• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Imagining the Imperial Army with T5

In T5 Pilot Skill is about moving spacecraft. Its divided up into spacecraft over 2400tons (BCS), 100-2400tons (ACS) and under 100tons (Smallcraft).

My question is why would a Soldier ever need to control spacecraft, especially those over 100tons?

I can see dropships and landing craft, recon craft in orbit and some attack craft (but not ortillery, soldiers don't do that).

Commando / inteligence ops that need to remain "in house". I don't see them needing to pilot anything larger than a free trader 200-300 ton range but a jump capable ship. I also see them able to pilot (ACS) ship from other powers just as effectively as ones built in the Imperium.

This "idea" comes from from old FASA material "The Stazhlekh Report"

This would also work well with a deep cover unit posing as merchants, this is something I'm putting together IMTU as an intrusion unit to be like FOs for commerce raiders or just intelligence gathering several parsecs from the front. This is currently being designed as a multi branch unit (Navy, Scouts, Merchants and Marines/Army) but the fewer the branches the less possibility for leaks.

This may look like needless overlap or duplication. One of the big magazines in the US (Time or Newsweek) did a special pub on US Intelligence Agencies 12+ and yes there was a lot specialization but also a lot of overlap and duplication.

(Note: I don't have T5 (I wish) so most of what I know comes from these boards :D)
 
I was also considering that ship mount lasers are capable of tracking accurately, at range, fast moving ships.

A tank similarly armed could track and defend itself against fast movers/flyers at serious altitudes.

A smart military/merc would use the same controls, parts, ammo and would then be able to repair or rearm at any system with descent enough TL + the added bonus of cross trained troops no matter what flavor :-)

I generally see the roll of the army OTU as the muscle holding strategic locations (ground), easy to muster in descent numbers with equal population, easy to train and hard to outnumber if you are bringing in troops from another system.

Very hard to move entire divisions - logistically - man power, equipment/vehicles, ammo, food, life support (Freshers...), delivery systems to targets, 3-4 weeks of that many peeps in close quarters. fun fun fun...

Don't forget "tracking" is a sensor task so fit your tank out with some sensors modified for range from the ThingMaker chapter (I'd love someone to do some walk throughs of this because I'm not sure I'm doing it right). Definitely there will be tanks at higher TLs that can reach out to orbit with their weaponry.

Standardization of parts, ammo, comms protocols are a big part of what the Imperium "is" IMTU because setting and enforcing such standards also facilitates and eases trade between worlds.

My view of the Imperial Army is quite similar. For all the "rules the space between stars" propaganda I still think the Imperium will need boots on the ground from time to time. Its like the "Britannia rules the waves" but Tommy collects the taxes pattern that the British Empire ruled under.


That is a very good point, and also addresses something I have been thinking about: How would you work up (for example) an Army Logistics Officer? Army and Functionary, of course, but a Logistics Officer would not "switch careers" into Functionary, but would be a Functionary while still being an Army Officer.

So you could start with the Soldier Career, perhaps rise to Officer Rank 3, transfer into Logistics (Functionary), while still in the Army, etc. Would you transfer directly and retain your Officer Rank 3, and would that correspond to entering the Functionary Career at Rank 3? And would promotions in Functionary give a corresponding rise in Army Officer (Soldier) Rank as well?

This actually might be a topic for a new T5 thread, but I am curious what your thoughts would be.

Yes I think you're correct about what a functionary represents. Other names for it could be "management", "executive", "back office personnel".

Promotion needs a bit of thinking about. Some armies use a system of rank and role where the promotion ladder doesn't climb straight up but has steps to the side. For example and senior captain in an Infantry Battalion might be posted as the battalion Adjutant for a term where he's responsible for all the paperwork and personnel issues. Then when he's promoted to Major he's prepared to take over as XO or CO of his own battalion.

What you could do is have your Soldier take a term as a Functionary representing four years assigned as part of the Army administrative system. If he makes his risk and reward roll promote him both one Functionary Rank and one Soldier rank but don't allow any Functionary Muster Out benefits for that term; the increase in his army rank is the benefit. I think that maintains balance and the narrative of a career "in the Army".

You could work up a list to replace the Functionary ranks too. For example: A soldier rank S3 Sergeant takes a term as a functionary serving in the Logistics Corps and instead of being promoted to F1 Supervisor he's a Quartermaster Staff Sergeant or a Logistics Staff Sergeant.

A new idea struck me as I read this. What is the purpose of a character generation system? The primary purpose would seem to be to generate semi-random player characters. I know that it is also used to generate NPCs but is it actually the right tool for that purpose?

