Are fleets too Large in Traveller

[robject]

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.

That's why I think terminology is key. Administratively, the Imperium has one numbered fleet per subsector, according to MegaTraveller, and there's no real reason not to think so. And those collectively make up sector fleets. But, I share your overall feeling.

It may be terminology. A "fleet" in the way I think of a "fleet" would include several BatRons -- a Tigress squadron, a Kokirrak squadron, a Battle Rider squadron, etc -- then a pile of supporting CruRons, AssaultRons, blah blah blah. It seems that the Imperium could support this economically, per Trillion Credit Squadron.

However, this doesn't seem to mesh with the intent of the Imperium. The support facilities don't seem to be there (though they might be there). The "crustal strategy" seems to make frontier subsectors overstrength -- and yet they only appear to be fielding what I would consider a proper fleet.

And the Fifth Frontier War... in 1107, there were 7 numbered Imperial fleets in play, six Zhodani numbered fleets, two Vargr fleets, four Sword World fleets, and one Darrian fleet. Those are plainly subsector fleets. There are also colonial, reserve fleets mentioned but not included in the above lists -- but again, those belong to the subsector. Finally, when reinforcements are mentioned, they seem to be coming from fleets already in play.

It seems to me that subsector "fleet" therefore is more of an administrative term, and not necessarily a measure of strength.

 

[rancke]

A "fleet" in the way I think of a "fleet" would include several BatRons -- a Tigress squadron, a Kokirrak squadron, a Battle Rider squadron, etc -- then a pile of supporting CruRons, AssaultRons, blah blah blah. It seems that the Imperium could support this economically, per Trillion Credit Squadron.

That's also how RbS describes the average numbered fleet. I've offered two different possible explanations: 1) The Imperial fleet in Aramis is not an average numbered fleet. 2) Before the 5FW, the Aramis Trace was the responsibility of the 212th Fleet in Rhylanor, the Scatters were the responsibility of the 193rd Fleet in Regina, and the Towers Cluster was the responsibility of the numbered fleet in Pretoria; after the war the 214th Fleet was assigned to cover the entire subsector.

Personally, I much prefer the second option, as it dovetails nicely with the split-up nature of Aramis subsector (as established much later, in GT:Nobles). But the other one works too.

However, this doesn't seem to mesh with the intent of the Imperium. The support facilities don't seem to be there (though they might be there).

Presumably one of the things an Imperial member world pledges in return for Imperial protection is to support the Imperium in that protection. So the repair and maintenance and refuelling facilities of the planetary navies would usually be available for the IN's use.

The "crustal strategy" seems to make frontier subsectors overstrength -- and yet they only appear to be fielding what I would consider a proper fleet.

The fleet in Pretoria could have stationed a CruRon at Aramanx and a CruRon at Junidy. Perhaps also an EscRon (Escort Squadron; yes, I know that wouldn't be a permanent formation and would be called a task force or something like that) or half an EscRon at some of the smaller worlds like Rugbird and Lablon. The only sizable polity in Firgr is an Imperial ally, so all you really need to protect those worlds is something to fend off puny corsairs. (Don't forget that the Kforuzeng, the largest band in Firgr, collectively can't muster enough firepower to stand up to a single light cruiser).

And the Fifth Frontier War... in 1107, there were 7 numbered Imperial fleets in play, six Zhodani numbered fleets, two Vargr fleets, four Sword World fleets, and one Darrian fleet. Those are plainly subsector fleets.

Numbered fleets and the equivalent (One is the 1st Provisional Fleet, surely a temporary formation).

There are also colonial, reserve fleets mentioned but not included in the above lists -- but again, those belong to the subsector.

CT talks about subsector navies, not fleets. MT retconned those away, sadly.

Finally, when reinforcements are mentioned, they seem to be coming from fleets already in play.

How do you figure that?

It seems to me that subsector "fleet" therefore is more of an administrative term, and not necessarily a measure of strength.

I believe that 'subsector fleet' is a synonym for 'numbered fleet', not a technical term.


