Glisten

[rancke]

I'd say Bilstein still merits a mention based on their reputation as the go-to manufacturer of yachts for the high nobility of the Marches, up to and including Archduke Norris. Basically, everybody spinward of Deneb knows that owning a Bilstein yacht means you've Made It.

Maybe so, but I don't think that's why it was mentioned. I could be doing the author an injustice, but that's what I think. BT and Bilstein weren't mentioned because it was apposite but because they were there.

What the difference is? I'm glad you asked.

Kitchen sink writing (use it because it is there):

"I'm writing up Glisten system."

"You should mention Bilstein Yards and BT."​

Apposite reference:

"I'm writing about a powerful subsector-wide company and a shipyard that builds yachts for nobles."

"You could use BT for the company and Bilstein Yards for the shipyard."¹​

¹ Or you could say that the first is when you can justifiy the refererence; the second is when you don't have to justify it. ​

Kitchen sink writing annoys me; apposite references delight me. YMMV.

Yeah, this effectively means Baraccai Technum were cruising around the 'Outrim Void' in the Far Future equivalent of a space Maserati. Maybe that was their way of telling the other merchant lines that they were now a force to be reckoned with?

Just because Bilstein makes luxury yachts doesn't mean that every ship they make is a luxury yacht. The Leviathans weren't designed as yachts, even if Duke Jarl bought one to use as a yacht.


Hans

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

Maybe so, but I don't think that's why it was mentioned. I could be doing the author an injustice, but that's what I think. BT and Bilstein weren't mentioned because it was apposite but because they were there.

Fair enough.

Just because Bilstein makes luxury yachts doesn't mean that every ship they make is a luxury yacht. The Leviathans weren't designed as yachts, even if Duke Jarl bought one to use as a yacht.

No, I got that; but any ship they do make is going to be ungodly expensive compared to ones built by other agencies, regardless of its purpose. Bilstein doesn't have the manufacturing infrastructure in place to build anything cheap, nor would they want to. It's their statement on the kind of product they put out, and by corollary a statement on the status of a Bilstein customer, regardless of what they're buying it for.

 

[rancke]

No, I got that; but any ship they do make is going to be ungodly expensive compared to ones built by other agencies, regardless of its purpose. Bilstein doesn't have the manufacturing infrastructure in place to build anything cheap, nor would they want to. It's their statement on the kind of product they put out, and by corollary a statement on the status of a Bilstein customer, regardless of what they're buying it for.

That's news to me. What's your source of information? Leviathans cost MCr1229.46 according to Leviathan. Is that ungodly expensive for an 1800T ship? (And is that with or without a discount?)


Hans

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

That's news to me. What's your source of information?

I get it straight from page 15 of the GT:Glisten book. To wit:

The Yards cannot compete with Ling Standard Products or any other megacorporation when it comes to speed, quantity or price. However, the Bilstein family learned long ago that quality remains something for which some people are willing to pay great amounts of money. Bilstein Yards produces starships of the greatest quality. Moreover, each one is unique, built to the exact specifications of the individual who ordered it. If the term "handcrafted" could be used to describe an object massing thousands of tons and millions of individual parts, the starships of Bilstein Yards would be such objects.​

And also, in the following paragraph on LSP:

Whereas Bilstein produces but a small number of vessels per year, LSP produces thousands. Mass production is the watchword of the LSP yards. The two shipyards are not really rivals, as they serve very different parts of the market.​

Leviathans cost MCr1229.46 according to Leviathan. Is that ungodly expensive for an 1800T ship? (And is that with or without a discount?)

Leviathan also says each ship comes equipped with jump torpedoes. I love CT:Adventure 5 -- in fact, it's a personal favorite of mine -- but you and I both know that it has issues. I chalk the statement on the Leviathan's pricing into just one of several inconsistencies that book has in fitting the social and technological background it presents into those of the OTU as we know it today. And compared to the others, it's not a particularly difficult one to adjust for.

