Fleets, IN organization, and general TO&E.
- Thread starter BetterThanLife
- Start date
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
A dispersed structure Battle Tender carrying, instead of the typical 6 30KTon Battleriders can carry 36 5000T Light Attack Craft (LAC) (I know I stole the term for David Webber but it appears to apply.) Equipped with a Spinal Meson G or J, that same Tender, plus squadron, costs about the same but has enough firepower to vaporize 18-19 ships in one highspeed pass. Or using the 4 ship squadron figures 4Cru-BatRons and a couple of escorts thrown in for good measure. Using 2 tenders you virtually wipe out most Subsector fleets in one pass. Yes you will suffer losses but proportionately it isn't even close.
For example if you attack 32 Capital ships (8 Squadrons) You will lose, in one pass, 16-17 ships. (Roughly 1/4th of your strike wing) You will wipe out 32 capital ships in the same pass and have 4 ships, wiped out, left over. YOur strike force, including Tenders, runs at about the same cost as a pair of BatRons. (Probably less depending on the BatRons.)
Now this is based on T20 rules as they stand. It isn't nearly as nasty in CT or MT. (Though it will still hurt.)
For example if you attack 32 Capital ships (8 Squadrons) You will lose, in one pass, 16-17 ships. (Roughly 1/4th of your strike wing) You will wipe out 32 capital ships in the same pass and have 4 ships, wiped out, left over. YOur strike force, including Tenders, runs at about the same cost as a pair of BatRons. (Probably less depending on the BatRons.)
Now this is based on T20 rules as they stand. It isn't nearly as nasty in CT or MT. (Though it will still hurt.)
Bhoins wrote among other good stuff:
"Using TCS and only using two-three years production..."
Mr. Bhoins,
Drop TCS from yuor calculations. Mr. Miller has specifically stated that TCS' budget mechanisms and build times are NOT portable into the 3I/OTU.
Bringing in another thread, this is yet another example of why people don't play Traveller - contradictory source materials over a 25+ year publishing life.
(The other major reason people don't play Traveller is Our Olde Hobby's fixation on inconsequential jots and tittles. The number of BatRons and CruRons, plus the number of type of vessels in each, have no real effect on play. The size and nature of a Sector Fleet should be exactly what the GM requires for their campaign and nothing else. Sadly, more us us PLAY WITH Traveller than PLAY Traveller.)
Another fact to keep in mind in your thought experiments is that not all Sector Fleets are creaed equal. The Corridor Fleet, for example, is described as being 'oversized' in several sources. Would a sector fleet in Ilelish(1) be the same size as a sector fleet in the Marches or Rim?
Good stuff from everyone responding, can't wait to read the rest!
Sincerely,
Larsen
1 - Disregarding an assumed build-up by Dulinor prior to the Rebellion... if you play in that timeline!
P.S. The Washington Naval Treaty set total tonnage limits on DDs and CVs too. You could have a certain amount of tonnage of each. Everyone gets hung up on the infamous capital ship ratios and forgets this. The US, after completing the large BCs 'Saratoga' and 'Lexington' as CVs, only had 'enough' tonnage left to build the relatively small 'Wasp'. In order to get more bang for their tonnage buck, the French built super-destroyers, ships with a destroyers weapons load and mission that approached light cruiser displacement.
"Using TCS and only using two-three years production..."
Mr. Bhoins,
Drop TCS from yuor calculations. Mr. Miller has specifically stated that TCS' budget mechanisms and build times are NOT portable into the 3I/OTU.
Bringing in another thread, this is yet another example of why people don't play Traveller - contradictory source materials over a 25+ year publishing life.
(The other major reason people don't play Traveller is Our Olde Hobby's fixation on inconsequential jots and tittles. The number of BatRons and CruRons, plus the number of type of vessels in each, have no real effect on play. The size and nature of a Sector Fleet should be exactly what the GM requires for their campaign and nothing else. Sadly, more us us PLAY WITH Traveller than PLAY Traveller.)Another fact to keep in mind in your thought experiments is that not all Sector Fleets are creaed equal. The Corridor Fleet, for example, is described as being 'oversized' in several sources. Would a sector fleet in Ilelish(1) be the same size as a sector fleet in the Marches or Rim?
Good stuff from everyone responding, can't wait to read the rest!
Sincerely,
Larsen
1 - Disregarding an assumed build-up by Dulinor prior to the Rebellion... if you play in that timeline!
P.S. The Washington Naval Treaty set total tonnage limits on DDs and CVs too. You could have a certain amount of tonnage of each. Everyone gets hung up on the infamous capital ship ratios and forgets this. The US, after completing the large BCs 'Saratoga' and 'Lexington' as CVs, only had 'enough' tonnage left to build the relatively small 'Wasp'. In order to get more bang for their tonnage buck, the French built super-destroyers, ships with a destroyers weapons load and mission that approached light cruiser displacement.
IIRC he said that they were not canonical. Since he failed to provide a replacement, they're still the best available information. Since you will have to make assumptions about build rates anyway, and since TCS used to be canonical and hasn't actually been superceded (merely emasculated), why not use it anyway?Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
Bhoins wrote among other good stuff:
"Using TCS and only using two-three years production..."
Drop TCS from yuor calculations. Mr. Miller has specifically stated that TCS' budget mechanisms and build times are NOT portable into the 3I/OTU.
Hans
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Speaking to the validity of TCS. Like Ranke states, thre is nothing else in canon that replaced TCS.
I did some cursory research, I figured the numbers that TCS provided were a bit high. I compared the build up part of the TCS rules and budget rules to the US Naval build up under President Regan. Now some of the material is still classified so I had to make some estimates, and I could have spent more time on it but since it was just to prove or disprove the validity of a game mechanic for a fictional situation.