Hans

 

[robject]

That's also how RbS describes the average numbered fleet. I've offered two different possible explanations: 1) The Imperial fleet in Aramis is not an average numbered fleet. 2) Before the 5FW, the Aramis Trace was the responsibility of the 212th Fleet in Rhylanor, the Scatters were the responsibility of the 193rd Fleet in Regina, and the Towers Cluster was the responsibility of the numbered fleet in Pretoria; after the war the 214th Fleet was assigned to cover the entire subsector.

Personally, I much prefer the second option, as it dovetails nicely with the split-up nature of Aramis subsector (as established much later, in GT:Nobles). But the other one works too.

I prefer the second as well. But the first option is supported by RbS: a numbered fleet has from two to eight squadrons. In Aramis subsector, one of those is at Aramis. Another may e in the Towers cluster. Those two together form a numbered fleet, according to RsB.

(Don't forget that the Kforuzeng, the largest band in Firgr, collectively can't muster enough firepower to stand up to a single light cruiser).

This, too, supports the concept of a rather light (or even subsidiary) 'fleet' for Aramis.

CT talks about subsector navies, not fleets. MT retconned those away, sadly.

As Spinward Marches Campaign both shows us and tells us, subsector fleets are numbered, even in (late?) CT days, and tells us that some of these fleets were strengthened by fleets already numbered in the action, naming names on both sides.

I suspect that the numbering scheme was in GDW's mind before MT, and that most of the numbered fleets in the Marches were just too small to be combatants; i.e. they lack battleships. So, their role is limited to defense and shoring up the Big numbered fleets.

I cant find the example fleet inRsB.

 

[robject]

Executive Summary

During the heyday of the "crustal" naval defense strategy, the Spinward Marches had BatRons in "battlefront" subsectors, plus Rhylanor, and the remaining subsector fleets did not have BatRons. It follows therefore that interior sectors had even fewer BatRons, and that the average numbered fleet in the Imperium in fact did not have battleships.

Analysis

If the Spinward Marches Campaign is to be trusted, seven of the eleven numbered Imperial fleets in the Spinward Marches field battleships, and one of those was constructed two years after the war began. In addition, Santanocheev had to fetch another fleet all the way from Corridor.

The 125th, stationed at Jewell.
The 193rd, stationed at Regina, moved to Efate.
The 1st: I think this is the Corridor Fleet (of all places)* fetched to protect Regina, then later (by Norris) to Rhylanor-Porozlo.
The 23rd, stationed around Vilis, reinforced from ? (probably the 212th).
The 212th, stationed at Rhylanor, which supplied reinforcements, but was later sent against the Vargr, then to the Sword Worlds.
The 213th, stationed in Efate, moved to Lunion against the Sword Worlds.
The 214th, stationed in Glisten.
The newly-formed (in 1108) 100th** in Lanth.

These also are reasonable placings for battle groups -- at least, reasonable in terms of Santanocheev's crustal defense strategy. It is also quite reasonable to assume that no battleships exist in (for example) Aramis subsector. Thus it meshes with "Naval doctrine" (at the time) and text.

Interestingly, the Five Sisters do not play a part in the war -- I figure they could have battleships, but I'm not told one way or the other.

* Santanocheev had to get a battle fleet from Corridor. The simplest explanation (but not the only one) is that all of the remaining numbered fleets were like Aramis' fleet -- no battleships.

** Newly-formed -- this took two years -- means they were either building new battleships, or pulling old ones out of mothballs.

 

[rancke]

I prefer the second as well. But the first option is supported by RbS: a numbered fleet has from two to eight squadrons. In Aramis subsector, one of those is at Aramis. Another may be in the Towers cluster. Those two together form a numbered fleet, according to RsB.

I've already dealt with this, although it may have been in the sibling discussion. RbS shows us how things are organized in 1117. It differs in several significant ways from what we know of pre-5FW organization. For one very suggestive thing, there is no fleet stationed in Lanth subsector. For another, the 100th Fleet is inactive. It is therefore quite possible to have a subsector without an active fleet.

For a third, the map doesn't show a fleet in Mora subsector. To my mind it beggars belief that the site of the sector HQ wouldn't have a fleet of its own. (And indeed, FS specifically mentions that there's a squadron of Kokirraks assigned to Mora). Trin's Veil, with one of the sectors four high-population TL15 worlds seems extremely unlikely to be lacking a numbered fleet of its own.