One nice aspect of random generation is that it gives the referee ideas that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise. A navy cook who is an ex-SEAL, for example, is an awesome concept, and how many referees would come up with that one on his own? But when I want to introduce an NPC like that, I want it to be in a place appropriate to the plot. Otherwise the players may never realise how Badass that cook is, while the cook on the ship where they could really use a bit of help turns out to be a most inefficient fighter.

So I'm wondering if a better support for generating NPCs wouldn't be templates. Something like this:

Navy: Vacc Suit-1, Zero-G-1
Cook: Cooking-2, Admin-1
Badass: Gun-4, Knife-4

Badass Navy Cook: Admin-1, Cooking-2, Gun-4, Knife-4, Vacc Suit-1, Zero-G-1


Hans

I like where you're going with this Hans. The template idea for NPCs is useful. I as Referee would consider that every member of the Imperial Navy would have undergone basic training and therefore should have, using your example Vacc Suit-1, Zero-G-1. Just like to be a Doctor you need Medic-3 or to be a Lawyer you need Advocate-1.

You could write a master list of these minimum training skills packages or templates. Then if its 4 Skills per term you can look at the rank of your NPC quickly figure that well it took Badass Navy Cook 4 terms to reach his rank thats 16 points of Skills, he's used 13 from the Skill package so there's 3 left to spend on other things he's learnt during his career.

Its quick and dirty but it might be a useful way of generating minor NPCs.
 
Commando / inteligence ops that need to remain "in house". I don't see them needing to pilot anything larger than a free trader 200-300 ton range but a jump capable ship. I also see them able to pilot (ACS) ship from other powers just as effectively as ones built in the Imperium.

This "idea" comes from from old FASA material "The Stazhlekh Report"

This would also work well with a deep cover unit posing as merchants, this is something I'm putting together IMTU as an intrusion unit to be like FOs for commerce raiders or just intelligence gathering several parsecs from the front. This is currently being designed as a multi branch unit (Navy, Scouts, Merchants and Marines/Army) but the fewer the branches the less possibility for leaks.

This may look like needless overlap or duplication. One of the big magazines in the US (Time or Newsweek) did a special pub on US Intelligence Agencies 12+ and yes there was a lot specialization but also a lot of overlap and duplication.

(Note: I don't have T5 (I wish) so most of what I know comes from these boards :D)

One way to keep things "in house" is to set up a commercial operation thats entirely stand alone but exists to service the needs of the spooks. For example Air America.

You could have all your Scouts/Navy/Marines/Army just switch career to Merchant but continue "on the payroll" of the intelligence organization.

There are good reasons for specialization overlap. One is that in any country intelligence agencies watch each other (There's an article about how the IISS watches the Imperial Navy for signs of rebellion in GT Best of JTAS). Second is that you need those special skills to hand and under your control. You don't want to ask another agency if you can borrow their specialist because they might say no, or yes but you'll have to wait or yes but he's going to tell us all about the mess you made that he had to clean up.

Back on topic this is the reason why the Imperial Army will need skills that aren't directly available via the Soldier career so as I mentioned somewhere above you will get guys in the Spacer careers actually serving in the "Army" providing specialist support in branches that don't follow the general soldierly definition.
 
Commando / inteligence ops that need to remain "in house". I don't see them needing to pilot anything larger than a free trader 200-300 ton range but a jump capable ship. I also see them able to pilot (ACS) ship from other powers just as effectively as ones built in the Imperium.

This would also work well with a deep cover unit posing as merchants, this is something I'm putting together IMTU as an intrusion unit to be like FOs for commerce raiders or just intelligence gathering several parsecs from the front. This is currently being designed as a multi branch unit (Navy, Scouts, Merchants and Marines/Army) but the fewer the branches the less possibility for leaks.

I would see this sort of operation as Navy, or Marines ,rather than Army.

Are there (or have been) any multi branch outfits in the RW?

Regards

David
 
A new idea struck me as I read this. What is the purpose of a character generation system? The primary purpose would seem to be to generate semi-random player characters. I know that it is also used to generate NPCs but is it actually the right tool for that purpose?
Hans

Different games have different purposes, some games (including Mongoose T & GURPS), have points buy where the player gets to choose exactly what skills the character possesses.

The CT (& Mongoose T) random method does enable the creation of some interesting back stories.

Regards

David
 
Different games have different purposes, some games (including Mongoose T & GURPS), have points buy where the player gets to choose exactly what skills the character possesses.
My mistake. I meant 'the Traveller CGS that we're talking about here', not any random CGS. I've fixed my original statement to reflect that.


Hans
 
One problem I have with Traveller overall is that it assumes an American-centric military setting. There are as many ways of doing military as there are cultures on Earth. But hey that's another argument....

Actually, the US military is administratively very similar to that of Imperial Rome. Weapons and tactics differ, of course, but the paperwork's the same.
 
You make a good point, but...


Yeah there's a but. If you want those SDBs to have any bay weapons or even a well rounded gunnery crew, they're not going to come via the Soldier career path. More likely its a good indication that due to the specialist nature of COACC you should be recruiting via the Spacer career path. This is fine as it makes sense that this specialist Command under the Unified Army concept should specialize in skills useful for (Orbital) Space.


Here a point to that its important to make. No one career path is exclusive to any organization.


Some careers may be dominant in a particular organization, such as Soldiers in the Imperial Army or Scouts in the IISS. But in each there will be Functionaries, Craftspersons, Citizens etc.

So its okay to have Spacers end up in the army, and very likely they'll be in roles such as COACC. Equally Soldiers in a navy work as Naval Infantry or riverine or shore based units. But those dominant careers may define some of the characteristics of an organization. (Such as the IISS being full of insane sophonts :rofl:)

I would consider such SDBs, and also possibly Patrol Cruisers, to effectively be "littoral attack craft"; small, fast, they do all the things the navy does, but for Army Specific roles; intercept and fire support. Consider them to be like attack helos, only they do multiple mach, can engage enemy ships, as well as intercept landing forces, and provide fire support for defensive units on the ground engaged with forces that managed to make it to some LZ.

The navy's got their hands in there to be sure, and so does the local AF (COACC) and Local Army, but the Imperial Army, on a world with high valued assets, would no doubt have its own air arm.

As I stated in both the Noble Military and Imperial Army thread in the Lone Star section; the US and UK have navies, which have armies and air forces all to themselves. And sometimes even the navie's army (marines) has an air force (marine pilots). The reason those things are done is organizational. Fleet Defense by a fleet interceptor is different from giving your fleet's marines fire support, which the marine drivers are trained to do, and which naval aviators are not (well, it's not their primary mission at any rate).

Ergo, based on that, I would think that the Imperial Army would operate its own "navy", so to speak, when it came to planetary defenses, including interception of landing forces, and engaging enemy fire support units trying to clear a path for an assault force.

You heard it here first! The Imperial Army and planetary armies MAY or MAY NOT operate smaller tonnage mainline fleet units :D

*EDIT*
Therefore I submit that this needs to be an Addendum to the current char gen; i.e. providing fleet skills to army defenders who operate craft in support of army units.

*EDIT 2*
This is in reference to the Imperial Army thread a couple years back; where Naval Sealift Command provides the supermajority of transport for the Army, the Army does have its own small fleet of ships; largely special assault craft and what not. At one time they did have their own large transport fleet, but gave it up to the US Navy to streamline and otherwise make transport and operations at sea expedient.

*EDIT 3*
If may also be that spinal gunnery, or whatever it's called, needs to be added to the Soldier char-gen for purposes of representing IA army operated planetary defenses.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the US military is administratively very similar to that of Imperial Rome. Weapons and tactics differ, of course, but the paperwork's the same.
The basic organizational and administrative principles used keep being reinvented; every time some nation tries otherwise, they discover that it's not as effective. Most change back. The rest suffer regime change.
 
Actually, the US military is administratively very similar to that of Imperial Rome. Weapons and tactics differ, of course, but the paperwork's the same.

The basic organizational and administrative principles used keep being reinvented; every time some nation tries otherwise, they discover that it's not as effective. Most change back. The rest suffer regime change.

Okay to clarify my problem isn't with the concept of Divisions, Brigades and Regiments, Companies and Platoons which are fairly universal concepts with Terran militaries in the modern era its more that Traveller lifts the particular US version of organizing and generating these formations and drops it in as the default for the OTU.

Take for example the table 09a and 12a on p103.

As a way of generating both generic Soldier and Marine units it sucks (excuse my strength of feeling). First it is very limited having just eleven options, second it makes no differentiation in how Army organization and deployment might differ from Marine organization and deployment. Third the numbered designations for some units which seems to be is based on US Army practice of sequential designation from a branch series is extremely limiting if you start to think about world armies or an Imperial scale army.

Here's what I mean:

<Number 1-digit> Artillery Regiment: That means you have 1 to 9 Artillery Regiments.

<Number 3-digit> Lift Cavalry Squadron: That means you have highest numbered 999th Lift Cavalry squadrons but the series should probably start at 100th to avoid confusion so only eight hundred and ninty-nine Lift Cavalry Squadrons

<Number 4-digit> Armored Infantry Regiment: Likewise this series should run from the 1000th to the 9999th Armored Infantry Regiment.

