Are fleets too Large in Traveller

[nDervish]

That's a idea I've suggested several times. I call it the MISS factor. It stands for Military Inefficiency Spending Syndrome. It's a factor that all prices are increased by to account for everything from bureaucracy to corruption. It can be a s low as 1.0 for militaries that have been engaged in serious fighting for a long time and goes up in increments of 0.1. Factors that increase MISS is size of organization (measured by size of budget) and decades since last serious conflict (brushfires don't count), and goverment type. I had a suggestion typed up many years ago, but I don't seem to have the file any more.

I've been implementing T4PE recently and having some thoughts along similar lines, although I've been favoring a reduction in usable (pocket) imperial income based on the log or Nth root (for an as-yet-undetermined N) of the number of worlds in the empire rather than a straight multiplier.

Upkeep and support is already factored in. And there's one kind of naval vessel we can't increase the cost of: patrol vessels about twice the size and armament of the usual PC ship.

It's easy enough to argue for leaving the cost of patrol vessels alone while inflating the prices of battlewagons: The patrol ships are civilian police vessels, not front-line military combat ships, so they don't need to be built to front-line-worthy military specs.

Only by decreasing the size of the population. The percentage of gross product that a population can sustain in the long and the short run is quite well known from Real Life.

Another option (which I'm also experimenting with) is to change the scaling factor for population. I don't have TCS, but T4PE scales GWP linearly with the actual planetary population, so +1 to the UWP pop code multiplies GWP by 10. Make it non-linear and it compresses the range in a way that I rather like. I don't know that I'd be able to do a very good job of defending it as realistic, but it brings the average down quite a bit as well as raising the income of lower-pop worlds somewhat. (My main motivation behind this was to keep a handful of high-pop worlds from completely dominating everything and making all other worlds irrelevant. The reduction in average GWPs was merely a happy side-effect.)

 

[Timerover51]

Not really.

If you change GDP, you also change the relationships of People and Guns, People and Vehicles, people and food...

If you change just ship costs, you still have the much higher, more 1970's-US-like populations.

Note that the TL baselines for TL5-7 seem to have been taken from US historical GDP figures - but US GDP for TL 6 & 7 was pretty much the highest in the world. TL7 is almost an exact fit for US 1977 GDP...

Personally, I'd rather lower GDP. Makes for a darker, more interesting setting.

@Timerover:
Those prices you're citing for salaries are merchant pay, not military. Military is in CT Bk 4, p 19... and are CONSIDERABLY lower...

E1 300
E2 400
E3 450
E4 500
E5 550
E6 600
E7 700
E8 800
E9 1000
O1 1000
O2 1200
O3 1400
O4 1600
O5 1800
O6 2000​

Even allowing for a 100% space pay bonus vs ground pounders, the captains are making less than even a civilian navigator. Your cost figures for salary are off by at least a third in this case.

If not giving a space duty bonus, then the salary costs are going to be well under a third of what you're figuring.

Aramis, if a military pays that badly in comparison to civilian, do you really expect anyone to enlist or stay around for any period of time?

 

[Ishmael]

for better or worse, I treat this topic is discussed in this thread
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=20618

 

[rancke]

Aramis, if a military pays that badly in comparison to civilian, do you really expect anyone to enlist or stay around for any period of time?

Well, there's always the draft.[*]

[*] Note that I'm a staunch proponent of the notion that the draft in the game rules is a game artifact and that there is no universal Imperial draft (Though Wil did mention a reference to a draft a while ago; damn my spotty memory for forgetting where). But that's because I think that 1) the Imperium wouldn't need one, and 2) that the game rule doesn't prove that there is one. If the Imperium needed one, it could certainly have one. There's certainly nothing to disprove the existence of an Imperial draft.​

I would argue that the discrepancy of the civilian pay rates from Book 2 is that some of them are much too high. Cr6000 per month is more than three times the per capita income of a TL15 world. It's 4.5 times the average per capita income for the Imperium (TL12).

Be that as it may, even if the pay rates were that different, there are only so many jobs to be had in the merchant marine. Even if the navy is a poor second, I think there would be a hundred people yearning for the stars for every available job regardless of the pay.

EDIT: Incidentally, and this one is entirely my own notion with no canon support (but canon-compatible), I have the notion that one of the boilerplate provisions in Imperial membership treaties is that Imperial salaries and pensions are not taxable by member worlds. This only applies to Imperial services, so merchant marine salaries and pensions are not covered by any such provision.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Aramis, if a military pays that badly in comparison to civilian, do you really expect anyone to enlist or stay around for any period of time?

