Thousand Ton Traders

[F33D]

You really need the figures of normal trade and passenger traffic between two points.

If it's the equivalent of eighteenth and nineteenth century, merchant ships will have space for passengers.

It has nothing to do with 18 & 19 century Earth. Nothing.

 

[Condottiere]

If there aren't any regular passenger services between two points, but it's required feature such as administrators and businessmen needing to move to their posts or survey their commercial interests, accommodations will be made.

 

[F33D]

If there aren't any regular passenger services between two points, but it's required feature such as administrators and businessmen needing to move to their posts or survey their commercial interests, accommodations will be made.

Again, COMPLETELY irrelevant to a cargo ship with no room for passengers being able to engage in spec trade. It would behoove you to read a post before responding to it.

 

[phavoc]

You really need the figures of normal trade and passenger traffic between two points.

If it's the equivalent of eighteenth and nineteenth century, merchant ships will have space for passengers.

It has nothing to do with 18 & 19 century Earth. Nothing.

Earlier sailing ships are more difficult to factor into the equation because dedicated passenger ships didn't really exist as such. What you had were general purpose vessels that carried cargo, and sometimes carried passengers too. Some more, some less. But essentially passenger traffic (the paying kind, not the kind that travelled in the hold) looked much different than it does now.

Traveller is more modeled after early 20th century traffic. There you had dedicated passenger liners that also carried cargo, some could carry quite a bit. But their main job was ferrying passengers back and forth. Dedicated cargo ships that occasionally carried a few passengers did the bulk of the freight hauling.

I would suspect that for Traveller you'd see both. Passenger liners will carry more important cargo, or high value, low bulk things. But dedicated freighters will haul the bulk of things around. I think that model works for interstellar traffic. But in-system traffic might be easily served using a hybrid model for a lot of traffic. Dedicated passenger/freight traffic would be assigned to routes with enough traffic to justify that. Otherwise a hybrid model works pretty well for circuit-style traffic, with a balance of cost/performance/scheduling.

 

[F33D]

You really need the figures of normal trade and passenger traffic between two points.

If it's the equivalent of eighteenth and nineteenth century, merchant ships will have space for passengers.

It has nothing to do with 18 & 19 century Earth. Nothing.

Earlier sailing ships are more difficult to factor into the equation because dedicated passenger ships didn't really exist as such. What you had were general purpose vessels that carried cargo, and sometimes carried passengers too. Some more, some less. But essentially passenger traffic (the paying kind, not the kind that travelled in the hold) looked much different than it does now.
[and the rest]

Agreed. Now, if one looks at mid-passage total cost to the ship per the rates set, you'd probably stop designing free traders with passenger space and put it into cargo hold instead. Or more low passage berths. Just on a balance sheet basis.

 

[phavoc]

Agreed. Now, if one looks at mid-passage total cost to the ship per the rates set, you'd probably stop designing free traders with passenger space and put it into cargo hold instead. Or more low passage berths. Just on a balance sheet basis.

Well, you can get Cr6,000 for a double-occupied stateroom, or Cr1,000/ton for general cargo (speculative cargo doesn't count in the equation). That makes passengers better - EXCEPT when you factor in life support costs. Cargo doesn't require that. Personally I can't imagine people looking for corpsicle passage as much as the books talk about. It's an option, but the absolute worst option there is. Not to say boat people, or anyone who uses human smugglers isn't desperate, but still, I don't think it should be a norm.

The other question to this is, of course, what kind of average capacity does a free trader normally get? Are their holds usually 80% full, 70%? The load factor is vital to any discussion on this... and of course you can't necessarily create it since availability is always generated on the fly, so modelling it is impossible.

Being able to cater to both provides flexibility in the ability to generate revenue. And flexibility is the name of the game for a free trader.

 

[F33D]

Agreed. Now, if one looks at mid-passage total cost to the ship per the rates set, you'd probably stop designing free traders with passenger space and put it into cargo hold instead. Or more low passage berths. Just on a balance sheet basis.

Well, you can get Cr6,000 for a double-occupied stateroom, or Cr1,000/ton for general cargo (speculative cargo doesn't count in the equation). That makes passengers better - EXCEPT when you factor in life support costs.

Plus factor in any needed crew (salary, life support for them and stateroom space.) Total cost makes mid-passage a loosing proposition over freight.

Per the rules as written, only desperate criminals or others who might die if they stay dirtside would take low passage.

 

[dragoner]

If there aren't any regular passenger services between two points, but it's required feature such as administrators and businessmen needing to move to their posts or survey their commercial interests, accommodations will be made.

And/or hire charter a ship itself, such as with a demise charter, which is a good adventure in itself.

 

[F33D]

If there aren't any regular passenger services between two points, but it's required feature such as administrators and businessmen needing to move to their posts or survey their commercial interests, accommodations will be made.

And/or hire charter a ship itself, such as with a demise charter, which is a good adventure in itself.

Exactly. Ships don't change what they do because some business person shows up at the dock and starts screeching that they have commercial interests on another planet. :lol:

 

[Reynard]

I think I get it. All ships that have commercial space for cargo and/or passengers is a trader. If that's true then the 1000 ton Heavy freighter and the 2000 ton Large Freighter are both traders but not really made for planetary landings as smaller traders are which are all streamlined.