But I found, much to my surprise, that the TCS value of CR200 per head for a naval budget is actually pretty close to the $200 per head (approximate) used inthe Naval budget and naval construction of the period.
As for playing at Traveller instead of playing Traveller. I am doing research to run a Naval campaign. (David Weber has inspired me and I don't want to wait for HH.
I did some cursory research, I figured the numbers that TCS provided were a bit high. I compared the build up part of the TCS rules and budget rules to the US Naval build up under President Regan. Now some of the material is still classified so I had to make some estimates, and I could have spent more time on it but since it was just to prove or disprove the validity of a game mechanic for a fictional situation.
But I found, much to my surprise, that the TCS value of CR200 per head for a naval budget is actually pretty close to the $200 per head (approximate) used inthe Naval budget and naval construction of the period.
As for playing at Traveller instead of playing Traveller. I am doing research to run a Naval campaign. (David Weber has inspired me and I don't want to wait for HH.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Heck, there's nothing wrong with playing at TRAVELLER, that's mostly what I do these days.
What kind of naval campaign are you working up, Bhoins? I've been giving some thought to finding a way to combine TCS and 5FW to get a strategic-level wargame that could be set anywhere in the TRAVELLER universe (like, say, along the Aslan-Solomani frontier).
What kind of naval campaign are you working up, Bhoins? I've been giving some thought to finding a way to combine TCS and 5FW to get a strategic-level wargame that could be set anywhere in the TRAVELLER universe (like, say, along the Aslan-Solomani frontier).
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually more like Player Character Naval Characters. Serving on active duty, probably during either the 5th Frontier War, though not neccessarily on the frontline, or in Gateway during the Solomani Rim war. Things like piracy suppression, that kind of stuff.
I haven't worked out the details yet, I was thinking along the lines of a Destroyer but possibly an escort. Though it is tempting to use those AHL deckplans.
Reading through the Epic Adventures and the Gateway Sourcebook there are lots of things for a Naval crew to do. (SEAL Insertion is another possibility.)
The reason I was thinking a Destroyer is it could be the Lead ship in a convoy. Run independent operations, is big enough to carry a Platoon or so of Marines, and is enough ship so the commanding officer is a Commander. (SO the characters wouldn't be stuck with no ranks higher than LT.)
As the campaign progresses they could get promoted and wind up in command of a couple of ships in the same squadron. Or moved up to an AHL. One character in charge of Flight Ops for example, ANother the CO, one the XO, the Marine COmpany COmmander.... I guess we'll just have to see.
I haven't worked out the details yet, I was thinking along the lines of a Destroyer but possibly an escort. Though it is tempting to use those AHL deckplans.
The reason I was thinking a Destroyer is it could be the Lead ship in a convoy. Run independent operations, is big enough to carry a Platoon or so of Marines, and is enough ship so the commanding officer is a Commander. (SO the characters wouldn't be stuck with no ranks higher than LT.)
As the campaign progresses they could get promoted and wind up in command of a couple of ships in the same squadron. Or moved up to an AHL. One character in charge of Flight Ops for example, ANother the CO, one the XO, the Marine COmpany COmmander.... I guess we'll just have to see.
rancke wrote:
"Since he failed to provide a replacement, they're still the best available information."
Mr. Rancke-Madsen,
Gee, I didn't like T4 either, but why does everyone keep forgetting Pocket Empires and Imperial Squadrons? Both contain taxation, budget, and fleet building rules, albeit in broad brushstrokes. I mean they're not going to give you the number of urinals in the auxiliary bridge's port side fresher aboard the INS battlewagon Bulging Thunder but do you really need that level of detail anyway?
Yeah, PE does deal with exo-Imperial mini-polities and IS does deal with M:0 era navies, but are they any worse a fit than TCS which is set in a relatively remote non-Imperial cluster in the midst of a seven-way arms race?
"... why not use it anyway?"
Because you'll be building your house upon the sand?
I believe Mr. Miller has deliberately avoided all attempts by other parties to pin down the 'nuts & bolts' details concerning Imperial governance, finance, and budgets in order to maintain Traveller's malleability. This deliberate vagueness allows you to make whatever assumptions you want about budget levels and fleet strengths and mold your TU from those starting points while allowing others to make different assumptions to mold their TUs.
All are 'correct' and the game goes on!
Sincerely,
Larsen
"Since he failed to provide a replacement, they're still the best available information."
Mr. Rancke-Madsen,
Gee, I didn't like T4 either, but why does everyone keep forgetting Pocket Empires and Imperial Squadrons? Both contain taxation, budget, and fleet building rules, albeit in broad brushstrokes. I mean they're not going to give you the number of urinals in the auxiliary bridge's port side fresher aboard the INS battlewagon Bulging Thunder but do you really need that level of detail anyway?
Yeah, PE does deal with exo-Imperial mini-polities and IS does deal with M:0 era navies, but are they any worse a fit than TCS which is set in a relatively remote non-Imperial cluster in the midst of a seven-way arms race?
"... why not use it anyway?"
Because you'll be building your house upon the sand?
I believe Mr. Miller has deliberately avoided all attempts by other parties to pin down the 'nuts & bolts' details concerning Imperial governance, finance, and budgets in order to maintain Traveller's malleability. This deliberate vagueness allows you to make whatever assumptions you want about budget levels and fleet strengths and mold your TU from those starting points while allowing others to make different assumptions to mold their TUs.
All are 'correct' and the game goes on!