It always has been. When I enlisted in 1987, my pay as an E3 for full time was less than I made in 1990 as a 20-hour-a-week work-study student.

only in the last few years has it really been significantly better than base level labor, but that's not so much for competitive pay as overcoming the political issues.

Military junior personel, especially junior enlisted, generally were (and outside the present US, are) seen as a form of apprenticeship, with seriously sub-par pay but superior benefits.

Taking the $766.80 per month of a 1987 E3 - there was no housing expense (provided), no work clothing expense (clothing allowance and first issue - with care, they last for quite some time), no food expense (mess hall was free while in barracks), no medical nor dental expenses (covered by the military medical system in total). Minimum wage for a similar 168 expected hours was $562.80...

The proposed 2013 gives E3's $1700 a month... still above minimum wage, but usually well below skilled work pay. (My wife, working 0.6 FTE, makes $1500 a month. Starting teachers make more in my district than an E3.)

By comparison, however, my buddy who was a commercial fishing crewman made $20,000 in a 2 month season, and worked 3-4 seasons a year in 1988-89. A security guard at a remote site made $2000/month guarding a gold mine 2 weeks out of 4.

So yes, I do expect military pay to be, on its face, lousy and still get people.

And even when the pay doesn't get enough people, most countries will just start drafting people.

 

[mbrinkhues]

German Bundeswehr paid better partially because we have a functioning health care system / pension system so those are considered no bonus. They paid a bit less than regular jobs but full timers are really in for life and the SAZ 12 [12 years] got job offers in state service often the civilian support side. Add in a different pension system

Officers / 12Years and later Nco of the same could access army university during that time and those were considered high quality but again not a true bonus since university was free and still is extremely cheap [less than1000Euro per year] The benefit was the Status and being paid

 

[Carlobrand]

Aramis, if a military pays that badly in comparison to civilian, do you really expect anyone to enlist or stay around for any period of time?

They feed you, clothe you, shelter you, give you free medical care and the opportunity to see the universe instead of staying on the farm slopping pigs, and you want good pay too?:devil:

Timerover and others make a good point about the hidden costs. Yes, Traveller ships are fantastically more expensive in proportion to crew salaries than the typical TL7-8 wetwater navy ship, but so are the various repair and refit facilities they call at. I wonder how much all those naval bases actually cost as a proportion of fleet expenditures.

A fourth to a fifth of the U.S. Navy's fleet is auxiliaries and support ships of one sort or another - not counting a large number of non-commissioned civilian-crewed supply and support ships - and another 10-12% are amphibious ships: helicopter carriers, landing ships and so forth intended for putting Marines ashore and supporting their work. All told, and counting the supply ships, about 2/3 of the fleet is something other than warships - and almost 3/4 of those warships are frigates and destroyers.

Now, there's no way to draw a comparison between modern wet-navy needs and far future space navy needs. There's no way to know how much of the crew's needs are being supplied by tech and the amount of available power ("Mycoprotein again?") and how much needs to be shipped in, nor how much in the way of parts, lubricants, and who knows what else a Traveller warship needs to consume on a daily basis to remain functioning. However, it's sci-fi - we have available a range of options to suit our particular view of things, from million-ton cargo ships delivering supplies to distant battle fleets, to nanobot-based on-board fabricators that recycle any given piece of scrap into whatever part you happen to need.

In my TU, any given fleet includes: large cargo ships acting as fleet warehouses, a hospital ship to serve medical needs beyond the capacity of the typical sickbay, a host of small high-jump couriers to assure communication with rear bases, a host of small scouts that spread out among neighboring systems to monitor for signs of enemy forces, a combat transport carrying troops for ground-based missions, a large number of destroyers or frigates to serve picket duty and protect the auxiliaries, and an escort carrier providing scout fighters for additional picket and insystem scouting. And then there are the cargo ships shuttling cargo and pasengers between the fleet and its rear bases, and the couriers and destroyers serving those bases. I don't know how that all plays out credit-wise against the costs of ship, but it accounts for a fair portion of the fleet budget.

 

[rancke]

They feed you, clothe you, shelter you, give you free medical care and the opportunity to see the universe instead of staying on the farm slopping pigs, and you want good pay too?:devil:

I take it your point is that a navy pays more than just the salary to its personnel? True enough, but the Striker figures are gross costs of having a soldier.

Timerover and others make a good point about the hidden costs. Yes, Traveller ships are fantastically more expensive in proportion to crew salaries than the typical TL7-8 wetwater navy ship, but so are the various repair and refit facilities they call at. I wonder how much all those naval bases actually cost as a proportion of fleet expenditures.