 

[rancke]

I get it straight from page 15 of the GT:Glisten book. To wit:

The Yards cannot compete with Ling Standard Products or any other megacorporation when it comes to speed, quantity or price. However, the Bilstein family learned long ago that quality remains something for which some people are willing to pay great amounts of money. Bilstein Yards produces starships of the greatest quality. Moreover, each one is unique, built to the exact specifications of the individual who ordered it. If the term "handcrafted" could be used to describe an object massing thousands of tons and millions of individual parts, the starships of Bilstein Yards would be such objects.​

And also, in the following paragraph on LSP:

Whereas Bilstein produces but a small number of vessels per year, LSP produces thousands. Mass production is the watchword of the LSP yards. The two shipyards are not really rivals, as they serve very different parts of the market.​

If we interpret that the way you suggest, Bilstein wouldn't be building Leviathans at all, since they are a class, not a single ship. I take the statement as meaning that Bilstein mostly do one-offs. But they also do the occcasional run of ships. In fact... hang on... yes, here it is, in the library data in Leviathan, p. 39: "Bilstein are the main suppliers of private yachts to the March [sic] nobility and this provides the bulk of their output. Occasionally, however, a class of vessels such as the Leviathan merchant cruisers are turned out..." (emphasis mine).

Leviathan also says each ship comes equipped with jump torpedoes. I love CT:Adventure 5 -- in fact, it's a personal favorite of mine -- but you and I both know that it has issues. I chalk the statement on the Leviathan's pricing into just one of several inconsistencies that book has in fitting the social and technological background it presents into those of the OTU as we know it today. And compared to the others, it's not a particularly difficult one to adjust for.

I have much more of an issue with the notion of Baraccai Technum, McClellan Factors, Tukera Lines, the Imperial Grand Survey,Oberlindes Lines, and Arkesh Spacers paying a premium for extra-luxurious ships (Especially Oberlindes and Arkesh).

I wonder if LSP really do build thousands of ships per year. I just noticed something that will need a creative explanation if they do: From 1086 to 1100, Bilstein Yards is assigned 'MC' (Merchant Craft?) numbers for their merchant-oriented Leviathans, MC-50164, for the Leviathan, MC55027 for the Vanoriel. Does that mean that within the jurisdiction of the agency that hands out those numbers (Duchy of Glisten, Spinward Marches Sector, Imperium?), 55027-50164 = 4863 merchant vessels were built? That seems a reasonable interpretation, and, if so, we have an average of 347 merchant ships being built per year (within the duchy/sector/Imperium-wide).

There are some interesting ramifications to this that might deserve a thread of their own.


Hans

 

[Aramais]

I just noticed something that will need a creative explanation if they do: From 1086 to 1100, Bilstein Yards is assigned 'MC' (Merchant Craft?) numbers for their merchant-oriented Leviathans, MC-50164, for the Leviathan, MC55027 for the Vanoriel. Does that mean that within the jurisdiction of the agency that hands out those numbers (Duchy of Glisten, Spinward Marches Sector, Imperium?), 55027-50164 = 4863 merchant vessels were built? That seems a reasonable interpretation, and, if so, we have an average of 347 merchant ships being built per year (within the duchy/sector/Imperium-wide).

There are some interesting ramifications to this that might deserve a thread of their own.


Hans

If those numbers are meaningful as a count of vessels, one should assume that it is Imperium-wide. It's safer, however, to assume that it's more like a US "Social Security Number," which has different digits for different purposes.

Or, we could assume simply that the authors weren't thinking when they assigned those numbers. They just looked cool, a little Star-Trekky. Which also made such mistakes, and later had to come up with a reason for the numbers. And, that being the case, we don't want to overcomplicate things.

As Sigmund Freud once said to Anna Freud, "Sometimes a banana is just a banana, Anna." Of course, that was on a Saturday Night Live skit, so it might not be historically accurate...

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

If we interpret that the way you suggest, Bilstein wouldn't be building Leviathans at all, since they are a class, not a single ship.

Yes, it's a class of ship, albeit one that's produced at the rate of roughly one example per year.