There's a simple explanation, though: The two fleets stationed in Mora and in Trin's Veil never moved out of their respective subsectors and hence is simply not mentioned in the account of the war in SMC.

As Spinward Marches Campaign both shows us and tells us, subsector fleets are numbered, even in (late?) CT days, and tells us that some of these fleets were strengthened by fleets already numbered in the action, naming names on both sides.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. The numbered fleets mentioned in SMC are numbered fleets. Also known as subsector fleets because many subsectors have one. They're not subsector navies.

I suspect that the numbering scheme was in GDW's mind before MT, and that most of the numbered fleets in the Marches were just too small to be combatants; i.e. they lack battleships. So, their role is limited to defense and shoring up the Big numbered fleets.

FFW includes Scout Squadrons. Any fleet with no more than a CruRon would be able to play a part.


Hans

 

[robject]

Application - Deneb

It follows then that BatRons are deployed to stop perceived threats. Deneb, having no serious threats, would not employ a crustal strategy, but in fact would probably rotate out vessels to the Spinward BatRons via Rhylanor for periodic refit or whatever. In other words, I could see BatRons in these subsector fleets of Deneb:

Inar
Atsah
Vincennes
Deneb

That's it. Not even Pretoria, Sabine, or Zeng, although they could be quite strong with CruRons and others.

 

[robject]

It is therefore quite possible to have a subsector without an active fleet.

[...]

FFW includes Scout Squadrons. Any fleet with no more than a CruRon would be able to play a part.

Those are interesting suggestions. I just don't know. Perhaps the part they play is in reinforcing the fleets with BatRons.

I also thought about Mora and Trin -- since they don't play a part, perhaps their fleets are just not mentioned.

 

[rancke]

Executive Summary

During the heyday of the "crustal" naval defense strategy, the Spinward Marches had BatRons in "battlefront" subsectors, plus Rhylanor, and the remaining subsector fleets did not have BatRons. It follows therefore that interior sectors had even fewer BatRons, and that the average numbered fleet in the Imperium in fact did not have battleships.

That does not follow from any canon source I'm aware of, and the FFW countermix has a ratio of one batron for every two crurons. That works out as three batrons and six crurons for the average fleet. I suggest keeping an eye on that average. Every time you conclude that a frontier fleet has less than that, you're actually assuming a much larger number in the interior fleets to keep up the average.

Analysis

If the Spinward Marches Campaign is to be trusted, seven of the eleven numbered Imperial fleets in the Spinward Marches field battleships, and one of those was constructed two years after the war began. In addition, Santanocheev had to fetch another fleet all the way from Corridor.

SMC says nothing whatsoever about the number of squadrons in any of the fleets. Which is a lucky break, since if it had, it would probably have built on the implicit assumption that the population multiplier is 1 for all systems. This implicit assumption, BTW, is one very good reason not to take anything from FFW as solid. Suggestive, yes, conclusive, very far from.

The 125th, stationed at Jewell.

Covering the Imperial systems in Jewell subsector.

The 193rd, stationed at Regina, moved to Efate.

Covering the Regina Subsector, HQ moved to Efate when the 1st Provisional Fleet took over defense of Regina.

The 1st: I think this is the Corridor Fleet (of all places)* fetched to protect Regina, then later (by Norris) to Rhylanor-Porozlo.

I think this is the 1st Provisional Fleet featured in the FFW countermix, raised before the war (it is shown coverin Regina and neighboring systems on the map of start positions on p. 12).

The 23rd, stationed around Vilis, reinforced from ? (probably the 212th).

Where do you get that the 23rd was reinforced and when did that happen?

The 212th, stationed at Rhylanor, which supplied reinforcements, but was later sent against the Vargr, then to the Sword Worlds.

The 212th stayed engaged with the Vargr to the end of the war. See the map of Armistice positions on p. 13.

The 213th, stationed in Efate, moved to Lunion against the Sword Worlds.

The 214th, stationed in Glisten.

The sentence that sends the 213th to Efate and claims that the 214th was already in place at Jewell is probably wrong, since the only 213th Fleet shown on the map is stationed in Lunion at the start and the only 214th is stationed in Glisten at the same time.

