Far Traders

[Andrew Boulton]

A question of terminology.

 

[kafka47]

I have to go with a tradition definition of it meaning the Empress Marava. Whereas, Far Trader would be anything greater than a Free Trader. It's the A2 that sets aside from others presumably these designations mean something in the Imperium.

 

[Jame]

I'm going with Kafka's meaning.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Have to concur...

 

[daryen]

I want to clarify my answer a bit.

To me, the "Type A2 Far Trader" is a 200 dton trading starship with J2 range. (It may or may not specifically be a Marava.) A "Type A Free Trader" is a 200 dton trading starship with J1 range.

On the other hand, a "Far Trader" (no "type" given) is any trading starship of any size with J2 range. Similarly, a "Free Trader" is any trading starship of any size with a J1 range.

(I call J3 traders "Long Traders, but that is MTU.)

 

[mike wightman]

I agree with daryen and Kafka...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Ditto.....

 

[far-trader]

What comes after ditto?

Yep, still 100% agreement, I think because that is how the A2 was defined. However...

It doesn't have to be. The type classification system is specifically said to be not the end all. It is not even complete. Nor is it required that the first letter be the primary iirc. And you'll note that in the tables there are no "2" designations or any other numbers for that matter. It is all very brief and incomplete and in no way sufficient for all ships in the OTU once High Guard was added (and not even before really, but it was closer to being enough). There isn't even much rhyme and reason to it. Kinda odd too for the AR bureacracy of the OTU to not have something more specific after several thousands of years

Anyway, it is just a game (repeat until calm )

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by daryen:
(I call J3 traders "Long Traders, but that is MTU.)

Same in mtu of ages past

And the 600t standard sub-liner was a Long Liner in the same way.

 

[Jame]

Long Traders - hmmm... Consider that copied!

Like I said, I use "Far Trader" to mean any non-scout/military vessel, i.e. a merchant, with J2 capacity (or rather, Jump speed regardless of fuel capacity), while "A2" is a specific class, i.e. Marava or similar.

 

[veltyen]

IMTU I use "Border Trader" for J3, "Courier" for J4, and "Fast Courier" for J5.

The "Trader" part of the nomenclature indicates a 150-300 dTon tramp trader type vessel. At larger sizes they become Liners, Merchants, Transports and so on.

 

[Liam Devlin]

I use 'Frontier' trader, (J-3 200-300dtons) instead of "Border", but follow the same line of thought as Veltyen above does.

"Long Trader" is reserved for J-4 merchies IMTU, tonnage notwithstanding.

FAST Traders/ couriers have J-5, and the top level ones J-6..usually Imperial subsidized Like Imperialliners..

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Interesting answers...

 

[mike wightman]

Why the question Andrew?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

It came up in a discussion with Marc. He was thinking of using the second definition - ie Type A2/Far Trader is a generic term for enhanced performance traders - for T5, but I *think* I've talked him out of it.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
It came up in a discussion with Marc. He was thinking of using the second definition - ie Type A2/Far Trader is a generic term for enhanced performance traders - for T5, but I *think* I've talked him out of it.

Interesting (in a WHY?? sense).

Why wouldn't he be looking at expanding the "type" codification and fixing it rather than trying to make it even more confusing? "My A2 is J3 6G and your A2 is J6 3G."

It should be scrapped entirely or actually made sensible. IMO. Which nobody, least of all M.W. Miller, is likely to ask for.

It seems looking at the poll now that there are a few in agreement with M.W.M. (3 of 19)

 

[mike wightman]

I think daryen pretty much nailed the way it should work;

type A - 200t hull, jump 1 (note that the 1 has been dropped)
type A2 - 200t hull, jump 2

free trader - any jump 1, privately owned merchant ship

far trader - any jump 2, privately owned merchant ship.

 

[Liam Devlin]

I read or hear, "A2/class Far Trader", and see a 200dton J2/1G vessel class of a mass produced hull form..[Tech level of actual ship notwithstanding from TL-F "Empress Marava" to "Jayhawk" TL-C] not any vessel that is "greater than a A1-type Free Trader 200dton J-1/1G ship-size [TL-F "Beowulf" to TL-A "Morraine"-class]. Andrew..

The preconceived long-standing definition will be a hurdle to breach...agreed. Dunno if it's worth the "overhaul" for the amount of 'impact' to T5 fwiw.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Dunno if it's worth the "overhaul" for the amount of 'impact' to T5 fwiw.

With that I agree, or for any version for that matter. The whole one or two letter (and number though never included) "type" code could be scrapped with no loss whatsoever. Ship "class" by name works fine for defining a "type" (Beowulf class, everybody knows you mean a specific hull and configuration of performance and features). That's all that's needed. Please pass on to M.W.M. for us (well me at least) Andrew that he just drop the whole "type code" thing in favor of "class name" definitions. Heck we don't even need the somewhat arbitrary and ill defined Free, Far, Fast, etc., in the mix. Just lable the ship a Beowulf class and I'll run off and name the one I buy Sigurd or Arthur or Iilleen

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The points you've all just made are almost exactly the ones I made to him!

"Why wouldn't he be looking at expanding the "type" codification and fixing it

It should be scrapped entirely or actually made sensible. IMO. Which nobody, least of all M.W. Miller, is likely to ask for."

Actually, that's exactly what we're discussing ATM. I'll probably be posting details either in The Fleet or in the T5 Playtest forum soon.