I take the statement as meaning that Bilstein mostly do one-offs. But they also do the occcasional run of ships. In fact... hang on... yes, here it is, in the library data in Leviathan, p. 39: "Bilstein are the main suppliers of private yachts to the March [sic] nobility and this provides the bulk of their output. Occasionally, however, a class of vessels such as the Leviathan merchant cruisers are turned out..." (emphasis mine).

Sure, but that doesn't turn Bilstein into a mass producer, nor does it mean that their non-uniques are going to be anything but upmarket too. Bilstein don't have the infrastructure to produce anything quickly nor inexpensively, nor would they have much motivation to. Considering their established niche, it's a self-defeating idea from a marketing perspective alone.

Speaking of which, I've noticed something a bit off (from a Traveller rules standpoint) regarding the Leviathan class; namely, their excessive production times. CT:Starships gives a construction time of about 138 weeks (32 months) for an 1,800 ton vessel. CT:HG says a 'competent' shipyard can build it (actually, anything under 5,000 tons) in 'less than' 156 weeks (36 months) as a one-off, and in no more than 125 weeks if it's an established design. Extrapolating from the tables on CT:TCS (as their rules suggest) starts with about 125 weeks construction time for a Leviathan-sized one-off, and then rides that down to 89 weeks for an established design.

By contrast, Bilstein take about 199-205 weeks to produce a Leviathan, or just about a month to a few weeks shy of four years. That's almost a third longer than than the longest estimated rules time, and around 130% longer than the shortest one. And keep in mind that the longest time given is the least defined, and it's not for an established design.

So if you're choosing between ponying up for a Leviathan or a similar but more pedestrian hauler cranked out by LSP (assuming their construction rates are rules-standard), you're going into it knowing that you will be out on the market months -- or even years -- ahead of the game with that LSP ship than you will with the Leviathan. So the question is then: why choose a Leviathan?

I'm basically going with quality and panache, with a touch of extra durability (and fancier toilets), for my answer; but you're results may vary.

At any rate, the takeaway is that Bilstein are definitely not an efficient (or 'competent', if you prefer High Guard's assessment) shipyard. And inefficiency certainly is an enemy of cost-effectiveness. And yet Bilstein don't seem to have any problem drumming up customers.

I have much more of an issue with the notion of Baraccai Technum, McClellan Factors, Tukera Lines, the Imperial Grand Survey,Oberlindes Lines, and Arkesh Spacers paying a premium for extra-luxurious ships (Especially Oberlindes and Arkesh).

I'm gradually settling on the notion, at least, that BT have some sort of longstanding 'special relationship' with Bilstein. I just saw an entry on Don's Timeline, for example, which mentioned another bulk ship agreement between BT and Bilstein.

Those other guys I raise eyebrows at, too. Maybe Leviathan is intended as a promotional push (but then why Arkesh Spacers)? Or maybe it represents an attempt by the company (abortive or otherwise) to quietly dip its toe into the broader market?

Another thing I noticed about the Leviathan construction dates is that the first order was put down in early 1086, or about a year or two after the close of the Fourth Frontier War. We do know that there was a sharp cash panic right after the war (Twilight's Peak tells us that), and it would make sense that a luxury manufacturer like Bilstein Yards might find itself unaccustomedly hurting for orders as a result. Leviathans, then, in that case could represent a strategy by Bilstein to maintain cash-flow stability without compromising their reputation for high end design. Judging from their apparent history together, Baraccai Technum would be the most natural fit for such a project -- although one wonders what BT thinks about the likes of McClellan Factors and those mooks from Arkesh Spacers getting a chance to leech off the marque.

I wonder if LSP really do build thousands of ships per year. I just noticed something that will need a creative explanation if they do: From 1086 to 1100, Bilstein Yards is assigned 'MC' (Merchant Craft?) numbers for their merchant-oriented Leviathans, MC-50164, for the Leviathan, MC55027 for the Vanoriel. Does that mean that within the jurisdiction of the agency that hands out those numbers (Duchy of Glisten, Spinward Marches Sector, Imperium?), 55027-50164 = 4863 merchant vessels were built? That seems a reasonable interpretation, and, if so, we have an average of 347 merchant ships being built per year (within the duchy/sector/Imperium-wide).

There are some interesting ramifications to this that might deserve a thread of their own.

Looking at the serials, it's definitely intended to be a progression, and I dunno that I like it very much. That's too vague to be localized to the system, and 347 vessels a year seems ridiculously low for a sector, let alone an Imperium-wide (or even a subsector-wide, for that matter) registration. Frankly, I find it low even as a representation of output for the Glisten system alone.

 

[Carlobrand]

If those numbers are meaningful as a count of vessels, one should assume that it is Imperium-wide. It's safer, however, to assume that it's more like a US "Social Security Number," which has different digits for different purposes. ...

If we want to salvage that bit of canon, we could assume there's unstated coding identifying the sector.

...
Looking at the serials, it's definitely intended to be a progression, and I dunno that I like it very much. That's too vague to be localized to the system, and 347 vessels a year seems ridiculously low for a sector, let alone an Imperium-wide (or even a subsector-wide, for that matter) registration. Frankly, I find it low even as a representation of output for the Glisten system alone.

347 vessels in a year, vessels have a lifespan of maybe 80 years, or at any rate long enough that you can buy a 40-year-old model of something at 60% base cost and still feel like you've gotten fair value. Implies they're maintaining numbers in the vicinity of 27,000 merchantmen, certainly well over 14,000 at a minimum. MC-##### (Merchant Cruiser? Merchant Cargo?) supports up to 99,999 different ships active at any one time under the MC designation, and there are likely other designations for merchants: A for the far traders and R for the subsidized merchants are documented in Supplement 7. With possibly an 80 year life span, maybe they start over every century. There'd seem to be enough to fill the need, given their operational life.

I noticed the two sold to non-commercial agencies were coded different, three letters followed by 4 digits: SCP-9906 to the "Marches Auxiliary Naval Service" (Strike Cruiser Provincial?), and CNS-2023 to the "Imperial Grand Survey, Spatial Phenomena Investigation Branch", presumably some division of the Scout Service (Cruiser No idea Scout?). Those services use fewer ships?

 

[Ulsyus]

Or, we could assume simply that the authors weren't thinking when they assigned those numbers. They just looked cool, a little Star-Trekky. Which also made such mistakes, and later had to come up with a reason for the numbers. And, that being the case, we don't want to overcomplicate things.

The simplest explanation and all that.

Otherwise it's a matter of trying to find meaning where there may not be a legend to point the way.

 

[rancke]

Or, we could assume simply that the authors weren't thinking when they assigned those numbers. They just looked cool, a little Star-Trekky. Which also made such mistakes, and later had to come up with a reason for the numbers. And, that being the case, we don't want to overcomplicate things.

Or we couild try to see if we could make sense of the numbers before we decide to disregard them. If we can't, fine, I'll be the first to advocate that they be retconned. But I'm not going to do that until I've tried the other thing first.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Sure, but that doesn't turn Bilstein into a mass producer, nor does it mean that their non-uniques are going to be anything but upmarket too.

But what do the price they charge say? If MCr1229.46 is a lot for a 1800T ship, you have a point.

Bilstein don't have the infrastructure to produce anything quickly nor inexpensively...

That's begging the question. You're arguing that this is the case; you can't use it as a proven fact.

...nor would they have much motivation to. Considering their established niche, it's a self-defeating idea from a marketing perspective alone.

So someone at Bilstein may have made a mistake? People do make business mistakes on occasion.

Speaking of which, I've noticed something a bit off (from a Traveller rules standpoint) regarding the Leviathan class; namely, their excessive production times. CT:Starships gives a construction time of about 138 weeks (32 months) for an 1,800 ton vessel. CT:HG says a 'competent' shipyard can build it (actually, anything under 5,000 tons) in 'less than' 156 weeks (36 months) as a one-off, and in no more than 125 weeks if it's an established design. Extrapolating from the tables on CT:TCS (as their rules suggest) starts with about 125 weeks construction time for a Leviathan-sized one-off, and then rides that down to 89 weeks for an established design.