(I say 'probably', because curiously enough there is a way it could be true: Duplicate fleet numbers. The map in RbS actually has two 214th Fleets and three 213th Fleets. But since the maps in SMC doesn't show duplicate fleets and there is no subsequent mention of the 213th and the 214th in Jewell and Regina, I'm inclined to disregard that).

The newly-formed (in 1108) 100th** in Lanth.

Presumably reactivated and filled with reinforcements from Deneb and/or recommisioned ships. There's any number of ways to explain why it doesn't arrive in Lanth until late 1108.

Interestingly, the Five Sisters do not play a part in the war -- I figure they could have battleships, but I'm not told one way or the other.

With the Narsil Fleet fairly close, I'd expect any forces stationed in Five Sisters to sit tight. So the lack of a number could be because there wasn't a fleet stationed there or it could be because it didn't play a part in the war.

* Santanocheev had to get a battle fleet from Corridor. The simplest explanation (but not the only one) is that all of the remaining numbered fleets were like Aramis' fleet -- no battleships.

I don't get the distinction between battle fleets and other fleets. The Corridor Response Fleet is supposed to reinforce the Marches. That doesn't mean the Marches didn't have any battleships of its own.


Hans

 

[robject]

That does not follow from any canon source I'm aware of, and the FFW countermix has a ratio of one batron for every two crurons. That works out as three batrons and six crurons for the average fleet.

And that sounds like a proper fleet the way I think of them.

I think this could represent an average fleet in combat during the FFW. I don't think that implies anything about the average fleet in the Imperium. Imperial naval strategy and placement implies that more BatRons would be on the "crust".

I think this is the 1st Provisional Fleet featured in the FFW countermix, raised before the war (it is shown coverin Regina and neighboring systems on the map of start positions on p. 12).

Very reasonable.

Where do you get that the 23rd was reinforced and when did that happen?

SMC has some text on it; it probably happened in 1108 or 1109?

Presumably reactivated and filled with reinforcements from Deneb and/or recommissioned ships. There's any number of ways to explain why it doesn't arrive in Lanth until late 1108.

The Deneb source is quite possible.

With the Narsil Fleet fairly close, I'd expect any forces stationed in Five Sisters to sit tight. So the lack of a number could be because there wasn't a fleet stationed there or it could be because it didn't play a part in the war.

Reasonable.

I don't get the distinction between battle fleets and other fleets. The Corridor Response Fleet is supposed to reinforce the Marches. That doesn't mean the Marches didn't have any battleships of its own.

That's a possibility.

I'm using the made-up term "battle fleet" under the assumption that some fleets have BatRons, and some do not. It's not a very good term, because your earlier post made me recognize that even the Scouts have a logistical role to play in a battle. Even their Way Stations function as Naval Bases during wars.

 

[robject]

And finally the statement in RbS that "theoretically, the Imperium has 1000 [Big] ships", spread out over 320 subsector fleets. (Or was that 1000 Battleships?) (Or was that 1000 big ships per sector??)

First, theoretically could include mothballed ships.

Second, the Rider Squadron from SMC could be said to have 8 Big Ships. If the typical squadron has 8, then there's 125 squadrons with Big Ships. Or maybe the Lurenti doesn't count, in which case we have 140 squadrons with Big Ships. I don't have the sources handy.

Hence, perhaps half of all subsector fleets in the Imperium lack battleships.

I know this subject has been beaten to death on the TML. Someone needs to dig out those old posts.

 

[Gray Pennell]

This is my point big ships what ever they are should form the back bone of a fleet not a squadron. Let alone 8 big ships per squadron. If you recognize a squadron per subsector with only 1 big ship per squadron that gives you a max of 16 big ships per sector. When you add escort auxiliaries and support ships from "colonial" Thats still a lot of firepower.

I think I am going with the original suggest reduce the number of big ships and drop the GWP. Players will never notice since we are not playing Imperium Civilization.

 

[rancke]

And finally the statement in RbS that "theoretically, the Imperium has 1000 [Big] ships", spread out over 320 subsector fleets. (Or was that 1000 Battleships?) (Or was that 1000 big ships per sector??)

It's 1000 'combat vessels' per sector. And 'combat vessels' are battleships, cruisers, carriers "and some escorts" (emphasis mine). Essentially warships big enough to carry a spinal mount.