Whatever they cost, it's included in the cost of maintaining the ships. And as I pointed out earlier, the Imperial Navy seems to be paying twice the maintenance cost that TCS mandates (i.e. 20% of original cost per year). If half of that goes to maintaining the vast network of bases, that part is covered too.

A fourth to a fifth of the U.S. Navy's fleet is auxiliaries and support ships of one sort or another - not counting a large number of non-commissioned civilian-crewed supply and support ships - and another 10-12% are amphibious ships: helicopter carriers, landing ships and so forth intended for putting Marines ashore and supporting their work. All told, and counting the supply ships, about 2/3 of the fleet is something other than warships - and almost 3/4 of those warships are frigates and destroyers.

Those are interesting and potentially useful figures for guesstimating the number of auxiliaries, but I don't think they're going to exceed the available funds. Two 3,000T destroyers costs under 2% of what a 200,000T battleship costs.

And for the primary gaming purpose of reducing the number of interfering busibodies bent on ruining the fun for dishonest hardworking adventurers, a 3,000T destroyer (or a 10,000T transport for that matter) is just as bad as a dreadnaught.


Hans

 

[Jame]

I'm reminded of the best explanation I heard, from a movie actually so it's total fiction

Scene: A huge ultra secret military base...

President: I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?

Civilian: You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?

...from Independence Day

Yes, and how do you know they still weren't right? :devil:

 

[Carlobrand]

I take it your point is that a navy pays more than just the salary to its personnel? True enough, but the Striker figures are gross costs of having a soldier.

Very true, it's a salary, not a maintenance cost.

Whatever they cost, it's included in the cost of maintaining the ships. And as I pointed out earlier, the Imperial Navy seems to be paying twice the maintenance cost that TCS mandates (i.e. 20% of original cost per year). If half of that goes to maintaining the vast network of bases, that part is covered too.

I'm not seeing where you mentioned that twice-the-cost bit earlier, but I may not be reading something right. Also curious as to how you arrive at that estimate. Also not seeing where the maintenance cost is said to include the cost of auxiliaries and escorts - the only game that deals with both fleet operations and costs is TCS, which is an admitted simplification.

Also way out of my league here, since I am utterly ignorant of such things as what percentage of a wet navy actually works ashore, how much those auxiliaries cost in relation to the cost of combatant ships, how much it costs to maintain a wet navy warship - or if we want to look at space, how much it costs to maintain that international space station. Those kinds of nitty gritty details don't tend to make it into the more commonly available sources.

Those are interesting and potentially useful figures for guesstimating the number of auxiliaries, but I don't think they're going to exceed the available funds. Two 3,000T destroyers costs under 2% of what a 200,000T battleship costs.

Nope, they're not - not by a longshot. Warships pack some pretty expensive equipment into those hulls. All the scouts, couriers, and destroyers account for only a tiny fraction of the cost of a squadron. Even the big auxiliaries, cargo ships and the like, are rather cheap compared to a warship - and it's hard to justify more than a couple per squadron, and that assuming one is travelling back to base, loading up, and then returning while the other accompanies the squadron as a flying warehouse. Is mostly my way of fleshing out the fleet.

And for the primary gaming purpose of reducing the number of interfering busibodies bent on ruining the fun for dishonest hardworking adventurers, a 3,000T destroyer (or a 10,000T transport for that matter) is just as bad as a dreadnaught.

That's the primary gaming purpose?? If that's the case, we're pretty well doomed 'cause, as you pointed out, the little destroyers and escorts are cheap and easily had if the Imperium's intent is to ruin fun for the miscreant class. IMTU, battleships don't tend to be interested in what a smuggler's doing, and the destroyers are either running picket for the battleships or off on their own military errands. Other than seeing them at some red-zone world or Ancient site, or at a place with a naval base, the players hardly know the things even exist.

 

[mike wightman]

Has anyone mentioned the cost of building the next generation of ships yet?

The IN budget has to account for purchasing the ships it will need in ten-fifty years time as old vessels are retired and new ones constructed.

If you look at the AHL as an example of the operational lifetime of a warship replacement is needed every 50 years. But this may be due to them being involved in major combat.

 

[robject]

Back to the Original Post for a moment

Topic: The number of fleets in the Imperium is huge.

MegaTraveller assigns one Imperial fleet, plus one Colonial/Reserve fleet, for each subsector.