By contrast, Bilstein take about 199-205 weeks to produce a Leviathan, or just about a month to a few weeks shy of four years. That's almost a third longer than than the longest estimated rules time, and around 130% longer than the shortest one. And keep in mind that the longest time given is the least defined, and it's not for an established design.

That is interesting and could use an explanation (or a retcon), but unless Leviathans are also 30% more expensive than your standard 1800T ship, the answer isn't that Bilstein is lavishing 30% more care and attention on them. Rather, Bilstein is apparently taking a loss on the construction.

So if you're choosing between ponying up for a Leviathan or a similar but more pedestrian hauler cranked out by LSP (assuming their construction rates are rules-standard), you're going into it knowing that you will be out on the market months -- or even years -- ahead of the game with that LSP ship than you will with the Leviathan. So the question is then: why choose a Leviathan?

The obvious answer is that the cost is less. Perhaps Bilstein is using its people to build luxury one-offs when there are luxury one-offs on order and having them work on Leviathans when there are no better things to do, as a means of retaining its expert craftsmen during lean times.

Looking at the serials, it's definitely intended to be a progression, and I dunno that I like it very much. That's too vague to be localized to the system, and 347 vessels a year seems ridiculously low for a sector, let alone an Imperium-wide (or even a subsector-wide, for that matter) registration. Frankly, I find it low even as a representation of output for the Glisten system alone.

Interstellar trade is portrayed as being relatively small. And keep in mind that a 1,000,000T hyperfreighter only takes up one registration number.

If we want to salvage that bit of canon, we could assume there's unstated coding identifying the sector.

Or duchy. Or subsector, although that won't help much, since the subsectors that are not duchies or the core of duchies will have relatively little population and thus tend to have relatively little ship construction.

347 vessels in a year, vessels have a lifespan of maybe 80 years, or at any rate long enough that you can buy a 40-year-old model of something at 60% base cost and still feel like you've gotten fair value.

The figure I use is 20-25% of original cost for a 40 year old ship. But of course 40 year old ships embarking on a new career can last for a long time. I don't mind using 80 years instead of 40 for the average 'lifespan'.

Implies they're maintaining numbers in the vicinity of 27,000 merchantmen, certainly well over 14,000 at a minimum. MC-##### (Merchant Cruiser? Merchant Cargo?) supports up to 99,999 different ships active at any one time under the MC designation, and there are likely other designations for merchants: A for the far traders and R for the subsidized merchants are documented in Supplement 7.

Wait, you mean that there are lists of ship numbers with As and Rs in front?

If every ship type has its own registration prefix, we get the opposite problem. 387 merchant cruisers per year seems excessive even for the entire Imperium.

Doh! I just noticed that the Leviathans are referred to as merchant cruisers! So MC almost certainly stands to that. Which does mean that every ship type has its own registration prefix.

I'm going to have to think that over for a bit.

With possibly an 80 year life span, maybe they start over every century. There'd seem to be enough to fill the need, given their operational life.

If they started with MC-1, they would have started over last time around 940 If they started with MC-100000, around 970.

I noticed the two sold to non-commercial agencies were coded different, three letters followed by 4 digits: SCP-9906 to the "Marches Auxiliary Naval Service" (Strike Cruiser Provincial?), and CNS-2023 to the "Imperial Grand Survey, Spatial Phenomena Investigation Branch", presumably some division of the Scout Service (Cruiser No idea Scout?). Those services use fewer ships?

The IGS is one of the major branches of the Scouts; they're in charge of surveying inside the Imperium (outside is under the Exploration Branch).


Hans

 

[GypsyComet]

I just noticed something that will need a creative explanation if they do: From 1086 to 1100, Bilstein Yards is assigned 'MC' (Merchant Craft?) numbers for their merchant-oriented Leviathans, MC-50164, for the Leviathan, MC55027 for the Vanoriel. Does that mean that within the jurisdiction of the agency that hands out those numbers (Duchy of Glisten, Spinward Marches Sector, Imperium?), 55027-50164 = 4863 merchant vessels were built? That seems a reasonable interpretation, and, if so, we have an average of 347 merchant ships being built per year (within the duchy/sector/Imperium-wide).

If we assume the numbers are issued serially, the only thing this table tells us is that 4863 were issued between the two ships, and that not all ships are given an MC number.

Data point: Glisten is run by Government Code 8: Impersonal Bureaucracy. This sort of government *loves* to hand out licenses with numbers on them. We don't know what "MC" stands for, though we can guess, and we don't know what sort of ship qualifies to be issued an MC number except that it appears to be a civilian code.

Inference: There are more than the three prefixes we've seen.

Metadata Point: Leviathan was written by GW, not GDW, so even though it has been accepted into the Canon, it was written by different people and is thus, by definition, written for a different game than the one Marc and GDW were playing.

Metadata Point: Leviathan pre-dates TCS, and so was written outside of the economic assumptions that drive the TCS mini-game. I know some people took the TCS numbers very seriously, but Leviathan was written with no available benchmark for shipyard capacities.

Inference: The number range was pulled out of the air with about a minute's thought by someone with a passing familiarity with British shipbuilding custom and procedure.

Note that the Kinunir has much the same problem (only 9000 BCs by the 1080s?), but since both pre-date the transition of the Imperium from a small ship setting to a big ship setting, there are going to be interpretation issues.

I might suggest that "MC" is "Merchant Cruiser", and only applies to ships over a certain size, like one thousand dtons. With that assumption, in a small ship universe, the series numbers can readily be assumed to be sector specific.

 

[Carlobrand]

Additional data points for consideration:

From Supplement 7, Traders and Gunboats, come the following ship registrations:

X-51216 Express Boat
XT-8795 Winston (Express boat tender)
XT-8796 Purcell
XT-8797 Marabi
S-16785 Central Axis (Scout/Courier)
S-16786 Duplicity
S-16787 Restraint
A-8456 Empress Nicholle (A2 Far Trader)
A-8457 Empress Marava
A-8458 Empress Margaret
R-80198 Gyro Natchel (Subsidized Merchant)
R-80199 Gyro Cadis
R-80199.1 Assistant (launch attached to Gyro Cadis)
J-6170A Jupiter (Seeker)
CE-13712 Gazelle (Gazelle class Close Escort)
CE-13768 Unicorn
SB-98076 Guardian (System Defense Boat)
WP-768 Jump Shuttle (Jump shuttle)

From Adventure 6, Expedition to Zhodane
PP-8881 Rock (300 dT asteroid ship)
PP-8881.1 Pebble (25 dT ship's boat carried by Rock)

From Adventure 7, Broadsword
CP-10897 Cutlass (Broadsword class mercenary (provincial?) cruiser)
CP-10897.1 Cutter (50 dT cutter carried by Cutlass)
CP-10798 Broadsword
CP-10798.1 Cutter One (50 dT cutter carried by Broadsword)
CP-10798.91 Fighter (10 dT fighter carried by Broadsword)

And of course there are the Azhanti High Lightning class IN cruisers.

What the numbers mean is up to us. There are patterns, but as with the licensing of automobiles, the fact that there are a lot of numbers does not mean most of them are in use at any one time. Bureaucracies are very fond of large numbers.

 

[Aramais]

Additional data points for consideration:

From Supplement 7, Traders and Gunboats, come the following ship registrations:

X-51216 Express Boat
XT-8795 Winston (Express boat tender)
XT-8796 Purcell
XT-8797 Marabi
S-16785 Central Axis (Scout/Courier)
S-16786 Duplicity
S-16787 Restraint
A-8456 Empress Nicholle (A2 Far Trader)
A-8457 Empress Marava
A-8458 Empress Margaret
R-80198 Gyro Natchel (Subsidized Merchant)
R-80199 Gyro Cadis
R-80199.1 Assistant (launch attached to Gyro Cadis)
J-6170A Jupiter (Seeker)
CE-13712 Gazelle (Gazelle class Close Escort)
CE-13768 Unicorn
SB-98076 Guardian (System Defense Boat)
WP-768 Jump Shuttle (Jump shuttle)

From Adventure 6, Expedition to Zhodane
PP-8881 Rock (300 dT asteroid ship)
PP-8881.1 Pebble (25 dT ship's boat carried by Rock)

From Adventure 7, Broadsword
CP-10897 Cutlass (Broadsword class mercenary (provincial?) cruiser)
CP-10897.1 Cutter (50 dT cutter carried by Cutlass)
CP-10798 Broadsword
CP-10798.1 Cutter One (50 dT cutter carried by Broadsword)
CP-10798.91 Fighter (10 dT fighter carried by Broadsword)

And of course there are the Azhanti High Lightning class IN cruisers.

What the numbers mean is up to us. There are patterns, but as with the licensing of automobiles, the fact that there are a lot of numbers does not mean most of them are in use at any one time. Bureaucracies are very fond of large numbers.

Here is a almost-just-for-giggles hypothesis, but it also meets or exceeds the OCCAM'S RAZOR test.

1. The letter prefixes are just hints, nothing more, as to the class or use of the vessel.

2. The numbers are indeed like license plates. They are given out in batches at the Sector level. They are then assigned to properly chartered shipyards for assignment to vessels. Sometimes numbers are consecutive, sometimes they're not.

3. Numbers may be reassigned after a sufficient time has passed since a vessel was retired or declared lost (destroyed or missing for, say, 50 years) destroyed.

4. Low numbers are prized, much the way "low number plates" are prized. And some number sequences are quasi-reserved, such as numbers used by the Scouts.

5. The number-granting bureaucracy is headed by a mean-spirited old maid on mind-altering anagathics who stirs up trouble and confusion throughout the Spinward Marches by assigning free numbers in odd sequences, with no apparent rhyme or reason. She is in cahoots with Kinunir's AI, which has gone insane.

6. Any further attempt to force reason into this system will cause a permanent fracture in the space-time continuum, foretelling the End of Days when a Kardassian uses her impossible buttocks as a serving station for champagne.

7. There is no 7, as the End of Days has passed while I was typing.

 

[Carlobrand]

...
2. The numbers are indeed like license plates. They are given out in batches at the Sector level. They are then assigned to properly chartered shipyards for assignment to vessels. Sometimes numbers are consecutive, sometimes they're not. ...

Well, that would explain the registration of the merchantman Pi in the Sky. Vanity plates.

 

[rancke]

If we assume the numbers are issued serially, the only thing this table tells us is that 4863 were issued between the two ships, and that not all ships are given an MC number.

Oh, I think it suggests a bit more than that.

Metadata Point: Leviathan was written by GW, not GDW, so even though it has been accepted into the Canon, it was written by different people and is thus, by definition, written for a different game than the one Marc and GDW were playing.

Metadata Point: Leviathan pre-dates TCS, and so was written outside of the economic assumptions that drive the TCS mini-game. I know some people took the TCS numbers very seriously, but Leviathan was written with no available benchmark for shipyard capacities.

Inference: The number range was pulled out of the air with about a minute's thought by someone with a passing familiarity with British shipbuilding custom and procedure.

True, but IMO it misses the point. Part of the fun of working in a shared universe is to take casually established facts and see if you can make them fit in the bigger picture. You can't always do so, but it's very satisfying when you can. When I advocate ignoring or retconning canon, I like to think that before I go there, I've exhausted all my ingenuity trying to make it work.

I might suggest that "MC" is "Merchant Cruiser", and only applies to ships over a certain size, like one thousand dtons. With that assumption, in a small ship universe, the series numbers can readily be assumed to be sector specific.

But as you point out, the OTU is not a small ship universe any more. Hasn't been for many, many years.

Additional data points for consideration:

From Supplement 7, Traders and Gunboats, come the following ship registrations:

X-51216 Express Boat
XT-8795 Winston (Express boat tender)
XT-8796 Purcell
XT-8797 Marabi
S-16785 Central Axis (Scout/Courier)
S-16786 Duplicity
S-16787 Restraint

None of these represent much of a problem. Each code fits a specific type.

A-8456 Empress Nicholle (A2 Far Trader)
A-8457 Empress Marava
A-8458 Empress Margaret

These are all the same class as well as the same type. Only potential problem is that they seem to have been built consecutively, which could be a problem if they're supposed to be three randomly selected Far Traders. Probably best just to overlook that.

What the numbers mean is up to us. There are patterns, but as with the licensing of automobiles, the fact that there are a lot of numbers does not mean most of them are in use at any one time. Bureaucracies are very fond of large numbers.

Ultimately everything is up to each one of us individually. That's not the point of these discussions (as I see it). The point is, can we help each other come up with a suggestion for what the numbers mean that makes sense? Im beginning to doubt it, but that doesn't affect the point.

Getting back to the point, it seems that each type of vessel has its own registration code. Except that it's not just the type, it's the employment too, as can be seen from the fact that Sarashev, Nicolas de Nicolai, and Bartholomeu Dias have different codes. Except that it's not employment after all, because if it was, the Leviathan and a couple of the others should have an MS or TS designation (Merchant Scout or Trade Scout or something like that). Either that or there are 347 trade merchant scouts built every year, and I just don't believe in that.


Hans

 

[Ulsyus]

Getting back to the point, it seems that each type of vessel has its own registration code. Except that it's not just the type, it's the employment too, as can be seen from the fact that Sarashev, Nicolas de Nicolai, and Bartholomeu Dias have different codes. Except that it's not employment after all, because if it was, the Leviathan and a couple of the others should have an MS or TS designation (Merchant Scout or Trade Scout or something like that). Either that or there are 347 trade merchant scouts built every year, and I just don't believe in that.

Hans

How are large vessels registered and recorded terrestrially now? If we think of vehicles on roads across the globe, at least in the OECD they are likely to have a state registration number (on visible plate), a VIN or chassis number, an engine number, and some of the internal components like a stereo may also have separate numbers.

My only point here is that there are a number of identification strings attached to each vehicle, so each can be clearly identified if you have all of them, but a lot of these will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What's the likelihood that vessel registration will be done by an 3I bureaucracy versus a local one?

 

[rancke]

How are large vessels registered and recorded terrestrially now? If we think of vehicles on roads across the globe, at least in the OECD they are likely to have a state registration number (on visible plate), a VIN or chassis number, an engine number, and some of the internal components like a stereo may also have separate numbers.

Might have changed, but at one time it was a world-wide four-letter registration code. Example: OZGK.

My only point here is that there are a number of identification strings attached to each vehicle, so each can be clearly identified if you have all of them, but a lot of these will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What's the likelihood that vessel registration will be done by an 3I bureaucracy versus a local one?

With the numbers we seem to be operating with I'd say that it was very likely that it was an Imperial function. Which accords very well with the Imperium's stated purpose of promoting trade (and "ruling the space between the worlds").

 

[Aramais]

The point is, can we help each other come up with a suggestion for what the numbers mean that makes sense? Im beginning to doubt it, but that doesn't affect the point.

Getting back to the point, it seems that each type of vessel has its own registration code. Except that it's not just the type, it's the employment too, as can be seen from the fact that Sarashev, Nicolas de Nicolai, and Bartholomeu Dias have different codes. Except that it's not employment after all, because if it was, the Leviathan and a couple of the others should have an MS or TS designation (Merchant Scout or Trade Scout or something like that). Either that or there are 347 trade merchant scouts built every year, and I just don't believe in that.


Hans

Occam's Razor, Hans. This is one giant, wiggly spaghetti strand that can't be straightened out to go back in the box. I like the serious part of my explanation best so far, as no one else's accounts for all the "facts." Letters are guidance as to function at initial registration, numbers are call-numbers, a license plate, and may not be unique throughout the Imperium ("Home Sector" is also a "silent" part of this).

I'm not retconning, just assuming facts previously left out of the record.

 

[rancke]

Occam's Razor, Hans.

Occam's Razor applies to competing hypotheses about real facts, not to making up fictional facts. For fictional facts, whatever is ultimately decided will turn out to be the truth, however simple or however complicated.

This is one giant, wiggly spaghetti strand that can't be straightened out to go back in the box.

Perhaps you're right. We won't know until we've tried, will we?


Hans