To dispose of the 'some escorts' first, that phrase could be used to include comparatively small ships like the 5000T Sloans or even 3000T destroyers in those 1000 combat vessels. But the problem with doing that is that even if you call it three batrons and six crurons per fleet you have to assume a maintenace cost twice that indicated by TCS (20% of original cost per year). If you turn some of those battleships and cruisers into Sloans and Chrysanthemums, you could easily wind up with a maintenance figure of 50 or 100% of new cost per year. So I don't see how you can do anything like that and still keep your belief suspenders intact. I know I can't.

So I interpret "some escorts" to be a small handful of experimental designs of easorts that are big enough to carry spinal mounts but don't. I use this rarity as an excuse to essentially ignore them.

First, theoretically could include mothballed ships.

I have the same objection as above. Mothballed ships means fewer ships to account for the maintenance budget.

I interpret the 'theoretically' to mean that only sectors with a full 16 subsectors will have the full 1000 combat vessel average. The Alpha Crusis Fleet and the Trojan Reach Fleet and the Reft Fleet (for example) doesn't have an average of 1000 combat vessels, because they only have an average of four fleets. Instead, each of the Imperium's 320 fleets have an average of 62.5 ships. Which, rounded up to 63, rather neatly works out as an average of 9 squadrons with an average of 7 combat vessels.

Second, the Rider Squadron from SMC could be said to have 8 Big Ships.

The 154th either has seven cruiser-sized combat vessels or one battleship sized combat vessel, depending on whether you count the riders or rhe carrier. But going into that opens a rather big can of worms that has been discussed quite a lot already. Perhaps we can leave the 154th out of this discussion?

Hence, perhaps half of all subsector fleets in the Imperium lack battleships.

There's some support for the notion that the fleets in the area covered by the FFW map is rather sparesely furnished with any sort of squadrons (Unless we assume that the mistake in implicitly counting all population multipliers as one means that the actual force levels is four or five time what the FFW countermix imply, in which case we get 8-10 batrons and 24-30 crurons for four fleets; which is pretty close to the RgS figure). But of the reinforcements available, 48% are batrons, 39% are crurons, 3% are tankrons, and 10% are assrons (excuse me, assaultrons). In other words, more batrons than crurons. I'm not sure how much that proves, though, since the reinforcements sent would be subject to some sort of selection bias.

I'm still not sure why you're so anxious to downplay batrons, though.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

It's 1000 'combat vessels' per sector. And 'combat vessels' are battleships, cruisers, carriers "and some escorts" (emphasis mine). Essentially warships big enough to carry a spinal mount.

Averaging 1000 combatants per sector, 16 fleets per sector, very roughly 64 ships per fleet (with wide variation). So, roughly 4 CruRons, 2 BatRons, with a picket of 16 escorts - varying of course by local need and strategic plans. I like.

Except ... where are we drawing the 2 to 1 idea? FFW Imperial reinforcement table averages out at roughly three cruisers squadrons for every two batrons.

Elastic defense strategy: forward fleets lighter, mainly cruisers, more useful in peacetime for individual missions, and their loss at the start of a war is less damaging.

To dispose of the 'some escorts' first, that phrase could be used to include comparatively small ships like the 5000T Sloans or even 3000T destroyers in those 1000 combat vessels. But the problem with doing that is that even if you call it three batrons and six crurons per fleet you have to assume a maintenace cost twice that indicated by TCS (20% of original cost per year). If you turn some of those battleships and cruisers into Sloans and Chrysanthemums, you could easily wind up with a maintenance figure of 50 or 100% of new cost per year. So I don't see how you can do anything like that and still keep your belief suspenders intact. I know I can't.

I'm quite confused. Why are smaller ships increasing your maintenance cost? Or are you saying that smaller ships mean more unused budget to try to account for?

I have the same objection as above. Mothballed ships means fewer ships to account for the maintenance budget.

That sounds more like the latter.

Are you predicating figures on a 40-year lifespan for the ship, or 10? TCS implies 10, but that seems rather short. Azhantis were in use for over 40 years. On the other hand, longer-lived ships means more ships for the same bucks. I had an odd thought: IN buys a ship and keeps it in the Navy for 10 years, then transfers/sells it to the colonial navy for another 10, then it goes to ordinary for another two decades, leaving a large reserve to replace combat losses. Or 15/15/10, or thereabouts - main point being to make best use of the ship's lifespan without the budget getting silly.

