On 6/16/2017 4:07 PM, Grimmund wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Evyn MacDude <xxxxxx@gmail.com
> <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Have you ever pondered merchants that operate on a different schedule than
>     the week in Jump and a Week in port model?
>
>     What if you built a route that require 2 or 3 jumps between port stays other
>     than for refueling.
>
>     Been reading about the early days of long distance steamships that used coal
>     having to stop at coal stations in between scheduled stops.
>
>
>
> I suspect that up to J3, it will be cheaper to build a ship that can do the
> route directly, rather than spending an extra 2-3 weeks making the trip at J1.
>
> That might still hold at J4.
>
> I have some doubts about J5 and J6, but even if you charge a premium, there just
> isn't a lot of space left for income generating cargo and passengers
>
> At TL 13-14:
>
> J1, 15% of hull volume is jump drive, power plant, and fuel.
> J2, 29%
> J3, 43%
> J4, 57%
> J5, 71%
> J6, 85%
>
> At TL 15, the power plant is 1% of hull volume per power number, vice 2%.
>
> Bridge (2%), M1 maneuver drive (2%), and crew staterooms will burn another 5% at
> minimum.
>
> Ship weapons, turrets, vehicles, small craft, faster maneuver drives, all will
> cut in to the volume available to generate revenue.
>
> Assuming a hull is running unarmed:
>
> A J1 hull has about 80% of the hull volume available for cargo and passengers
> (and weapons, vehicles, small craft, everything else).
>
> A J6 hull, has about 10% of the hull available for cargo and passengers.
>
>
> I suspect my casual rule, shipping cost = square root of jump number * standard
> J1 prices, is probably vastly under pricing.
>
> A little math, and assuming an extra 6% of hull for maneuver drive, bridge, and
> staterooms, the general cost multipliers to the basic transit rates, for a
> higher Jn ship to generate the same income as a J1 ship on higher Jn routes:
>
>
> Jump 	Cost multiplier
> J1 	1.00
> j2 	1.22
> j3 	1.55
> j4 	2.14
> j5 	3.43
> j6 	8.78
>
>
>
>
> J2 and J3, those are probably still cheap enough to justify direct shipping.
>
> J4 is slightly cheaper (2.14) than two J2 jumps, (2.44), and shaves two weeks,
> probably still viable if there is enough direct traffic.
>
>
> J5 is more expensive (3.43)  than a J2 and J3 (2.77) and not attractive unless
> you have something urgent enough that saving two weeks is worth paying an extra
> 24%.
>
>
> J6 is WAY more expensive (8.78) than two J3 jumps (3.1), unless your time is
> very valuable, or your information is valuable and has a short half-life, that
> 2.8x premium price is expensive.
>
>
>
	Aramis, on the COTI boards, ended up gearheading the various design system and
comparing costs for the different design systems, plus the different jumps
distances.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=495935&postcount=51

	This is his summation table.

	The sweet spot for most of the design systems ended up being between J2 and J3.
The J1 didn't have enough legs despite the additional cargo space, and J4 was
too expensive and lost too much for the additional speed. It's not that you
couldn't make the J1/J4 ships profitable, but it was so much easier with the
J2/J3 ships.

	The tl;dr for the thread was:

     1) On one-parsec routes J1 ships are cheapest.

     2) On longer routes J2 and J3 in whatever combination makes for the
smallest number of jumps (2: J2; 3: J3; 4: J2+J2; 5: J2+J3; 6: J3+J3; etc.,
etc.) are cheapest.

     3) For passenger lines and where using it will reduce the number of jumps,
J4 is competitive.

     4) Sometimes other considerations than cost can affect the solution.
Example: On a J4+J3 route, a J4 ship may service both legs of the route, jumping
short on the J3 leg, if enough passengers appreciate the convenience of not
having to transship at the intermediate world.

--
         Thomas Jones-Low
Work:	xxxxxx@softstart.com
Home:   xxxxxx@gmail.com