But, I doubt that fleets are uniform in type, number, strength, and purpose. I rather suspect that the game requires strategic flexibility. Therefore, a fleet in Deneb in 1105 is likely to be much weaker than a fleet in the Marches around 1105. On the other hand, a fleet in Deneb in 600 might be quite powerful, relatively speaking.

Therefore, I propose that "fleet" is little more than an administrative label, encompassing all Imperium-owned spacecraft with a particular subsector as the "home port".

Santanocheev: So, what did Duke Deneb have to say?

Underling: He said he can send us the Dunmag fleet, sir.

Santanocheev: $%#^$@#^ fetid motherless-groat droppings!

Underline: Is that an official response, sir?

Santanocheev: No, my compliments to the generous Duke. That's my official response.

 

[Dragoner]

Therefore, I propose that "fleet" is little more than an administrative label.

Exactly, IMTU and how it is done in real life often enough, is that it only denotes a headquarters unit, not the Batrons, Crurons and such.

 

[rancke]

I'm not seeing where you mentioned that twice-the-cost bit earlier, but I may not be reading something right.

Post 20 of this thread:

.
Yes, and if you take the average of the cost of the three battleships in FS as the average cost of a battleship and the average of the cruiser-sized vessels in FS as the average cost of a cruiser, calculate with an average of 7 combat vessels per squadron and an average of 9 squadrons per fleet, and a ratio of one BatRon to three CruRons[*], AND throw in a Cr5000T escort per combat vessel, you still only use up half the Imperial Navy's budget. To make it come out right, one is forced to assume that the actual maintenance figure is twice the TCS one. Which is perhaps justifiable in that TCS deals with pocket empires a few parsecs across for relatively uncomplicated logistics, while the Imperium's logistics problems would be a good deal more complex.

[*] Since I did these calculations, it has been pointed out to me that the ratio in the FFW countermix is 1:2, but I haven't gotten around to redoing the numbers.​

Also curious as to how you arrive at that estimate.

I calculated the total GDP of the Imperium based on 15 trillion people and an average TL of 12 (240 quadrillion). Then calculated the aveage cost of a squadron based on the abovementioned assumptions. Then multipled that by nine (average number of squadrons per fleet according to RbS) and multiplied that by 320 (Number of Imperial fleets according to RbS). Then took 10% of the total cost of those 320 fleets and compared it to a budget of 0.9% of the total GDP. That came to about half the budget.

Also not seeing where the maintenance cost is said to include the cost of auxiliaries and escorts - the only game that deals with both fleet operations and costs is TCS, which is an admitted simplification.

Yes, and the 10% maintenance figure is from TCS too. In TCS maintenace takes care of everything except combat repairs and replacement. This includes all logistics.

Mainly, though, I include auxiliaries and smaller escorts in the maintenance figure because I can't come anywhere near using 10% of the original cost per year to maintain a ship otherwise. Annual maintenance is 1% of the budget (0.1% of original cost). Fuel is a couple of percent. Crew costs are several percent. Munitions depends a bit on how many live fire exercises are allowed, so there's a fudge factor there. Replacement after 40 years would account for a whopping 25% (2.5% of original cost). But even with the best will in the world, I can't account for even half the budget. So I say that transports and tankers and couriers and smaller escorts comes out of it too, under the heading of 'support'.

That's the primary gaming purpose??

That's the reason I've most often heard for why people dislike big fleets.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Post 20 of this thread:

Thanks!

I calculated the total GDP of the Imperium based on 15 trillion people and an average TL of 12 (240 quadrillion). Then calculated the aveage cost of a squadron based on the abovementioned assumptions. Then multipled that by nine (average number of squadrons per fleet according to RbS) and multiplied that by 320 (Number of Imperial fleets according to RbS). Then took 10% of the total cost of those 320 fleets and compared it to a budget of 0.9% of the total GDP. That came to about half the budget.

Wow!

So, you're figuring a Navy budget of MCr 2.16 billion against an aggregate fleet tonnage of roughly 1.8 to 2.5 billion dTons. I'm still getting 8% at worst, if I use Supplement 9 ships as typical. Am I missing something? (I'm getting anything from half to 2/3 a megacredit per ton. Does that sound right?)

Yes, and the 10% maintenance figure is from TCS too. In TCS maintenace takes care of everything except combat repairs and replacement. This includes all logistics.