I interpret the 'theoretically' to mean that only sectors with a full 16 subsectors will have the full 1000 combat vessel average. ...

Agreed.

 

[mike wightman]

I love these discussions

The FFW and its counter mix/rules give us a snapshot of IN organisation during the golden age - we can add essays from S9 to fill in some of the gaps .

I would suggest that if you haven't done so, dig out FFW and play it at least three times to get a hang of what the game is about.

Next we have the SMC which is supposed to show what happened in the "real" FFW - I wonder if the folks at GDW gamed this out using their own FFW or just made stuff up?

Finally we have the DGP produced reorganisation of the IN post FFW which gives a snapshot of IN doctrine and organisation in the pre-rebellion era, i.e. post FFW reorganisation due to lessons learned and true TL15 ships coming out of the shipyards.

 

[rancke]

Except ... where are we drawing the 2 to 1 idea? FFW Imperial reinforcement table averages out at roughly three cruisers squadrons for every two batrons.

My memory, which is, unfortunately, quite spotty. I originally used 1:3 (2 batrons, 6 crurons and a 'specialist' squadron per average 9-squadron fleet), but I have a vague memory of a discussion (with Chris Thrash?) in which I changed my mind. I can't remember why, though.

The 1:3 ratio I can explain: It's the ratio of the regular squadrons stationed on the FFW map at the start of the game.

The reinforcements are subject to all sorts of selection bias. The various fleet admirals could be sending the ones that would get there fastest (crurons) or the ones that would be most use when they got there (batrons) or the ones that had the best crews or the ones they could best spare or the ones whose admirals they liked the most (opportunity for glory) or liked the least (good riddance).

I'm quite confused. Why are smaller ships increasing your maintenance cost? Or are you saying that smaller ships mean more unused budget to try to account for?

The latter.

Are you predicating figures on a 40-year lifespan for the ship, or 10? TCS implies 10, but that seems rather short.

I assume a 40 year lifespan. TCS does not imply 10. If a ship is replaced after ten years of spending 1/10th of its cost, there'd be nothing left over to maintain the old one in the meantime. As it is, I assume that 25% of the maintenance budget (2.5% of price) goes to peacetime replacement.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

I assume a 40 year lifespan. TCS does not imply 10. If a ship is replaced after ten years of spending 1/10th of its cost, there'd be nothing left over to maintain the old one in the meantime.

Well, there was that bit about the starting fleet being ten years' budget that I was considering. However, I am as wary of taking TCS as unquestioned canon as I am of taking FFW that way, and for the same reasons - both are intended more to make playable games than to serve as emulations. I rely on them to some extent, but I keep an open mind on the subject.

I think I like the 40-year bit better, though I still think they'd retire them with some life left to them so that the ships could be more easily used to replace combat losses in wartime. Maybe 30 years, I'll have to ponder it.

 

[mike wightman]

The AHL class served 50 years before being mothballed, and that includes the ships that were involved in the SRW. I would say that is the benchmark.

If you want to get an idea of their true longevity look at the Arrival Vengeance...

 

[Garyius2003]

Executive Summary


** Newly-formed -- this took two years -- means they were either building new battleships, or pulling old ones out of mothballs.

Reservists to depot, recommission TL 15 battle wagons with less than 5 (10, whatever the 3I rules for reverse storage) years frame life left, test and fix, 3 months to front lines. Party starts.

Duke produces warrant, party really gets started.

 

[Carlobrand]

The AHL class served 50 years before being mothballed, and that includes the ships that were involved in the SRW. I would say that is the benchmark.

If you want to get an idea of their true longevity look at the Arrival Vengeance...

Some of the Kinunirs are still going strong after 30 years, and that was a rather ill-fated class as a whole. According to Supplement 9, the last Atlantic-class cruiser rolled off the slipway in 1050, but there are 500 still in service. These things are clearly built to last a while.

 

[pendragonman]

Some of the Kinunirs are still going strong after 30 years, and that was a rather ill-fated class as a whole.

Ill fated. That's one way to phrase it.