Starship Financing Questions

[tbeard1999]

What is the assumed interest rate and loan term for starship loans?

The "minimum payment" rule seems broken. It states that the minimum monthly payment is 0.02% of original loan amount per month. This works out to an interest rate of <1% for a 40 year loan.

This seems staggeringly low; given the amount of risk inherent in starship operations, I'd imagine that the minimum interest rate should be 5%. That would work out to a minimum monthly payment (40 year loan) of 0.48% per month.

Also, the ship shares system seems overly fussy. With millions of loan payment calculators available online, is it really such an ordeal to define reasonable starship financing guidelines? Do we really need this system? Wouldn't it be better to simply lay out the costs and financing terms? Shouldn't that data be included even if the starship shares system is kept?

Anyhow, the reason I ask is that the value placed on old ships would have a profound effect on the interest rate charged by banks. The higher the depreciation rate, the higher the interest rate charged. In other words, the more resale value, the lower the interest rate.

And unfortunately, the starship shares rules make it hard to determine resale value. The Old Starships rule is especially illogical. Essentially, a ship declines by about Mcr2.0 per decade of wear (average of 2 shares per decade). This system results in larger ships having a far longer useful life than smaller ships. An absurd notion, since the systems comprising such ships are the same. A more rational system would reduce the value of starships proportionately.

Taken at face value, the Old Starships rule means that a MCr39.0 free trader would lose half its value in 100 years (10 decades x MCr 2.0), while a MCr108 fat trader would lose half its value in about 250 years. Both numbers seem absurdly high to me, and I don't think that the designer intended for fat traders to have 2.5 times the useful life of Free Traders. A MCr1000 bulk trader would lose half its value in 2500 years!

 

[rje]

The MCr64 question is: how to do all of that simply?

 

[tbeard1999]

The MCr64 question is: how to do all of that simply?

The .02cr answer: not my job. It can be done with some effort, but that's what the designer gets paid for, it seems to me.

Also, I note that the system for generating passengers and cargo is badly broken (unless of course, we want all ships to be running multi-million credit losses annually). In the MGT universe, I want to be in the starship repo business. With the current economic system, there will be plenty of defaults.

On an unmodified passenger roll, a ship will average 7 low passengers, 3.5 middle passengers and 0.5 high passage passengers. On an unmodified cargo roll, a ship will average 56 tons of cargo.

I ran a spreadsheet on the humble Fat Trader and discovered that these numbers will result in it losing about Cr246,612 per month. Assuming a +3 modifier to the roll (pretty much an "extremely good case" scenario), the Fat Trader loses Cr128,612 per month.

The system for rolling for cargos and passenger--an unfortunate legacy from Classic Traveller--is fundamentally flawed. The problem with it is that it generates a fixed amount of cargo/passengers. This makes ships with small cargo capacities able to easily fill their holds with cargo/passengers and makes it impossible for ships with large cargo capacities to do so.

A more logical system would generate cargo and passengers on a percentage basis.

So despite the fact that I think that these issues should have been resolved by the designer, here are some suggestions:

1. Ditch the starship shares. They are a needless gloss on a pretty straightforward calculation.

2. Ditch the illogical cargo and passenger generation system since it is unresponsive to ship size and will make it too easy for small ships to carry a full hold and impossible for larger ones to do so.

3. Base travel/cargo shipment prices on the costs of shipping, rather than some arbitrary amount like "cr5,000 per parsec."

Of course, it would have been better if this had been resolved earlier. A week before publication doesn't give a whole lotta time.

 

[AKAramis]

What is the assumed interest rate and loan term for starship loans?

The "minimum payment" rule seems broken. It states that the minimum monthly payment is 0.02% of original loan amount per month. This works out to an interest rate of <1% for a 40 year loan.

This seems staggeringly low; given the amount of risk inherent in starship operations, I'd imagine that the minimum interest rate should be 5%. That would work out to a minimum monthly payment (40 year loan) of 0.48% per month.

Also, the ship shares system seems overly fussy. With millions of loan payment calculators available online, is it really such an ordeal to define reasonable starship financing guidelines? Do we really need this system? Wouldn't it be better to simply lay out the costs and financing terms? Shouldn't that data be included even if the starship shares system is kept?