Sincerely,
Larsen
Bhoins explained:
"I haven't worked out the details yet..."
Mr. Bhoins,
I most certainly hope you do and I also hope that you find a way to share your campaign with us.
Who knows, maybe there's a future QLI product in your work? Something on the lines of 'Stoner Express'?
Sincerely,
Larsen
"I haven't worked out the details yet..."
Mr. Bhoins,
I most certainly hope you do and I also hope that you find a way to share your campaign with us.
Who knows, maybe there's a future QLI product in your work? Something on the lines of 'Stoner Express'?
Sincerely,
Larsen
And were you able to work with them? I wasn't (and I tried). At least, I tried PE. I don't recall doing anything with IS. I thought the economy of IS was more or less a cut and paste of previously published material, but I shall certainly check it out now, in case I'm mistaken.
No, I don't. Nor do I recall ever saying anything that would give anyone reason to believe I did.
It doesn't sound like it. But on the other hand, I've long ago managed to adapt the TCS and Striker rules from fitting a remote non-Imperial cluster in the midst of a seven-way arms race to fit a peacetime Imperium (to my own satisfaction; if others disagree they're welcome to tell me where I'm going wrong, but "It's not canon" doesn't do that, it simply discards the baby with the bathwater) whereas I've given up on doing the same with the PE rules.
I have a less charitable opinion of Marc Miller's action in decanonizing those rules, but let that go. What do you suggest I do instead? What you consider a laudable mallability I consider a frustrating vagueness. I want details concerning Imperial governance, finance and budgets in my own Traveller universe, and I think it is a big, ugly flaw in the Traveller rules that they don't provide me with easy ways to get them. Better yet, since I try to keep MTU as close to the OTU as I can manage, the Traveller background material should just tell me how they work, so that I can spend my energy on coming up with new adventures for my players.
OK, I don't blame anyone for not publishing CT:Nobles or MT:The Imperial Bureaucracy, because there's only so much a game company can publish per year and enough white spots in the Traveller universe to keep a score of publishers busy for the rest of my life. But I can, and do, blame MM for invalidating a bit of already existing published material without providing a substitute. However lacking in scope and detail TCS was, it was at least better than nothing. I don't appreciate MM vaguing that up for me any more than it already was.
In other words, it's not a bug it's a feature? [Rude expletive]! The OTU is one universe. Nailing down how things are in that one universe doesn't prevent anyone from doing things differently in their own TU. Especially if he had rules that nailed down what assumptions led to what consequences.
I'm not talking about all Traveller universes. I'm (as nearly always) talking about one single Traveller universe, and for any one universe 'all' are not correct. Only one truth applies per universe, and leaving the question of which truth applies to the OTU unanswered is merely avoiding the issue. If MM don't want to nail down how the Imperium works in the OTU then he shouldn't have an OTU in the first place.
Finally, keeping these details vague isn't going to keep them out of canon forever, it just ensures that when they do show up, they're likely to be one huge inconsistent mess. Every time someone writing an official bit of adventure or background material sticks in a reference to Imperial governance, finance, budgets, force levels or any other damn detail about the Imperium, facts solidify and embed themselves in OTU canon. Only now they're pretty much guaranteed to result in horrible belief suspender snappers.
Hans
Dear Folks -
Thank you, Mr Whipsnade, for injecting sensible meta-gaming arguments into this thread.
FWIW, what Marc said was that the assumptions used in TCS were designed to create a balanced game within the framework of TCS , and should not/could not be extrapolated to the rest of the Imperium.
Both he and Loren have pointed out that this balancing is a fundamental principle of game design. Note that some "games", like Harpoon, are unbalanced. This is because they really are simulations rather than games.
(Hi, Larsen!)
Thank you, Mr Whipsnade, for injecting sensible meta-gaming arguments into this thread.
FWIW, what Marc said was that the assumptions used in TCS were designed to create a balanced game within the framework of TCS , and should not/could not be extrapolated to the rest of the Imperium.
Both he and Loren have pointed out that this balancing is a fundamental principle of game design. Note that some "games", like Harpoon, are unbalanced. This is because they really are simulations rather than games.
rancke wrote:
"And what he conveniently left out was that TCS was explicitly set in the OTU and was as much a part of the OTU canon as any other CT publication..."
Mr. Rancke-Madsen,
FFW is explicitly set in the OTU. Is the countermix found that game the total order of battle for all the combatents in the region bounded by the map?
Invasion:Earth is explicitly set in the OTU. Is the countermix found in that game the total order of battle for both combatants in and around Earth?
Dark Nebula is explicitly set in the OTU. Is the countermix found in that game the total order of battle for the combatants during the Aslan Border Wars?
TCS states that the Islands are separated from the Imperium by six parsecs and can be reached by jump3 with tanks. Yet, AotI clearly shows a seven parsec gap.
Requirements change and not everything published for the OTU was meant to be recieved as holy writ.
Sincerely,
Larsen
"And what he conveniently left out was that TCS was explicitly set in the OTU and was as much a part of the OTU canon as any other CT publication..."
Mr. Rancke-Madsen,
FFW is explicitly set in the OTU. Is the countermix found that game the total order of battle for all the combatents in the region bounded by the map?
Invasion:Earth is explicitly set in the OTU. Is the countermix found in that game the total order of battle for both combatants in and around Earth?
Dark Nebula is explicitly set in the OTU. Is the countermix found in that game the total order of battle for the combatants during the Aslan Border Wars?
TCS states that the Islands are separated from the Imperium by six parsecs and can be reached by jump3 with tanks. Yet, AotI clearly shows a seven parsec gap.
Requirements change and not everything published for the OTU was meant to be recieved as holy writ.
