[TML] [Merchant Shipping] Some ideas I came up withtomake merchant shipping more interesing

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 4/11/08 10:40 AM, "Joseph Paul" <josephnjody at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Well not if you are unlucky enough to have not kept an air reservoir
> filled -  http://www.free-marine.com/i3lossair.htm . This article also
> points out that when docked for an extended time the engines are shut down
> and electrical power can be had from the port. On large ships there is also
> the problem that multiple engines are being used per screw. I am betting
> that you can’t just flick a switch and have them all start in concert.

I read the article, and the only time he mentioned shutting everything down
on purpose was in dry-dock & repair yards.  As for multiple engines, it
sounded like it was designed to be a pretty quick procedure, as would be
needed in the emergencies he was describing.

> <Power vs propulsion and fuel costs>
> 
>> PCs generally go with gas giant or ocean fueling where possibly.  When fuel
>> is free, that issue is gone.
> 
> This is an issue with PC parties that Refs probably ought to think about
> more. I question the idea that fuel skimming would be free in an inhabited
> system that could exert traffic control over the gas giant. Charging them a
> fee to be able to skim would happen shortly. Enforce it with SDBs.

Hmm, charge a few for doing and providing... nothing.  Some systems may do
so, while others won't.  Whether or not it encourages people to pay for
refined fuel, it is an added expense.  That gets figured in when deciding
where to carry cargo.  The more a system does such things, the more they
price themselves off the trade route.

> < Initiating fusion.>
> 
> Running silent needs to be better defined as I am not familiar with the
> canon for this. Can you give some examples? I can certainly see reducing
> output to the bare minimum but not shutting down the powerplant. That is a
> large difference. Canon aside, I am having trouble seeing how you can start
> a fusion reaction with anything less than an enormous amount of energy so
> this idea is a problem for me. The fact that canonical ports don’t offer
> station power to ships is hardly evidence that the start up requirements are
> insignificant.

I can't cite the book and page (but somebody on the list can), but it has
been stated on more than one occasion that ships (pirate, spy, navy on
secret missions, etc.) will maneuver close to an asteroid of something and
shut the plant down.  Thus it can't be detected by it's emitted neutrinos.
Then it takes an hour or more to start up properly, or can be crash started
with some risk.

The requirements may not be insignificant, but canon says that ships *can*
do it.  Perhaps they store a bunch of energy in those Jump capacitors or
something.

>> Spending an hour or more warming up the plant still leaves the need to
>> disengage umbilicals.  Which should auto-disconnect anyway!  Not
>> disconnecting when there is a significant force on the airlock and
>> umbilicals endangers everybody aboard the station.
> 
> I can certainly see set ups that intentionally hold the ship in place until
> the portmaster’s office has cleared that the bill has been paid. Trying to
> leave early and wrecking the dock and umbilicals just gets charges thrown at
> you on top of the default charge. Anything from willful destruction to
> attempted murder could be levied. It is a different perspective, I will
> grant but different assumptions in the law code would make it possible.

That sort of device will of course discourage illegitimate traffic.  And
some legitimate traffic as well.  I see nothing comparable in modern port
operation.

>> I refer you to the post about riding on freighters.  The web page mentions
>> *real* tramp freighters that *don't* have set schedules.
> 
> I would point out that tramp freghters sound an awful lot like PC crewed
> ships. In a typical seaport what is the percentage of tramps and regular
> freighters? The answer to that will set what the port actually operates
> like. It will be set up to service the largest segment of the shipping
> population and to pull every credit that it can out of those ships. The
> rules and regulations will be set to accommodate that segment and if PCs
> want to flaunt that they are a fly-by-night, one-step-ahead-of-the-law bunch
> then they can go ahead and run their powerplant while in port. The idea that
> in a busy star port you will be allowed to leave willy-nilly on a minute’s
> notice is probably not a realistic notion anyway. I would look towards
> systems that are in use by airports for traffic control. You can set when
> you want to leave but traffic control has to be informed and will help guide
> you out to make sure that there are no accidents near the station/port. If
> all of the slots for 0900 departures are taken then you will have to wait
> for the earliest opening. Seaports often use harbor pilots and frown on you
> coming and going with out one so there is plenty of precedent against random
> departures.

I wasn't really intending random departures whenever the captain takes a
whim.  More like when circumstance demands.  Like the
planet/city/port/whatever being hit by raiders or such.  See below.

>> Besides, I was talking about true emergencies.  There are a lot of
>> "adventurous" situations where having a ship stuck on the ground is a good
>> way to lose the ship.
> 
> If it is an “adventurous situation” why would you shut down the engine? Shut
> down seems to have been put forward as an SOP for routine situations. It is
> a good excuse to give the engineer and associates some spotlight time.
> Losing a ship only gives a reason to get that ship back
or steal a better
> one. ;)

I was thinking more of "losing" as in USS Arizona losing the ship...

PCs mostly hang out in areas where nastiness happens on a regular basis.

And giving the ship's engineer an excuse to roll a couple of dice on an
otherwise unused skill is pretty poor reason for a port SOP.  I've played
engineering types, and always had other skills and other things to do.