Anyhow, the reason I ask is that the value placed on old ships would have a profound effect on the interest rate charged by banks. The higher the depreciation rate, the higher the interest rate charged. In other words, the more resale value, the lower the interest rate.

The starship loans have ALWAYS been VERY low rates (under 1%).

That's part of Traveller.

as to shares... they are far more fun and far better for game purposes than the old "5 receipts gets you a 40yo paid off ship" modality.

I do agree there are a bunch of rough spots

 

[tbeard1999]

The starship loans have ALWAYS been VERY low rates (under 1%).

Per LBB2, starships are financed thusly --

20% down payment
480 monthly payments of 1/240 of the total purchase price

This works out to a 5.55% interest rate

as to shares... they are far more fun and far better for game purposes than the old "5 receipts gets you a 40yo paid off ship" modality.

Shares (a) are unnecessary and (b) needlessly obscure the underlying financial assumptions. Their use in determining used starship pricing is totally inappropriate as well. In this day and age of spreadsheets and online mortgage calculators, they are a pointless gloss IMHO.

I do agree there are a bunch of rough spots

Really? Can you identify any smooth spots? The economic system seems especially crude. Worse. it appears that some things were changed for no good reason (i.e., they produce results at least as dubious as Classic Traveller). Personally, I'd have preferred that they leave the CT economics alone. At least they were broken in a familiar way.

 

[Zowy]

I will take old broken CT, over new broken MGT. :?

 

[rje]

...I'd have preferred that they leave the CT economics alone. At least they were broken in a familiar way.

I'd be happy enough with that. Which economics, by the way? Book 2? Merchant Prince? Trillion Credit Squadron? (I'm pointing out that CT seems a bit schizoid about "economics").

I do find some interesting things in MGT, but I've not tried them out. Just as important as does it work? is does it play well? Maybe more important sometimes.

I understand that we're not game designers, and we're not getting paid for this, but ideas are always nice to see, even if they invoke revulsion, even if they're going to be ignored. Because there's always a chance something will click and an improvement will make it into print. And that'd be good for players as much as Mongoose.

For example, Aramis' thoughts about trade rules -- a mix of MegaTraveller's categorizations plus Book 2's variable prices per ton -- helped me understand both systems better, frames two particular problems nicely, and presents a raw solution to refine.

 

[AKAramis]

I do find some interesting things in MGT, but I've not tried them out. Just as important as does it work? is does it play well? Maybe more important sometimes.

I understand that we're not game designers, and we're not getting paid for this, but ideas are always nice to see, even if they invoke revulsion, even if they're going to be ignored. Because there's always a chance something will click and an improvement will make it into print. And that'd be good for players as much as Mongoose.

For example, Aramis' thoughts about trade rules -- a mix of MegaTraveller's categorizations plus Book 2's variable prices per ton -- helped me understand both systems better, frames two particular problems nicely, and presents a raw solution to refine.

Thanks.

The MoTrav draft 3.2 econ is... bad. Since there is no limit on spec, but there are limits on passengers and freight. And due to the way they are generated, loads of rerolls, and high value cargoes generally available.

It is thus far more of a money-machine than T20 or Bk2.

it is user unfriendly, it has major simplicity issues.

 

[atpollard]

The problem with it is that it generates a fixed amount of cargo/passengers. This makes ships with small cargo capacities able to easily fill their holds with cargo/passengers and makes it impossible for ships with large cargo capacities to do so.

I once wanted to design a 1000 dTon freighter in Classic Traveller and ran into this problem. Given the CT rules, I came up with the following solution:

Assume that each 'cargo roll' (major, minor and incidental combined are 1 'cargo roll' for this discussion) represents the available traffic to a single destination world. Some cargo wants to travel 1 parsec to the next world. Some cargo wants to travel 2 parsecs but must endure a stopover at the next world and pay for 2 x Jump-1 trips. And so on for three parsecs and further.

I allowed the ship to make 1 'cargo roll' for goods heading to each of the next worlds up to 6 parsecs away. The ship can accept multiple cargo bathches each headed to a different world (all future stops). Thus the ship was constantly full of passengers and freight being unloaded at this world, just passing through on the way to another world, and being loaded for one of several future ports of call.

Could something similar work for Mongoose Traveller?

 

[DaltonCalford]

The problem with it is that it generates a fixed amount of cargo/passengers. This makes ships with small cargo capacities able to easily fill their holds with cargo/passengers and makes it impossible for ships with large cargo capacities to do so.

I once wanted to design a 1000 dTon freighter in Classic Traveller and ran into this problem. Given the CT rules, I came up with the following solution:

Assume that each 'cargo roll' (major, minor and incidental combined are 1 'cargo roll' for this discussion) represents the available traffic to a single destination world. Some cargo wants to travel 1 parsec to the next world. Some cargo wants to travel 2 parsecs but must endure a stopover at the next world and pay for 2 x Jump-1 trips. And so on for three parsecs and further.

I allowed the ship to make 1 'cargo roll' for goods heading to each of the next worlds up to 6 parsecs away. The ship can accept multiple cargo bathches each headed to a different world (all future stops). Thus the ship was constantly full of passengers and freight being unloaded at this world, just passing through on the way to another world, and being loaded for one of several future ports of call.

Could something similar work for Mongoose Traveller?

I think that is a brilliant concept.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Where the CT LBB2 system or the MGT system break down is when you stop using the idea of a "tramp" freighter moving about relatively randomly. What the trade tables generate are the left overs from the interstellar trade.

If you build a 1000 ton ship, then these rules will NOT work. Using roleplaying, you need to establish contracts with several shipping companies that offer you guarenteed cargo lots. Work with TAS or Travel Agents to build up a constant passenger demand.

I played a game where my character achieved the wealth to build an interstellar shipping empire and we worked it out WITHOUT Book 7.

The existing trade rules assume a small CHARTER plane operation, not an international Airline with 200 planes and a fixed schedule.

Having said that, it still has to be reasonable, and right now the passenger/cargo rates are NOT reasonable.

My suggestions are to keep the passenger rates the same, but change the Steward requirements to 1 level per 5 HP or 25 MP, with Level 0 being good for up to 3 HP or up to 10 MP. Remember, level-0 is competent, so has to be taken into account. In fact most ships will have Steward-0 as their "normal" skill for passengers.

 

[AKAramis]

The problem with it is that it generates a fixed amount of cargo/passengers. This makes ships with small cargo capacities able to easily fill their holds with cargo/passengers and makes it impossible for ships with large cargo capacities to do so.

I once wanted to design a 1000 dTon freighter in Classic Traveller and ran into this problem. Given the CT rules, I came up with the following solution:

Assume that each 'cargo roll' (major, minor and incidental combined are 1 'cargo roll' for this discussion) represents the available traffic to a single destination world. Some cargo wants to travel 1 parsec to the next world. Some cargo wants to travel 2 parsecs but must endure a stopover at the next world and pay for 2 x Jump-1 trips. And so on for three parsecs and further.

I allowed the ship to make 1 'cargo roll' for goods heading to each of the next worlds up to 6 parsecs away. The ship can accept multiple cargo bathches each headed to a different world (all future stops). Thus the ship was constantly full of passengers and freight being unloaded at this world, just passing through on the way to another world, and being loaded for one of several future ports of call.

Could something similar work for Mongoose Traveller?

Considering the broken pricing scheme, no. As priced in 3.2, passengers are worth less per ton/parsec than freight is, in no small part due to the insanely high number of stewards required.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

So what would be a good number for the steward skill?

I have proposed 5 HP or 25 MP per skill level.

Alternately it could be 5HP or 25 MP for 1+Skill level (so a Steward-0 can serve 5 HP and 25 MP and a Steward-1 can serve 10 HP or 50 MP).

 

[AKAramis]

simply doubling the rates would generally solve the issue....

It would also relegate Steward 1 to mid passengers...

Doubling the rates and using Jn+1 would almost solve the issue.

Doing all three would put passengers 2:1 on a steward 1, but make it a break-even with cargo.