Pricing in the real world is rarely based on level of technology—it's mostly market forces. Let's assume that the unit of currencty in EV is the integer (I'm going to make up some values).
In the EV world, I think we should evaluate these factors:
1. Price for Developing Technology
The Apollo Program cost 2.54 x 10^10 dollars (source: (url="http://"http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apollo_program")http://www.wikipedia...:Apollo_program(/url)) to research. Let's assume that the actual Saturn V rocket would cost 8 x 10^9 dollars (source: (url="http://"http://www.spaceforum.com/space_forum/monthly_discussion/messages/65.html")http://www.spaceforu...essages/65.html(/url)). That means that you would only have to sell 3 Saturn V rockets and the entire cost of development would have been refunded (It takes 3.175 times the manufacturing cost to refund the R&D;, but I am assuming that the profit margin is 5.8%). Now, I realize that, in other industries like the Auto Industry, it takes thousands of cars sold to refund the development cost. But I am using the closest thing I can get to EV Spacecraft.
Since the R&D; costs are negligible (I think we can assume that 3 Kestrels have already been bought...) the company no longer has to take R&D; into consideration except for putting a small percentage of their earnings (say 10%) into R&D.; So we have established that 10% of the cost of a ship is for future R&D.; Let's assume a Kestrel costs "10", so "1" would go to Atinoda Corp.'s R&D.; That leaves 9 for manufacturing and, let's face it, PROFIT!
2. Supply and Manufacturing
I think we should assume that newer and more powerful ships are harder to build and in lesser supply, as they are not in full production. Therefore, they will cost more, as an equal demand will have a lesser supply. Let's say that a Kestrel normally costs 9 but it costs 10 now because it's a new model and Atinoda Corp. reckons it can make more money. So that's pure profit, some of which is going into opening new Kestrel facilities, etc.
Also, one must make sure manfacturing costs are a function of the costs of the outfits that must be purchased for the ship.
3. Demand
Crummy ships are not in demand! Therefore, they cost less. Older ships also will cost less. I get the feeling that the "Defender" is a pretty old ship. Therefore, it shouldn't cost very much. The Kestrel, on the other hand, would cost a bunch because it's new. For example, I hate the Clipper—it CAN'T TURN! Therefore, in my game, this ship would be next door to worthless. I would probably be a little more than the shuttlecraft. Also, in my opinion, the Argosy is awesome! (OK, I know I am broaching a controversial topic there). In my game, it would be worth a ton.
3. Competitive Forces
When there's competition, prices go down! Most people don't realize this, but in a perfect market economy, profit = 0. We know that the Corvette is in a "niche market"—it fills "the gap between the classical starfighters and the super-powerful Atinoda Kestrel." (source: the game, as seen at (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/survival_guide/ev-ships/warships.html")http://www.evula.com...s/warships.html(/url)). Therefore, the Corvette should be expensive as anything! Also, there are ships that would be insulated from competitive forces, like the Lightning and Rapier. They are funded by governments and we can assume they are expensive, like stealth fighters. The other side of that is they compete against each other, which drives the prices down. (I'll leave it to you to decide whether the Defender is government-backed).
4. Brands
Brand name is important. I mean, who wants to buy anything from that crummy "Palshife Shipyards"??? While this really isn't in the original EV, it's important to think about when you're making plug-ins.
For Example...
Note that the technology in the a ship is almost meaningless, except in the manufacturing cost. Now, let's say that a starship company wants to have a 30% profit margin. 10% of the cost is R&D; (we assumed) and 30% of the cost is going to be pure profit. So 60% of the cost is manufacturing. Now, let's look at a Corvette. It comes with (source: the game, courtesy again of (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/survival_guide/ev-ships/warships.html")http://www.evula.com...s/warships.html(/url) and (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/survival_guide/ev-outfits/offensive.html")http://www.evula.com.../offensive.html(/url)):
2 Missile Racks 2 x 15,000 credits = 30,000 credits
8 Missiles 8 x 3,500 credits = 28,000 credits
2 Laser Turrets 2 x 20,000 credits = 40,000 credits
1 Rocket Launcher 1 x 20,000 credits = 20,000 credits
4 Rockets 4 x 1,000 credits = 4,000 credits
1 Javelin Pod 1 x 20,000 credits = 20,000 credits
60 Javelins 60 x 50 credits = 3,000 credits
So the total cost of outfits is 145,000 credits (not to mention discounts for buying in bulk...etc.). And the price is 2,500,000 credits, so as we established, the total manufacturing cost was 1,500,000. 1,500,000 - 145,000 = 1,355,000. So the chassis costs 1,355,000 credits.
Conclusion : High demand, short supply, brand name, manufacturing costs, and, to a small extent, future R&D; drive prices up. However, the bulk of the price is the price of the manufacturing of the chassis, which is difficult to compute. I mean, it could be practically anything! You could just say: Well, this ship is hard to make, which drives prices up....I think that a mathematical analysis of chassis price is difficult, if not impossible. Perhaps it could be based on tonnage as well....
Disclaimer: This is not supposed to be "authoritative" or anything and includes many assumptions on the part of the reader, all of which are noted.
-cybergnu
------------------
The cops took down my resumé, but I'm working on getting a Geocities page.
(This message has been edited by cybergnu (edited 06-29-2003).)
(This message has been edited by cybergnu (edited 06-29-2003).)
(This message has been edited by cybergnu (edited 06-29-2003).)