Mainly, though, I include auxiliaries and smaller escorts in the maintenance figure because I can't come anywhere near using 10% of the original cost per year to maintain a ship otherwise. Annual maintenance is 1% of the budget (0.1% of original cost). Fuel is a couple of percent. Crew costs are several percent. Munitions depends a bit on how many live fire exercises are allowed, so there's a fudge factor there. Replacement after 40 years would account for a whopping 25% (2.5% of original cost). But even with the best will in the world, I can't account for even half the budget. So I say that transports and tankers and couriers and smaller escorts comes out of it too, under the heading of 'support'.

That's an odd way to look at "maintenance" but, given that we don't see any auxiliaries in the game until MegaTrav, either you're right or the Imperial Navy's feeding caviar to the ratings.

I guess that would be one way to attract recruits willing to accept low pay.:devil:

 

[robject]

Back from the Naval Base Thread

Okay, we've noticed that Aramis subsector appears to have a very light fleet. In short, it may have a few CruRons. And of course we throw in the Scout bases' assets.

But, there potentially are no BatRons.

First, your opinions. Can three CruRons and some extras be considered a fleet?

I think this is possibly 'yes'.

I have walked through Deneb sector with a spreadsheet, and I can honestly say there are subsectors which do not need much in the way of Imperial power. Dunmag comes to mind, and Starlane, and a couple others. Then the are a few very powerful in Deneb which will have strong fleets, as in Fifth Fontier War kinds of fleets.

If you answered yes: can half a dozen Patrol Cruiser squadrons, plus support auxiliaries, EVER be considered a 'fleet' to the Imperium, assuming a Big Ship Imperium of course?

I have to say 'no'. It does not compute.

Thus, I am forced to say that Aramis must have an orbital port, and CruRon 219 has Big Cruisers of some kind.

However, I think 'fleet' is a flexible term, and does NOT have to have BatRons. This has wide implications for naval allocations in Traveller.


But talk with me on this.

 

[far-trader]

So how does the subsector, sector, domain, etc. fleet designation play into this?

Could the Aramis fleet mentioned be simply a Subsector Fleet (or smaller even? a System Fleet?) and that is what the local Navy Base supports, while larger fleet elements are based elsewhere? I haven't looked at the specifics (other Navy Bases in the subsector and sector, canon Fleet descriptions, etc.) though so maybe that won't work.

 

[Gray Pennell]

Far Trader thats kinda of the point I am getting at. To me there should be maybe a fleet per sector with squadrons attached to the subsectors. In 5FW we get fleets per subsectors. IMTU the 208th is an understrength fleet a squadron at best. The only active base in the 5 sisters are on Iderati and Raweh (wrong way as the people stationed there say). The other bases are just way stations and support operations. When the 5FW occurs its reniforced up to a full fleet.

I like to play the 5 sisters as a frontier settlement. The real command comes from the Domain which can pull four fleets together to meet the Grand Strategic issues. In the 5FW thats counter the Vargr threat to the core worlds supply link than reinforce for the Spinward marches and counter strike.

 

[Carlobrand]

Okay, we've noticed that Aramis subsector appears to have a very light fleet. In short, it may have a few CruRons. And of course we throw in the Scout bases' assets.

But, there potentially are no BatRons.

First, your opinions. Can three CruRons and some extras be considered a fleet?

I think this is possibly 'yes'.

I have walked through Deneb sector with a spreadsheet, and I can honestly say there are subsectors which do not need much in the way of Imperial power. Dunmag comes to mind, and Starlane, and a couple others. Then the are a few very powerful in Deneb which will have strong fleets, as in Fifth Fontier War kinds of fleets.

If you answered yes: can half a dozen Patrol Cruiser squadrons, plus support auxiliaries, EVER be considered a 'fleet' to the Imperium, assuming a Big Ship Imperium of course?

I have to say 'no'. It does not compute.

Thus, I am forced to say that Aramis must have an orbital port, and CruRon 219 has Big Cruisers of some kind.

However, I think 'fleet' is a flexible term, and does NOT have to have BatRons. This has wide implications for naval allocations in Traveller.


But talk with me on this.

What CruRon 219? Where are we getting this info on Aramis sector?

 

[aramis]

The planet Aramis in the Aramis subsector is described, along with the fief-city of Leedor, in The Traveller Adventure. This description includes a map of the city, including the civil yards, the navy base, the port proper, the city, and the scout base.

Mongoose reprinted it, with the only major changes being retitling, redoing all the maps to look hand-drawn and inaccurate, and adjusting to the MGT task mechanics. Aramis: The Traveller Adventure is the mongoose version's title.

The Aramis subsector is part of the Spinward Marches, and as such, the worlds within appear in a variety of contexts.