Was this (part of) the reason why GT: Far Trader uses a per-parsec model?

Distances are (in the main), calculated along the shortest trade route
between the departure and arrival point, not the direct astrographic
distance.

Unit rates (per dton-pc for cargo, per-pc for passengers) split out
between J1, J2-3, and J4+ vessels.  IIRC, J1 ships charged a base price
(when tramping) of Cr700/dton-pc, J2-3 ships charged Cr650/dton-pc, and
J4+ ships charged Cr1200/dton-pc (when traversing Xboat routes -
otherwise they fell back to J2-3 pricing).

When J3+ ships operate along a J2 route, they're able toup their unit
rates in inverse proportion to the time they would take, compared to
trade route.

Borrowing Bill Cameron's two favourite planets, Arglebargle IX and
Bargleargle XI are 10 pc apart by direct route, but 19 pc along the J2
route connecting them (maybe the direct route is void).  Thus, a J2 boat
would take 10 jumps, one way, while a J3 boat that can do the run in 8
jumps would multiply their unit rate by 10/8.  This speed premium
disappears along pure-J3 routes, as there are enough J3 ships competing
to bid such premium out of existence.

After trade patterns change (and Bargleargle finishes panel-beating
their starport - what do you *mean* PCs were involved?  Step outside,
sir!), that J3 route becomes standard, so J3 ships can only charge the
going unit rate.  A J4 boat that can do the run in 6 weeks would still
command a time premium, charging an average of Cr866/dton-pc (compared
to average going rate of Cr650/dton-pc) - not express rates as it isn't
along an Xboat route.

Finally, a bunch of cynical blokes goes and, as part of a
multi-teracredit tribute to a pre-starflight Solomani musician, builds a
deep space station 4 pc out from Arglebargle.  One of them bribes the
IISS sector commander to run an XBoat route through their deep space
station and the direct, express route opens up.  3 weeks and Cr10900 (2
express J4 jumps at Cr1200/dton-pc + a single J2 at Cr650/dton-pc) will
get a dton of cargo from Arglebargle to Bargleargle, or even back the
other way. The original J2 route rapidly fades into memory (19 pc of
expenses against 10 pc of revenue), followed by prices coming down with
a loud crash along the J3 route (assuming it doesn't also dissipate).

On 14/06/17 00:29, Grimmund wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Ethan McKinney <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> So, traveling 3 parsecs by Jump-1 is three times as expensive as traveling
>> by Jump-3. Great for passengers who take the Jump-3, but not for the ship
>> owners. If you allow high-jump ships to charge more, they start making
>> economic sense for both the passengers and operators.
>>
>> I can't run the numbers--would charging 50% more make it feasible to
>> operate a Jump-3 ship, or does it have to charge double the given passage
>> price?
>>
> TR> CT Book 2  Starships 2e 1977, 1981 6th printing p. 9
>
>> Passengers: Second paragraph - "Passengers will pay a standard fare for
> the class of transportation they choose: Cr10,000 for high passage, Cr8,000
> for middle passage, and Cr1,000 for low passage. Passage is always sold on
> the basis of transport to the announced destination rather than on the
> basis of jump distance."
>
>> "Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on
> passage prices. A jump-3 rated ship starship charges the same passage
> prices as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach
> a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate
> jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate
> tickets) to reach it. Higher jump numbers also may make otherwise
> inaccessible destinations within reach. But two ships of differing jump
> numbers going to the same destination in one jump, each would charge the
> same cargo or passage price."
>
> Me:
>
>
> I would interpret that as, for a J1 passage, every ship charges the same
> standard rate, 10kcr for high passage, etc, etc,  regardless of whether the
> ship  is J1 or J6- because the *ticket* is only J1.
>
>
> It makes sense to me that everybody charges the same for J1 passage,
> because it doesn't matter how fast the ship CAN go, it matters how fast it
> IS going.  Your J4 hull doesn't make the J1 run any faster than a J1 hull
> down the road, so you don't get to charge premium pricing.
>
> I could see maybe a slight premium for higher-G ships, if you want to shave
> a couple of hours to/from the jump point on both ends, but for the most
> part, transit time is pretty much the same. But even there, for most
> people, it's going to be a level of detail that does not add much to game
> play- arguing with the DM over fractional pricing changes based on how many
> g's the ship can pull doesn't really improve the sense of high adventure.
>
>
>
> IMTU, for higher jump number tickets, the prices go up - I think the rule
> was something like the standard rates times the square root of the jump
> number- because ships with J2+ are more expensive to purchase and operate,
> and generate less income per dton, than a J1 in the same hull.
>
>
> Depending on where you are, it may also be harder to find cargoes and
> passengers willing to pay the direct transit premium.  OTOH, it may also be
> harder, in some systems, to find passengers and/or cargo willing to travel
> by J1 ships if J2+ ships are available.
>
> J1, direct, 10krc
>
> J2
>
> J1x2, 20kcr, 2 weeks
> J2 direct, 14krc, 1 week
>
> J3
>
> J1x3 30krc, 3 weeks
> J2+J1, 24kcr, 2 weeks
> J3 direct, 17kcr, 1 week
>
> J4
>
> J1x4, 40kcr, 4 weeks
> J2x2, 28kcr, 2 weeks
> J3+J1, 27kcr, 2 weeks
> J4 direct, 20kcr, 1 week
>
>
> J5 ticket, 2.25x base rates
> J6 ticket, 2.5x base rates
>
>
> I don't know that those fudge factor numbers are economically right, i.e.
> that square root of jump number reflects the higher cost of the J2+ ships,
> and lower operating incomes due to higher fuel tonnage demands, regardless
> of whether they are running full jump capacity or not.
>
> The cost bump = square root of jump number was just a convenient pricing
> factor.
>
> (Looking back, I should have done some some puttering with the cargo and
> passenger availability, too, for higher jump direct routes vs lower number
> indirect routes.  Probably some sort of puttering around with ship
> availability, too, but then the whole thing rapidly gets complicated.  I
> don't know that it ever came up, all that much- mostly scouts with a type
> S, and one merchant campaign, where availability of *other* ships was never
> that much of an issue.)
>
>
> Related note:  I assume that the standard rates are for one jump, and
> reflect some sort of economic uncertainty.  i.e. high passage is 10kcr per
> sophont, but perhaps a ship generally only books 75% of available
> staterooms and cargo space on any particular leg.
>
> The ship is hoping to book passengers and cargo up to full capacity to
> maximize income and profit; empty staterooms and open cargo space is lost
> income.
>
> If you are booking end to end travel for several jumps, you could probably
> wrangle some sort of discount, because you are now guaranteed income for
> those legs.
>
> (There is a slight financial risk to the ship, of course, it could be
> someone else would book that stateroom at full fare, so the ship might
> loose the discount.  Of course, the opposite is also true, it's possible
> that nobody would book the stateroom for that leg, and income is zero for
> that empty stateroom.)
>
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>