<Number 2-digit> Admin Battalion: Thats 10th to 99th so if its an Admin Battalion attached to a Division that suggests 89 Divisions before you have to start duplicating.

Duplication is something that Megatraveller suggests happens with units of the Imperial Armies but come on they must have the most advanced IT systems for tracking and supporting these units, could they not come up with a better system?

For both the Imperial Army and Imperial Marine Corps I would think that unit identity as part of the Imperium would be important as would preserving military heritage that stretches over centuries (perhaps in the same way it was important to the Legions of Rome?).

I'd imagine that any future Imperial Army would prefer a regimental system that ties them into the system of Domains, Sectors and Subsectors rather than a numbered series system that becomes unfit for purpose before it gets off the page.

To summarize its not the organization down at platoon and company level that so often gets discussed in Traveller that irkes me, its the lifting of a military organizational culture based on one Terran military between the 1970's and 1990's and laying it over a star spanning Imperium thousand of years in the future. But then I'm odd like that :D
 
Ergo, based on that, I would think that the Imperial Army would operate its own "navy", so to speak, when it came to planetary defenses, including interception of landing forces, and engaging enemy fire support units trying to clear a path for an assault force.

You heard it here first! The Imperial Army and planetary armies MAY or MAY NOT operate smaller tonnage mainline fleet units :D

*EDIT*
Therefore I submit that this needs to be an Addendum to the current char gen; i.e. providing fleet skills to army defenders who operate craft in support of army units.

*EDIT 2*
This is in reference to the Imperial Army thread a couple years back; where Naval Sealift Command provides the supermajority of transport for the Army, the Army does have its own small fleet of ships; largely special assault craft and what not. At one time they did have their own large transport fleet, but gave it up to the US Navy to streamline and otherwise make transport and operations at sea expedient.

*EDIT 3*
If may also be that spinal gunnery, or whatever it's called, needs to be added to the Soldier char-gen for purposes of representing IA army operated planetary defenses.

I agree with almost everything except pulling all that "naval" biased skill and knowledge into the Soldier career when you can just run the character through the Spacer career and call him a COACC/WETNAVY "Specialist".

There are and only ever will be 13 Careers in T5 so the challenge is to make the broad categories they represent jobs that people actually do every day.
 
Or you could give an entry on the char-gen table (no, I've not thoroughly read T5's char gen, but, yes, I have read large sections of it) to create the T5 equivalent of a Mustang; a soldier cross trained in another branch to recieve unique skills neccessary for his services operation.

A soldier could go navy for a year or two, and get that spinal or gunnery skill needed to operate the army's own navy for purposes of planetary defense. Ditto with manning a meson battery, or some other navy-unique weapon system that the navy doesn't have the time nor personnel to man.
 
Couldn't it be that these apparent cross-disciplinary/cross-career situations be EXACTLY what is modeled by when players take their character out of one career path into another?

Or is that observation entirely to simple?

Of course there are functionaries who should never lead combat troops (cough cough Major Powers cough), clearly his career path is better exemplified by education: Academy, occupation Marine Officer, career path functionary. Of course there Army flyers who got their wings from a military flight school.

And everybody remembers Chef (" No, no, we go together... on the boat! We came this far, so we go together. All the way! We'll take you up there, we'll go with you... but on the boat! Okay?") clearly should have been somewhere than on a PBR may have had army boot and schools but actually had career_artist to be a chef.

Could it be this simple an answer? Do we really, really need to play hack a chart to fulfill every possible idea, or could it be just as easy for a GM and player to sit down and hash it out?
 
Pendragonman has a point there. A term as a Soldier followed by aterm as a Marine followed by a term as a Functionary could be explained as joining the regular army and after four years being sent to the special forces followed by an administrative posting all while being in "the army".

Just two things strike me to watch out for with that. Each career is very slightly skewed to give a feel for the service they are meant to be for, so Spacer has a feel of the Stellar Navy about it, Scout has a feel of the IISS about it, Merchant feels like you're in commercial shipping.

The other thing is that Muster Out benefits might start to look a bit odd, getting multiple pensions, benefits etc. It might be better just to use one benefits table for the whole period spent "in the army" or other service.

The other thing is that T5 character generation seems a lot less amiable to the sort of cross training that lue Ghost is talking about. Rankers can switch branch but officers can't, personal development concentrates a lot more on majors and minors and theres not the same opportunity to learn the skills of another profession or gain an aide de camp position which were aspects of other Traveller CG systems that I liked. But on the other hand there's plenty of scope via life pursuits and education to gain interesting skills.
 
Back
Top