Sincerely,
Larsen
rancke wrote:
"What you consider a laudable mallability I consider a frustrating vagueness."
Mr. Rancke-Madsen,
Different strokes...
"I want details concerning Imperial governance, finance and budgets in my own Traveller universe, and I think it is a big, ugly flaw in the Traveller rules that they don't provide me with easy ways to get them."
My question then is; How exactly would those details enhance game play in your own Traveller universe?
"Better yet, since I try to keep MTU as close to the OTU as I can manage, the Traveller background material should just tell me how they work, so that I can spend my energy on coming up with new adventures for my players."
Again, my questions is; How exactly would those details enhance game play in your own Traveller universe? Do your players routinely peruse line items in the Imperial budget? Lobby for or against specific taxes and/or tariffs? Count every last hull in the sector fleet? Keep tabs on the numbers and functions of all Imperial employees? How exactly would those details enhance game play in your own Traveller universe?
If your new adventure needs a battleship to appear, let it appear. There is no need to worry about the underpinnings of the entire IN infrastructure. If your new adventure needs a battleship not to appear, do not let it appear. There is no need to worry about all the connected boxes in a Table of Naval Command Structure. As a GM, your energy is being spent where it does no good if you're fretting over jots and tittles that have no immediate and direct effect on game play.
You create your adventures. They are an extension of your will. If you say they 'fit', then they 'fit'. You can 'wing it'. No players need to know, or want to know, the level of detail we are talking about anyway.
"But I can, and do, blame MM for invalidating a bit of already existing published material without providing a substitute."
As Mr. Jacques-Watson pointed out, MWM didn't invalidate anything. Instead, he RESTATED the original intent of the material in question. TCS was meant to be a balanced strategic wargame using HG2 combat rules and nothing more. It was Our Olde Hobby who wrongly inflated the role of the TCS materials. MWM simply corrected that error.
"In other words, it's not a bug it's a feature? [Rude expletive]!"
It is neither a bug or a feature as both assume prior planning. A bug is a failure of planning and a feature is a planned aspect. What you have either forgotten or fail to fully 'grok' is that the OTU was never planned in the first place.
The OTU accreted over the years via scores of articles, amber zones, maps, casual encounters, supplements, and TNS items from dozens of authors living and dead. There was NO overall plan other than 'Provide materials for players in a game'. There was no structured outline and no attempts to create one until the end of GDW's run. Take notice of how that coherent, self-consistent outline for Traveller finally was created - TNE had to first utterly destroy the pre-existing Traveller background.
Why?
Not out of some 'hatred' for CT, MT, or the Rebellion, but because that destruction was the only way that a coherent and self-consistent outline could be created. The unplanned accreted materials that made up the roughly 15 years of Traveller prior to TNE were too riddled with inconsistent and contradictory work. To be consistent at the level you wish for, TNE had to start fresh and that meant that nearly everything in Traveller previous to it was rendered moot via the agency of Virus as a consequence.
The vagueness you bemoan is a deliberate decision on MWM's part to avoid invalidating too much of Traveller's canon. If he chooses an economic model, a budget model, a governance model, if he chooses any of those things vast swaths of Traveller canon will no longer fit. He cannot impose order on the chaos without losing far too much and, seeing that Traveller has lasted for over a quarter century without imposing that level of order, there is no need to do so.
No order of the kind you wish for can be imposed on the mass of Traveller materials without the loss of a great number of those materials. The price is too high.
"The OTU is one universe. Nailing down how things are in that one universe doesn't prevent anyone from doing things differently in their own TU. Especially if he had rules that nailed down what assumptions led to what consequences."
Again, you are assuming that planning occurred. Assumptions were only made for the adventure at hand and the future consequences be damned. The only 'plan' was to provide interesting gaming materials for players and not create a simulation consistent with all prior materials. In 'Aces and Eights', an Imperial army brigade - an IMPERIAL unit mind you - is destroyed by a sneak WMD strike despite the Imperial Rules of War. Making matters worse, the parties who launched the WMD strike are now rulers of the world where it took place. Why was such an adventure 'allowed' to be written? It clearly flouts everything we've been told about the Imperium, so why was it written? Simple, its premise is FUN and the adventure provides an interesting GAME for players. That is the only 'plan', the only underlying order to Traveller.
"If MM don't want to nail down how the Imperium works in the OTU then he shouldn't have an OTU in the first place."
He didn't have an OTU in the first place. Re-read the original Three LBBs. Even the first mentions in B:4 Mercenary are tenuous at best. The OTU grew, Hans, it was never planned. There is no order at the center of it, at least no order at the level you wish there to be.
"Finally, keeping these details vague isn't going to keep them out of canon forever, it just ensures that when they do show up, they're likely to be one huge inconsistent mess."
You've just described Traveller canon perfectly; a huge inconsistent mess. And there is no way to clean up that mess without a wholesale trashing of huge chunks of Traveller canon. It cannot be brought to heel and it cannot be made to fit without great losses.
"Every time someone writing an official bit of adventure or background material sticks in a reference to Imperial governance, finance, budgets, force levels or any other damn detail about the Imperium, facts solidify and embed themselves in OTU canon. Only now they're pretty much guaranteed to result in horrible belief suspender snappers."
That method has worked for 25+ years. If MWM can prevent those various references from being too sweeping or too global, then a GM can squint a bit and either make them fit his needs or ignore them altogether. However, if those references become too orderly and too precise, then the GM's hands are tied. His TU and big chunks of Traveller's canon suddenly become naught but trash.
Now, all this being said, nothing is stopping you from choosing the details concerning Imperial governance, finance and budgets in your Traveller universe. They will be specific to your TU and will still vaguely match up with the OTU. Others will make their decisions based on their needs. As additional materials are released for the OTU they will be (hopefully) vague enough to allow easy importation into your TU and the TUs of others. The fact that we can get that much consistencey out of what was essentially a randomly created body of materials is enough of a miracle.
Sincerely,
Larsen
"What you consider a laudable mallability I consider a frustrating vagueness."
Mr. Rancke-Madsen,
Different strokes...
"I want details concerning Imperial governance, finance and budgets in my own Traveller universe, and I think it is a big, ugly flaw in the Traveller rules that they don't provide me with easy ways to get them."
My question then is; How exactly would those details enhance game play in your own Traveller universe?
"Better yet, since I try to keep MTU as close to the OTU as I can manage, the Traveller background material should just tell me how they work, so that I can spend my energy on coming up with new adventures for my players."
Again, my questions is; How exactly would those details enhance game play in your own Traveller universe? Do your players routinely peruse line items in the Imperial budget? Lobby for or against specific taxes and/or tariffs? Count every last hull in the sector fleet? Keep tabs on the numbers and functions of all Imperial employees? How exactly would those details enhance game play in your own Traveller universe?
If your new adventure needs a battleship to appear, let it appear. There is no need to worry about the underpinnings of the entire IN infrastructure. If your new adventure needs a battleship not to appear, do not let it appear. There is no need to worry about all the connected boxes in a Table of Naval Command Structure. As a GM, your energy is being spent where it does no good if you're fretting over jots and tittles that have no immediate and direct effect on game play.
You create your adventures. They are an extension of your will. If you say they 'fit', then they 'fit'. You can 'wing it'. No players need to know, or want to know, the level of detail we are talking about anyway.
"But I can, and do, blame MM for invalidating a bit of already existing published material without providing a substitute."
As Mr. Jacques-Watson pointed out, MWM didn't invalidate anything. Instead, he RESTATED the original intent of the material in question. TCS was meant to be a balanced strategic wargame using HG2 combat rules and nothing more. It was Our Olde Hobby who wrongly inflated the role of the TCS materials. MWM simply corrected that error.
"In other words, it's not a bug it's a feature? [Rude expletive]!"
It is neither a bug or a feature as both assume prior planning. A bug is a failure of planning and a feature is a planned aspect. What you have either forgotten or fail to fully 'grok' is that the OTU was never planned in the first place.
The OTU accreted over the years via scores of articles, amber zones, maps, casual encounters, supplements, and TNS items from dozens of authors living and dead. There was NO overall plan other than 'Provide materials for players in a game'. There was no structured outline and no attempts to create one until the end of GDW's run. Take notice of how that coherent, self-consistent outline for Traveller finally was created - TNE had to first utterly destroy the pre-existing Traveller background.
Why?
Not out of some 'hatred' for CT, MT, or the Rebellion, but because that destruction was the only way that a coherent and self-consistent outline could be created. The unplanned accreted materials that made up the roughly 15 years of Traveller prior to TNE were too riddled with inconsistent and contradictory work. To be consistent at the level you wish for, TNE had to start fresh and that meant that nearly everything in Traveller previous to it was rendered moot via the agency of Virus as a consequence.
The vagueness you bemoan is a deliberate decision on MWM's part to avoid invalidating too much of Traveller's canon. If he chooses an economic model, a budget model, a governance model, if he chooses any of those things vast swaths of Traveller canon will no longer fit. He cannot impose order on the chaos without losing far too much and, seeing that Traveller has lasted for over a quarter century without imposing that level of order, there is no need to do so.
No order of the kind you wish for can be imposed on the mass of Traveller materials without the loss of a great number of those materials. The price is too high.
"The OTU is one universe. Nailing down how things are in that one universe doesn't prevent anyone from doing things differently in their own TU. Especially if he had rules that nailed down what assumptions led to what consequences."
Again, you are assuming that planning occurred. Assumptions were only made for the adventure at hand and the future consequences be damned. The only 'plan' was to provide interesting gaming materials for players and not create a simulation consistent with all prior materials. In 'Aces and Eights', an Imperial army brigade - an IMPERIAL unit mind you - is destroyed by a sneak WMD strike despite the Imperial Rules of War. Making matters worse, the parties who launched the WMD strike are now rulers of the world where it took place. Why was such an adventure 'allowed' to be written? It clearly flouts everything we've been told about the Imperium, so why was it written? Simple, its premise is FUN and the adventure provides an interesting GAME for players. That is the only 'plan', the only underlying order to Traveller.
"If MM don't want to nail down how the Imperium works in the OTU then he shouldn't have an OTU in the first place."
He didn't have an OTU in the first place. Re-read the original Three LBBs. Even the first mentions in B:4 Mercenary are tenuous at best. The OTU grew, Hans, it was never planned. There is no order at the center of it, at least no order at the level you wish there to be.
"Finally, keeping these details vague isn't going to keep them out of canon forever, it just ensures that when they do show up, they're likely to be one huge inconsistent mess."
You've just described Traveller canon perfectly; a huge inconsistent mess. And there is no way to clean up that mess without a wholesale trashing of huge chunks of Traveller canon. It cannot be brought to heel and it cannot be made to fit without great losses.
"Every time someone writing an official bit of adventure or background material sticks in a reference to Imperial governance, finance, budgets, force levels or any other damn detail about the Imperium, facts solidify and embed themselves in OTU canon. Only now they're pretty much guaranteed to result in horrible belief suspender snappers."
That method has worked for 25+ years. If MWM can prevent those various references from being too sweeping or too global, then a GM can squint a bit and either make them fit his needs or ignore them altogether. However, if those references become too orderly and too precise, then the GM's hands are tied. His TU and big chunks of Traveller's canon suddenly become naught but trash.
Now, all this being said, nothing is stopping you from choosing the details concerning Imperial governance, finance and budgets in your Traveller universe. They will be specific to your TU and will still vaguely match up with the OTU. Others will make their decisions based on their needs. As additional materials are released for the OTU they will be (hopefully) vague enough to allow easy importation into your TU and the TUs of others. The fact that we can get that much consistencey out of what was essentially a randomly created body of materials is enough of a miracle.
Sincerely,
Larsen
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
"How exactly would those details enhance game play in your own Traveller universe?"
Simple. If you have a set of economic rules on how to build a fleet you can build one. You can also project how big the Navy actually should be. (Granted there are other factors.) This defines how difficult it is for Pirates to operate, how safe trade is, whether ships would always be armed and an unarmed ship is an anomoly, or most ships are unarmed and an armed ship is an anomoly.
Then there is the more important game reason to have this information. A player rolls a character, after much sweat, time and energy, gets through the process and after a successful Naval Career, and mustering out, he finds that he has a character with a SOC of 15. (Or even 14) Now you can, as the GM disallow that character, (Is that really fair to the time and effort that went into developing this character?) or take the character and make it an NPC (again same situation), let the character adventure the same as a commoner, (Mi Lord, wouldst thou loan me thine frag grenade?) or develope a campaign, at least a short one, around that character? Let him settle into his new Duchy, build up the colonial fleet and have some fun with it. Using Cruisers to chase down a Pirate base, deal with an Aslan incursion, have fleet elements called up for war, and have to figure out how to defend the rest of the subsector with a smaller force, etc.
Pulling TCS out of the mix means that there are no rules for this. OH and unless you happen to have T4, which I personally don't, hell until I found T20 I didn't even know there was a T4, you don't have any semblence of rules. Further the Ducal household, huscalares, privy purse etc has to have some basis in economics to fund it. And unless you have the rules from a very old Dragon Magazine, which never was Canon either, or use a variation of the formula in TCS, there is no way to figure out hard numbers.
And that assumes that the character was created by accident. In CT, MT and T20 there is the option of a Noble class. YOur prior history can be as a noble. If we aren't supposed to look into subsector economics, fleet building, empire building, why have that as an option?
So what is the canon formula to figure out funding for a planetary navy? Or a Subsector Colonial Fleet? Since TCS is invalid.
Simple. If you have a set of economic rules on how to build a fleet you can build one. You can also project how big the Navy actually should be. (Granted there are other factors.) This defines how difficult it is for Pirates to operate, how safe trade is, whether ships would always be armed and an unarmed ship is an anomoly, or most ships are unarmed and an armed ship is an anomoly.
Then there is the more important game reason to have this information. A player rolls a character, after much sweat, time and energy, gets through the process and after a successful Naval Career, and mustering out, he finds that he has a character with a SOC of 15. (Or even 14) Now you can, as the GM disallow that character, (Is that really fair to the time and effort that went into developing this character?) or take the character and make it an NPC (again same situation), let the character adventure the same as a commoner, (Mi Lord, wouldst thou loan me thine frag grenade?) or develope a campaign, at least a short one, around that character? Let him settle into his new Duchy, build up the colonial fleet and have some fun with it. Using Cruisers to chase down a Pirate base, deal with an Aslan incursion, have fleet elements called up for war, and have to figure out how to defend the rest of the subsector with a smaller force, etc.
Pulling TCS out of the mix means that there are no rules for this. OH and unless you happen to have T4, which I personally don't, hell until I found T20 I didn't even know there was a T4, you don't have any semblence of rules. Further the Ducal household, huscalares, privy purse etc has to have some basis in economics to fund it. And unless you have the rules from a very old Dragon Magazine, which never was Canon either, or use a variation of the formula in TCS, there is no way to figure out hard numbers.
And that assumes that the character was created by accident. In CT, MT and T20 there is the option of a Noble class. YOur prior history can be as a noble. If we aren't supposed to look into subsector economics, fleet building, empire building, why have that as an option?
So what is the canon formula to figure out funding for a planetary navy? Or a Subsector Colonial Fleet? Since TCS is invalid.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
TA-10 "In the Navy"
Actually we are already up to 8, I don't think it will be in any useable format that soon.
Perhaps TA-13? I still need to figure out how common Capital ships and Destroyers are. In Gateway it appears that Naval vessels outside of the Imperial borders tend to be under 10KTons. (Destroyer range.) But in the Spinward Marches you have capital ships patroling around outside the borders of the Imperium.
The best Canon Commerce Raider is the Fleet Intruder. (AHL) The design of the ship isn't extremely effective against Capital ships but it is murder on Escorts, and Merchantmen. And the High Jump capability means you can jump in and back out of a typical system without refueling, or move great distances to out race any moves made against you. Your 15ton fighters are virtually useless in fleet engagements but against merchants are very nasty. They can be used to run down scattering merchants as the Cruiser handles the escorts. The launches, whether they are 20 ton or 40 ton is open to interpretation, can be used for boarding actions for all those marines. There is passenger capacity for Prize Crews. And later prisoners. (They are reffered to as 20 tons and 40 Tons depending on where you look in Supp-5 and later they are replaced by 20 15T fighters.)
But Commerce raiders in Gateway tend to be under 10000 tons. And the apparent size for the bulk of the raiding force would be under 1000 tons (though there is an "Aging Solomani Heavy Cruiser" which is apparently the flagship of the Solomani Commerce Raiding mission in the Gateway Domain.)
SO I am currently obviously still in the research phase. After all if I don't know what the Navy has then missions for a Destroyer or a Destroyer escort (on the small end) or a Cruiser (On the large end) are also ill defined. I mean if Cruisers are extremely rare then Destroyers will be in the role normally associated with Cruisers. (And command rank will be higher in a Destroyer.)
The best Canon Commerce Raider is the Fleet Intruder. (AHL) The design of the ship isn't extremely effective against Capital ships but it is murder on Escorts, and Merchantmen. And the High Jump capability means you can jump in and back out of a typical system without refueling, or move great distances to out race any moves made against you. Your 15ton fighters are virtually useless in fleet engagements but against merchants are very nasty. They can be used to run down scattering merchants as the Cruiser handles the escorts. The launches, whether they are 20 ton or 40 ton is open to interpretation, can be used for boarding actions for all those marines. There is passenger capacity for Prize Crews. And later prisoners. (They are reffered to as 20 tons and 40 Tons depending on where you look in Supp-5 and later they are replaced by 20 15T fighters.)
But Commerce raiders in Gateway tend to be under 10000 tons. And the apparent size for the bulk of the raiding force would be under 1000 tons (though there is an "Aging Solomani Heavy Cruiser" which is apparently the flagship of the Solomani Commerce Raiding mission in the Gateway Domain.)
SO I am currently obviously still in the research phase. After all if I don't know what the Navy has then missions for a Destroyer or a Destroyer escort (on the small end) or a Cruiser (On the large end) are also ill defined. I mean if Cruisers are extremely rare then Destroyers will be in the role normally associated with Cruisers. (And command rank will be higher in a Destroyer.)
Bhoins wrote:
"Simple. If you have a set of economic rules on how to build a fleet you can build one."
Mr. Bhoins,
Here's a crazy thought, why not build a navy now without economic rules? T20 does have a ship design system, no? Why don't you - as the GM and creator of your Traveller Universe - simply decide what sort of fleet your campaign requires? It's a little something we like to call creativity.
"You can also project how big the Navy actually should be."
Must everything be reduced to a table, a look-up, and a formula? The Navy is as big as you - the GM and creator of your Traveller Universe - deem it needs to be. If later on it needs to be smaller or bigger, you - as the creator - can make the changes you see fit and invoke in-game reasons that work in your TU.
And there will be no table, look-up, or formula to say you are wrong.
"... how difficult it is for Pirates to operate..."
You determine that that, not the BOOK.
"... how safe trade is..."
You determine that, not a RULE.
"... whether ships would always be armed and an unarmed ship is an anomoly..."
You decide on that, not a TABLE.
"...or most ships are unarmed and an armed ship is an anomoly."
You make that decision, not a FORMULA.
"Then there is the more important game reason to have this information." [snip of noble PC campaign]
You can't create that on your own? You can't create and you're the GM?
"Further the Ducal household, huscalares, privy purse etc has to have some basis in economics to fund it."
Make a guess! Pluck a number from the air! If your player thinks it is too low, make it a constraint forced upon his House by higher nobles, a constraint that can then become a long-term goal for him to overturn. If the number proves to be too high, your noble PC has another long-term goal convincing his superiors to let him keep the money! Show a little creativity, it is your job as GM.
"If we aren't supposed to look into subsector economics, fleet building, empire building, why have that as an option?"
So you can create. Come up with something that works in your Traveller universe and no one - at least non one who matters - can squawk about your decisions. They work for you and you players, that is all that counts.
"So what is the canon formula to figure out funding for a planetary navy? Or a Subsector Colonial Fleet? Since TCS is invalid."
This is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. As MJD like to point out, it isn't Adventures In Accounting either. Make something up, create something, and have fun for Ghu's sake. Must it all be reduced to formulas and tables? Take number A, manipulate according to B, C, and D, and produce E? Where is the fun in that?
You are the GM. Do what you will.
Sincerely,
Larsen
P.S. Don't fall into the tonnage = class trap. Just because a vessel is destroyer-sized, it doesn't mean that it is a destroyer. Mission equates class, determine what the vessel does and that will tell you it's class.
"Simple. If you have a set of economic rules on how to build a fleet you can build one."
Mr. Bhoins,
Here's a crazy thought, why not build a navy now without economic rules? T20 does have a ship design system, no? Why don't you - as the GM and creator of your Traveller Universe - simply decide what sort of fleet your campaign requires? It's a little something we like to call creativity.
"You can also project how big the Navy actually should be."
Must everything be reduced to a table, a look-up, and a formula? The Navy is as big as you - the GM and creator of your Traveller Universe - deem it needs to be. If later on it needs to be smaller or bigger, you - as the creator - can make the changes you see fit and invoke in-game reasons that work in your TU.
And there will be no table, look-up, or formula to say you are wrong.
"... how difficult it is for Pirates to operate..."
You determine that that, not the BOOK.
"... how safe trade is..."
You determine that, not a RULE.
"... whether ships would always be armed and an unarmed ship is an anomoly..."
You decide on that, not a TABLE.
"...or most ships are unarmed and an armed ship is an anomoly."
You make that decision, not a FORMULA.
"Then there is the more important game reason to have this information." [snip of noble PC campaign]
You can't create that on your own? You can't create and you're the GM?
"Further the Ducal household, huscalares, privy purse etc has to have some basis in economics to fund it."
Make a guess! Pluck a number from the air! If your player thinks it is too low, make it a constraint forced upon his House by higher nobles, a constraint that can then become a long-term goal for him to overturn. If the number proves to be too high, your noble PC has another long-term goal convincing his superiors to let him keep the money! Show a little creativity, it is your job as GM.