I think I understand we're looking for larger ships with the ability to go to markets with more limited accessibility. These large traders would be more the realm of a small company rather than independents or megacorps. I like the idea as these could be ships Travellers might encounter more frequently in sparse and backwater ports because they would have more regular schedules than the small traders. 1000+ traders would be owned by someone other than the player but are available when all others would not.

The other concept for these big traders over 400 tonner is possible diversity of function rather than just proportionally bigger 400 tonners. With the potential for 10 or more hardpoints, these can become frontier traders. The variety of ship options can create unique personalities such as an interstellar chartered touring bus that takes clients on a long itinerary over a circuit of systems so accommodations are more luxurious for those long jumpspace times able to feature special events and entertainment.

 

[F33D]

I think I get it. All ships that have commercial space for cargo and/or passengers is a trader.

Not really. "Traders" are those ships that engage in speculative trading. If not they are freighters and or passenger ships. The container ships that go from China to L.A. are freighters. They are not traders. The Princess Cruise liners are also not "Traders".

 

[Reynard]

Ah, primarily speculative trade! That's the key word. Thanks.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Whereas assigning all available space for cargo derives more profit, that doesn't necessarily mean that all available space will be used for cargo, as it may be excess to actual demand.

2. Government intervention may regulate that commercial ships need to have passenger accommodations, and/or subsidize the inclusion for such accommodations.

3. Modular construction can mix passenger modules with cargo ones as needed.

 

[F33D]

1. Whereas assigning all available space for cargo derives more profit, that doesn't necessarily mean that all available space will be used for cargo, as it may be excess to actual demand.

Correct. BUT unused cargo space doesn't cost money. Unused staterooms cost money for every jump. :!:

 

[phavoc]

1. Whereas assigning all available space for cargo derives more profit, that doesn't necessarily mean that all available space will be used for cargo, as it may be excess to actual demand.

Correct. BUT unused cargo space doesn't cost money. Unused staterooms cost money for every jump. :!:

Yes, that is a fundamental flaw in the rules that has been perpetuated in every version. We have the technology today to put systems in standby/hibernation and reduce to near zero the use of resources.

Heck, back in the 70s we had the technology to rebuild a man, and make him better, faster, stronger! Not that this has anything to do with staterooms, but how often do you get a lead in like that???

 

[GypsyComet]

Yes, that is a fundamental flaw in the rules that has been perpetuated in every version. We have the technology today to put systems in standby/hibernation and reduce to near zero the use of resources.

A flaw in the name of broad playability. Not everyone wants to define a ship down to the bulkheads, life support routing, serving sized containers in the Galley, and kilowatt power draws, never mind the itemized insurance premiums.

 

[wbnc]

Yes, that is a fundamental flaw in the rules that has been perpetuated in every version. We have the technology today to put systems in standby/hibernation and reduce to near zero the use of resources.

A flaw in the name of broad playability. Not everyone wants to define a ship down to the bulkheads, life support routing, serving sized containers in the Galley, and kilowatt power draws, never mind the itemized insurance premiums.

Most players want to be able to look at a single page, and get the basic information. while I'd love to be able o detail out a ship to the last system...but I'm not an engineer, ships architect, or expert in life support systems, and interstellar economics


I've always assumed that non capital cargo vessels would be mostly used for secondary trade, with massive cargo ships doing the bulk of the heavy lifting.Especially speculative traders. They would be ready to take advantage of any chance to make a bit of money, prrovide services to worlds that might not have the traffic volume of a major world.

 

[dragoner]

I've always assumed that non capital cargo vessels would be mostly used for secondary trade, with massive cargo ships doing the bulk of the heavy lifting.Especially speculative traders. They would be ready to take advantage of any chance to make a bit of money, prrovide services to worlds that might not have the traffic volume of a major world.

Large freighters on long contracts is how most of the hauling will go. The small adventure class ships, doing spec (or OTC - Over The Counter) is where the game is. The one irritating part is when people want to take the spec cargoes and build whole world economies around them.

 

[F33D]

1. Whereas assigning all available space for cargo derives more profit, that doesn't necessarily mean that all available space will be used for cargo, as it may be excess to actual demand.

Correct. BUT unused cargo space doesn't cost money. Unused staterooms cost money for every jump. :!:

Yes, that is a fundamental flaw in the rules that has been perpetuated in every version. We have the technology today to put systems in standby/hibernation and reduce to near zero the use of resources.

Heck, back in the 70s we had the technology to rebuild a man, and make him better, faster, stronger! Not that this has anything to do with staterooms, but how often do you get a lead in like that???

:lol: Yes, one of the many rules that lead me to believe that the author refused to understand the technical world he lived in when he wrote the game rules.

 

[F33D]

Yes, that is a fundamental flaw in the rules that has been perpetuated in every version. We have the technology today to put systems in standby/hibernation and reduce to near zero the use of resources.

A flaw in the name of broad playability. Not everyone wants to define a ship down to the bulkheads, life support routing, serving sized containers in the Galley, and kilowatt power draws, never mind the itemized insurance premiums.

It didn't help the game be more playable. It made it more nonsensical. That would be like a rule that charged a ship for buying cargo at every starport whether players wanted it or not. Talk about making weak excuses for lame rules. :roll: