1 ship and generate the same revenue. So the real question is what are the operating expenses for these two ships? That will determine which is more potentially profitable. Which ship can fill its staterooms will determine which ship is actually more profitable.

 

[Zowy]

This is a repost from the .... If you could change just one thing about the new Traveller.. .. thread. Jump 1 ships shoud NOT bother with passangers in the new rules. They should stick to being cargo movers. Steward requirements and overhead costs are to high. The 500,000cr cost per passenger stateroom on a Jump 1 ship would have a negative ROI over the long term. You need at least a Jump 2 ship to bypass worst of the no profit systems. ( Allso remember you need staterooms for all those Stewards. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starship operating expenses are way to high. They are more than CT, which was allso high. I would like interstellar commerce to work for more than just the mega shiping lines and rich high population worlds. The risk vs reward and ROI, is so bad you could never get a bank loan for a free trader. I know this is the reason for subsidies and subsidized merchant ships. But with MGT higher operating costs, all Jump 1 and many small Jump 2 ships lose big time by takeing passengers vs cargo. Steward salaries + Life support costs for staterooms + Maintenance costs make it better just to never put in those 500,000 cr staterooms in the first place and be a pure cargo mover......

As it is now, the 200 dTon Free trader is a nogo ship class. You would be better off with a 100 dTon armed Packet ship. With a Gunner to get those 5 dTon Mail drums that pay 25,000cr each. It's jump 2 drives let you set up a subsector trade rout to the low trade volume worlds off the X-Boat rout, that the big shiping lines only service once a month or less. You might even get rich with speculative trade. But could make it as a freight ship. You would of course not take passengers, as they kill the bottom line. Leave them for the Jump 3 Liner that stops by every few months.

If you need or want to run passegens for charter trips. Have a Packet ship class that can put a 30 dTon Cutter Modual in it's main cargo hold and have a 2nd 5 dTon hold for the Mail Drum, that can be used as a Air/Raft or other small vehicle airlock / hanger, ect.

 

[EDG]

Didn't GT fix this issue?

 

[captainjack23]

As long as the Per Parsec Fixed Price will allow a higher jump ship to make the payments I can live with the fact that J1 is more 'profitable'. The old CT rule of a fixed price per week (no matter the distance) made most ships unprofitable all of the time - THAT was broken.

Assume a J1 ship with 10 staterooms, <snip>
That will determine which is more potentially profitable. Which ship can fill its staterooms will determine which ship is actually more profitable.

Thats some pretty interesting stuff. However, I may not have been clear. I wasn't talking about the profitability of a J1 ship, but rather profit on a J1 passage.

A J1 passage will always have a better profit margin than a farther one, independent of the ships payments, etc. with a flat per parsec scheme. Having more customers due to a farther range isn't helpful in this case. The payment per parsec for passengers is fixed, and the overhead expense rises.

To be honest, a flat per parsec fee is a fix of the old system - and would be fine asssuming that ships were basically profitable. I honestly don't know if they are. I just felt that it needed looking at.

Sounds like the overall profitability of ships (and making payments) is a bigger issue.

 

[AKAramis]

Didn't GT fix this issue?

Only for GT. GT isn't canon to the OTU.

Seriously, this model doesn't SOLVE it at all, either. It changes the break point.

It merely reduces the profitability of passengers overall, especially HP.

Especially with the HP requires 1 skill level of steward per each HP.

So, assuming a typical steward of skill 1, you'r grossing 5K per parsec, and for a J2 (my standard PC merchantman, to be honest) taking two staterooms, and paying 1500 of that for the steward, and 2000 in life support (2SR x 1/2 month). So you get Cr6500 per 8 tons.
For J1 ships, you still pay Cr3500, and make only Cr1500... for 8 tons

For:
J1 ship steward 2's: Income=10000, outflow=4500, net=5500 per 12 tons
J2 ship steward 2's: Income=20000, outflow=4500, net=16500 per 12 tons
J3 ship steward 2's: Income=30000, outflow=4500, net=25500 per 12 tons
J4 ship steward 2's: Income=40000, outflow=4500, net=35500 per 12 tons

J1 ship steward 1's: Income=5000, outflow=3500, net=1500 per 12 tons
J2 ship steward 1's: Income=10000, outflow=3500, net=6500 per 12 tons
J3 ship steward 1's: Income=15000, outflow=3500, net=11500 per 12 tons
J4 ship steward 1's: Income=2000, outflow=3500, net=16500 per 12 tons

For steward 1's HP are worse than cargo below J4. There is no rational reason to carry them.

 

[EDG]

Didn't GT fix this issue?

Only for GT. GT isn't canon to the OTU.

At this stage I'd say get something together that works and screw canon. The problems with the CT version are well known by those who've looked at it, and it sure doesn't make sense economically.

I know you have a major hate-on for GT, but if the approach it uses produces workable, sensible results then it's worth looking at here. I'm sure it's quite possible to come up with a new system that can still work for the OTU.

 

[AKAramis]

Neither does flat per parsec, EDG.

Neither one is a valid model, due to the extremely high per-unit time costs and the high costs for speed.

Given that, under MT, J2 should run only about Cr1500/ton, and J1 can make a similar profit a Cr1000/ton, but J4 requires about Cr3000/ton...

any flat rate (by time or by distance) is inherently broken and unrealistic.

Note that GURPS Traveller's rates are not flat rate, either, last I checked. And further, they are the most realistic approach, but due to difference in the definied values of the Credit, and a number of other system issues, they are not readily portable.

I'll do some more detailed analysis later, but as it sits, running the income for High Passengers to below that for freight is not a good element. Passengers are a higher risk, and should bring a higher return than freight.

 

[EDG]

So let's come up with a new system that does work then. Do we need even flat rates for anything? I guess we need to figure out operating costs for a ship in jump (and transit time between a planet and 100D in realspace), and then say that the charges per passenger (High, Medium, Low Passage) and cargo has to be more than that.

Take a Beowulf - how long would it usually take to get from starport to starport for a J1 jump? Much does the crew need to be paid for that period? How much does fuel and maintenance cost? How much would it cost to maintain Middle and High Passage passengers? And so on... (Low Berth would be cheaper because that doesn't require Stewards and food etc. Though it does need a dedicated medic perhaps).

Then figure it out for a massive space liner that can carry a lot more people.

 

[captainjack23]

So let's come up with a new system that does work then. Do we need even flat rates for anything?

So we're all on the same page here, it sounds: Flat rates per parsec don't work ? Sounds like passengers was only part of the issue.

Aramis, am I correct that you're going to do a cost run for passengers ? That'll be great, I have zero opportunity to do more than ballpark it for the next few days.

Do we want to do a beowulf first ? My remembery of their passenger capacity is that its a revenue booster more than anything; in theory (which I've never tested) they were profitable just as cargo luggers, and wouldn't be simply as passenger haulers. I may be wrong.

 

[EDG]

So if flat rates don't work, the alternative presumably is to have different costs depending on what ship you have?

 

[AKAramis]

So let's come up with a new system that does work then. Do we need even flat rates for anything?

So we're all on the same page here, it sounds: Flat rates per parsec don't work ? Sounds like passengers was only part of the issue.

Aramis, am I correct that you're going to do a cost run for passengers ? That'll be great, I have zero opportunity to do more than ballpark it for the next few days.

Do we want to do a beowulf first ? My remembery of their passenger capacity is that its a revenue booster more than anything; in theory (which I've never tested) they were profitable just as cargo luggers, and wouldn't be simply as passenger haulers. I may be wrong.

It is as good a place to start as any.

But, for comparison, we'll need 6 designs: J1-J6 200Td merchants. I'll do them to bare minimums, and post them with the analysis.

 

[EDG]

But, for comparison, we'll need 6 designs: J1-J6 200Td merchants. I'll do them to bare minimums, and post them with the analysis.

Wouldn't it be easier to use existing ship designs? Especially since the MGT ship design system is still (AFAIK) broken on the power/drive front? Can you even fit a J6 into a 200dt ship?

I'd kinda be curious to see how a commercial 'cruise liner' (1000dt? 5000dt?) type thing would work out, but that'd probably be a nightmare to build... I'd swear I've seen CT stats for something like that somewhere though?

 

[AKAramis]

But, for comparison, we'll need 6 designs: J1-J6 200Td merchants. I'll do them to bare minimums, and post them with the analysis.

Wouldn't it be easier to use existing ship designs? Especially since the MGT ship design system is still (AFAIK) broken on the power/drive front? Can you even fit a J6 into a 200dt ship?

I'd kinda be curious to see how a commercial 'cruise liner' (1000dt? 5000dt?) type thing would work out, but that'd probably be a nightmare to build... I'd swear I've seen CT stats for something like that somewhere though?

No. Because we
(1) can not trust them to match the rules as they exist at the moment
(2) involve mixed designs.
(3) the needed designs I just finished for 200td.

              ---J1_1G---  | ---J2_1G---  | ---J3_1G---  | ---J4_1G---  | ---J5_1G---  | ---J6_1G---  |
Hull          200    8     | 200    8     | 200    8     | 200    8     | 200    8     | 200    8     |
JDrive         10   10     |  15   20     |  20   30     |  25   40     |  30   50     |  35   60     |
MDrive          2    4     |   2    4     |   2    4     |   2    4     |   2    4     |   2    4     |
PPlant          4    8     |   7   16     |  10   24     |  13   32     |  16   40     |  19   48     |
PPFuel          2    0     |   4    0     |   6    0     |   8    0     |  10    0     |  12    0     |
JFuel          20    0     |  40    0     |  60    0     |  80    0     | 100    0     | 120    0     |
Bridge         10    1     |  10    1     |  10    1     |  10    1     |  10    1     |  10    1     |
Computer        0    0.03  |   0    0.045 |   0    0.24  |   0    0.3   |   0    7.5   |   0   15     |
Sensors         1    0.05  |   1    0.05  |   1    0.05  |   1    0.05  |   1    0.05  |   1    0.05  |
Staterooms     16    2     |  16    2     |  16    2     |  16    2     |  16    2     |  16    2     |
Ship's Locker   0    0.1   |   0    0.1   |   0    0.1   |   0    0.1   |   0    0.1   |   0    0.1   |
Hardpoints +FC  2    0.2   |   2    0.2   |   2    0.2   |   2    0.2   |   2    0.2   |   2    0.2   |
Cargo         143    0     | 103    0     |  73    0     |  43    0     |  13    0     | -17          |
Software        0    0.1   |   0    0.2   |   0    0.3   |   0    0.4   |   0    0.5   |   0    0.6   |
Price               33.48  |       51.595 |       61.89  |       88.05  |      115.35  | Not Possible |
Financed (80%)      27     |       42     |       50     |       71     |       93     |              |

===========================+==============+==============+==============+==============+==============+
Payment KCr/Mo     135     |      210     |      250     |      355     |      465     |              |
Payment KCr/J       67.5   |      105     |      125     |      177.5   |      232.5   |
Maint/J             10     |       10     |       10     |       10     |       10     |              |
LS/J                 4     |        4     |        4     |        4     |        4     |              |
Fuel/J              11     |       22     |       33     |       44     |       55     |              |
Total KCr/Mo        92.5   |      141     |      172     |      235.5   |      301.5   |              |

======================.====+=========.====+==============+==============+==============+==============+
Cr/Cargo Ton Fin   646     |     1369     |     2356     |     3226     |     23192    |              |
Cr/Cargo Ton PO    175     |      350     |      644     |     1349     |      5308    |              |

 

[EDG]

You seem to have got the price for the J4 staterooms wrong (they're shown as 5, the rest of the ships show them as 2)

EDIT: nvm, you seem to have corrected that now

 

[EDG]

And also, it's all very well comparing 200dt ships with J1 to 6, but if the cargo/dt is so much more expensive for higher J values, then why not just go up to a 400dt ship (or higher) for J4-J6 instead? Would that push the cargo/dt cost down, or would the increased cost of the ship outweigh that?

 

[AKAramis]

You seem to have got the price for the J4 staterooms wrong (they're shown as 5, the rest of the ships show them as 2)

EDIT: nvm, you seem to have corrected that now

Fixed...

And also, it's all very well comparing 200dt ships with J1 to 6, but if the cargo/dt is so much more expensive for higher J values, then why not just go up to a 400dt ship (or higher) for J4-J6 instead? Would that push the cargo/dt cost down, or would the increased cost of the ship outweigh that?

We need to run the numbers for the same type of ships at 400Td, and at 1000Td

We can compare all passages to cargo space independently of the costs per ton, since we can express most of it in terms of cargo tonnage.

Under CT, you got 8 tons of income while losing 2 ton's worth of income for LS and 4 Tons worth in lost cargo space for mid passengers, and 4.5 tons lost cargo and 2.25 tons worth of expenses for 10 tons income.
LP brings in 1.8 tons of value per ton...
CT HP = +2.25 Tons of cargo each*
CT MP = +2 Tons of Cargo each
CT LP = +0.4 Tons of Cargo each

* presumes that the baggage is in room, and not actual cargo space. If it is actual mass limit, then baggage is 0.1Td/HP, thus reducing it to +2.15; if it is 1Td/HP, then HP is +1.25Td/HP...

The given rates for MP/HP in Draft 3.2 can not equal nor exceed freight, let alone cargo.

 

[EDG]

Is it generally even worth mixing passengers and cargo anyway? (I don't know too much about how trade etc works in Traveller) Why not just specialise in one or the other?