"If we aren't supposed to look into subsector economics, fleet building, empire building, why have that as an option?"
So you can create. Come up with something that works in your Traveller universe and no one - at least non one who matters - can squawk about your decisions. They work for you and you players, that is all that counts.
"So what is the canon formula to figure out funding for a planetary navy? Or a Subsector Colonial Fleet? Since TCS is invalid."
This is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. As MJD like to point out, it isn't Adventures In Accounting either. Make something up, create something, and have fun for Ghu's sake. Must it all be reduced to formulas and tables? Take number A, manipulate according to B, C, and D, and produce E? Where is the fun in that?
You are the GM. Do what you will.
Sincerely,
Larsen
P.S. Don't fall into the tonnage = class trap. Just because a vessel is destroyer-sized, it doesn't mean that it is a destroyer. Mission equates class, determine what the vessel does and that will tell you it's class.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Sure I can build a Navy without Economic rules. But why would I want to? If I am just going to wave a magic wand and make things so, I don't need a Navy, or a structure for a Navy. I just wave my GM wand and there is a BatRon. Now my Players, might never have to deal with developing and building a Colonial fleet, but then again maybe they will be involved in such an endeavor.
So I have a better solution than just waving magic wands and GM fudging. Just to keep things consistent. I wave my Magic wand and use TCS as the economic basis because I don't have any other choices in published GDW material that appears to work. It makes more sense than "wand waving and silly incantations."
Oh and as an aside on TCS economics, Cr1 per head per anum seems a reasonable tax to ensure the Duke isn't broke instead of Cr200 per head for naval budget. Calculated in the same manner as the Naval budget especially for multi-system polities.
You are right, I am the GM. This is my world, MTU. But it doesn't make what I do portable to someone elses TU without a similar system in place. So if I want to do more than write a campaign for MTU, like get it published for the OTU later, then it needs more than "because I say so."
For the overall IN budget, well unless we have the entire 3I mapped out and populated you will never know what the general funding of the IN is, but you can get a good picture of overall trends locally. (Which is the important part.)
I made a decision to use a formula and you told me I shouldn't use that formula. (And said something about a house built on sand.) Now you are telling me to ignore all formulas and just wing it. If I wing it does it fit in the OTU better than if I use a formula that has been decanonized?
Oh and it is mission and capability that determines a class of ship. Just because it is a Destroyer filling a mission that is the normal mission of a Cruiser doesn't make that Destroyer a Cruiser and Vice Versa. The ship's class needs to be compared to ships of potential or real opponents to properly evaluate its capabilities. For example a 5000T Saberwolf fullfilling patrol functions and independent operations, including showing the flag, interdiction squadron command, Convoy escort command, Long Range Patrol, Commerce Raiding, does not make the ship measure up to an Atlantic or AHL. It is still a Destroyer.
So I have a better solution than just waving magic wands and GM fudging. Just to keep things consistent. I wave my Magic wand and use TCS as the economic basis because I don't have any other choices in published GDW material that appears to work. It makes more sense than "wand waving and silly incantations."
Oh and as an aside on TCS economics, Cr1 per head per anum seems a reasonable tax to ensure the Duke isn't broke instead of Cr200 per head for naval budget. Calculated in the same manner as the Naval budget especially for multi-system polities.
You are right, I am the GM. This is my world, MTU. But it doesn't make what I do portable to someone elses TU without a similar system in place. So if I want to do more than write a campaign for MTU, like get it published for the OTU later, then it needs more than "because I say so."
For the overall IN budget, well unless we have the entire 3I mapped out and populated you will never know what the general funding of the IN is, but you can get a good picture of overall trends locally. (Which is the important part.)
I made a decision to use a formula and you told me I shouldn't use that formula. (And said something about a house built on sand.) Now you are telling me to ignore all formulas and just wing it. If I wing it does it fit in the OTU better than if I use a formula that has been decanonized?
Oh and it is mission and capability that determines a class of ship. Just because it is a Destroyer filling a mission that is the normal mission of a Cruiser doesn't make that Destroyer a Cruiser and Vice Versa. The ship's class needs to be compared to ships of potential or real opponents to properly evaluate its capabilities. For example a 5000T Saberwolf fullfilling patrol functions and independent operations, including showing the flag, interdiction squadron command, Convoy escort command, Long Range Patrol, Commerce Raiding, does not make the ship measure up to an Atlantic or AHL. It is still a Destroyer.
(sorry larsen, but he's right there.
traveller is an rpg. it was never meant to be much else. "nailing down" the budgetary and manufacturing capabilities of a fantasy setting where the vast majority of worlds are undefined is impossible. making things up here and there is not a matter of waving a magic wand, it's a matter of focus - focus on the rpg. traveller as a star-spanningsocio-economic-military industrial complex just isn't the intent. it isn't even doable.
traveller isn't an equation. it's an rpg.
BrennanHawkwood
SOC-12
I'd say you are both have valid points. Mr. Whipsnade, you have a very powerful point. This is a game where the GM should use his own creativity to come up with material that will allow them and their players to have fun playing.
On the other hand, I think Bhoins has a valid point as well. The traveller universe, whether OTU or IMTU can be a vast place. The challenge of filling that vast place with a fun framework for ones campaign can be very fun, but also quite daunting, especially if one's game is drifting into areas that the GM is not familiar with. We do not all have economics degrees or even the time to research things like how much a government can spend on a navy. Having a place to start from can be very valuable, especially if the GM wants things to feel 'right' or 'thought out' rather than simply arbitrary.
